Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Novus Niciae]

Excuse me for asking, but doesn't Australia have lawyer-client and doctor-patient privileges?

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

[Dyakovo]

We dont care.

Here is national law.
Here is state law.
Here is city law.




Here is code of cannon law and other religious laws.
National government enforces national law, and priest decides if they want to follow national law or religious one. If they choose latter; they will face sanctions under national one.

Religious and moral law trumps civil law. This is a clear persecution of the Catholic Church.

Oh well... Maybe if the RCC would give up on promoting child rape then they wouldn't be "persecuted" because of it.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Excuse me for asking, but doesn't Australia have lawyer-client and doctor-patient privileges?

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

Requiring priests to report a crime is prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

It just occurred to me religions could start doing all sorts of illegal things and claim they are sacred tenets of their faith, and the government can't prevent them otherwise their free exercise is being prevented.

We need some of those divine ascendants or whatever they where that believed drugs to be holy and taking them to be holy since the the faithful smoking and ingesting was necessary in transcending the mortal coil and commune with god. Hah, take that government, our man made religious rules trump your law!

Course them and their divine highs are probably less harmful than covering for pedophiles and things. Maybe some Aztecs that need to feed their hungry gods...

[Emile Zola]

Excuse me for asking, but doesn't Australia have lawyer-client and doctor-patient privileges?

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

This isn't a case of freedom of religion. What the government is saying if the Church knows that there are priests who has committed acts of pedophilia it's responsibility is to report the crime. To often the Church uses the confessional as an excuse for inaction. If the Church refuses to participate and continues it's culture of child abuse it'll only hurt itself.

[Dyakovo]

(Fixed.)
Now, justify why you are against human sacrifice.

The Aztec religion was savage and was thankfully destroyed. Not all religions are the same.

At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...

Why is yours different?
I can just declare catholicism savage too. And it is.

Your beliefs are savage. The Catholic Church is the pinnacle of civilization.

ITT: Child rape is the pinnacle of civilization...

We wouldn't even be having to worry about that had they done the right thing all these decades instead of moving the perverts to another church. That's my point.

They have been and still are doing the right thing: upholding the inviolable Seal of the Confessional.

Protecting child molesters is never the right thing.

So then why are they dealing with decades worth of accusations, lawsuits, condemnation, criticism, losing interest in the faith, etc? You claim that they have been doing the right thing for decades. So why are so many people highlighting that the offending priests were merely shuffled to other parishes as if nothing ever happened? So why are we in this situation when the Catholic Church is being hammered at by victims of sexual abuse to the point that Australia is considering prying open the seal on the sacrament of confession?

Had the Catholic Church made it her policy to immediately report any and all sex crimes instead of shuffling them to other churches and generally not giving a damn about the kids, we would not be in this situation. There would be no need to break the confessional seal. That is my point, Ab. We shouldn't have to compel the Church to do something that anyone with a heart would do with some law - the Church should've known better from the get go.

The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

Anyone with a sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

Morality is subjective. For example, I don't consider child molestation to be a moral act, rather unlike the RCC...

Or, do logical thing and stop protecting child rapists.

That seems rather illogical.

And now you come right out and say that you support child molestation...

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

Because it makes the confession invalid? The one confessing might as well not have bothered.

So, no change?

Lets ask St. Paul, what he thinks about if the Church should comply with the state's decree.



Seems that St. Paul would be telling the Church to comply.

Jesus also said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", which is the light in which the above should be interpreted. The church defers to the authority of the state in earthly matters, but not in matters spiritual, which is exactly what this is about.

ITT: Raping children is a spiritual matter.

Like I said - this is equivalent of banning Catholicism in Australia.

More like breaking up a cabal of pedophilia. The Catholic Church has only itself to blame.

But, but, raping children is a spiritual matter...

Excuse me for asking, but doesn't Australia have lawyer-client and doctor-patient privileges?

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

So raping children is a tenet of the RCC?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

Because it makes the confession invalid? The one confessing might as well not have bothered.

So, God - big old Santa Claus like fellow with all that love and forgiveness - would invalidate a confession, and the importance of it if the one receiving it spoke?

So - Father O'Malley comes down with a fever and starts rattling off confessions from his years past due to his fevered state. All those confessions are rendered invalid? Or those revealed under torture? Or those overheard by spies through the centuries? What about the priestly gossip (and please, let's have none of that "A priest would never gossip or reveal such things!" else I might have to roll my eyes) or selling of confessions that went on?.

What if the person who made the confession doesn't know the priest has shared it with someone, does he go through life still unconfessed, ignorant? Why is the confessee, who earnestly and faithfully confesses their sins, punished by God because the person they confessed to has loose lips?

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

It can't be explained to a non-Catholic like you. It's like trying to explain evolution to a Protestant, or trying to get an Atheist to accept the existence of God - it just can't be done.

What tosh.

Never mind you are mixing up things there - protestants, for example, are quite capable of understanding evolution, many of them accept it as fact.

If you can't explain why it is bad to do something with a result that is good then I doubt you probably understand it yourself, and are just accepting the claim - one of the most useful means of keeping unhelpful or harmful traditions in place.

[Saint Jade IV]

Excuse me for asking, but doesn't Australia have lawyer-client and doctor-patient privileges?

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

If it were true, then Muslims would be allowed to continue circumcising their daughters. Fundamentalist Mormons would be allowed to marry 3 wives. We can see that the Government does make laws prohibiting practices where the public is or may be harmed by them. There has been demonstrable harm caused by not breaking the confessional seal in Australia. Therefore, the Church loses that privilege.

[Ostroeuropa]

That and it is unconstitutional.

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The underlined section is particularly relevant.

If it were true, then Muslims would be allowed to continue circumcising their daughters. Fundamentalist Mormons would be allowed to marry 3 wives. We can see that the Government does make laws prohibiting practices where the public is or may be harmed by them. There has been demonstrable harm caused by not breaking the confessional seal in Australia. Therefore, the Church loses that privilege.

Good point. Though to be fair, I think polygamy should be legal.

[Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat]

The title of this thread is extremely misleading.

Was thinkin' dirty, y'all know.

[Ostroeuropa]

Note that this law only applies to priests covering for priests, or I would be opposed.

Here is why:


I do not think there should be any law requiring citizens to report eachothers crimes, UNLESS you stand to benefit from that citizens crime by remaining silent. Which the priesthood definately falls under.

By remaining silent, they show they are observing the club rules, and benefit their career. The silent priests are benefiting from the crime of child rape, and are thus culpable. Now, this line of reasoning does mean that I support, on paper, all confessions of crimes needing to be reported. But I think covering for priests is probably better for a priests career than just normal confessions. It's a matter of severity. I'd be open to demanding all confessions be reported, but on THIS instance, i think it's clear cut.


To put that into perspective, by keeping a fellow priests rape of children silent, a priest can expect more money and power within the church, especially since they just earned an ally, as well as impressed higher ups.

AND, there is absolutely nothing preventing people from turning themselves in for a lesser sentence, THEN asking for a priest to confess to

[The Ben Boys]

So Roman Catholic priests, in a rather ironic twist, are claiming that proposed new laws will violate their most sacred and sacrosanct beliefs, by requiring priests to break the confessional seal and engage in the same mandatory reporting that every other profession is bound by.

Basically, if a priest confesses to paedophilia, they are required to report said priest to the authorities.

I'm unsure what the problem is.

First of all, when I first saw the title, my dirty little mind thought one thing...

SECOND, and more serious, don't go on hating on them. They've been doing this on anything else that has to do with the law for years, and if me sort serves correctly most priests don't even know the identity of the confessor. An accuate comparison is to a psychiatrist doctor-patient confidentiality agreement.

And of the Catholic priests I've talked to about the subject (okay, just two) they both said they were nervous at confessionals because they didnt want to have to go through this moral dilemma. And honestly, how many people are going to confess that? Only the crazy people (which are also the people doing this shit, says the other voice in my head).

EDIT: I sound a lot like I'm blowing this off, but I'm damn near anti-Catholic (straight-out-of-The-Book Christian, i.e. don't like organized religion) and in no way support such acts against children, and believe that the Catholic Church needs to have a "two-deep" measure to stop these acts from happening.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Ireland are planning to bring in a similar law after all the abuse by priests there. I think people's disgust will cause them to leave the Catholic Church, hence the decline in the number of priest in Europe and Oceania.

[CTALNH]

Y'see, Roman Catholics have always liked to be above authority, as per the Great Schism.

I for one enjoy seeing oppressive religious establishments finally being reined in.

At least Orthodox priests know their place...
Servants....

[West Angola]

So - Father O'Malley comes down with a fever and starts rattling off confessions from his years past due to his fevered state. All those confessions are rendered invalid? Or those revealed under torture? Or those overheard by spies through the centuries? What about the priestly gossip (and please, let's have none of that "A priest would never gossip or reveal such things!" else I might have to roll my eyes) or selling of confessions that went on?.

What if the person who made the confession doesn't know the priest has shared it with someone, does he go through life still unconfessed, ignorant? Why is the confessee, who earnestly and faithfully confesses their sins, punished by God because the person they confessed to has loose lips?

The confession is not rendered invalid by the priest's sin. The penitent still receives absolution, but the priest is guilty of a mortal sin. Basically, if a priest knowingly (Father O'Malley is fine) tells what he heard in confession, it's on him, not the penitent.

[Fusion Corp]

I do not think there should be any law requiring citizens to report eachothers crimes, UNLESS you stand to benefit from that citizens crime by remaining silent.

That's criminal negligence. People stand to lose if the crime isn't reported.

[Ostroeuropa]

I do not think there should be any law requiring citizens to report eachothers crimes, UNLESS you stand to benefit from that citizens crime by remaining silent.

That's criminal negligence. People stand to lose if the crime isn't reported.

Depends entirely on the crime and it's severity.
I'm hesitant because I don't want a situation where the government can decide you knew your friend jaywalked, and so off to court with you because you didn't report it.
I'd support it, perhaps, if it only applied to violent crimes.

[Czechanada]

That's criminal negligence. People stand to lose if the crime isn't reported.

Depends entirely on the crime and it's severity.
I'm hesitant because I don't want a situation where the government can decide you knew your friend jaywalked, and so off to court with you because you didn't report it.
I'd support it, perhaps, if it only applied to violent crimes.

Technically, failure to report a crime is known as abetting a crime.

I'm not a hundred percent sure on whether it counts on summary offences.

[Ostroeuropa]

Depends entirely on the crime and it's severity.
I'm hesitant because I don't want a situation where the government can decide you knew your friend jaywalked, and so off to court with you because you didn't report it.
I'd support it, perhaps, if it only applied to violent crimes.

Technically, failure to report a crime is known as abetting a crime.

Yes, but is it illegal in all cases? I doubt it, and especially not in common law countries since you can argue that the law has lapsed from lack of use.

EDIT:
Noticed your edit. I'm unsure too. But for non-violent crimes, i'm willing to bet it's either not illegal, or lapsed.

[Transhuman Proteus]

So - Father O'Malley comes down with a fever and starts rattling off confessions from his years past due to his fevered state. All those confessions are rendered invalid? Or those revealed under torture? Or those overheard by spies through the centuries? What about the priestly gossip (and please, let's have none of that "A priest would never gossip or reveal such things!" else I might have to roll my eyes) or selling of confessions that went on?.

What if the person who made the confession doesn't know the priest has shared it with someone, does he go through life still unconfessed, ignorant? Why is the confessee, who earnestly and faithfully confesses their sins, punished by God because the person they confessed to has loose lips?

The confession is not rendered invalid by the priest's sin. The penitent still receives absolution, but the priest is guilty of a mortal sin. Basically, if a priest knowingly (Father O'Malley is fine) tells what he heard in confession, it's on him, not the penitent.

Very good, so the claim the confession would be invalid was incorrect? And that the person doing the confession may as well not bothered not correct either?

So the priest being guilty of a mortal sin - that means they must repent and confess to that, correct? And having done so would be saved again? Other than the Church choosing not to allow it.

Which part of the Bible talks about the confession needing to be a complete secret? Reading more on it, it seems to be a man made seal, with man made penalties given by the Catholic Church.

[Ostroeuropa]

The confession is not rendered invalid by the priest's sin. The penitent still receives absolution, but the priest is guilty of a mortal sin. Basically, if a priest knowingly (Father O'Malley is fine) tells what he heard in confession, it's on him, not the penitent.

Very good, so the claim the confession would be invalid was incorrect? And that the person doing the confession may as well not bothered not correct either?

So the priest being guilty of a mortal sin - that means they must repent and confess to that, correct? And having done so would be saved again? Other than the Church saying "no!"

Which part of the Bible talks about the confession needing to be a complete secret? Reading more on it, it seems to be a man made seal, with man made penalties given by the Catholic Church.

To encourage people to confess no doubt, and give the church political power in the dark and early days when they didn't give two shits about morality.
"Hey, you'd better support my cousin ferraro in his claim to the duchy of lombardy!"
"Fuck that shit! I have the church backing me because i'll give them lots of money, and they told me your cousin is an adulterer!"
"Omg! That's against the rules!"
"So? You gonna tell anybody? That'd be heresy."
etc.

EDIT:
By the way, they still don't care about morality.
Catholics are fine.
The catholic church is a corrupt mess and borderline criminal organization. Just like it ALWAYS has been. Hence protestantism.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Very good, so the claim the confession would be invalid was incorrect? And that the person doing the confession may as well not bothered not correct either?

So the priest being guilty of a mortal sin - that means they must repent and confess to that, correct? And having done so would be saved again? Other than the Church saying "no!"

Which part of the Bible talks about the confession needing to be a complete secret? Reading more on it, it seems to be a man made seal, with man made penalties given by the Catholic Church.

To encourage people to confess no doubt, and give the church political power in the dark and early days when they didn't give two shits about morality.
"Hey, you'd better support my cousin ferraro in his claim to the duchy of lombardy!"
"Fuck that shit! I have the church backing me because i'll give them lots of money, and they told me your cousin is an adulterer!"
"Omg! That's against the rules!"
"So? You gonna tell anybody? That'd be heresy."
etc.

EDIT:
By the way, they still don't care about morality.
Catholics are fine.
The catholic church is a corrupt mess and borderline criminal organization. Just like it ALWAYS has been. Hence protestantism.

Indeed. Which is why the hand wringing in this case, or any case where the Catholic Church's right to set itself above or outside the law is challenged, is so absurd.

Oh, those most sacred rules created by the most sacred thing of all - an organization of privileged old men in times long past whose motivations went well beyond the spiritual. Who are we mere mortals to question their likely cynical, opportunistic wisdom? To suggest maybe things need to change in the modern world to limit, well, all sorts of bad things?

[Raeyh]

The Aztec religion was savage and was thankfully destroyed. Not all religions are the same.

At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...

I'm sure there were just as many Aztec child molesters as any other culture has.

[Ostroeuropa]

At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...

I'm sure there were just as many Aztec child molesters as any other culture has.

Their priests weren't sexually repressed and around children all day. so maybe not.

[Central Slavia]

So - Father O'Malley comes down with a fever and starts rattling off confessions from his years past due to his fevered state. All those confessions are rendered invalid? Or those revealed under torture? Or those overheard by spies through the centuries? What about the priestly gossip (and please, let's have none of that "A priest would never gossip or reveal such things!" else I might have to roll my eyes) or selling of confessions that went on?.

What if the person who made the confession doesn't know the priest has shared it with someone, does he go through life still unconfessed, ignorant? Why is the confessee, who earnestly and faithfully confesses their sins, punished by God because the person they confessed to has loose lips?

The confession is not rendered invalid by the priest's sin. The penitent still receives absolution, but the priest is guilty of a mortal sin. Basically, if a priest knowingly (Father O'Malley is fine) tells what he heard in confession, it's on him, not the penitent.

I remember hearing it is so, even if it's a third person eavesdropping that the two don't know about. But eh. My knowledge is a bit outdated perhaps.

[Dyakovo]

At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...

I'm sure there were just as many Aztec child molesters as any other culture has.

We were talking about religious practices... Unlike the RCC, the Aztecs did not promote child molestation.