Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Khornate Worshippers]

One should never be arrested or detained for urges or feelings.

No but it should be reported so the police can look into the issue.

I'm sorry, what? "I'm very sorry, Detective, but I was at confession, and I heard a confession that someone had fantasies about blowing things up, and I just thought you should know."

[Neutraligon]

Like I said before, people generally think child molestation is the worst possible crime. It'll make people think the government cares about morality without causing undue tension between church and state.

Yes, but we're talking, not about what's good for the government, but whether it's a good thing itself.

Considering the 'undue tension' will only be possible if we can make certain we've got everyone who is participating in the crime. Also, more to the point, if doing this will cause these crimes to be caught a) faster and b) more often.

I think it should be required in all situations, and not for the purpose of a trial, but rather used as a method to prevent crime.It should not in any circumstance be used as the only evidence in a trial.

Okay, now, see, /this/ is a view I can get behind. I don't think that we can prevent crime, but stop it after the fact.

Also, absolution requiring self reporting, whatcha think?

I don't know anything about absolution so i can't answer that question. If absolution is part of the forgiveness part of confession than in the case of serious crimes (rape, murder, anything affecting vulnerable populations (i.e. children) then why not. I don't think minor crimes should need to be reported.

[Indeos]

Like I said before, people generally think child molestation is the worst possible crime. It'll make people think the government cares about morality without causing undue tension between church and state.

Yes, but we're talking, not about what's good for the government, but whether it's a good thing itself.

Considering the 'undue tension' will only be possible if we can make certain we've got everyone who is participating in the crime. Also, more to the point, if doing this will cause these crimes to be caught a) faster and b) more often.[quote]

I think at best it would temporarily make criminals caught easier, and even then only if the law isn't widely-known and the priests don't begin warning people that confession offers no legal protection. I'm not saying that it's good for the government; my point was that an all-or-none approach doesn't make any sense to me. I feel it would cause more problems than it'd be worth.

[Auralia]

http://aifs.govspace.gov.au/2012/06/08/mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse-and-neglect/

In addition to state and territory law, there are provisions within Commonwealth legislation that relate to mandatory reporting. Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), personnel from the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Western Australia also have mandatory reporting obligations. This includes registrars, family counsellors, family dispute resolution practitioners or arbitrators, and lawyers independently representing children’s interests. Section 67ZA states that when in the course of performing duties or functions, or exercising powers, the above court personnel have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child has been abused, or is at risk of being abused, the person must, as soon as practicable, notify a prescribed child welfare authority of his or her suspicion and the basis for the suspicion.

I don't see a lawyer representing a suspected pedophile in there.

[Ceannairceach]

No but it should be reported so the police can look into the issue.

I'm sorry, what? "I'm very sorry, Detective, but I was at confession, and I heard a confession that someone had fantasies about blowing things up, and I just thought you should know."

Exactly the vibe I got from that.

[Neutraligon]

No but it should be reported so the police can look into the issue.

I'm sorry, what? "I'm very sorry, Detective, but I was at confession, and I heard a confession that someone had fantasies about blowing things up, and I just thought you should know."

Needs to be more specific than that. I have fantasies of blowing this school up at this time...Fantasies mean nothing, it is when fantasies becomes plans that the reporting should be done.

[Ceannairceach]

I'm sorry, what? "I'm very sorry, Detective, but I was at confession, and I heard a confession that someone had fantasies about blowing things up, and I just thought you should know."

Needs to be more specific than that. I have fantasies of blowing this school up at this time...Fantasies mean nothing, it is when fantasies becomes plans that the reporting should be done.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is completely and utterly different from "feelings and urges", which you said should be given to police should they be heard, even in confidence.

[Khornate Worshippers]

Yes, but we're talking, not about what's good for the government, but whether it's a good thing itself.

Considering the 'undue tension' will only be possible if we can make certain we've got everyone who is participating in the crime. Also, more to the point, if doing this will cause these crimes to be caught a) faster and b) more often.



Okay, now, see, /this/ is a view I can get behind. I don't think that we can prevent crime, but stop it after the fact.

Also, absolution requiring self reporting, whatcha think?

I don't know anything about absolution so i can't answer that question. If absolution is part of the forgiveness part of confession than in the case of serious crimes (rape, murder, anything affecting vulnerable populations (i.e. children) then why not. I don't think minor crimes should need to be reported.

Absolution is the entirety of the forgiveness part.

[Ethel mermania]

you knowl.... when i read the OP i had a completely diferrent image in my mind..


you, st jade, should work for the ny post.


to write a serious response i woukd need a reak keyboard, and i am not going to have that for a week.

the qyick response, is your not a catholic

[Neutraligon]

Needs to be more specific than that. I have fantasies of blowing this school up at this time...Fantasies mean nothing, it is when fantasies becomes plans that the reporting should be done.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is completely and utterly different from "feelings and urges", which you said should be given to police should they be heard, even in confidence.

Sorry, I tend not to explain well what I mean. It is conspiracy to commit that a doctor has to report and what I believe should be done. I thnk two things should occur.

Priests should be required to report conspiracy to commit crimes
for absolution for serious crimes, the person being confessed should be required to admit to the crime to the police (required by the priest)

[Saint Jade IV]

http://aifs.govspace.gov.au/2012/06/08/mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse-and-neglect/

I don't see a lawyer representing a suspected pedophile in there.

Mandatory reporting includes Officers of the Federal Magistrates Court, and the Family Law Court, which could reasonably be lawyers representing paedophiles. In the NT at least, anyone who suspects sexual abuse of children is subject to the laws.

[Mike the Progressive]

This is a tricky one for me. There's a reason why confessions are private. Because you, with the priest as the intermediary, confess your sins to God. You pray over it and you are absolved assuming you are sincerely apologetic.

Yet at the same time, I don't have any sympathy for those who molest children, especially priests who give the rest of them a bad name (as the OP attempted to cleverly joke about their violation). It's really a slippery slope, but at the end of the day, molestation is an evil that plagues the church and that needs to be eradicated.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I was honestly hoping this would involve Steve Irwin returning to sodomise the priests.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

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.

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

[Distributist Chestertonia]

I was honestly hoping this would involve Steve Irwin returning to sodomise the priests.

You, too?!

[Seperates]

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.

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

Because the concept has yet to be proven to exist in a meaningful way.

You cannot gain forgivness through God for crimes that you have committed against another person. You can only gain forgivness from the person you wronged. Your friend cannot forgive you for something that you did to your little brother. Only your little brother can forgive you.

[Norstal]

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.

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

"I'm going to kill John, Father."

"That's nice, you're forgiven."

1 week later, John is dead.

I know I'm simplifying how confession works, but without this law, that's what's going to happen. Australians don't like this happening, evidently. I think God should allow what Australians want. Free will and all that.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

"I'm going to kill John, Father."

"That's nice, you're forgiven."

1 week later, John is dead.

I know I'm simplifying how confession works, but without this law, that's what's going to happen. Australians don't like this happening, evidently. I think God should allow what Australians want. Free will and all that.

Uh, the most likely event is that people stop going to confession for that kind of thing.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

"I'm going to kill John, Father."

"That's nice, you're forgiven."

Sorry, mate. This argument misunderstands the sacrament of confession.
You cannot be forgiven for sins you intend to commit in the future - only those you have already done.

We had a controversy over this already, back in the 1500s. Priests making stuff up about being able to forgive future sins. Completely ungrounded in truth. Jesus nor the Apostles forgave future sins, and neither do our priests to this day. It's already been proven wrong.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

"I'm going to kill John, Father."

"That's nice, you're forgiven."

Sorry, mate. This argument misunderstands the sacrament of confession.
You cannot be forgiven for sins you intend to commit in the future - only those you have already done.

We had a controversy over this already, back in the 1500s. Priests making stuff up about being able to forgive future sins. Completely ungrounded in truth. Jesus nor the Apostles forgave future sins, and neither do our priests to this day. It's already been proven wrong.

Pretty sure you can forgive sinful thoughts though.

[Norstal]

Uh, the most likely event is that people stop going to confession for that kind of thing.

I doubt anyone even does that, but the police should be able to question anyone, right? Ask who has been going to confessions, what they confessed about, etc. And if the priest refuses to comply, well, misdirection is a sin. Now that I kind of think about it, it's a catch 22.

[Norstal]

"I'm going to kill John, Father."

"That's nice, you're forgiven."

Sorry, mate. This argument misunderstands the sacrament of confession.
You cannot be forgiven for sins you intend to commit in the future - only those you have already done.

We had a controversy over this already, back in the 1500s. Priests making stuff up about being able to forgive future sins. Completely ungrounded in truth. Jesus nor the Apostles forgave future sins, and neither do our priests to this day. It's already been proven wrong.

I don't give a crap about the rituals. What I do care about is prevention of crime and enforcement of law. You can't enforce the law when there are witnesses obstructing justice. Your argument can only guarantee the protection of religious rituals, but ignores the workings of anything outside that religion.

Pretty sure you can forgive sinful thoughts though.

Indeed. If it makes you feel better, change "I want to kill" to "I've been thinking of killing..."

[Saint Jade IV]

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.

The problem is the priest is acting in the person of Jesus when he hears confessions. For Christians Jesus is the most trustworthy of friends. Now, imagine if you'd confessed something which you'd truly regretted to your best friend. You genuinely expressed your sorrow for it and wished not to do it again. And he knew that. He knows you wouldn't tell him that unless you were repentant of that.

Would that not betray your trust in that friend if he'd accused you of a sin he once would have forgiven? The reason we have confession to a priest is so that we can feel we have someone we can tell our deepest, darkest secrets and regrets, so someone knows we wished we hadn't done it. Everyone ought to have the right to be honest to someone about his sins without incriminating himself. Wouldn't you say?

God gives us this opportunity to seek amnesty from Him. To allow a priest to violate that peace offering would be to undo the point of confession. It is a violation of our fundamental right to our religion, our binding ourselves to God, and of His right to reach out to us.

Why do we not speak of the rights of God?

Your beliefs about the rite of confession should not trump the right of children to be protected from violation. Which is what happens.

Priests confess that they have sinful thoughts towards children. They are absolved, go on to abuse children, and confess again that they are repentant, that they didn't mean to. Then they do it again, and are repentant.

Many paedophiles are genuinely disgusted by themselves and their urges. They are often genuinely repentant of the harm that they cause. But they continue to abuse children, because their urges outweigh their self-disgust. Since this is the case, we need to do what we can to protect children - ie the innocent.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Sorry, mate. This argument misunderstands the sacrament of confession.
You cannot be forgiven for sins you intend to commit in the future - only those you have already done.

We had a controversy over this already, back in the 1500s. Priests making stuff up about being able to forgive future sins. Completely ungrounded in truth. Jesus nor the Apostles forgave future sins, and neither do our priests to this day. It's already been proven wrong.

I don't give a crap about the rituals. What I do care about is prevention of crime and enforcement of law. You can't enforce the law when there are witnesses obstructing justice. Your argument can only guarantee the protection of religious rituals, but ignores the workings of anything outside that religion.

Right. So if I tell a priest outside of confession, different story. But if you violate my right to speak confidentially to my God as I see fit, and as God sees fit, you are violating a fundamental human right - a right for a man to talk to God as he sees fit.

All that said, I do agree we should crack down on paedophilia. There should, perhaps, be an inquisition into this on a person-to-person basis. I don't mind if the government makes a direct inquisition into priests and other persons who may or may not have committed paedophilia. There are probably better things to be doing with their time and money, but they can.

But just as much as I don't have the right to violate your ability to say what you do about our priests, you do not have the right to violate my ability to say what I wish to God in the confessional.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I don't give a crap about the rituals. What I do care about is prevention of crime and enforcement of law. You can't enforce the law when there are witnesses obstructing justice. Your argument can only guarantee the protection of religious rituals, but ignores the workings of anything outside that religion.

Right. So if I tell a priest outside of confession, different story. But if you violate my right to speak confidentially to my God as I see fit, and as God sees fit, you are violating a fundamental human right

This is where I vehemently disagreed immediately.

EDIT: That said, I do think this law would turn out to be quite useless in short order.