NationStates

Raeyh wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:At least the Aztecs didn't rape children...

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

Well, considering that the Aztec religion was no way near as repressive of sexuality as Christianity is.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
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.

Has there been any proven link between pedophilia and lack of sexual activity or is it just conjecture? I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Pedophiles tend to avoid having sex since having sex with children is illegal, not that avoiding having sex makes you a pedophile.

Transhuman Proteus wrote: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?

I believe so, but with the disclaimer that I am not a canon lawyer.

Transhuman Proteus wrote: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.

If they are truly sorry for their sin, they may be granted absolution if they confess it. However, there still may be penalties involved, the priest may be defrocked or be punished in other ways.

Transhuman Proteus wrote: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.

The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

Raeyh wrote:

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

Has there been any proven link between pedophilia and lack of sexual activity or is it just conjecture? I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Pedophiles tend to avoid having sex since having sex with children is illegal, not that avoiding having sex makes you a pedophile.

The problem is that as priests can't be sexually active, a disproportionate number of sexual deviants (who are already restricted from fulfilling their urges) are choosing to become priests.
Hence, the disproportionate representation of them among priesthood.

West Angola wrote:

Transhuman Proteus wrote: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.

If they are truly sorry for their sin, they may be granted absolution if they confess it. However, there still may be penalties involved, the priest may be defrocked or be punished in other ways.

Then that proves that the Church is more interested in protecting child molestors than in protecting children.

West Angola wrote:The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.

Saint Jade IV wrote:

West Angola wrote:The Roman Catholic faith is not 100% from the Bible. Both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition go hand in hand in forming our faith. Apostolic tradition would be things like Mary's perpetual virginity, or the Nicene Creed, or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.

You're right, though he was answering my question.

I was getting a feel for the strong reactions against such things - why a man made seal is so sacred when it isn't derived from the Bible or a directive from God/Jesus whoever. What makes it so "set in stone".

I have got the sense as well, in a broader setting, that there is some self interest concern as well. While it only deals with a specific offense, pedophilia, there seems to be some belief if that can be reported flood gates could open and priests could be spilling their confessions to everyone. Then of course people wont confess and people will be going to hell etc I wish I knew what it was about our species that makes us so susceptible to coming up with, and believing in, slippery slopes.

Transhuman Proteus wrote:

Saint Jade IV wrote:
None of which should be relevant in determining exceptions to secular law in a secular country. The Church's belief system does not form a basis for law or legal behaviour in a pluralistic nation.

You're right, though he was answering my question.

I was getting a feel for the strong reactions against such things - why a man made seal is so sacred when it isn't derived from the Bible or a directive from God/Jesus whoever. What makes it so "set in stone".

I have got the sense as well, in a broader setting, that there is some self interest concern as well. While it only deals with a specific offense, pedophilia, there seems to be some belief if that can be reported flood gates could open and priests could be spilling their confessions to everyone. Then of course people wont confess and people will be going to hell etc I wish I knew what it was about our species that makes us so susceptible to coming up with, and believing in, slippery slopes.

As to your last question/point, it is the ability of politicians to use one small specific point as the camel's nose, until we have an entire dromedary in the tent with us, that makes us come up with and believe in slippery slopes. In other words, slippery slopes exist far too often for us to ignore them.

After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: bug the confessionals.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: bug the confessionals.

I don't know Australian law, but here in the US the recording would be thrown out of court due to lack of either a warrant or consent of at least one of the parties being recorded....therefore still a useless law.

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

How is it we know today that priests have confessed to their criminal ways to other priests in the past? Because the accused reveals as much during the investigation. Or because the investigation into cover ups etc reveals as much, a priest lets slip during questioning they knew more about it than they were letting on etc - finding things out people want to keep secret. It is one of those things police do.

If the police call Fr Silenzo in and say "we have father Hawk, we have evidence of his actions, what do you know?" I guess God wont mind if Fr Silenzo lies to the police or gives a non-answer in the name of confessional secrecy.. Yes, do nothing concrete to deal with an active pedophile, and lie to the police - moral do you think?

Saint Jade IV wrote:
Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.

First, I agree completely with the major point you made in the last paragraph. The Church, in many countries around the world, failed miserably in its duty to protect its members and any bishop who knowingly transferred a pedophile priest rather than ensuring his treatment or non-contact with the public should be prosecuted.

As to this law, I admit ignorance to Australian law, but under US rules of evidence the fact that Father B was the confessor of Father A and failed to block his transfer would be insufficient grounds for conviction. If he requested the transfer, a jury might be allowed to consider that as evidence but a good defense attorney could probably get it thrown out on the basis that there is no direct evidence as to what was confessed. Perhaps that is not the case in Australia; if so then I withdraw my objection to the usefulness of the law under these particular circumstances.

Elwher wrote:After reflection, I still t\believe that this is a bad law, as the seal of the Confessional should remain sacrosanct. However, I also realize that, if I understand it correctly, this is a useless law.

Consider the scenario. Fr. Hawk appears before Fr. Silenzo as a penitent. In his confession, he admits to molesting children. Fr. Silenzo, in accordance to his vows to Mother Church, says nothing to the authorities and is therefore in violation of the law. How is he going to be accused, much less convicted? Only two people know what was said in this confession. Fr. Silenzo cannot turn himself in without violating the seal of the confessional, which he has already proven he will not do. Fr. Hawk can not turn in Fr. Silenzo without turning himself in, which he is unlikely to want to do or he would have already done so. Unless the police are going to send in agents to make false confessions and record them, I see no way for this law to be anything but an exercise in feel good politics designed to distract the people from any real solutions to a severs problem.

By the way no law is passing this is a suggestion by the Australian Government about how to make the Catholic Church accountable in the future. There is going to be a Royal Commission into the abuse of children and by the end of it the Church is going to be in the proverbial. To see the denial and defense of child abuse in this forum shows how sick the Catholic Church has become. If the Church can't self regulate we will do it for them.

Elwher wrote:

Saint Jade IV wrote:
Consider the actual real life scenarios which have created the requirement for this law:

Father A confesses to Father B that he has been molesting children in his private chambers. Father B recommends that Father A be moved from this parish to a Catholic Children's home, without explaining why he needs him out of the parish. Or does Father B does not block a requested move, despite his knowledge that Father A has been raping children. It is later uncovered that Father A has abused several hundred children during his 40 year tenure at the children's home.

So if this law was in place, and the same situation occurred, investigation would be conducted as to why the priest was moved. The priest he confessed to would then be charged with failure to report and child endangerment. As he well should be.

Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered. Fact is, they instead chose to endanger children. These priests knew, as a direct result of the Confessional that these priests had, and were likely to again, molest children. They could have ensured that they were not in a position to do so without breaching the seal. They chose not to. They lose the privilege.

First, I agree completely with the major point you made in the last paragraph. The Church, in many countries around the world, failed miserably in its duty to protect its members and any bishop who knowingly transferred a pedophile priest rather than ensuring his treatment or non-contact with the public should be prosecuted.

As to this law, I admit ignorance to Australian law, but under US rules of evidence the fact that Father B was the confessor of Father A and failed to block his transfer would be insufficient grounds for conviction. If he requested the transfer, a jury might be allowed to consider that as evidence but a good defense attorney could probably get it thrown out on the basis that there is no direct evidence as to what was confessed. Perhaps that is not the case in Australia; if so then I withdraw my objection to the usefulness of the law under these particular circumstances.

Yeah well, thank God we are not in the US.

There were well-documented cases where priests knew, as a result of confessions, that other priests were abusing children. Not only did they not report these priests to the authorities, but they actually made it easier for the priests to abuse more children. This is the problem.The Church has shown itself manifestly incapable of managing this responsibility. Since they refuse to protect children, we will remove the privileges that they have used to endanger children.

The Church, and those defending the Church are failing to understand that their personal views on the Confessional Seal do not outweigh the right of children to be protected from harm. Since the privileging of the Confessional Seal have actually been shown to place children in harm, a secular society should rightly remove this protection.

Especially when we are talking about a religious privilege that has resulted in the violation of people who do not share that religion.

Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?

Saint Jade IV wrote:Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?

And why should children who are catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected...

Dyakovo wrote:

Saint Jade IV wrote:Why should children who are not Catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected by a religion they do not share?

And why should children who are catholic have to put up with their abusers being protected...

Well they shouldn't. But one may argue that the victims may hold to the belief of the Confessional Seal's inviolability as well, and therefore, it's infringing on their religious freedom.

Besides, I don't believe children are any religion anyway. It's projection by their parents, accepted by society.

Saint Jade IV wrote:Had the Catholic Church removed these priests from contact with the public, and made efforts to discipline them appropriately, this law would not be currently being considered.

Exactly. This is what I've been saying.

We shouldn't be at this point. We shouldn't have to force the Catholic Church to do what it should've been doing anyway.

Hard to defend my Catholic bros here.

It's one thing for the abuse to take place but to actively cover it up and protect the abusers is a whole different beast.