Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Saint Jade IV]

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.

No one is doing that. Paedophile priests can still seek absolution from God through the confessional. What they can no longer do is use the confessional seal to seek absolution from both God and the secular law. They are no longer going to be allowed to hide their crimes under the skirts of the Church.

I would imagine that priests would be more disgusted at the perversion of the rite of confession as a cover for this most grievous violation, than that they are now required to act to protect the children under their care and spiritual leadership.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

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.

But never at the cost of the relationship between a man and His God. This must be the most precious relationship a human being has, inviolable by anyone, even children.

I agree, many sinners go to the confessional again and again, truly repentant. I am one myself. I go almost weekly. But I keep violating myself in sin in front of my computer. It's a force of habit - inexcusable, still mortal sin, but still understood.

BUT my loyalties are, before all else, to God. If the state seeks to violate my rights, or anyone's rights, to God as they understand Him, they are wrong. Can you understand why?

Again, though, if by any other means it can be known a priest is a paedophile, so be it. Install security cams in the rectories and homes of priests - even in the kirks and sacristies themselves. But never, never can you violate the privacy of the confessional for any reason.

I wish I had a better argument. I'm sure someone does. In fact, I will go and look for one from someone much wiser than me and get back to you. Is that OK by you guys?

[Genivaria]

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.

Other then their ego there isn't one.

[Saint Jade IV]

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.

But never at the cost of the relationship between a man and His God. This must be the most precious relationship a human being has, inviolable by anyone, even children.

Actually, considering that many of the children violated are too young to decide if they believe in the same faith as the man violating them, and the men protecting them, I dispute this vehemently. Why should someone's relationship with their God trump the right of someone who does not even believe in that same God?

I agree, many sinners go to the confessional again and again, truly repentant. I am one myself. I go almost weekly. But I keep violating myself in sin in front of my computer. It's a force of habit - inexcusable, still mortal sin, but still understood.

And you are not hurting anyone else by doing so, unless you're looking at child pornography, or similar material. So there is no one who needs protection.

BUT my loyalties are, before all else, to God. If the state seeks to violate my rights, or anyone's rights, to God as they understand Him, they are wrong. Can you understand why?

The state does it ALL THE TIME. Animist and Muslim African parents can't purify their daughters by circumcising them. Fundamentalist Mormons can't have 3 wives, even if everyone is A-OK with this, and even though the tenets of their faith REQUIRE it. Why should the confessional seal be any different to Mormon plural marriage?

Again, though, if by any other means it can be known a priest is a paedophile, so be it. Install security cams in the rectories and homes of priests - even in the kirks and sacristies themselves. But never, never can you violate the privacy of the confessional for any reason.

Well, evidently, you can. Priests just choose not to.

I wish I had a better argument. I'm sure someone does. In fact, I will go and look for one from someone much wiser than me and get back to you. Is that OK by you guys?

There is no argument you can give me that I will agree with.

[Greed and Death]

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.

So I think the seal of the confession should stand. Think of it like this.

A pedophile priest goes to confession, and confesses his actions, the priest who took his confession may then be able to convince the confessing priest to seek help and end contact with children.

Where as with mandatory reporting, the molesting priest will simply not tell anyone realizing it will later be used against him, he then will only be caught/stopped when a child comes forward, which as we know can take decades.

A purpose of confession is to gain spiritual and moral guidance and one can only fully do that when knowing the guidance will be kept secret. Society gains from people gaining such spiritual and moral guidance.

[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.

So I think the seal of the confession should stand. Think of it like this.

A pedophile priest goes to confession, and confesses his actions, the priest who took his confession may then be able to convince the confessing priest to seek help and end contact with children.

Where as with mandatory reporting, the molesting priest will simply not tell anyone realizing it will later be used against him, he then will only be caught/stopped when a child comes forward, which as we know can take decades.

A purpose of confession is to gain spiritual and moral guidance and one can only fully do that when knowing the guidance will be kept secret. Society gains from people gaining such spiritual and moral guidance.

Which demonstrates to me that this purported belief that the confessional and the rite of confession as absolution from God is bollocks. If confession were really that important spiritually, and their spiritual absolution was really as vital as they claim, it wouldn't matter to them either way.

Furthermore, the reason this is being suggested is that when the Church was free to simply move priests away from children without breaking the seal, the priests made an active choice NOT to. The Church had it's chance, it fucked it up royally, and now it doesn't get another chance as far as I am concerned.

[Greed and Death]

So I think the seal of the confession should stand. Think of it like this.

A pedophile priest goes to confession, and confesses his actions, the priest who took his confession may then be able to convince the confessing priest to seek help and end contact with children.

Where as with mandatory reporting, the molesting priest will simply not tell anyone realizing it will later be used against him, he then will only be caught/stopped when a child comes forward, which as we know can take decades.

A purpose of confession is to gain spiritual and moral guidance and one can only fully do that when knowing the guidance will be kept secret. Society gains from people gaining such spiritual and moral guidance.

Which demonstrates to me that this purported belief that the confessional and the rite of confession as absolution from God is bollocks. If confession were really that important spiritually, and their spiritual absolution was really as vital as they claim, it wouldn't matter to them either way.

Furthermore, the reason this is being suggested is that when the Church was free to simply move priests away from children without breaking the seal, the priests made an active choice NOT to. The Church had it's chance, it fucked it up royally, and now it doesn't get another chance as far as I am concerned.

All that will happen is a few priest go to prison for refusing to obey the mandatory reporter law. We will only know of them after the corresponding predatory priest is caught. So this law will not reduce the church's actions and only serve to throw more men of the cloth behind bars then is necessary.

[Saint Jade IV]

Which demonstrates to me that this purported belief that the confessional and the rite of confession as absolution from God is bollocks. If confession were really that important spiritually, and their spiritual absolution was really as vital as they claim, it wouldn't matter to them either way.

Furthermore, the reason this is being suggested is that when the Church was free to simply move priests away from children without breaking the seal, the priests made an active choice NOT to. The Church had it's chance, it fucked it up royally, and now it doesn't get another chance as far as I am concerned.

All that will happen is a few priest go to prison for refusing to obey the mandatory reporter law. We will only know of them after the corresponding predatory priest is caught. So this law will not reduce the church's actions and only serve to throw more men of the cloth behind bars then is necessary.

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

[Liriena]

I'm not so sure about this. On one hand, it might make sense for Australia to require the disclosure of confessions of crimes...but then there's religious rights...

[Distributist Chestertonia]

I wish I had a better argument. I'm sure someone does. In fact, I will go and look for one from someone much wiser than me and get back to you. Is that OK by you guys?

There is no argument you can give me that I will agree with.[/quote]

Clearly. You don't have to. But are you at least willing to understand where we are coming from?

Perhaps this article will make more sense to you than my own words. Its writer makes a better case than I.

Another article I wrote also suggested perhaps that the priest could suggest to the penitent that they could ask the penitent if they could break the seal of confession to speak further on this issue. That is not outside of the boundaries of the rules.

[Saint Jade IV]

There is no argument you can give me that I will agree with.

Clearly. You don't have to. But are you at least willing to understand where we are coming from?

Perhaps this article will make more sense to you than my own words. Its writer makes a better case than I.

Another article I wrote also suggested perhaps that the priest could suggest to the penitent that they could ask the penitent if they could break the seal of confession to speak further on this issue. That is not outside of the boundaries of the rules.

Your arguments, and those contained in the article make as much sense as Fundamentalist Mormons who want to marry multiple wives because their God tells them it is a requirement of their religion. To those people, plural marriage or the Principle is part of the very fabric of their faith, an inviolable mandate of God.

Do you advocate that they be allowed to do so as well?

The issue is not with religious freedom, or free practice thereof. The issue is about the freedom of children to be protected, and whether that outweighs a nebulous and frankly, unprovable notion of sanctity.

People's beliefs do not always deserve to be protected. In Australia, it has been proven that the confessional seal has been used to protect paedophile priests, and that this has resulted in systemic and ongoing harm to thousands of children. Therefore, the confessional seal is not worthy of protection, much in the way that female circumcision, or plural marriage, or a range of other beliefs are not.

[Genivaria]

All that will happen is a few priest go to prison for refusing to obey the mandatory reporter law. We will only know of them after the corresponding predatory priest is caught. So this law will not reduce the church's actions and only serve to throw more men of the cloth behind bars then is necessary.

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

Protecting a fugitive is a crime in and of itself I believe.

[Greed and Death]

All that will happen is a few priest go to prison for refusing to obey the mandatory reporter law. We will only know of them after the corresponding predatory priest is caught. So this law will not reduce the church's actions and only serve to throw more men of the cloth behind bars then is necessary.

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

I dont see how going to prison is protecting ones own skin. Generally that is the opposite of protecting one's own skin.

I don't see it as protecting the pedophile I see it as protecting their ability to render frank and candid spiritual advice in any situation.

Sort of like how an attorney uses a duty of confidentiality to protect his ability to render frank and candid legal advice.

An interesting article on the subject, http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume17/j17_1.htm

[Greed and Death]

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

Protecting a fugitive is a crime in and of itself I believe.

In general you have no duty to report a crime, unless the law creates it.
So merely keeping confessional information secret would not be "protecting a criminal"

[Distributist Chestertonia]

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

I can understand such men who would rape young children - or even have consensual sex with teenagers (as most "paedophilia" cases are) - are absolutely despicable, even when in the latter case.

Nevertheless, you will find despicable people like this all over the world in all kinds of situations. Any one remember Franz Josef, an Austrian, a few years back? Raped his daughter and stored her and her seven children in a cellar for decades before he was found and arrested? Anyone remember any or all of those teachers who raped, had sex with, even tired to marry, their students?

The problem is not "paedophile priests". It is a culture which says that sex is a recreational sport and not a gift from God given to us for the sake of life, love, and imitation of God. This is what our blessed Pope, John Paul II, spoke of in his Theology of the Body. This is what Pope Paul VI spoke of in Humanae Vitae. I suggest you take a gander at these things and see what the Catholic Church teaches - or strives to teach, despite the human failures of its human priests.

I apologise for our priests, who abuse their position as vicars and representatives for Christ to us. But they are, nevertheless, representatives of Christ, and have no right to violate His or our trust. If the government forces them to do that, they will be guilty of social injustice and above all, a sin that cries out to Heaven.

This is easy for me to understand, because it's been proven to me already that God exists, that Christ is His Son who rose from the Dead, and the Catholic Church is His Church. I assume those already to be true because I've already done that legwork. So I am not taking this solely on faith. But I am taking this on faith based on reason. It's a bit too much for this thread to explain it all at once. But Because of reason I am a Catholic. And because of this, I will protest and rebel against a government - peacefully - who forces us to violate our consciences like this.

[New Rogernomics]

And here I was hoping it would be a story about priests in Australia about to be buggered.

Or pedophile priests in Australia getting beaten up.

[Caninope]

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.

Then that's not a violation of attorney client privilege, as it only applies to a lawyer independently representing a child.

Thus, if said lawyer were the family law, he would not report. If a lawyer heard a child molester's confession, he would not report. Attorney client privilege does come first.

[Genivaria]

Hopefully the more people thrown behind bars for this kind of thing, the more people will see that priests are more interested in protecting their own skin than that of the people they are supposed to be guiding.

And I think that if a priest is willing to go to jail to protect a paedophile, rather than protect their victim, then it is absolutely necessary for them to be behind bars. Or at least, out of the priesthood.

I can understand such men who would rape young children - or even have consensual sex with teenagers (as most "paedophilia" cases are) - are absolutely despicable, even when in the latter case.

Nevertheless, you will find despicable people like this all over the world in all kinds of situations. Any one remember Franz Josef, an Austrian, a few years back? Raped his daughter and stored her and her seven children in a cellar for decades before he was found and arrested? Anyone remember any or all of those teachers who raped, had sex with, even tired to marry, their students?

The problem is not "paedophile priests". It is a culture which says that sex is a recreational sport and not a gift from God given to us for the sake of life, love, and imitation of God. This is what our blessed Pope, John Paul II, spoke of in his Theology of the Body. This is what Pope Paul VI spoke of in Humanae Vitae. I suggest you take a gander at these things and see what the Catholic Church teaches - or strives to teach, despite the human failures of its human priests.

I apologise for our priests, who abuse their position as vicars and representatives for Christ to us. But they are, nevertheless, representatives of Christ, and have no right to violate His or our trust. If the government forces them to do that, they will be guilty of social injustice and above all, a sin that cries out to Heaven.

This is easy for me to understand, because it's been proven to me already that God exists, that Christ is His Son who rose from the Dead, and the Catholic Church is His Church. I assume those already to be true because I've already done that legwork. So I am not taking this solely on faith. But I am taking this on faith based on reason. It's a bit too much for this thread to explain it all at once. But Because of reason I am a Catholic. And because of this, I will protest and rebel against a government - peacefully - who forces us to violate our consciences like this.

You do that. We however are going to rapers of children where they belong.
Oh, and if people like this are allowed to be the 'Representatives' of your god, then what does that say about him?

[Geilinor]

If people in every other profession have to do it, why not priests? If your work involves children, you should report any crimes you believe are occurring.

[Khornate Worshippers]

If people in every other profession have to do it, why not priests?

They don't, though. Lawyers, for example.

[Khornate Worshippers]

If people in every other profession have to do it, why not priests?

They don't, though. Lawyers, for example.

AND more to the point. Why pedophilia specifically? Why not every crime?

[Distributist Chestertonia]

You do that. We however are going to rapers of children where they belong.
Oh, and if people like this are allowed to be the 'Representatives' of your god, then what does that say about him?

Not much worse than letting Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, schoolteachers, government officials (like the one who recently resigned because of an affair he was having, or the President who had oral sex with his secretary), or even ordinary human beings (3-6% of them to be precise) live and represent humanity.

[Genivaria]

You do that. We however are going to rapers of children where they belong.
Oh, and if people like this are allowed to be the 'Representatives' of your god, then what does that say about him?

Not much worse than letting Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, schoolteachers, government officials (like the one who recently resigned because of an affair he was having, or the President who had oral sex with his secretary), or even ordinary human beings (3-6% of them to be precise) live and represent humanity.

Representing humanity? I don't recall there being some Earth parliament....regrettably.
And you know what the difference is? We (secular governments) PUNISH people who rape children.
The fact that you equated the raping of children with two adults having an affair is quite disturbing.

[Saint Jade IV]

If people in every other profession have to do it, why not priests?

They don't, though. Lawyers, for example.

In Australia there are several circumstances where lawyers are required to break privilege.

For instance, lawyers representing a stepfather and mother in a custody dispute who become aware that the stepfather is sexually abusing the child are required to report that knowledge to Children's Services. Lawyers representing children are required to report that their client is being abused, even if the child requests that they don't. In the Northern Territory, under the intervention, lawyers are absolutely required to.

[Saragossa]

I think there's probably a better way to do this. I'm not Christian, but I'm strongly against any proposal to put anyone under any obligation to report what they hear in a confessional. It defeats the purpose of the confessional: priests simply wont confess anymore. Given that they obviously believe they can get away with it, and the entire point of a confessional is effectively to stop sin by producing feelings of guilt, having a confidential confession would actually deter sex offences.

Rather, I think it might be best to actually convince the Papacy to change this, by removing the need for priests to be celibate and by, possibly, forbidding priests from confessing at all