Dyakovo wrote:Khornate Worshippers wrote:
I'm a Roman Catholic and, ironically enough, been planning on joining the priesthood.
I don't like the law itself. Breaking privilege like that, for just one case, that makes it weak. If nothing else, attorney-client privilege needs to be preserved (for a fair trial). With the supporters of this law going as they are (child molestation being the gravest evil), why not make lawyers responsible for not informing on child molesters? Sure, attorney-client privilege, but what /is/ more important? Fair trials, or saving children?
Okay. So my alternative, because, hell, why not have something to replace what I'm tearing down.
Talk to Pell (because sure, nobody really likes him outside of the church, but he does have a fair bit of influence in the church) or whoever's the head of the Australian Bishops' conference. Negotiate with them. You've got this law (and hell, because there's no way to enforce it, require confessionals to be recorded, and have the data stored and only accessible with a court order), but you've also got some power to stop it, yes? So beat them with the carrot - they require 'grievous criminal acts' or whatever you want to call it, including child molestation, to include confessing to the police for absolution. At this point, you've got two possible reactions (we're assuming that these people are going to confession because they believe, because there is otherwise no real point to doing so): Either they do it, and it all works out well, in which case you don't have to bother with making a law, or they don't do it or it doesn't work out well, in which case, you've already got your law plotted out.
So, unsurprisingly, your alternative is to trust the church to do what it has shown itself to be unwilling to do (thus the need for this law).
But Dya, this time they promise to do the right thing. Honest. Trust them.