Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Revolutopia]

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

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

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

[Seriong]

But a priest who does not report the possibility that one of their colleagues has confessed to sinful thoughts or actions is aiding and abetting the violation of children, by not reporting a potential risk.

They are required to report to Child Protective Services, not the police. Is it not possible, that getting these men access to appropriate therapy and preventive treatment, before they actually abuse children, may be of benefit?

A) You wouldn't report someone to the police for saying "I like that car", why "I like that girl" or "I like that X" it implies a thought, not an action.
B) If you really think that reporting that these men who work around children will in any way help them, you're deluded.
Ba) People tend to not like pedophiles, especially if they are ever around children = possible beating, immediate loss of job.
You aren't going to prevent anything, most pedophiles fall into two groups
A) Attracted, and wanting to fuck, regardless of consent. The only way you would know about this is post-action
B) Attracted, and moral enough to not fuck. These people's lives will be ruined, just so you can pretend you protected a child.

[Jinos]

You are not protecting children: You are disobeying God, and you are betraying the penitent.

Simply because it is in accord with national law, does not make it moral.

The law of man is superior to and higher than the law of God.

[Saint Jade IV]

But a priest who does not report the possibility that one of their colleagues has confessed to sinful thoughts or actions is aiding and abetting the violation of children, by not reporting a potential risk.

They are required to report to Child Protective Services, not the police. Is it not possible, that getting these men access to appropriate therapy and preventive treatment, before they actually abuse children, may be of benefit?

A) You wouldn't report someone to the police for saying "I like that car", why "I like that girl" or "I like that X" it implies a thought, not an action.
B) If you really think that reporting that these men who work around children will in any way help them, you're deluded.
Ba) People tend to not like pedophiles, especially if they are ever around children = possible beating, immediate loss of job.
You aren't going to prevent anything, most pedophiles fall into two groups
A) Attracted, and wanting to fuck, regardless of consent. The only way you would know about this is post-action
B) Attracted, and moral enough to not fuck. These people's lives will be ruined, just so you can pretend you protected a child.

You didn't read a single word of my post, did you?

[Seriong]

You didn't read a single word of my post, did you?

Nope, of course not. Where would the fun be in that?
In all seriousness to your last point you are viewing it in the wrong way, you view it as a time line, where all pedophiles are attracted to kids, and without help eventually rape them. This is not the case. Most pedophiles are not immoral, and actually won't rape any of these children, there for your actions against them only have negative effects, while producing the illusion of protecting people. The other pedophiles that will rape children are beyond your help, and indistinguishable from the other group.

[Central Slavia]

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

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

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.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

No. It's fairly physical when a priest decides to stick his todger where it doesn't belong.

[Central Slavia]

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.

That's a cop-out. Anything can be explained if the explainer truly knows what he is talking about!
Remember what Einstein said about teaching a child.

Fine.
If you assume that Catholic doctrine is true, by breaching the confessional seal , you make the perpetrator;s (, who is assumed to be sincerely penitent (otherwise you wouldn't have absolved him)) confession invalid, placing his immortal soul in peril.
This by extent is a grave breach of the duty of a priest and a sin, so you are all of, committing a grave sin, getting yourself excommunicated, and losing the authority of priesthood. Hence, you're screwed up too.
And since, if you accept the church doctrine, the afterlife is more important than earthly matters, an earthly crime, no matter how appalling, is no grounds for committing such an atrocious act.

And yes, I am an atheist but I was raised catholic :3

[Northwest Slobovia]

Then on what basis do you say that secular law can't compel priests to break confession? If they can sin, then they can commit the sin of breaking confession, and thus some penalty or reward (or a combination of both) may suffice to compel them to do so.

If you're saying you don't think that should happen, that's a different story.

I say that, because under no circumstances will secular law compel a confessor to betray the penitent.

They can sin, but it does not mean they will commit this specific sin. No penalty or reward can do such a thing.

Why? You seem to be simply asserting it without proof. Humans -- including Catholic priests -- do all sorts of immoral things, so why is this one act special?

[Northwest Slobovia]

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

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

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

Nicely done, sir.

[Central Slavia]

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.

No. It's fairly physical when a priest decides to stick his todger where it doesn't belong.

And I'd fully advocate such a thing being the grounds for being defrocked, at the very least, as such conduct, especially done willfully by someone who should by all means know better is unbecoming of the office.
However, a law that compels other priests to act against their duty to the church is a poor solution, since it almost certainly will yield no result. Seriously, do you think that someone who can force themselves to obey said doctrine when things like rape and murder are involved, will suddenly flinch just because a judge somewhere declared what he's doing a crime?

[Central Slavia]

I say that, because under no circumstances will secular law compel a confessor to betray the penitent.

They can sin, but it does not mean they will commit this specific sin. No penalty or reward can do such a thing.

Why? You seem to be simply asserting it without proof. Humans -- including Catholic priests -- do all sorts of immoral things, so why is this one act special?

There aren't many sins that automatically excommunicate you.

[Revolutopia]

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.

God equally established the Australian government, and decreed their rule should be obeyed. And the Australian state has declared that the Church needs to comply with providing information regarding the earthly matter of child abuse thus the Church is commanded to obey in provide that information. Nothing, in that quote says the Church should abandon the established state's rules if they don't feel like it.

[Central Slavia]

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.

God equally established the Australian government, and decreed their rule should be obeyed. And the Australian state has declared that the Church needs to comply with providing information regarding the earthly matter of child abuse thus the Church is commanded to obey in provide that information. Nothing, in that quote says the Church should abandon the established state's rules if they don't feel like it.

Highlighted for convenience.
Your interpretation mandates such absurd conclusions as devout christians being mandated to become apostate in countries that place their faith outside of the law.

[Saint Jade IV]

You didn't read a single word of my post, did you?

Nope, of course not. Where would the fun be in that?
In all seriousness to your last point you are viewing it in the wrong way, you view it as a time line, where all pedophiles are attracted to kids, and without help eventually rape them. This is not the case. Most pedophiles are not immoral, and actually won't rape any of these children, there for your actions against them only have negative effects, while producing the illusion of protecting people. The other pedophiles that will rape children are beyond your help, and indistinguishable from the other group.

It's assuming that people who have sexual thoughts about children, to the point where they are confessing these, are likely in need of some significant therapy to help them come up with coping strategies. Therapy that the Church is apparently either unwilling or unable to provide.

I don't doubt that there are some people out there with sexual attractions who nonetheless manage to keep them tightly under control without any assistance from anyone. But history shows us that that is not the default, nor even the most likely outcome for people who have sexual attractions that run against the norm.

I'm not viewing it as a timeline, I'm viewing it as an opportunity to help someone who evidently wants and needs it.

And for those priests who do actually confess to the crime of molesting children, protecting other children from the likely harm that the priest will do.

Again, the Church has shown itself manifestly incapable of protecting children when left to its own devices. Therefore, it loses the privileges it has used in the past to hurt and endanger children.

[Revolutopia]

God equally established the Australian government, and decreed their rule should be obeyed. And the Australian state has declared that the Church needs to comply with providing information regarding the earthly matter of child abuse thus the Church is commanded to obey in provide that information. Nothing, in that quote says the Church should abandon the established state's rules if they don't feel like it.

Highlighted for convenience.
Your interpretation mandates such absurd conclusions as devout christians being mandated to become apostate in countries that place their faith outside of the law.

Find the relevant quote in St. Paul's words not your own.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Why? You seem to be simply asserting it without proof. Humans -- including Catholic priests -- do all sorts of immoral things, so why is this one act special?

There aren't many sins that automatically excommunicate you.

And so? That just reduces the number of priests who will commit that sin, not eliminate it.

To every sin there is a season, and a time for every trespass under heaven.

[Central Slavia]

Highlighted for convenience.
Your interpretation mandates such absurd conclusions as devout christians being mandated to become apostate in countries that place their faith outside of the law.

Find the relevant quote in St. Paul's words not your own.

I'm merely implying that a quote has to be interpreted in context.
Much like "Knock yourself out" doesn't usually incite one to self-mutilation, or "Take your pick" suggest one to grab a digging instrument.

For that matter, Saint Paul converted to catholic faith during the time christianity was outlawed. With your interpretation, he'd have to have converted back ASAP.

[Transhuman Proteus]

But a priest who does not report the possibility that one of their colleagues has confessed to sinful thoughts or actions is aiding and abetting the violation of children, by not reporting a potential risk.

They are required to report to Child Protective Services, not the police. Is it not possible, that getting these men access to appropriate therapy and preventive treatment, before they actually abuse children, may be of benefit?

A) You wouldn't report someone to the police for saying "I like that car", why "I like that girl" or "I like that X" it implies a thought, not an action.

If they said "I stole that car" or "I raped that girl" I would, or if I had a strong enough suspicion that was the case when I heard the car was stolen or the girl raped after that person said certain things.

The police don't regulate thoughts, telling the police about a pedophile who has not acted isn't going to result in anything. If you have a damn good reason to believe they have though, or will, yes, you alert the authorities, they'll ask you why you believe that, and then they'll proceed as they see fit based on that.

B) If you really think that reporting that these men who work around children will in any way help them, you're deluded.

Who? The men or the kids? If they are actually pedophiles then, yes, it might well help both because you know, kids won't be being molested anymore. Or if that hasn't happened it might help the person deal with it by putting them onto paths that actually assist - like psychological or support group help.

You don't go in the newspapers or on sex offender lists if you haven't done anything but thought about it.

Ba) People tend to not like pedophiles, especially if they are ever around children = possible beating, immediate loss of job.
You aren't going to prevent anything, most pedophiles fall into two groups
A) Attracted, and wanting to fuck, regardless of consent. The only way you would know about this is post-action
B) Attracted, and moral enough to not fuck. These people's lives will be ruined, just so you can pretend you protected a child.

Which is probably why priests shouldn't be making these decisions because they aren't experts and don't have the ability or training to get to the bottom of matters. If they think the person has acted, or there is a good chance they will, then yes, they should.

And as terribly as it might sound based on "innocent till proven guilty" - if a person knows they are sexually attracted to children they probably should get out of jobs that involve them working closely with small children, or where they will encounter it a lot, even if they are super super sure they would never act on it.

One can say "well why do we let men and women work together?", and that is due to the consenting adult aspect and their ability to take care of themselves and set and respect bounderies. When dealing with attraction and so forth it is quite easy to inadvertently cross lines - reports from a case involving a school a friend went to a few years back - it was child pornography related, as far as I know the teacher never actually had sex with a kid, but he had apparently been spoken to for being too willing to hug and "non sexually touching" students - acts he apparently didn't think were inappropriate or getting into kid raping territory. A child is more vulnerable, and less able to correctly gauge how much is to much.

That, or go to someone who can actually help them and not go telling others "I'd never act on it, but I am very much sexually attracted to children" - like a psychologist. As opposed to putting themselves into a guilt spin believing that earnestly praying enough and telling their confessors constantly about their "sinful" thoughts will do much good.

You didn't read a single word of my post, did you?

Nope, of course not. Where would the fun be in that?
In all seriousness to your last point you are viewing it in the wrong way, you view it as a time line, where all pedophiles are attracted to kids, and without help eventually rape them. This is not the case. Most pedophiles are not immoral, and actually won't rape any of these children, there for your actions against them only have negative effects, while producing the illusion of protecting people. The other pedophiles that will rape children are beyond your help, and indistinguishable from the other group.

How very black and white.

Thank goodness priests have a sixth sense when it comes to people admitting sexual attraction to individuals under the age of consent and will know for sure nothing will happen because they promise they aren't immoral enough to "rape kids" (never mind a lot of molistation doesn't involve rape, but other forms of mental/physical inappropriateness or child pornography etc)

[Acrainia]

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

[Central Slavia]

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

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

[Jinos]

However, a law that compels other priests to act against their duty to the church is a poor solution, since it almost certainly will yield no result. Seriously, do you think that someone who can force themselves to obey said doctrine when things like rape and murder are involved, will suddenly flinch just because a judge somewhere declared what he's doing a crime?

Maybe not, maybe so, but I think the message is more important than the results.

Australia is telling the Catholic Church, that since it cannot police it's own, the state will take whatever measures it feels necessary to so.

[Emile Zola]

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

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.

[Transhuman Proteus]

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

Because it is impossible for the Church to change it's rules and tenets, since they never have before? God itself said "no negotiations on confession, you change it at all and, well, you know how I am about disobedience"?

Here I was thinking the Catholic Church had a long history of adaptability and alteration to how it operated and even its major tenets.

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

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

A bit over dramatic yes? Care to break it down?

[Saint Jade IV]

So basically this is a good Samaritan law that demands that Catholic Priests violate a major tenet of their religion?

I can understand the government's side, but I can't bring myself to support this.

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

Stop being silly. This is no different to banning plural marriages for Fundamentalist Mormons, or FGM for Muslims.