Catholic Church Refusing to Follow Australian Law

[Zoii]

Australia will probably go full blown Robocop on this, from the looks of how the government embraces lording over it's population.

Oh for Petes sake... cmon you can create an argument - I've seen you do it. Cheap shots that are a bit undignified - You don't need to go there.

 

[creslaw]

Well again Why? Why the special circumstance just for CC. No matter what group religious or non-religious, It seems you would not argue special circumstances for that group to decide that the law may not possess efficacy, therefore disobey it. You haven't explained to any extent why it is that of all groups CC, should possess that right

You have heard of religious freedom, right?
The Australian Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth Parliament from enacting legislation that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

[creslaw]

Yes, it would be a problem. Repeating anything said in confession is breaking the seal.
That is the point. The change in law is aimed at making it possible to do what you're saying here shouldn't be a problem (but currently is).

Not everyone agrees with you:

"Canon lawyer Fr Ian Waters testified to the royal commission that if a confession (by for example a child) was about a third party who offended (not the penitent making the confession) then it would not break the seal should a priest report the third party."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...ession-could-pit-church-against-state/8805126​

 

[Zoii]

You have heard of religious freedom, right?
The Australian Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth Parliament from enacting legislation that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

It's your contention that the law is unconstitutional? I'm not aware of any statement from the Catholic Archbishops Conference that is claiming that. Where are you getting your legal information from that the Catholic Church is claiming it to be unconstitutional?

In the statements from the Attorney General that matter was reviewed. That's not to say if the CC changes their view and wish to pursue it, then they have a legal avenue through the high court. In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question.

 

[Paidiske]

Not everyone agrees with you:

"Canon lawyer Fr Ian Waters testified to the royal commission that if a confession (by for example a child) was about a third party who offended (not the penitent making the confession) then it would not break the seal should a priest report the third party."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-...ession-could-pit-church-against-state/8805126​

Not everyone agrees with him, either, as we've seen in the thread. I can tell you that that is not what ordinands are taught.

The Anglican church needed to pass a change in canon law specifically to make this kind of disclosure possible; (I was there for the debates on it). The Catholics will also need to do so, if they're going to choose to comply with the law in this way.

 

[creslaw]

Not everyone agrees with him, either, as we've seen in the thread. I can tell you that that is not what ordinands are taught.

The Anglican church needed to pass a change in canon law specifically to make this kind of disclosure possible; (I was there for the debates on it). The Catholics will also need to do so, if they're going to choose to comply with the law in this way.

A canon lawyer would know what he was talking about ... even if others disagree.

 

[Zoii]

If you truly wish to understand the checks and balances in the process that arrived at the legislation, including the Canon Law, Constitutional Rights, and historical shield laws for priests, journalists and spouses; I suggest you read the review from the Australian Parliament which they have nicely coalesced for the general public

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...itents_Confidentiality_and_Child_Sexual_Abuse

 

[Paidiske]

Even the bishops disagree, apparently. And given that any priest only has permission to hear confessions under authority from their bishop, and takes a vow of obedience to his (or her, in my case) bishop, the view of the bishop is not irrelevant.

Here's the thing. Despite some bishops and canon lawyers saying you can repeat stuff heard in the confessional if it's not an account of the penitent's sins, that's not the common understanding, and it's not how priests are trained.

That is, in large part, why this law is being brought; to allow priests to report disclosures from victims. It's why the church needs to make officially and unambiguously clear in response to this law (ideally) that they will allow it, or at least absolutely clearly what they will and won't allow.

 

[creslaw]

It's your contention that the law is unconstitutional? I'm not aware of any statement from the Catholic Archbishops Conference that is claiming that. Where are you getting your legal information from that the Catholic Church is claiming it to be unconstitutional?

In the statements from the Attorney General that matter was reviewed. That's not to say if the CC changes their view and wish to pursue it, then they have a legal avenue through the high court. In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question.

Your question/statement was: "You haven't explained to any extent why it is that of all groups CC, should possess that right."
I explained that religions possess special rights secular groups do not.
Demanding religious groups violate their faith (whether the confessional or ssm or vetting teachers at a religious school) is what is being debated in Australia at the moment because religions have rights under religious freedom protections.

 

[Zoii]

Your question/statement was: "You haven't explained to any extent why it is that of all groups CC, should possess that right."
I explained that religions possess special rights secular groups do not.
Demanding religious groups violate their faith (whether the confessional or ssm or vetting teachers at a religious school) is what is being debated in Australia at the moment because religions have rights under religious freedom protections.

OK I understand that - but - the legal dispensations that are under discussion are called "shield" laws. They applied to religious groups, spouses and media Reporters. Now that those shield laws have dissipated it brings us back to the question I posed which is

On what basis should a religious group have the right to say that a law is improbable that it has efficacy, therefore they are ignoring it.

Now your reply is somewhat circular - you are just arguing that CC has special rights - I'm saying you're wrong - they don't - so what are you using to support your argument.

 

[Zoii]

There are blogs galore on the Catholic websites around this I want to post one:

Fr. Frank are you saying that if a young child confesses sexual abuse you would do nothing about it? I know of a child who reported regular abuse to a priest because it felt safe to do that in private, knowing that the perpetrator would not find out, it went on for years. Surely in this situation, the priest would be compelled by God's law re the sanctity of a child rather than church ethics around the seal of confession.
Trish Martin | 05 December

Father Frank didn't answer - it was later confirmed to Trish that indeed the priest must not reveal what the child told the priest of her abuse.

 

[creslaw]

Now your reply is somewhat circular - you are just arguing that CC has special rights - I'm saying you're wrong - they don't - so what are you using to support your argument.

You may say it's wrong that there are legal protections for religious freedom but as a society we have deemed it a good thing for a long time. If you are arguing for disposing of all religious freedom you are arguing against freedom of conscience which is one of the core values of Western democracy. The state cannot intrude on freedom of conscience without extremely good reasons. Don't you value that?

 

[Zoii]

You may say it's wrong that there are legal protections for religious freedom but as a society we have deemed it a good thing for a long time

What I'm saying is that there are no longer shield laws protecting certain groups - They no longer protect a spouse; they largely no longer protect journalists, and now they no longer protect religions from revealing criminal activity. This is a matter of law. It is recognized as being constitutional. I've seen nothing from anyone yet that can explain why it is that CC should be the only entity amongst any institution or religion or affiliation that should have the privilege of ignoring the law. What bestows it this privilege above anyone else?

If you are arguing for disposing of all religious freedom you are arguing against freedom of conscience which is one of the core values of Western democracy. The state cannot intrude on freedom of conscience without extremely good reasons

Religious freedom is protected. You can practice your religion providing it is not at the expense of the community of individuals - ie You can practice a religion that may say it hates homosexuals, but you cant go around harassing them or beating them up. As far as the Human Rights Commission is concerned the rights of Religious Freedom do not take precedence over the protection of children.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Oh for Petes sake... cmon you can create an argument - I've seen you do it. Cheap shots that are a bit undignified - You don't need to go there.

But I can. Besides, it really puts the ridiculousness of Australian law into perspective in my personal opinion.

...Because here, you're the one who wants to bind, and I'm the one who wants to loosen... I'm the liberal.

 

[creslaw]

What I'm saying is that there are no longer shield laws protecting certain groups - They no longer protect a spouse; they largely no longer protect journalists, and now they no longer protect religions from revealing criminal activity. This is a matter of law. It is recognized as being constitutional. I've seen nothing from anyone yet that can explain why it is that CC should be the only entity amongst any institution or religion or affiliation that should have the privilege of ignoring the law. What bestows it this privilege above anyone else?

Religious freedom is protected. You can practice your religion providing it is not at the expense of the community of individuals - ie You can practice a religion that may say it hates homosexuals, but you cant go around harassing them or beating them up. As far as the Human Rights Commission is concerned the rights of Religious Freedom do not take precedence over the protection of children.

People, whether they are religious or not, are not protected from revealing criminal activity. That is not what this debate in our society is about. It is about a specific religious practice that is a central part of a church's beliefs.

A church should not be forced to abandon a well established belief for what are questionable outcomes. It is arguable that breaking the seal of the confession will increase child sexual abuse as pedophiles will not go to confession and so priests will not be able to use their spiritual authority to direct a penitent to enter treatment as a condition of absolution. You effectively remove this means of reducing sexual abuse.

BTW, my church does not practice confession, in fact, it is contrary to what we believe, but I do value freedom of conscience.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, it would be a problem. Repeating anything said in confession is breaking the seal.

That is the point. The change in law is aimed at making it possible to do what you're saying here shouldn't be a problem (but currently is).

As a priest I'm sure (maybe I missed it on this thread) you encourage the abuse victim to properly report the incidents in question and offer information on how to report and seek medical/psychological assistance?

When I think on it, if you have an abuse victim in your confessional telling all to you it is a cry for help.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Given that Canon Law is not necessarily about the word of God or a prescription for being a christian; but rather a set of operational polices and guidelines; it is akin to the operational manuals found in organisations and workplaces (I'm not being disrespectful when I say this, I'm drawing a parallel).

In any workplace/organisation policy manuals evolve as the organisation itself evolves according to the emerging requirements placed on the organisation.

Is it not reasonable to suggest cannon law reflects the evolution of the society it serves? For example - are Catholic Practitioners made to repent for using contraception?

Zoii, have you ever had to sign a non-disclosure form? Canon Law is a great big book, with all of the pages being non-disclosure forms. (That's not exactly true, but the seal of the Confessional is just between the penitent, Jesus, and the priest as a witness.) When the priest goes in to the Confessional, he KNOWS he is going to hear secrets, and he knows that he cannot reveal ANY of those secrets to anyone else.

 

[Monk Brendan]

To me it really is that stark and unambiguous. It is not okay to collude with a child abuser, enabling them to continue to abuse, by refusing to report them. That's what we're dealing with. The other concerns are froth in comparison.

In the Catholic Church, to disclose a confession will put you in a monastery for the rest of your life, praying for God's grace for you, and washing dishes or baking bread; as you have broken the seal of the Confessional. You normally will be deposed--meaning you are no longer a priest. You will never be trusted by anyone as well, and you must remain silent.

With that in mind, we take the Confessional seriously, and priests don't report. However, if I was hearing a child abuser's confession, I would withhold absolution--in other words, the child abuser would not have his sins forgiven, and he would still be bound to hell. I would urge the sinner to turn himself in to the police. Most priests would do the same thing.

 

[Monk Brendan]

What's the difference between hiding from the confessional, and hiding in it? Except our collusion in their hiding.

Who is colluding? If the priest hearing the confession are worth anything at all, they would refuse the absolution, and urge the sinner to report himself.

 

[SashaMaria]

No that wont happen. The Catholic church will thus - Once Again - be guilty of covering up a crime and allow the potential of ongoing abuse; by allowing the perpetrator to continue their conduct. This has already been cited here but it annoys me when its gloated upon.

However should the victim/perp at some point go to the police, and its then found that the priest was complicit in this crime by not reporting the crime as required by law, then the priest will also be prosecuted - and to that I say good!!

That's what will most likely happen.

I recently read an account written by a man who, as a young teen, was the victim of abuse by a priest. The abuse went on for years. When the man was older he tried reporting the priest to his superiors and encountered the good 'ole boy network and was stonewalled no matter who he talked to. Nothing was done, the priest was promoted and continued to be active. These accounts are anguishing to read and it's very difficult for me defend the Church and I no longer try in light of the continuing scandals.

I pray the clerics who control the institutional Catholic church will repent before they completely destroy any credibility the Church has left.