Catholic Church Refusing to Follow Australian Law

[Zoii]

That's a good question!

Maybe do undercover "sting" operations?

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!!

 

[creslaw]

Oh I got your point - its just the way you expressed it it appeared like you believe this law is attacking the Catholic Church's rites.

If you think that then you're incorrect. This law is applied to every single institution and every single church and its denominations. It is only the catholic church which has singled itself out and said, we want special exemption or we wont obey the law. All other churches, religions and institutions have recognised why the law has come about and will comply.

Now I dont think the Australian society needs to be bloody minded and can deal with special exemptions where they are warranted - except in this case the Catholic Church has already demonstrated that it was a principal culprit in hiding abuses and thus the Australian public do not now trust it to behave responsibly as its history in this regard was too poor, over too long a period. If it had been more responsible in its dealings with paedophiles, less deceitful to the public and investigators, and more charitable to the victims, we may be having a different discussion.

I think you have failed to recognize the significant change in thinking and practice in the Catholic Church in more recent times. I get the impression you are wanting to punish the CC for the sins of the past.

The law about obligatory reporting could have unintended consequences. The complainant in the Wilson case was technically guilty of not reporting to the police when he became an adult, as was anyone else he confided in.

My point still remains whether abolishing the seal of the confessional will help to reduce child sex abuse in society more than retaining the confidentiality. With the possibility of most pedophiles not confessing under the new law, we have lost one avenue of addressing the problem, so I doubt it.

 

[Zoii]

I think you have failed to recognize the significant change in thinking and practice in the Catholic Church in more recent times. I get the impression you are wanting to punish the CC for the sins of the past.

The law about obligatory reporting could have unintended consequences. The complainant in the Wilson case was technically guilty of not reporting to the police when he became an adult, as was anyone else he confided in.

My point still remains whether abolishing the seal of the confessional will help to reduce child sex abuse in society more than retaining the confidentiality. With the possibility of most pedophiles not confessing under the new law, we have lost one avenue of addressing the problem, so I doubt it.

No its not me doing anything other than making comments. Its the Australian legislators who are dictating laws so its best you dont personalise your comments.

In that regard its very simplistic of you to think that Australian legislators are just interested in punishing. Perhaps you need to read the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse before you say such things. Its not as though the legislators have acted on some sort of punishing whim; it comes on the back of a 30 month investigation, exhaustive submissions from every denomination and stakeholders. The resultant law thus takes a evidence based solution approach to a root cause analysis of a serious issue.

You ask the question will it work. No single strategy is a panacea. But the combined strategies required or volunteered by institutions now make ongoing abuses more difficult to continually get away with. But yes they still can as we saw with the Perth-based fundamentalist Pastor who raped a 12-13 year old girl over a 12mth period two and a half years ago https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...n-girl-13-ng-65fdc785f6ea57444ecfd974f6020fff

. It can be still ongoing if its covered up well enough.

I should also say if the catholic church has had a change in thinking, then it was certainly needed and I applaud it. Its a shame that they wont go the whole way in areas where they know they were culpable.

 

[creslaw]

No its not me doing anything other than making comments. Its the Australian legislators who are dictating laws so its best you dont personalise your comments.

In that regard its very simplistic of you to think that Australian legislators are just interested in punishing. Perhaps you need to read the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse before you say such things. Its not as though the legislators have acted on some sort of punishing whim; it comes on the back of a 30 month investigation, exhaustive submissions from every denomination and stakeholders. The resultant law thus takes a evidence based solution approach to a root cause analysis of a serious issue.

We can only express a personal opinion about what is happening ... which you did ... and which I responded to.

I can only suggest that your opinion on this matter is simplistic if you think that any Commission is not responding to social pressure as much as objective evidence.

Whether abolishing the seal of the confessional will reduce child sexual abuse in the future is very open to alternative view points. I don't think it will and I have given my reasons.

Arguing that priests violating the seal of the confessional in the past would have reduced child sexual abuse is not relevant to what is happening today. When most pedophiles no longer confess because of changes in the law, the influence of the priest to use their spiritual authority to direct the abuser is lost. Is that countered by the number of pedophiles reported by priests to the police ... I doubt it.

 

[Zoii]

We can only express a personal opinion about what is happening ... which you did ... and which I responded to.

I can only suggest that your opinion on this matter is simplistic if you think that any Commission is not responding to social pressure as much as objective evidence.

Whether abolishing the seal of the confessional will reduce child sexual abuse in the future is very open to alternative view points. I don't think it will and I have given my reasons.

Arguing that priests violating the seal of the confessional in the past would have reduced child sexual abuse is not relevant to what is happening today. When most pedophiles no longer confess because of changes in the law, the influence of the priest to use their spiritual authority to direct the abuser is lost. Is that countered by the number of pedophiles reported by priests to the police ... I doubt it.

Well to be clear - you stated I was seeking to punish the church.

I get the impression you are wanting to punish the CC

Im not seeking anything. The Australian Government is so please direct your comment in that direction.

Now your view is Australian laws wont work. Well the good thing about an evidence based solution approach is it takes an Action Research Approach. Simply put if its not working as its intended it can be amended.

But this discussion is - Is it right the CC simply say - we will only obey Australian laws we agree with.

 

[Paidiske]

Most paedophiles don't confess anyway. I don't think that's where the focus is, in this matter.

Again, I say: the majority of disclosures made in confession are made by the victim. We have no reason to believe that victims will cease disclosing if receiving support in the reporting process is a likely outcome.

 

[Zoii]

Most paedophiles don't confess anyway. I don't think that's where the focus is, in this matter.

Again, I say: the majority of disclosures made in confession are made by the victim. We have no reason to believe that victims will cease disclosing if receiving support in the reporting process is a likely outcome.

Yea - poor souls. It would be heart breaking to hear a disclosure like that

 

[Paidiske]

It's heart breaking, gut wrenching, soul wringing, honestly.

 

[creslaw]

Well to be clear - you stated I was seeking to punish the church.

That impression comes through quite strongly.

Im not seeking anything. The Australian Government is so please direct your comment in that direction.
Now your view is Australian laws wont work. Well the good thing about an evidence based solution approach is it takes an Action Research Approach. Simply put if its not working as its intended it can be amended.

The law will work fine, that's not my concern.

But this discussion is - Is it right the CC simply say - we will only obey Australian laws we agree with.

... which includes the reasons for not complying. Breaking the seal of the confessional for an outcome one does not believe will be effective is part of the wider discussion whether you choose to consider it or not.

 

[creslaw]

Most paedophiles don't confess anyway. I don't think that's where the focus is, in this matter.
Again, I say: the majority of disclosures made in confession are made by the victim. We have no reason to believe that victims will cease disclosing if receiving support in the reporting process is a likely outcome.

A victim of sexual abuse is not a penitent as they have no sin to confess, even if they think they do. The seal of the confessional is primarily applicable to a penitent. Whether all information learned in the confessional is confidential appears to be less strict.
Reporting a child's complaint, firstly to the parents one would hope, then to the police would not be a problem for most of the priests I know.

 

[Zoii]

That impression comes through quite strongly.



The law will work fine, that's not my concern.


... which includes the reasons for not complying. Breaking the seal of the confessional for an outcome one does not believe will be effective is part of the wider discussion whether you choose to consider it or not.

Ok what your impression is please keep to yourself. This is not a forum to make personal statements about anyone. It is actually a CF rule as well.

Your last point is the one I want to discuss.

Your statement is saying, that if an individual or group does not believe that the law made will be effective, then that is reason enough to not comply.

If we apply that generally, I think most agree that would be absurd in a society. Laws by their nature, once written, are substantiated and administered by the state. If individuals get to choose if its a good law or not then suddenly societal norms break down.

EG. Tax laws cannot be administered with adequate enforcement, therefore I am going to not report my income and not pay tax.

Having drug laws is unenforceable - therefore all drugs should be legal

That's generalising....bringing into a micro-view that examines religion..... JWs who don't support blood product administration, therefore \i shall ignore the law and not my report my child's death due to blood loss.

On what basis are you holding to the argument that a religious group can decide if a law will lack efficacy and thus deciding to break that law.

 

[Zoii]

A victim of sexual abuse is not a penitent as they have no sin to confess, even if they think they do. The seal of the confessional is primarily applicable to a penitent. Whether all information learned in the confessional is confidential appears to be less strict.

That may need to be clarified as Archbishop Hart was quoted as saying "....priests were duty-bound to ensure everything said in confessional remains confidential."

 

[creslaw]

Ok what your impression is please keep to yourself. This is not a forum to make personal statements about anyone. It is actually a CF rule as well.

Let it go friend ... responding to others' opinions is what forums are about. I have no opinion about you personally.

Your last point is the one I want to discuss.

Your statement is saying, that if an individual or group does not believe that the law made will be effective, then that is reason enough to not comply.

If we apply that generally, I think most agree that would be absurd in a society. Laws by their nature, once written, are substantiated and administered by the state. If individuals get to choose if its a good law or not then suddenly societal norms break down.

EG. Tax laws cannot be administered with adequate enforcement, therefore I am going to not report my income and not pay tax.

Having drug laws is unenforceable - therefore all drugs should be legal

That's generalising....bringing into a micro-view that examines religion..... JWs who don't support blood product administration, therefore \i shall ignore the law and not my report my child's death due to blood loss.

On what basis are you holding to the argument that a religious group can decide if a law will lack efficacy and thus deciding to break that law.

Comparison with secular laws is fatuous. We are talking about what Catholics have long regard as a holy sacrament and which in Australia has always been given special exemption. Changing this and making it an indictable offence not to break the seal of the confession must be based on strong evidence that it is beneficial and not detrimental ... and there are arguments that it may be the latter.

 

[creslaw]

That may need to be clarified as Archbishop Hart was quoted as saying "....priests were duty-bound to ensure everything said in confessional remains confidential."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40923719

So if a child says they are a victim of ongoing abuse, the priest will do nothing?
It is not quite that simple. The Australian commission heard differing views from a panel of Catholic clerics as to whether a priest would be able to break the seal of the confessional if a child making confession told him that he or she was being abused by an adult.

Two of the panel said that as the sin was not that of the child making confession, it would not fall within the seal of confession.

But Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney told the commission that "if a child penitent confessed their sexual abuse by an adult to him that, 'I believe I'm bound by the seal of confession not to repeat it'."

 

[Landon Caeli]

The difference is that priests are now being trained in dealing with child sexual abuse and can engage with those pedophiles who confess. Access to some (I would say most) pedophiles will be denied if the confidentiality of confession is broken. That is a situation that is rarely addressed.

And the collateral damage to the religion, in the meantime, is shruged off as meaningless.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I guess the question is how will Australian authorities be able to find out if all priests hold to the sacramental seal?

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

 

[creslaw]

And the collateral damage to the religion, in the meantime, is shruged off as meaningless.

In discussing an approach to the confessional when a penitent confessed to sexual abuse, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson made these comments:

"I'd suggest he enrol for treatment and bring me back proof that he had done so. If we then talked about absolution, we'd both have more confidence that it was real.

If he were not willing to take these practical steps, I would tell him that I really could not believe in his purpose of amendment and so could not in conscience before God and the community give him absolution.

My actions here would once again depend on the community recognising treatment as being better than nothing and allowing for its possibility."
​

If disclosure to the police is manadatory, such confessions will not occur, and opportunities to address the problem will vanish.

​

 

[Zoii]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40923719

So if a child says they are a victim of ongoing abuse, the priest will do nothing?
It is not quite that simple. The Australian commission heard differing views from a panel of Catholic clerics as to whether a priest would be able to break the seal of the confessional if a child making confession told him that he or she was being abused by an adult.

Two of the panel said that as the sin was not that of the child making confession, it would not fall within the seal of confession.

But Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney told the commission that "if a child penitent confessed their sexual abuse by an adult to him that, 'I believe I'm bound by the seal of confession not to repeat it'."

Yea I went to a few Australian Catholic Websites and haven't found anything crystal clear on the point. Your post is the clearest Ive seen.

I did find an interesting discussion on the topic but in reference to the Human Rights Commissions giving views of both Catholic and HRC

http://cathnews.com/cathnews/32584-confession-laws-not-a-breach-of-human-rights


“The human rights to freedom of conscience, religious belief and practice include the right of believers to engage in rituals such as confession without fear of being bugged by others (even the civil authorities).

“Not to recognise confessional privilege would go against these long standing philosophical legal and cultural commitments and well recognised norms, the force a priest to breach the seal would be to force him to act against fundamental tenets of his faith.”

But Helen Watchirs, from the ACT’s Human Rights Commission, said human rights laws does not require blanket protection to be afforded to the seal of the confessional.

“In our view, the benefit to the community of maintaining the confidentiality of the confessional should not outweigh the potential danger to children of withholding information,” Dr Watchirs said.

“Given the centrality of the confessional in particular religious traditions, extending mandatory reporting laws to cover information received during the rite of confession clearly involves serious limitations on the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and must be properly justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act.”

 

[Paidiske]

A victim of sexual abuse is not a penitent as they have no sin to confess, even if they think they do. The seal of the confessional is primarily applicable to a penitent. Whether all information learned in the confessional is confidential appears to be less strict.
Reporting a child's complaint, firstly to the parents one would hope, then to the police would not be a problem for most of the priests I know.

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).

 

[Zoii]

Comparison with secular laws is fatuous. We are talking about what Catholics have long regard as a holy sacrament and which in Australia has always been given special exemption.

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