Catholic Church Refusing to Follow Australian Law

[Paidiske]

Whether abolishing the seal of the confessional for penitents is a good solution we should at least investigate. A knee jerk reaction can have unintended consequences.

I don't think it's fair to categorise Royal Commission recommendations as a "knee jerk reaction." They are the product of the careful investigation you suggest in the prior sentence.

 

[Zoii]

I guess that was aimed at least in part at me. And no I am not that naïve. Whether abolishing the seal of the confessional for penitents is a good solution we should at least investigate. A knee jerk reaction can have unintended consequences.

Knee Jerk Reaction - You clearly have no understanding of the vast and detailed level of investigation that a Royal Commission commits to. It is way more detailed than senate investigations that the USA are used to, and has significantly more powers.

The semantic of using a term like "knee jerk" is just a vain attempt to deflect the true level of research, stakeholder consultation, and investigation of activities that have proceeded before any legislation was considered.

 

[Zoii]

That seem like a reasonable conclusion to me. Since 1997, the Catholic church has seen a significant change in its approach to this subject and many changes have been implemented in the last 20 years. The response to the abuse of the confessional is mainly related to historic events, going back in the latest court case 47 years.

The abuses collated were up until 2012. Perhaps you should read the Royal Commissions Report.

 

[Philip_B]

This is one of many response to the Royal Commission. It spoke to me, and I thought to share it now. We can easily discuss principles, however I believe we need to remember that we are talking about people.

 

[ubicaritas]

View attachment 234543

This is one of many response to the Royal Commission. It spoke to me, and I thought to share it now. We can easily discuss principles, however I believe we need to remember that we are talking about people.

I disagree with those sentiments. Talk as in "speaking out" and #metoo-isms are often little more than preening of the ego, and there is far too much moralizing and sermonizing in this day and age like that. We live in a world that is drowning in moral puratinsm masking tribalism, to the point we can't have civilized conversation anymore about much of anything.

Concrete actions that actually demand something of ourselves are what really matters.

 

[Zoii]

I disagree with those sentiments. Talk as in "speaking out" and #metoo-isms are often little more than preening of the ego, and there is far too much moralizing and sermonizing in this day and age like that. We live in a world that is drowning in moral puratinsm masking tribalism, to the point we can't have civilized conversation anymore about much of anything.

Concrete actions that actually demand something of ourselves are what really matters.

Its the "concrete actions" that's being debated. The Australian Public have legislatively made their decision; while the Catholic Hierarchy have committed to break those laws that may impinge on their ecclesiastic rites. I say Catholic Hierarchy because the largest lobby to change the law were Catholic Parishioners. I think perhaps you're jumping the gun if you're accusing people of not debating this thoroughly and in a civilised manner including @Philip_B

 

[Philip_B]

I disagree with those sentiments. Talk as in "speaking out" and #metoo-isms are often little more than preening of the ego, and there is far too much moralizing and sermonizing in this day and age like that. We live in a world that is drowning in moral puratinsm masking tribalism, to the point we can't have civilized conversation anymore about much of anything.

Concrete actions that actually demand something of ourselves are what really matters.

SORRY, I reject the argument that suggests we should silence the violated in case it makes us feel uncomfortable or does not speak well of an organisation I belong to!

 

[creslaw]

The abuses collated were up until 2012. Perhaps you should read the Royal Commissions Report.

You have failed to grasp the point I was making ... which was not that institutional child sexual abuse has ceased but that in the last 20 years it is significantly less ... approximately 90% of incidents considered by the Royal Commission related to pre-1990 incidents.

This can, in part at least, be attributed to major changes by the CC in its approach to this subject. This approach, with the seal of the confessional in place, has the potential to reduce child sexual abuse more than abolishing the seal of confidentiality.

 

[Zoii]

You have failed to grasp the point I was making ... which was not that institutional child sexual abuse has ceased but that in the last 20 years it is significantly less ... approximately 90% of incidents considered by the Royal Commission related to pre-1990 incidents.

This can, in part at least, be attributed to major changes by the CC in its approach to this subject. This approach, with the seal of the confessional in place, has the potential to reduce child sexual abuse more than abolishing the seal of confidentiality.

You may be right - I hope you are. But there has been inadequate time to measure the efficacy of changes that have been implemented in Australia. Although I do not have data to show rates off offences since implemented changes, my instinct is to believe offending would be harder to do and conceal. I think we would need at least five years to evaluate changes.

I know your concern is not dissimilar to mine in that you as well want to see the right thing done by children and that the pendulum favoured re-offending. I also acknowledge you believe the pendulum has swung back too far the other way. I think time will tell on that matter and I suspect that if Australian Catholics believe it to be true then the laws will be challenged and in due course the pendulum will settle where it needs to be one way or another.

 

[creslaw]

New laws can sometimes have consequences as bad as the situation they seek to address. The loss of life in the people smuggling trade bringing asylum seekers to Australia by boat was addressed by implementing offshore processing but the detention centres have resulted in significant harm to families.

I would like to see a balanced assessment of the consequences of abolishing the seal of the confessional. I think we can all acknowledge that it is now far less likely that a pedophile will confess to a priest, pedophiles will simply hide in the community abusing children until their crimes are uncovered. This means the loss of the opportunity for the priest to use his spiritual authority to direct the pedophile to seek treatment or notify police as a requirement of absolution. So a strategy to actually reduce offending is lost.

 

[Paidiske]

I would like to see a balanced assessment of the consequences of abolishing the seal of the confessional. I think we can all acknowledge that it is now far less likely that a pedophile will confess to a priest, pedophiles will simply hide in the community abusing children until their crimes are uncovered. This means the loss of the opportunity for the priest to use his spiritual authority to direct the pedophile to seek treatment or notify police as a requirement of absolution. So a strategy to actually reduce offending is lost.

This does have to be balanced against increased reporting from victims, though, which is also a strategy to reduce offending.

There's no way to know for sure. We are arguing about probabilities of things which will not be able to be effectively measured.

All we can do is the best we can with what we have. What we have is evidence that the seal of the confessional has allowed for child abuse to be perpetuated in many cases. We can at least intervene in that, which seems to me better than a passive approach which refuses to address that clearly identified issue.

 

[creslaw]

All we can do is the best we can with what we have. What we have is evidence that the seal of the confessional has allowed for child abuse to be perpetuated in many cases. We can at least intervene in that, which seems to me better than a passive approach which refuses to address that clearly identified issue.

I don't think the response of the Catholic church over the past 20 years could be described as "passive". Major changes they have implemented have seen a significant reduction in claims of sexual abuse.

As for victims, I agree it needed to be clarified their "confessions" were required to be disclosed if they were under 16 - it is my understanding some jurisdictions have given older child victims the right to grant or withhold permission to disclose.

 

[Paidiske]

As for victims, I agree it needed to be clarified their "confessions" were required to be disclosed if they were under 16 - it is my understanding some jurisdictions have given older child victims the right to grant or withhold permission to disclose.

The way to do that is to get them to tell you again, outside the confessional. But they have to be willing, which is a problem when they're not.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Knee Jerk Reaction - You clearly have no understanding of the vast and detailed level of investigation that a Royal Commission commits to. It is way more detailed than senate investigations that the USA are used to, and has significantly more powers.

The semantic of using a term like "knee jerk" is just a vain attempt to deflect the true level of research, stakeholder consultation, and investigation of activities that have proceeded before any legislation was considered.

If the Royal Commission is so wise, as you claim they are, then how many cases of abuse do they *guarantee* their new law will prevent per year?

...Because I have seen no evidence of guaranteed results. In fact, I have heard arguments that the opposite will happen, where people will use generalized confession terms like "I was unchaste 3 times", or "I was unfaithful" or whatever general blanket term they choose. In other cases, sins will just not be confessed. So the Royal Commission sort of looks foolish when they can produce ZERO evidence that their law will have any effect whatever.

 

[Landon Caeli]

At least when the United States passes laws, they show evidence of projected results.

...Apparently That's not a thing in Australia.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The way to do that is to get them to tell you again, outside the confessional. But they have to be willing, which is a problem when they're not.

Is it true that your church would have fully rejected breaking the seal of confession in child abuse cases, if it weren't for this new secular law being passed?

 

[Paidiske]

Is it true that your church would have fully rejected breaking the seal of confession in child abuse cases, if it weren't for this new secular law being passed?

We changed our canon law ahead of (and in anticipation of) the secular legal change. Without the royal commission I doubt we would have changed our canon law.

But yes, before the legal change, we were told very clearly; you never break the seal, you never repeat anything said in confession ever, even if secular law disagrees.

There are still instances where secular law might expect a priest to break the seal and canon law would not permit it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Before continuing to act so Smug; why dont you...

...So by all means continue your smug ways and tell all those catholics they are ridiculous.

This conversation is not about me, Zoii, no more than it is about you and how this issue hits home with you on such a personal level. It has nothing to do with either of those things, but everything to do with whether this law will have any effect other than just causing people not to go to confession.

Because putting men into torture chambers, and telling God that His mercy is less important than our punishments seems kind of smug actually.

 

[Philip_B]

I would like to see a balanced assessment of the consequences of abolishing the seal of the confessional.

I believe that is an overstatement of the intent of the legislation. In reality the seal of the confessional is intact, save for this area where it may no longer be invoked. The seal of the confessional is not at issue as such, simply whether it is absolute and universal, or that there are circumstances where on balance it might be conceived there are higher priorities, and in this case we are talking about the safety of children.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I believe that is an overstatement of the intent of the legislation. In reality the seal of the confessional is intact, save for this area where it may no longer be invoked. The seal of the confessional is not at issue as such, simply whether it is absolute and universal, or that there are circumstances where on balance it might be conceived there are higher priorities, and in this case we are talking about the safety of children.

Except for that there is no evidence that shows this law will produce a single result in it's favor.

...In fact, it has been argued that the opposite will occur -that the number of abused children will actually increase.