Catholic Church Refusing to Follow Australian Law

[Philip_B]

In light of the findings presented here, there is a need for meaningful and in‐depth joint consultations between parliamentary, criminal justice, welfare, victim advocates, and Church
representatives on matters of criminal and welfare mandatory reporting and child sexual abuse to seek avenues for reform. We believe that exemption of Catholic priests from these requirements cannot be justified. Ultimately, it is our hope that the revelations of this study might offer impetus for positive reforms in Victoria and beyond, and underscore the relentless need for more creative and effective means by which victims of sexual abuse can acquire greater access to justice and recompense, through traditional or non‐adversarial approaches.

https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/205/219​

People working closely with children, such as priests or foster carers, should be forced to tell police about sexual abuse under mandatory reporting laws, a royal commission has found.

Religious ministers, out-of-home care workers, childcare workers, registered psychologists and school counsellors should be brought into line with police, doctors and nurses who are all obliged by law to report sexual abuse.

This would include any abuse disclosures made to clergy in confession.

In its final report, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has called for a systematic overhaul of the culture, structure and governance practices which allowed paedophiles to flourish.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fin...ls-for-national-strategy-20171214-h04yrx.html​

Every State, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes that identify persons who are required to report child maltreatment under specific circumstances.1 1 For more information on mandated reporters, see Child Welfare Information Gateway’s Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/ systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/. Approximately 28 States and Guam currently include members of the clergy among those professionals specifically mandated by law to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf​

It is also significant to these discussions that Catholic theology teaches that absolution is only possible when genuine penitence has been achieved. The confidential nature of the confessional is well understood, but unfortunately it would seem that individual understandings of the appropriate priestly responses to possibly difficult moral situations are not quite so universal. Cardinal Pell’s seemingly simplistic suggestion that he would recommend the avoidance of a possible confession of paedophilia sits at odds with Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s alternative approach whereby the confessional may be a means of reaching such a sinner and working to prevent recurrence of the problem. Absolution requires, in the words of the Church, ‘a firm purpose of amendment’ and ‘carefully to avoid the occasions of sin.’ As Bishop Robinson and others suggest, these conditions could well necessitate an approach by the penitent to the secular authorities. (There are some models of the journalists' privilege in which a journalist's adherence to the journalists' code of ethics can be significant when determining the availability of the journalists’ privilege, although there are also concerns about that code’s enforceability and interpretation. It may be that the complex interaction of pastoral care, theology and canon law makes these matters even more difficult to interpret.)

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

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

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

Not by everyone it would seem. I myself have difficulty understanding how one could intelligibly argue the number might increase. My inclination is to suspect that if we leave everything as it is, everything will either remain the same or degrade. I have not for one moment suggested that this is the silver bullet to fix the problem, however I can not see how allowing people to hide in plain sight is awkward as well. One of the problems I see is that if a priest had some concerns, that might have alerted them to the possibility of reporting, hearing the confession of what there were reasonable grounds to suspect essentially disables the priest from reporting.

 

[creslaw]

I myself have difficulty understanding how one could intelligibly argue the number might increase.​

​

The key to understanding this is to realize the new laws mean pedophiles now will not seek access to a priest in the confessional.
To argue that child abuse will not increase under the new laws, is to take the position that no priest has ever been successful in bringing a pedophile to a place of seeking help to restrain his impulses ... and that even now, with the greater understanding and awareness of the issue, no priest ever could. I suggest that this not only fails to appreciate how most priests have striven to combat this evil, but also fails to appreciate the power of God to use a priest for this work. People seem intent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Philip_B]

The key to understanding this is to realize the new laws mean pedophiles now will not seek access to a priest in the confessional. To argue that child abuse will not increase under the new laws, is to take the position that no priest has ever been successful in bringing a pedophile to a place of seeking help to restrain his impulses ... and that even now, with the greater understanding and awareness of the issue, no priest ever could. I suggest that this not only fails to appreciate how most priests have striven to combat this evil, but also fails to appreciate the power of God to use a priest for this work. People seem intent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If you are arguing that the track record of clergy correcting pedophile behavior has been excellent, then you have a difficult case to argue. It would seem clear, on the basis of the findings of the Royal Commision, that it has been a significant and perhaps systematic failure. Now I am not saying that it never happened, or that it could not happen, however I think it is fair to say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it has not happened very much. On reading the articles I linked above, I have concluded that there is a significant body to considered professional opinion to the contrary. Of course, as a result of the sacred seal of the confessional this remains very soft evidence, either way. I have no intent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I am also unlikely to agree that the system has been working perfectly.

 

[creslaw]

If you are arguing that the track record of clergy correcting pedophile behavior has been excellent, then you have a difficult case to argue. It would seem clear, on the basis of the findings of the Royal Commision, that it has been a significant and perhaps systematic failure. Now I am not saying that it never happened, or that it could not happen, however I think it is fair to say that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it has not happened very much. On reading the articles I linked above, I have concluded that there is a significant body to considered professional opinion to the contrary. Of course, as a result of the sacred seal of the confessional this remains very soft evidence, either way. I have no intent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I am also unlikely to agree that the system has been working perfectly.

Excellent ... of course not, nobody would argue that.
Removing the seal of the confessional in the case of pedophiles achieves nothing because they will no longer confess when reporting is obligatory.
So those cases - even if they were rare - where a priest was successful in directing a pedophile to seek help, will no longer happen. That is the baby you throw out with the bathwater by abolishing the confidentiality of confession.

 

[Philip_B]

Removing the seal of the confessional in the case of pedophiles achieves nothing because they will no longer confess when reporting is obligatory.

That may be an assumption, and I wonder if the basis of that assumption is a lack of a real desire to reform.

That is the baby you throw out with the bathwater by abolishing the confidentiality of confession.

It is possible that no longer being able to quiet their conscience in the confessional they will be brought to a position of sufficient disquiet that they do desire to repent and reform.

The question being asked is what is the best way to protect the children, and the minds of several, including the sources I linked to earlier seem to suggest that the professional opinions lean towards excluding clergy from an exemption from mandatory report status.

I reiterate the words abolishing the confidentiality of confession are rendered as if this is universal and like it is being published, where as what is being spoken of is a specific area, and reporting to specific authorities. One brick does not a city make.

 

[Paidiske]

I myself have never been in the position of having to withhold absolution until someone self-reported. Colleagues who have, though, tell me that they have found that penitents, having come to that point, are not unwilling to cooperate with that process.

 

[Zoii]

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.

I dont recall any law in any country placing a guarantee of compliance or efficacy when the legislation is drafted. What occurs, at least in Australia, is that laws are based on evidence and benchmarking.

You will know for example in your own country, that just because you pass drug laws, doesn't mean you eliminate drugs. That still doesn't make the law unnecessary.

 

[Zoii]

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.

I've never stated that this was personal issue for me at any time.

As to whether this law will have an effect - well on its own I'd argue its not a panacea, but rather its one of numerous strategies legislated as a result of the Royal Commissions recommendations - I remind you that the recommendations from the Royal Commission were not just some whimsical made up view point; but rather the result of exhaustive investigation and research.

I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence.

 

[Zoii]

​

The key to understanding this is to realize the new laws mean pedophiles now will not seek access to a priest in the confessional.
To argue that child abuse will not increase under the new laws, is to take the position that no priest has ever been successful in bringing a pedophile to a place of seeking help to restrain his impulses ... and that even now, with the greater understanding and awareness of the issue, no priest ever could. I suggest that this not only fails to appreciate how most priests have striven to combat this evil, but also fails to appreciate the power of God to use a priest for this work. People seem intent on throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Heck - have you been reading the material? - The Roman Catholic Church certainly isn't denying that it repeatedly heard confessions of paedophilia and then sent the person away with a Hail Mary and "pray on it" .....and then do it all again...and again..... and in one case of a paedophile priest, 1500 times.

 

[creslaw]

Heck - have you been reading the material? - The Roman Catholic Church certainly isn't denying that it repeatedly heard confessions of paedophilia and then sent the person away with a Hail Mary and "pray on it" .....and then do it all again...and again..... and in one case of a paedophile priest, 1500 times.

Obviously you choose to ignore the changes that have taken place in the approach to this matter in the CC over the last 20 years.

I was interested to read Ashton's comments in The Australian today.

"Victoria police chief Graham Ashton backed the right of priests to retain the seal of the confessional over mandatory reporting of child sex offending".
"Mr Ashton submitted that police would support priests being able to keep confessional discussions secret, declaring that the force had not identified the rite of the confessional as a barrier to reporting sex abuse allegations."

 

[Zoii]

Obviously you choose to ignore the changes that have taken place in the approach to this matter in the CC over the last 20 years.

I was interested to read Ashton's comments in The Australian today.

"Victoria police chief Graham Ashton backed the right of priests to retain the seal of the confessional over mandatory reporting of child sex offending".
"Mr Ashton submitted that police would support priests being able to keep confessional discussions secret, declaring that the force had not identified the rite of the confessional as a barrier to reporting sex abuse allegations."

Its not up to an individual such as a policeman. This has followed recommendations from the ARC. Its ludicrous to ignore such recommendations that follow a root cause analysis approach.
It is the same approach to plane crash assessments and coroners findings. In such processes no-one is interested in tired excuses from a historical past. The only thing of value is determining the root cause and using evidence based strategies to deal with that root cause.

A policeman saying he will support an errant priest is nothing knew. Most Australians know what went on within the police force in terms of colluding with rapist priests in the area of Newcastle, Kurri Kurri and Maitland.

So the Australian public isnt interested in the complaints of the church or the whim of a single policeman. We want to understand the root cause and evidence based solutions. Once that is found we want laws to lock those solutions in place - Job done.

 

[creslaw]

Its not up to an individual such as a policeman. This has followed recommendations from the ARC. Its ludicrous to ignore such recommendations that follow a root cause analysis approach.
It is the same approach to plane crash assessments and coroners findings. In such processes no-one is interested in tired excuses from a historical past. The only thing of value is determining the root cause and using evidence based strategies to deal with that root cause.

A policeman saying he will support an errant priest is nothing knew. Most Australians know what went on within the police force in terms of colluding with rapist priests in the area of Newcastle, Kurri Kurri and Maitland.

So the Australian public isnt interested in the complaints of the church or the whim of a single policeman. We want to understand the root cause and evidence based solutions. Once that is found we want laws to lock those solutions in place - Job done.

You still continue to justify your position by reference to historical cases and ignoring current practices ... as well as ignoring the greater potential for addressing the situation through judicious use of the seal of the confessional than its abolition.

BTW, the considered & informed views of the Commissioner of Victoria Police can hardly be described as "the whim of a single policeman".

 

[Paidiske]

I'd suggest that making absolution dependent on self-reporting is "judicious use" of the seal.

The bishops of my diocese have very recently sent out new direction on the hearing of confessions. I note that that includes this (emphases mine):

"It is important to note that true penitence requires both recognition of the need for forgiveness and amendment of life. It is not the case that every confession of sin is to be immediately followed by the pronouncement of absolution... Sometimes it may be pastorally and spiritually appropriate or necessary for the penitent to perform some action, traditionally referred to as penance, prior to being absolved.

This may involve, for example, action required to remedy some wrong insofar as it is possible to do so, to forgive or to ask forgiveness of another person, or to report a crime committed to the appropriate authorities, both civil and ecclesial. In such situations, the absolution will normally be withheld, and may take place at a later time, after any act of penance required has been carried out.

The advice of the Australian bishops to clergy hearing a confession in circumstances whereby true contrition will require reporting to an appropriate authority, is that an assurance of God's forgiveness should not be offered at the time of hearing the confession... Absolution should only be pronounced when it is certain the matter has been reported to the appropriate authority."

So there we go. Since clergy are bound by oath to obey our bishops, that is now the standard we are expected to uphold. And since it's a matter of self-reporting by the penitent, the seal in fact remains intact.

 

[creslaw]

I'd suggest that making absolution dependent on self-reporting is "judicious use" of the seal.

That point has been made before but included the condition that there was evidence the penitent was receiving professional help. My view is that it could be either or and not only self-reporting because help is more crucial to eliminating behaviour than incarceration. Recidivism is notoriously high among pedophiles.

So there we go. Since clergy are bound by oath to obey our bishops, that is now the standard we are expected to uphold. And since it's a matter of self-reporting by the penitent, the seal in fact remains intact.

Am I understanding you correctly that Anglican priests involved in the confessional rite will not disclose accounts by perpetrators of child sexual abuse?

 

[Paidiske]

Recidivism is notoriously high among pedophiles.

Which is why they need to be reported, not have clergy trying to act beyond our competence in holding them accountable.

Am I understanding you correctly that Anglican priests involved in the confessional rite will not disclose accounts by perpetrators of child sexual abuse?

Not exactly.

The upshot of the bishops' instruction is that there is to be no absolution without self-reporting. If someone refuses to self-report, they are not in fact penitent, absolution is withheld and the priest is to report. But in that case, it's not seen as having been a valid confession in the first place.

 

[creslaw]

The upshot of the bishops' instruction is that there is to be no absolution without self-reporting. If someone refuses to self-report, they are not in fact penitent, absolution is withheld and the priest is to report. But in that case, it's not seen as having been a valid confession in the first place.

So the priest is basically saying "you tell the police or I will". It then seems a bit disingenuous to claim that the "seal in fact remains intact". I hope efforts will be made to ensure all parishioners are informed otherwise it would not be much different to entrapment.
Will the same conditions apply to the physical abuse of children?

 

[Paidiske]

So the priest is basically saying "you tell the police or I will".

Sexual abuse of children going unreported is not an option any more.

SoI hope efforts will be made to ensure all parishioners are informed otherwise it would not be much different to entrapment.

Every penitent is to be advised that serious criminal matters disclosed in confession will require reporting as part of penance.

Will the same conditions apply to the physical abuse of children?

While not specifically addressed in the advice given, I would think if the physical abuse amounted to a serious criminal matter, then yes.

 

[Zoii]

You still continue to justify your position by reference to historical cases and ignoring current practices ... as well as ignoring the greater potential for addressing the situation through judicious use of the seal of the confessional than its abolition.

BTW, the considered & informed views of the Commissioner of Victoria Police can hardly be described as "the whim of a single policeman".

Whether he be commissioner or a cop on the beat; he is out of step with evidenced based solutions derived from a root cause analysis. Anything else whether its the RCC view, your view or that cop - its just a whim - The Australian public has the root cause laid before them and evidence based solutions and that's what we want and now have.

 

[Paidiske]

This article in a Jesuit publication just popped up on my FB feed: https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=56068

About the author: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/IND.0610.001.0001.pdf