The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Breaking the seal of the confessional > Comments

Breaking the seal of the confessional : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 26/6/2018

The concept is similar to the duty of confidentiality which obliges legal advisors to respect their clients' affairs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Peter Bowden. One of the more dangerous anti conservative Libertarian anti-Christians.
He should be silenced!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 10:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be a very brave or very stupid government that interfered with the Catholic confessional. And, who says the the few priests who have committed offences have ever confessed them; or that future offenders would confess? If governments espousing freedom of religion start dictating what goes on within a church, the wheels will start falling off shortly after.

“The NSW government needs to 'desanctify' the confessional”. So much for the separation of church and state. But, the most absurd thing with this anti-Catholic waffle is the naive belief that what is said, one priest to another, in a little private box, will be revealed just because a law might be passed saying it should; if anything is said about child abuse, that is - and there is no proof that there have ever been any confessions of sexual crime. Compulsory electronic surveillance, perhaps?

Where 90% of sexual abuse is committed by relatives of the victims, there is no excuse for singling out the Catholic church - except as an opportunity for cultural Marxists to continue discriminating against the Christian religion.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 10:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The protection of kids ought to trump all and every other consideration. The 'church', meaning any and all religious groups ought to be subjected too, and prosecuted under all secular law.

And no, I am not anti-abortion!
Posted by petere, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 10:51:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//And, who says the the few priests who have committed offences have ever confessed them//

The priests who have committed offences.

"Father Michael McArdle made an affidavit in 2004 stating he had confessed 1500 times to molesting children to 30 different priests over a 25-year period.

After being forgiven 1500 times in face-to-face confessions with his fellow priests, the Queenslander was told merely to “go home and pray”."

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/06/14/confession-child-abuse-royal-commission/
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 11:09:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if the Indigeneous activist who are turning a blind eye to child abuse today are going to be held accountable for turning their eyes from long time cultural practices. Maybe secret 'mens' business might need some examination. While I am no fan of the Catholic church I find Peter's obsession as an 'ethicist' puzzling. The fact that he supports so called 'gay' marriage and killing the unborn shows that his ethics don't come from decency or biology. Isn't is that other 'ethicist' singer who says bestiality is fine as long as consensual. These guys certainly don't get their ethics by thinking rationally or science.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 11:11:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
«Both Archbishops Hart and Fisher are out of step with Australian moral values.»

There is this which is moral and there is this which is immoral. How foolish to think that time, geography and popularity could change that!

Hatred of religion knows no bounds, underlying which is the fear of morality. Australia is gradually descending into darkness, thus we need to prepare for martyrdom.

But today, let me address some practical aspects: it won't change the minds of those whose primary motivation is to oppress religion, but it may change the minds of those who genuinely care about child sexual abuse.

Confession is not in the sole domain of churches: criminals who wish to repent, to ease their burden of guilt and try to reform, have historically also confessed to therapists and support-groups, including within secular, left-leaning and new-age workshops.

Due to mandatory reporting laws, criminals who want to reform are already barred from accessing therapy - no counselling, doctors or psychologists for them to help them overcome their addiction. Result? they keep offending!

There are therapeutic group-workshops where confidentiality is absolute just like the Catholic confessional. All participants and staff vow that whatever they hear there stays in that room, no matter what, even if someone confesses "I killed and ate my grandmother". With the new laws of disclosure, such workshops too would have to close down. Even when such workshops are not focused on sexuality, they can no longer go ahead, for fear that child-sexual-abuse might somehow be mentioned within.

Similarly, there are victims, abused-children who want to tell their experience and be healed, but many of which DO NOT want to perpetuate the pain by having their offenders jailed on their behalf - they too no longer have recourse to healing. They too are more likely to become perpetrators themselves.

The new "Australian moral values" seem to be about revenge and against forgiveness. God and Christ have been banished, so some are very happy about it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 11:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The status quo has failed. Change is inevitable.

I have long held an opinion that the churches are a blight on our society. That is my right.

I also respect the opinion of others to differ.

However, I cannot and do not support a notion that, somehow, the god-botherers in our midst are entitled to have their own laws. That's simply unacceptable in many ways.

Say as loudly and as often as you wish that you disagree with me and will vote against breaking the seal; that's OK. But don't tell me what to think or how to vote or not to vote, should the time come. Please also respect the voting statistics from Ireland and the need to protect children, including from that admitted 7% of offending priests. Australians will, this being a democracy, determine Australian laws without having them thrust upon us by those for whom we have neither faith nor respect.

The proposal is an essential, small step towards bringing to account those priests and parishioners who currently rely on faith-based absolution where what is appropriate is trial, followed by confinement and/or rehabilitation for the guilty and care for those affected.

Those of contrary opinion must first demonstrate how their opinion overrides the needs of those who have been sinned against.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 12:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Engineer,

«Those of contrary opinion must first demonstrate how their opinion overrides the needs of those who have been sinned against.»

Revenge is not a need, but a primitive and senseless desire. While it might feel good for a short while, it does not forward the victim one iota, but rather sinks them down into guilt themselves.

«I cannot and do not support a notion that, somehow, the god-botherers in our midst are entitled to have their own laws.»

And who are you anyway, mister/madam, to impose your own laws upon them in the first place?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 12:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Yours is a rhetorical question; we know that aboriginal abuse is ignored: further proof that people who want the law sooled onto the the church are just common or garden Christianophobes.

It appears that ‘ethicists’ do not themselves have to be ethical.

None of these harpers and carpers complain about patient confidentiality, nor the fact that a defendant in court cannot have his previous convictions revealed.

And, yes Yuyutsu. Morals and values do not change over time. Only people change - for the worse, more often than not.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 12:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being born and raised as a Catholic - the confessional has
always been something that a priest could never reveal.
It was something that none of us ever questioned.

We never thought about the fact that criminals
who confessed their acts
were often back in the community able to continue with their
misdeeds. The Church has had plenty of time to think of
the safety of adults and children and what has not been revealed
as the results of keeping things secret. Of course there's the
argument that
Priests do try in the confessional to persuade the perpetrators
to turn themselves in and not give them absolution until they do.
But this seems to have had little effect on serial offenders.

What bothers me - is that the Church through the confessional
hides a multitude of crimes and the acts of people who continue
to offend. It is time that the Church eliminated the confessional
altogether. As far as I'm aware, the confessional was created
by the church - as a money-raising initiative. (You paid
in the past for absolution). They could be forced by law to
fix this problem. We cannot have one set of laws for the state
and another for religion. We are a secular state after
all, and the one set of laws should apply to us all. Religious
laws should not have any legal status in this secular country.
of ours.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 1:45:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

We profess to have a separation of Church and State.
Therefore we need to put our money where our mouths
are - and force the Church to come to the party so to speak
or cut off their funding and tax exemptions.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 1:47:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I support your second option wholeheartedly: "cut off their funding and tax exemptions".

However, when you speak of separation of Church and State, this cannot be one sided: you may not isolate and protect the state from the church without also isolating and protecting the church from the state!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 1:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps we could allow the seal of the confessional to remain, but on one simple condition. The church adopts the following policy:

The penitent, having confessed the sin of sexual abuse of a child to a priest, will be absolved of their sin only after making a full confession to the police and pleading guilty to the charges in court.
Posted by JBSH, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 1:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The seal of the confessional? And appropriate in any religion founded by Constantine or his minions

Which it is where alleged Christians got it from. Not from Jesus who said, suffer little children to come unto me!

Any church or religion that protects, this? Why? Because it's been priests and clergy, who have been the worst offenders and a case of birds of a feather flocking together and protecting the offenders from justice.

Time for this manmade BS to be ditched, to be replaced with folk owning up or be given up. This betrayal is amongst the most heinous of crimes and should be treated as such instead of being buried in canon law.

Canon law is the product of a later day church that came with bishops and popes riding at the head of hordes, smitting the unbeliever with sword and shield. And ordering the unrepentant be hung drawn and quartered?

Time to stop hiding behind manmade cannon law and allowing the evildoers to pay for their heinous crimes! And should include an automatic defrocking when clergy have offended! As opposed to moving them on and to a new group of victims!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 26 June 2018 3:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Because we are a secular state - religous laws have
no legal status.. We have the one set of laws and those are
the ones passed by our Parliament and we are all
supposed to abide by them.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 3:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//None of these harpers and carpers complain about patient confidentiality//

Patient confidentiality does not protect paedophiles (and nor should it). It hasn't done for some time now. Pretty much every profession that works closely with children except priests are subject to 'mandatory reporting' legislation.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 5:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JBSH,

Priests do not absolve sins - God does.

(and priests who believe that it is themselves who absolve, are heretics)

Are you seriously suggesting to limit God, telling Him in which circumstances He can or cannot absolve?

Just as many wrongs are not punishable by courts, neither all things that are punishable by courts are wrong.

What matters is genuine repentance, not punishment.

And one important case you failed to address, is when the "penitent" is not the perpetrator, but rather the child/victim who specifically came to confession, instead of to police or to a psychologist, for the very reason that they trust the confidentiality and don't want the matter known and prosecuted.

---

Dear Foxy,

I never suggested that religious laws should have legal status: if any church-official suggested that, then I could only conclude that they are corrupt to the core.

Rather, what religious people do deserve, is to be left alone by the state - otherwise your talk of "separation" is a farce. True separation means living independently side-by-side, but in your one-sided "separation", the church may not influence the state, yet the state can still crush the church... it sounds like "children should be seen, but not heard"...

Now your statement "we are a secular state" is very disturbing: speak for yourself as much as you like, but the word 'we' includes me as well and I know for certain that I am NOT a state or part thereof, secular or otherwise. In your short post you keep mentioning this "we" or "our" several times and this is both insulting and false.

---

Dear Toni,

«Pretty much every profession that works closely with children except priests are subject to 'mandatory reporting' legislation.»

Yes, and knowing of that fact prevents both perpetrators and children from seeking help, conciliation and healing.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 6:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You can consider yourself not to be a part of "The State,"
however you live in "The State," and no matter how you feel,
there are laws that you are required to obey - whether you
like it or not. Try disobeying them - and see how far you
get.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 7:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

"We have the one set of laws and those are
the ones passed by our Parliament and we are all
supposed to abide by them"

Have you forgotten recent discussions re Tribal Law?
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 8:10:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The State can pass laws abolishing the seal of the confessional but it cannot stop the Pope or the Bishops from making General Confession the norm in any country that passes such a law.
This is, in effect, silent confession and the priest gives a General Absolution.

So get around that!
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 8:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ mise:
"This is... silent confession and the priest gives a General Absolution. So get around that!"

What meaningless blather!

If that is all that confessional means, then fair enough - you are welcome to it. Confess to nothing, admit to nothing and the priest knows nothing. The absolution, "general" though it may be, is no more meaningful or heartfelt than the confession which preceded it.

However, if those who choose to actually confess and do thus admit to crimes that are legally reportable by priests, then the law must be complied with.

Indeed, as far as I know, there is no legal exemption to reporting for priests, so the law is the law and religion is only a valueless opinion.

Get around that!
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 8:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The State can pass laws abolishing the seal of the confessional but it cannot stop the Pope or the Bishops from making General Confession the norm in any country that passes such a law.
This is, in effect, silent confession and the priest gives a General Absolution.

So get around that!//

No, it isn't that simple. General Absolution is only a valid form of the Sacrament of Penance under very specific circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolution#General_absolution
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 26 June 2018 11:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Bowden

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think will occure if the confessional is mandated to report confessions that deal with child abusers? Think it through to the end please.

If priests are the target of these confessional reports and they are aware of this rule when they take office, then what is the likelihood that they will confess a sin of child abuse to a fellow priest? The only two thoughts I can come up with is:

1). A priest guilty of this sin, of this crime, will not confess it and nothing to help the sitution will result.

2). Instead of desantifying the confessional, it becomes more sanctified. Thereby more priests might sill confess their sin (if and when they do sin against children), even though they know it will likely be reported. Because of their position as a priest being right with God might be more important then having their sins turned to the authorities.

Of these two potential outcomes which one do you think your views will lead to? More help with reducing child abuse among priests, or less help to reduce child abuse among priests? (Or no effect at all).

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 2:09:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

With this in mind I think there are other means that should be tried to fight against child abuse among priests.

One is to reduce the workload of priests in the congressionals they serve by having a call for more people to serve in their churches and have Christians be more active in their church ministries. If this is done, then priests will hopefully not be tempted to do wrong with children, because they won't be alone with them as much. Or because more people will answer that call and become priests themselves reducing the workload over large communities and hopefully reduce the stress that might break a priest to sin by taking it out on children.

Another means to try is to allow priests to marry. If there is less sexual tension because they have a wife to love, then they will (again) hopefully lower the amount of abuses given to children.

By making confessionals an unsafe place to confess sins, this would likely cause a rift in people coming to confessionals, instead of making them a means of reducing or stoping sin.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 2:12:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter (Bowden),

.

There’s no way the Christian Churches could possibly ignore the fact that the confessional is an incitement to commit criminal offences and “sins”.

Even if we give the conceivers of the rite the benefit of the doubt and consider that it was not their original intention, the fact is that, far from acting as a deterrent, it encourages recidivism.

A classic example of just how easily this antagonistic effect can occur is related by Michael G. Vann, in "Of Rats, Rice, and Race: The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre, an Episode in French Colonial History" published by the French Colonial History Society (May, 2003): In Hanoi, under French colonial rule, a program paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to the farming of rats.

Tony Lavis cited a particularly pertinent example in his post on page 1 of this thread :

« Father Michael McArdle made an affidavit in 2004 stating he had confessed 1500 times to molesting children to 30 different priests over a 25-year period.

After being forgiven 1500 times in face-to-face confessions with his fellow priests, the Queenslander was told merely to “go home and pray” ».

The priest declared :

« After each confession, it was like a magic wand had been waved over me » :

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/06/14/confession-child-abuse-royal-commission/
.

It is evident that the Christian Churches will have to put their houses in order. If they fail to do so, the State will be obliged to intervene, one way or another.

Pope Francis excommunicated the Mafia in Clabria in 2014. There are very few offenses that can lead to excommunication. Procuring an abortion is one – for which the punishment is automatic – and, perhaps unsurprisingly, physically attacking the Pope himself.

It seems to me that the least he could do would be to excommunicate priests and others found guilty of sexually abusing children.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 8:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

Good link, but the Pope can change that at the stroke of a pen, so get around that.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 11:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Another means to try is to allow priests to marry. If there is less sexual tension because they have a wife to love, then they will (again) hopefully lower the amount of abuses given to children."

Interesting, but it wouldn't apply to homosexual paedophiles.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 12:49:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«there are laws that you are required to obey»

Required by whom? A bunch of bullies, that's all they are!

«Try disobeying them - and see how far you get.»

So having no good argument, you resort to threats?

This is the language of fear, the language of Mafia - next you will probably claim that states give us protection...

---

Laws like this will simply stop confessions altogether.

There may be some exceptions, such as dying people who would no longer be able to tell anyone else what they confessed, but alas, an undercover policeman could still pretend to be dying in order to trap a priest.

Or confessing elderly women who could not have been a perpetrator nor a victim, but alas, nowadays perpetrators could have changed their gender (perhaps even for the very purpose to stop offending).

Most likely, those who want to confess (about anything, commonly having nothing to do with child-abuse) will travel overseas, perhaps on special cruises in international waters, or visiting priests may fly in, take confessions, then be out of Australia on the next flight.

A great therapeutic and spiritual technique will be lost!

The spiritual value of confession is in the confession itself - the absolution part may stimulate people to confess, but has little value in itself. It is also unimportant for the person who listens to a confession to be a priest, although people tend to choose priests as confessors because they trust them better not to disclose what was said.

Whether you are religious or otherwise, whether you actually offended anyone or only imagine you did, the opportunity to share one's guilt with a non-judgemental other, is invaluable!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 1:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Good link, but the Pope can change that at the stroke of a pen, so get around that.//

I suppose he can. I'm less convinced that he will.

Why do you want to see paedophiles protected, anyway? I don't get it. It's weird. Paedophiles are dicks. Why would you go into bat for them?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 1:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comments of Yuyutzu and Not.now.soon leave me in despair. You almost defend the monsters who claim to represent your 'God', as if their working conditions forced them to abuse children. You are clearly uneducated about pedophilia and are in denial about the part everyday Catholics like yourselves have played in financially supporting an institution that openly commits, (still!), human rights abuses, particularly against third world women. I would never put a cent in that plate they pass around and am staggered that anyone with a conscience still does.

As a mental health practitioner who has heard many, many tales of abuse at the hands of your 'men of God', with the destruction of entire families that has resulted, I support the idea that smoking out any opportunities for cockroaches like these to avoid detection is essential. Priests have proven themselves to be morally decrepit and not to be trusted (since they are only ordinary men) and should be forced to abide by state law, not hide behind ancient laws that have no relevance in modern society. Law-abiding Catholics should have nothing to fear by losing the confidentiality of the confessional and if they want to commit a 'sin', should look forward to a nice prison stay like any other citizen.

Honestly, if children weren't brainwashed with this backward, ghost-story, clap-trap, the pews would be empty already. Intelligent adults would never participate in organisations like these, if they were allowed to choose for themselves.
Posted by Forwardplease, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 4:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Forward,

1) I am not Catholic, not even Christian.

2) No priest will break the seal of the confessional - there will simply no longer be confessions in Australia. I suppose it makes you very happy, but it won't make child-victims of paedophilia happy. Due to mandatory-reporting laws, the conscientious ones among them already cannot use your services as a mental-health practitioner, now they will not be able to use confession either. What's left for them? Suicide perhaps? Or becoming a perpetrator themselves?

3) Problematic as the Catholic Church is, the state is the worst cockroach of all and nobody should be made to abide by their laws. Yes, offending priests should pay for their crimes, but not at the hands of the state (also not with my tax-money). Instead, the church itself should instruct them to cut off their offending members and drown themselves if even that doesn't work.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 5:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Nobody is threatening you Sir.

However, we have covered this ground in other discussions.
I really do not care to cover the same ground with you
once again. Except to once again state that ours is a
secular state. As such it can protect the freedom of all
religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on
faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate
stream of law derived from religious sources that competes
with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society. The source of our law is the democratically elected
legislature.

It is high time that religious organisations were made to
account for the misdeeds of their clergy in the courts.
And punished accordingly as appropriate.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 6:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

"But there is not a separate
stream of law derived from religious sources that competes
with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil
society. The source of our law is the democratically elected
legislature."

Have you got a blind spot about Tribal Law, which is religious law at bottom.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 9:57:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tribal law which results in barbaric actions are still tolerated today. Much of Indigenous mythology is used to justify these actions. The left are very selective in their generalisations.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 27 June 2018 10:06:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Is Mise. You said:

<Interesting, but it wouldn't apply to homosexual paedophiles.>

There are a few verses in the bible that instead of suggesting priests to be celibate, (I think Mathew 19:10-12 is were celibacy among priests stems from); instead of suggesting that, the qualifications for being a deacon or an overseer (including elders and priests) is to have a family that they manage well and being faithful to their wife. (1 Timothy 3:4, 3:12, Titus 1:5-9). I'm there use if they can't manage their family well how could they manage the church.

Therefore if in order to be a priest a man would require to have (or have had) a family and manage the family well. I hat would potentially resolve both sex issues of child abuse and homosexual pedophiles. Also though I can think of the verses right now there are a few that might lead to certain behaviors being enough to lose their station of leading the church. (Such as being divorced or committing adultery). If these rules were applied to priesthood then I think it would dramatically change the problems associated with priests abusing children.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 June 2018 1:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Yes, I have read this paragraph several times before.
It mentions 'our' (or 'ours') three times: "ours is a secular state", "our civil society" and "our law".

For "our" there must first be "us": who are those "us"?

Certainly it does not include myself because I don't own a state (secular or otherwise), a society (civil or otherwise) or a law.

You see, I have no interest to impose any of the above on you and your people, but your people (whoever the "our" refers to) want to impose theirs on me and on religious people in general.

As for the cover/excuse of democracy, I have no interest in the internal arrangements, mechanisms and procedures within your group - it's really none of my business how you handle things among you, just leave me alone as well as all others who never agreed to belong to your group to begin with.

You say: "It is high time that religious organisations were made to account for the misdeeds of their clergy in the courts"

No, there is no such thing as "THE courts", what you really mean is that you want others to be judged in YOUR courts, that is in the courts of YOUR GROUP, the predators who impose themselves by force over the rest of us.

At least don't lie as if you want "separation of state and church": I do, but you don't want separation, you rather want the state, your own particular group, to dominate and crush the religious.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

It is great for you to come out with ideas on how to reduce child-sexual-abuse in churches. I believe we all like that and should indeed discuss it, but elsewhere because it dilutes this topic, which is the dangerous subjugation of religion by secular states.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 June 2018 1:33:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Forwardplease.

I'm not trying to defend child abuse among priests, but I am trying to offer solutions that can be applied. Think of it this way. If there is a field of work that a significant number of people in that field commit a certain crime, then it might be less about the people in the field being bad people, and more that that field of work can draw out that kind of crime out of people. The dynamics of police brutality for instance point to this kind of situation, where the work environment might draw out a certain negative behavior. With police I wouldn't say their work is not needed and to remove the career from society; but I would say there's significant amount of stress in their job along with putting their life on the line and fighting tensions of anti cop philosophies in the culture. If there is a way to help the police in their work environment then hopefully the issue can be resolved.

Going back to priests, my position is that if priests are required to turn other priests in when they confess their sins, then I don't think the offending priest will confess unless they are more devoted to God, that they are willing to lose their position of priesthood. In my opinion it would only stop the confessions not help catch them. With that in mind I think the suggestions I gave might lessen or even stop the issue of abuse among priests.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 June 2018 2:04:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu. Jesus did not encourage rebellion. And though I'm having trouble finding the verses where He said it, I'm sure Jesus said to not rebel against the rulers that ruled over Israel. Either way that message is also conveyed in Hebrews 13 and Romans 13. To not rebel against the authorities that rule over you. (Flee from them is fine though). To put it into perspective the state Israel was in while under Roman rule was under much oppression that is at a much harsher degree then what your talking about with religious rights and the responsibilities and power of the government's we live in. (You don't need to own it to be part of it's society).

With that in mind to respect those who rule over you (government powers that be), even in the situation of oppressive Roman rule. With that in mind I must disagree with your conclusions of the government having no right or authority to punish criminals who break the law. Religious rights can not, nor should not, be an excuse to let a crime flourish and harm the people the authorities are charged to look over.

If that helps resolve the topic your concerned with, great. Then let's move back to the subject matter of finding solutions to child abuse among churches, (which is I believe the main point of the article that started this discussion.)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 28 June 2018 2:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We will probably never know all that Jesus really told his disciples: suppose he encouraged them to rebel - do you think that his disciples would dare to write it? And even if they had, do you think that the Romans and Emperor Constantine would allow that to remain in the New Testament?

The Jews did rebel in fact, thirty-something years after Jesus - and the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed as a result.

You are a Christian, presumably of European ancestry: European Churches were part of the regime for many centuries, in fact they were willing partners to many of the atrocities of the state. For a long while it was inconceivable that the state would rise against the church, well at least until Henry VIII in England, but even there the church quickly rejoined the regime.

European Christians thus got too comfortable, too used to being in power, they were spoilt and failed to see that one day the wheel will turn against them as well. It does now, and if you are complacent, then this trend will only gain momentum. Some secular ideologists, including in this very forum, are only too happy to crush any expression of religion. Where would you personally stop? When would you finally disobey their laws? Perhaps when they forbid prayer and the practice of communion (it is not far-fetched, some countries already do it)?

You suggested that fleeing from authorities is OK - where to? Muslim Indonesia? Communist China? Due to overpopulation, no country is now free and states control the whole earth. In biblical times you could still run to the hills and to the desert, but now they have the technology to catch you anywhere, including satellites, drones, miniature cameras and sonars that can see through walls.

You may believe that states have a right to punish criminals - I won't go into that, because the issue here isn't about what states do, but of forcing YOU to actively help them and be part of their actions, even when this is against your conscience and against your religion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 June 2018 9:11:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

According to the specialists, paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder which emerges before or during puberty and is stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen and, unfortunately, there is no known cure for it.

Psychiatric treatment with appropriate medication can help attenuate the symptoms to some extent and, as Yuyutsu pointed out on page 5 of this thread, the mere fact of being able to talk to someone about their problem can also help – to some extent.

Nevertheless, the fact is that all those individuals who, as adults, subsequently decided to enter the priesthood, did so knowing full well that they had a major personal problem due to their sexual orientation towards young children. There is no escaping that fact. It cannot be otherwise. Either they had already practised paedophilia (perhaps, even, on more than one occasion) or, at the very least, they were, necessarily, perfectly conscious of their uncontrollable sexual urges towards young children.

Neither they, nor anybody else, were obliged to enter the priesthood. Such an important decision is strictly personal. A purely voluntary engagement. Knowing what they knew about themselves, they should never have become priests.

They bear an extremely serious spiritual, moral and legal responsibility.

Call it a health problem if you will, a mental disorder, a neurological abnormality or a psychological pathology, the problem is, they were perfectly aware of their illness and yet wilfully and knowingly chose to enter the priesthood where they knew full well that, in all probability, they would come into close contact with young children whose parents would trust them as members of the clergy. They could not possibly have ignored that it was almost certain they would not be able to resist transgressing their vows and betraying that trust.

And just as premeditated murder is a more serious crime that just plain murder, premeditated paedophilia is also a more serious crime that just plain paedophilia.

The Christian Churches may not consider paedophilia to be a “sin”, a transgression of “divine” law, but it is a crime under human law – to which they, too, are subject.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 28 June 2018 9:12:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

"The Christian Churches may not consider paedophilia to be a “sin”, a transgression of “divine” law, but it is a crime under human law – to which they, too, are subject."

They do consider it a sin, that's why they have been forgiving it.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 June 2018 10:24:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I can see that you are merely stirring.
You understand full well what laws we are all
subject to living in this country. You are
not exception to them. However, I find it is
pointless to continue this discussion.

Have a nice day.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 June 2018 10:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

"Why do you want to see paedophiles protected, anyway? I don't get it. It's weird. Paedophiles are dicks. Why would you go into bat for them?"

I'm not going in to bat for them, I'm merely pointing out the futility of trying to make a priest give up someone who has confessed to him.

How would the law be implemented?
How would the evidence be collected?

Agents provocateurs?

We might also consider that anyone who is prepared to commit the
mortal sin of sexually molesting children would be quite prepared to commit the lesser sin of not going to confession.

There is also General Confession, which would seem to be another way around the problem; in a General Confession past sins which may span a number of years are confessed but not necessarily all past sins.

"...However, one of the necessary dispositions for receiving valid absolution, when only a general confession was made, is that the penitent "resolve to confess in due time each one of the grave sins which he cannot confess at present."

a valid reason for not then confessing would be that the priest is required by law to report some sins to the State authorities and the penitent resolves to confess when he is in a Jurisdiction that has no such law.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33707
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 June 2018 12:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Call it a health problem if you will, a mental disorder, a neurological abnormality or a psychological pathology, the problem is, they were perfectly aware of their illness and yet wilfully and knowingly chose to enter the priesthood where they knew full well that, in all probability, they would come into close contact with young children whose parents would trust them as members of the clergy. They could not possibly have ignored that it was almost certain they would not be able to resist transgressing their vows and betraying that trust.'

pretty good point Banjo. Same principle applies to the liberal artist who have a pretty sad record.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 June 2018 1:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«You understand full well what laws we are all subject to living in this country. You are not exception to them.»

Are you familiar with the story about the dragon who settled near a village and demanded from the villagers to provide him every week with a barrel of wine to drink and a young virgin maiden to eat, otherwise he would burn the whole village down?

This seems to be your fair concept of justice - a dragon after all should get anything he wants because he's a dragon...

Well, there are people for whom their ability to practice their religion is even more important than the lives of their virgin daughters, or indeed their own!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 June 2018 3:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

The refusal to acknowledge the rule of law as laid
down by democratic institutions stabs at the heart
of the Australian compact.

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked in an
interview on the 7.30 Report a few years ago:
"But don't you think Australian Muslims - Muslims
living in Australia - also have a responsibility to
adhere to Australian law?" To which he answered.
"This is a big problem. There are two laws - there is an
Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

No. this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament
under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept
that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is
and what it stand for. Our State is a secular State. As such
it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship.

I shall repeat for you - Religion instructs its adherents on
faith, morals and conscience. But there is not separate stream
of law derived from religious sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The
source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi
Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person want to live under
sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease.
But not Australia.

Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the right
and liberties of others. The right to live without being maimed,
the right to live without being bombed - and as such they forfeit
the right to join in Australian citizenship. The refusal to
acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions
stabs at the heart of the Australian compact.

We have a compact in this country to live under a democratic
legislature and obey the laws it makes. In doing this the rights and
liberties of all are protected.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 28 June 2018 7:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You indicate :

« They [the Christian Churches]do consider it [paedophilia] a sin, that's why they have been forgiving it »

That seems a logical observation, Is Mise. I am inclined to agree with you.

Should we therefore interpret the fact that so many paedophiles are attracted to the Church in order to be forgiven their “sins” ? Do they view the Church simply as a safe haven – or, perhaps, as a ruse, an excellent “fishnet” for trapping their innocent little victims : “suffer the little children to come unto me …” ? Is that why they decide to enter into the priesthood ? Or do they see it as an act of contrition ?

If so, their contrition is self-centered and selfish, aimed at securing forgiveness, a safe haven, a fiendish disguise and a strategic vantage point for their heinous intentions – but, then, I doubt that they would ever admit that, even to themselves.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 28 June 2018 8:48:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Why do your words sound so familiar?
I have already responded to them in the past, not just once or twice,
but I can see that a new preamble and epilogue were added, so please allow me to relate to them:

By extension of your logic, if a woman victim refuses to accept the sexual superiority of men and instead screams in agony for being raped, then she stabs at the heart of the male-sexual-dominance compact.

I doubt that a weakling like myself, who is viewed by your government as an insignificant insect, is capable of no less than stabbing at the heart of this, so-called but non-existent, "Australian compact". Yet, if you say that I AM able to do so, then I take it as a compliment.

«We have a compact in this country to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.»

Again, who is this amorphous "we" that you speak about with such confidence?
Though I doubt it ever happened, it is possible that some group of people once joined together and made such a compact - but in any case, the general population of this continent has never been part of such an imaginary "compact".

«In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.»

This topic is just one example to show that the rights and liberties of religious people are NOT protected. There are hundreds if not thousands of other such examples.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 June 2018 9:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

It is a condition of Confessional Absolution that the penitent is truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more; if these conditions are not met then the Absolution is invalid.

The priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 28 June 2018 9:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

The "we" that I speak of are the people who live
in this country. And the rule of law allows all of our
liberties and freedoms to be protected. That is the compact
that is being referred to here. These laws are passed by
our elected representatives in Parliament men and women who
work the machinery of our liberal, democratic way of life.
They reflect public opinion - and at their best lead public
opinion - and transmute it into laws that shape our society
and our country.

I do not understand why you are having such difficulty in
understanding this. How have any laws ever restricted your
behaviour and your freedom in this country. If you object to
any of the laws - you do have the opportunity to try to have
them changed at elections.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 29 June 2018 11:20:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

We also have the opportunity to put in place new laws
such as what is being suggested in this discussion -
that of breaking the seal of the confessional and not
protect clergy who abuse children.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 29 June 2018 11:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

"We also have the opportunity to put in place new laws
such as what is being suggested in this discussion -
that of breaking the seal of the confessional and not
protect clergy who abuse children."

No new laws needed as there is no protection of the Seal under Australian Law.

What is going on at the moment is political posturing of the "See, we're doing something" variety.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 29 June 2018 12:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I, for one, live in this country and do not belong to your "we", just as I am sure, do many others whom you count in your club without their permission.

«And the rule of law allows all of our liberties and freedoms to be protected.»

Ah, didn't I recently mention that next you will claim to provide me with "protection"... just like the Mafia!

The ones we need most protection from, is your state and its government - yes, there are also paedophiles, murderers and the like around, but your gang are the worst predators.

The laws you speak about are passed by YOUR elected representatives and according to YOUR machinery, none of them represent me, nor do I want anyone to represent me in your gang - it's not my gang and they should just leave me alone!

«We also have the opportunity to put in place new laws such as what is being suggested in this discussion - that of breaking the seal of the confessional and not protect clergy who abuse children.»

Yes, your brutal gang has the power to put in place any laws it wishes: what if it legislates, in a perfectly democratic way of course and according to all correct procedures, that you must, with your own hands kill your mother and your children, then eat their ears? Or that you must at all times give your body when requested in the service of any man who is sexually aroused? Surely being brainwashed and obedient as a sheep as you are, you would follow those new laws to the letter!

What your gang is asking religious people to do (under the pretext of combating paedophilia), is for them equivalent to killing their own mother. Of course they would never do it, of course not a single paedophile will ever be caught this way, yet you and your violent gang seem to take pleasure in devastating others.

Oh yeah, several years later you can re-vote and re-legislate to bring your beloved mother and children back from the grave... see if it works...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 June 2018 1:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

«What is going on at the moment is political posturing of the "See, we're doing something" variety.»

I tend to believe this to be the case, reason being that the penalty (in South Australia) for not disclosing what was said in confession, is only a $10,000 fine.

For the time being, the solution for the church, is to warn people never to confess anything related to child-sexual-abuse, then take a $10,000 deposit at the entrance to the confessional. Once the confession is over and no matters related to child-sexual-abuse were mentioned, the confessing person will get their $10,000 back (otherwise it would be used to pay the fine).

The problem is that molested children rarely have $10,000 of their own for a deposit (unless stealing is an option), so no confession for them, nobody to hear their sad stories. They (the timid and/or conscientious among them who refuse to act in a way that would put another person in jail for many years) already have no access to counsellors, psychologists, doctors, teachers or psychiatrists. Perhaps thanks to this new law, the only remaining avenue for them is suicide!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 June 2018 1:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

My mother passed away in late January this year.

I miss her dreadfully.

She has left such a huge gap in my life because
she was such a large part of it.

I certainly hope that one day we shall meet
again. However Thank You for your concern about her.

As for "My" laws, et cetera? They are not "My" laws
but the laws of the country of which I am a citizen.
And laws that as a citizen I am expected to abide by.

From your posts I take it that you are not an
Australian citizen. The Australian Citizenship Oath or
Affirmation tries to capture the essence of what it means
to be an Australian. It reads as follows - "From this
time forward (under God) I pledge my loyalty to Australia
and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose
rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold
and obey."

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty - first loyalty
to Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs - democratic
beliefs - to respect the rights and liberty of others and to respect
the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have a
consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures and
an agreement to abide by its laws, none of us will be able to enjoy
our rights and liberties without being threatened by others.

We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the
laws it makes. In doing this the rights and liberties of all are
protected.

You obviously don't agree with this. There's nothing more to be
said.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 29 June 2018 1:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You obviously don't agree with this. There's nothing more to be
said."

Until the next time that you post in this thread!!
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 29 June 2018 2:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I am so sorry to hear about your mother.
You have mentioned her many times over the past years.
My condolences, may she rest in peace.
I also miss my mother dreadfully, tomorrow is her anniversary.

At the time I became an Australian citizen, both the citizenship-pledge was quite different and I too was quite young and naive, not understanding half of what I know today. There is no way I could have become an Australian citizen had I needed to do it today.

I still sincerely wonder and this is a serious question:

Knowing how much you love your mother, also knowing how much you love Australia, suppose, God forbid, while your mother still lived and was well, the democratically-elected Australian parliament legislated that you must kill your own dear mother - would you obey?

My second question is:

Knowing that for a Christian priest, breaking the seal of the confession is like, if not worse than, killing his mother - can you sleep at night while knowing that you are a part of such a body of people which orders others to do such things.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 29 June 2018 3:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu.

If you'd like to know what Jesus taught His disciples read Jesus's teachings, and His words in the gospels.

Regarding rebellion, I don't think Jesus would teach them to rebel. I think Jesus taught Israel not to rebel against Rome was part of a warning, not just a teaching. Like some prophets in the old testament who warned of Babylon conquering Israel. In one instance because the warnings to turn from their sins was not met, one of the prophets (Jeremiah I think) warned them that it was too late to repent and avoid the punishment of being conquered, but instead advised to surrender to the Babylonians and submit under their rule (not rebel), because that was God's Judgement on Israel.

If you would like to know where to draw the line for how much authority and obedience to give the governing people that rule over you, then I would recommend looking at the book of Daniel (in the Old Testament). This is about Daniel and three others as they were taken to Babylon, and how those 4 people both served the Babylonian empire as well as how they stood their ground to not disobey God. From the very beginning you can see the difference between not following the law if they saw it to be against God's way, verses rejecting the Babylonian rule and rebelling. In their obedience to God the laws made against them to trip them up had worked enough to send them to the lion's pit, or even thrown into a furnace. Still each of these 4 people stayed true to serving Babylon while standing true to putting God first, and continuing to pray to God and not bow down to worship the king or the statue made of the King.

Where do you to draw the line for disobedience or obedience then? I would say it is never to open rebellion, and only if the law asks something that God forbids. There are other examples in the bible for putting God first but not being in rebellion if you are interested.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 29 June 2018 4:52:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Back to the Jews who ignored Jesus's teaching. They rebelled and were scattered throughout the world. If you want to know where to flee then I suggest studying the history of the Jewish people after Rome kicked them out. I have only a small knowledge of the subject, but I know of at least a few instances where they are persecuted and fled to another country in large groups. Fleeing to America from Stalin Russia, and to America from Nazi Germany are two examples I am aware of. But I think their history has much more fleeing going on then just that.

As for this current topic. Of Priests mandated to turn in the confessions of those who commit child abuse (including other priests). I don't see this as an issue about following the law of the land or the law of God. Because they are not in disagreement as far as I'm aware. Jesus taught to turn from your sins. He did not say seek forgiveness and sin some more. The issues of child abuse is a black mark on the churches not just for the Catholic Church but on many others that have seen it and done nothing about it. And for this issue I give my own personal recommendation. Let those who sin seek forgiveness, and receive it, but also if they are priests tell them to step down from their position as a priest. If the law asked for too much then there might be an issue of whether to hide the offenders or not. But this is not asking to turn in any professing believer, but to turn in those who harm children.

I know you're not a Christian Yuyutsu, but are Hindu. However since this topic deals with the law and the church, I figure a Christian understanding is worth while regarding civil disobedience (if it is ever called for) verses open rebellion or refusal to acknowledge a gonverment's authority.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 29 June 2018 4:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Seeing as you've addressed a few questions to me I feel
obliged to respond.

You asked if the State was to instruct me to kill my
mother would I do it?

I find that question rather bizarre to say the least.
Murder, rape, threatening or
endangering life are considered major indictable crimes
in this country.

As for priests and confessions? Australia is not a theocracy.
Everyone even religious believers are required to comply
with the law. Just societies enact laws to promote general
welfare. Religious believers can try to claim a religious
objection to compliance - but they're going to have to
convince a court to recognize their objection. A court may
decide that the protection of children for example outweighs
the objection. And yes, I would sleep very soundly if I knew
that children's lives were being saved.

See you on another discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 29 June 2018 7:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« It is a condition of Confessional Absolution that the penitent is truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more; if these conditions are not met then the Absolution is invalid.

The priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves »
.

If we accept the idea that paedophilia is a health problem (a mental disorder, a neurological abnormality or a psychological pathology) – which, for want of a better explanation, I do – then I have no difficulty understanding that some paedophiles have immense difficulty resisting their natural sexual attraction to young children. It must be a constant struggle for them. A genuine moral and psychological torture.

For those paedophiles where this is the case, whether they be priests or not, I see no reason to think that they are not, as you say, truly sorry for their “sins” (acts) and that their “resolve to sin no more” (never repeat the offence again) is not genuine. Quite the contrary, I am convinced that there are many such paedophiles, perhaps even the majority.

But, to my mind, that does not exclude the possibility that they might lose the interior battle that hounds them, persecutes them and pursues them relentlessly, and reoffend – not just once, but time and time again.

The philosophy of the Christian Churches or their hypothetical God in respect of paedophilia is no concern of mine. I am concerned with the risk to young children of paedophiles within the community, and especially within the clergy.

As I indicated in my post on page 7 of this thread, paedophile priests necessarily knew of their sexual orientation well before taking up their religious vows and should never have become priests.

That said, Is Mise, I can find nothing to substantiate your interpretations of either confession or absolution :

Confession :

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=31425

Absolution :

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=78
.

Would you be so kind as to indicate your sources ?

Many thanks.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 30 June 2018 12:39:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

«Murder, rape, threatening or endangering life are considered major indictable crimes in this country.»

Nevertheless, the state could change that at any time: all is needed is a democratic majority, to legislate that under specified conditions, murder and rape are not only fine, but even mandated.

My question, though, was addressed to you personally: it wasn't a question about the state, but about yourself and what would YOU do if such a thing, God forbid, happened. You still have not answered this.

I think that you misunderstand the term "theocracy":

In a theocracy, churches/clergy make laws for other people, forcing them to follow religious (or supposedly-religious) observances.

This would be terrible, but it was never suggested, neither by myself nor by anyone else here.

«Just societies enact laws to promote general welfare.»

Just societies never devastate innocent people, even if it somehow promotes general welfare. Just societies never instruct people to act against their conscience, to kill their mother or anything else that would give them an equivalent pain, such as the case of ordering Christian priests to disclose what they heard in confession.

Just societies, also, are voluntary: they never force anyone to be counted as belonging to them against their will.

«And yes, I would sleep very soundly if I knew that children's lives were being saved.»

As I explained over and again on this thread, not a single child's life will be saved.
Likely, children's lives will be lost instead due to their suicide, once confession is no longer available to them.

«I would sleep very soundly if I knew that children's lives were being saved.»

How would you feel if you were ordered to kill your own children because this would somehow save the life of your neighbours' children?

How would you feel about belonging to and supporting an organisation that instructs others to do so? Still sleeping well at night? Are you this cruel indeed?

I find it hard to believe that you are: more likely you just lack the skill to enter into other people's shoes and recognise their pain and anguish.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 30 June 2018 10:32:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Isn't it wonderful when you have a prophet to tell you in advance whether your rebellion will succeed or fail?

It would indeed be interesting to count how many times in the bible prophets spoke in favour of open rebellion and how many times against. The most obvious case of being in favour, is the great Exodus from Egypt.

Surely you don't think that ALL that Jesus taught his disciples is in the gospels: after all he spent years with them and also some teachings were quite personal. Suppose he did speak in favour of rebelling, how likely do you think would it be for the disciples to dare to include it in the gospels?

Yes, Daniel's story is very inspiring: I wish and pray I had the same courage!

Yes, the issues of child abuse is a black mark on the churches, yet 90% (just a guess) of the priests are true believers and not child abusers, and so are 99% of those who come to confession. As a result of this legislation, confessions will have to stop, not a single child-molester will be caught this way, but all good people will greatly suffer as a result.

«But this is not asking to turn in any professing believer, but to turn in those who harm children.»

The problem is that there is no way to tell in advance who is going to mention child-sexual-abuse in the confessional, thus ALL confessions will need to stop. You can place big notices and ask people not to do it, but what if they do it anyway?

«I know you're not a Christian Yuyutsu, but are Hindu.»

On this issue you can count me as a Christian. I am totally with you here and we, religious people, the people of God, must support each other, especially in times of need and trouble.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 30 June 2018 11:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu.

Child abuse is bad enough to make amends and changes, and have those changes stick. I don't think mandating priests to tell on their confessors will solve anything, but at this point, losing the right to confession without a possible consequence might be a solid step in showing that the authorities in the church are ready to make steps to correct a great misdeed within the church. I'm not sure how much this will affect confession or destroy it from being practiced. I bet there's a decent amount of harm this will do to stop people from confessing at a confessional. Especially with how the nature of some social movements go. Ask for a little concession now and use that to take everything else away latter.

If such a legislation does pass though, I wonder how many people will abide by it? If it will split the church over the practice of safe confession verses obeying the law, or if it will be more wholly accepted or rejected by everyone. Perhaps a look at countries that have mandated the priests to this kind of law have some experience on the response by priests within their borders and the results after it.

As for rebelling. I don't see the Exodus in Egypt as a rebellion. The people didn't fight the pharaoh. God did after He had Moses warn the Pharaoh to let His people go or face the consequences. I'm not aware of any times in the old testament that God spoke well of rebelling against the governing authority. The closest I know of is active war with the Canaanites, or later the ongoing wars with the Philistines. Those weren't rebelling though, those were war and God evicting the sins of the Canaanites from the land. (Something done to Israel as well temporarily when they were conquered by Babylon).

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 July 2018 3:42:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

I see no reason to think that Jesus would teach to rebel when many of His teachings say to do the opposite.

When asked to walk a mile, walk two is one teaching to take the law of the land that Roman solderers can burden anyone to walk up to a mile carrying their things without punishment. What does Jesus say? When asked to walk one mile, walk the extra mile.

Same with a generous heart, if someone asks for a shirt give your coat too.

When tested by religious leaders on the taxes demanded on them, Jesus rebuked them and said it's Caesar's coin. Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and give to God what is God. To say that Jesus also taught secretly in private to rebel makes no sense to believe, and flies in the face of so many other teachings He did teach as recorded in the gospels.

If I could see this as just a religious issue and standing up for religious rights then it could be possible that I count you and I as the same in this fight. I can't though for two reasons. One, you don't believe the accounts of the bible as they are recorded, (or else you wouldn't try to throw in your seeds of doubt). And Two,if you were a Christian and believed in the bible, I would still have the same rebuttals to your stance between you and Foxy regarding your views of not acknowledging the authority of the government, or seeming to advocate open rebellion to fight against the authority.

Jesus did not say to rebel. He warned us of persecution, and to persevere through it and trust God through the hardships. Do not fear men who can destroy the body (kill you), but fear God who can destroy the body and the soul. Jesus also said that the authorities will have to answer to God. So with that in mind I would think Jesus's teaching are saying don't rebel, but let God handle it. Trust in God even if it means to lose your life.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 1 July 2018 3:52:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

Try, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

for Confession, and it is axiomatic that if the penitent is not truly sorry for his sins and does not resolve to sin anymore then the Absolution is ineffective, and its ineffectiveness rests with the penitent.

As to why homosexual paedophiles and the few "straight" ones become priests or members of religious orders, one can only assume that they see it as a glorious opportunity to practice their perversions.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 1 July 2018 5:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

I waded through that lengthy article you indicated in the New Advent on “The Sacrament of Penance”.

While it confirms your first point, that “the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”, I found nothing to support your second point : that “the priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves”.

As I indicated in my previous post, I see no reason to think that most paedophiles are not, as you say, truly sorry for their “sins” (acts) and that their “resolve to sin no more” (never repeat the offence again) is not genuine.

Incidentally, I found a couple of interesting documents on the Vatican web site : one entitled “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”, and another on the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (a catechism promulgated by John Paul II in 1992).

This is from the latter :

« Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws … St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense … Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. the offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing »

Here are the links :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

As I am inclined to agree with the medical profession that paedophilia should be considered a health problem or a natural phenomenon such as homosexuality (which is observed in all animal species without exception), I fail to see why the Christian Churches consider it to be a “sin”.

I interpret the fact that society considers paedophilia to be a crime simply as a matter of expediency. We have to protect young children somehow, and that seems to be the most expedient (and perhaps the most effective) way to do so.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 2 July 2018 1:32:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

"While it confirms your first point, that “the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”, I found nothing to support your second point : that “the priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves”

"the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”

Well, there you have it, if the penitent is not truly sorry etc., then the Absolution cannot be valid and, obviously, such validity rests on the penitent.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 2 July 2018 11:18:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« "the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid” ... if the penitent is not truly sorry etc., then the Absolution cannot be valid and, obviously, such validity rests on the penitent »
.

I think I understand what you mean, Is Mise : there is not necessarily absolution, even though the priest may pronounce it. Two cases come to mind :

1. The priest may ignore that the so-called “penitent” is just a sham and not a true “penitent” when he pronounces the absolution,

2. The priest may know full-well that the so-called “penitent” is just a sham but pronounces absolution all the same.

An example of the latter is the notorious complicity of the Vatican with the Italian Mafiosi – though their complicity has suffered some serious inroads due to the excommunication of the Calabria branch of the Mafiosi by Pope Francis in 2014.

My initial misunderstanding of your point was due to your statement that it's up to the would-be “penitent” (not the priest) to decide whether the absolution is valid or not. If that were the case, naturally he would decide that it was valid – if not, why bother to frequent the confessional ?

I don’t think you mean to say that it's up to the would-be or so-called “penitent” to decide whether the absolution is valid or not – that he is the sole judge – but that the Church considers that it is mandatory for absolution to be valid (despite the fact that the priest pronounces it) that the “penitent” must also be « truly sorry for his “sins” and resolve to “sin” no more ».

Unless he is totally incapable of compassion and emotion, of course he can be « truly sorry for his sins » and « resolve to “sin” no more » – in all sincerity. But that does not mean that he will never "sin" again, despite all his good intentions.

Nobody is perfect, are they ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 1:33:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

"Nobody is perfect, are they ?"

Not even us!!
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 3 July 2018 11:26:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Yes, I noticed you have a few imperfections, Is Mise. I guess I have too, but at least I don’t commit “sins” like people who believe in some hypothetical god – no god, no sins.

The only authorities I have to answer to are society and my own conscience.

As regards the topic in hand, “Breaking the seal of the confessional”, I think that that particular recommendation of the Royal Commission would produce more problems than solutions.

I should prefer to see the government “persuade” the Church, by all means at its disposal, to limit the confessional to adults only, i.e., people of 18 years or more.

In addition, I should like to see the Church forbid its clergy and all those acting in its name or on its behalf, to be alone in the presence of any child under 18 years of age, at any time or place, whatever the circumstances.

Also, I am inclined to think that, knowing what we know today, any parent who accepts to allow his or her child under 18 years of age to be alone in the presence of a representative of the Church, for whatever reason, is an accomplice to any crime or misdemeanour that may ensue.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 3:08:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
banjo,

Excellent suggestions with which I concur.

However, on the issue of pederasty, I don't think that in every case or even in most, that it is not a free choice, its widespread occurrence throughout Afghanistan and historically through other parts of Asia seems to be a matter of choice by the dominant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 11:43:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I understand that you would have liked, if you could, to have religion disappear altogether. What is strange, however, is that if you can't have it all as you want, then you would particularly want to deny confession to the most vulnerable - children, including sexually-abused children.

Half the healing comes from being able to share the load and tell someone.
Abused children who for a variety of reasons are unwilling for the public to find out about their being abused, are already (due to mandatory reporting laws) denied the opportunity to confide in therapists - doctors, counsellors, teachers, psychologists, etc. Until now, they could at least tell God of their abuse through the confessional, trusting that whatever they said will remain forever in that little room, but from now on, how would they tell God? Ah yes, a child might conclude: "by jumping off a bridge I could see God today!".

There are of course children who wish to confess other things: stealing, placing a frog in the teacher's handbag, cheating in an exam, masturbating, etc. Do you really want their guilt-feelings to fester?

Formal absolution is not that important - what matters is that the person confessing is assured of absolute confidentiality. Priests just happen to provide this assurance as part of their religious vows. Priests also don't have to be male - the Anglican church for example has female priests. Lay people should also be able to take similar vows and not be prosecuted for keeping them.

«but at least I don’t commit “sins” like people who believe in some hypothetical god – no god, no sins.»

Interesting logic: assuming there is no god, believers still sin...
Had objective reality been real, then either both believers and unbelievers were sinful, or none.
I do however like this idea of there being no objective reality, that there can be different realities for different persons - so in the believers' reality god exists, while in yours he doesn't: actually this is closer to the truth than you think!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 4 July 2018 12:43:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« However, on the issue of pederasty, I don't think that in every case or even in most, that it is not a free choice, its widespread occurrence throughout Afghanistan and historically through other parts of Asia seems to be a matter of choice by the dominant »

You could be right, Is Mise. What some may see as an advantage is that it’s a technique of having sex (with a man or a woman) without the risk of producing children.

Nevertheless, as I indicated in my post on the top of page 12 of this thread, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon which is observed in all animal species without exception :

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« I understand that you would have liked, if you could, to have religion disappear altogether »

Not at all, Yuyutsu. I don’t think anyone is capable of making an accurate overall assessment of the positive and negative effects of religion for humanity to date. My guess is that it more or less balances out.

If there is a problem, it’s not due to religion. It’s due to the difficulty many people have in coping with their daily lives and/or death – an existentialist problem. Religion offers a simple solution that anybody, rich or poor, can adopt.

Apart from dangerous religious fanatics, I see no reason to deny anybody a solution that satisfies them.

But I do not exclude the possibility that science might enlighten future generations more fully on these important matters in due course.
.

You state :

« Abused children who for a variety of reasons are unwilling for the public to find out about their being abused, are already (due to mandatory reporting laws) denied the opportunity to confide in therapists - doctors, counsellors, teachers, psychologists, etc. »

Unfortunately, it is a well-known fact that most abused children never tell anybody about being abused, not even their parents :

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/sexual-abuse

In Australia, child protection laws are based on “The best interest principle” :

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 5 July 2018 2:39:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

« Legislation in all jurisdictions identifies the best interests of the child as the primary principle » :

http://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/australian-child-protection-legislation
.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to indicate that any hypothetical god has ever intervened to prevent or protect any child, anywhere in the world, from being sexually abused.

And as the Church has so badly betrayed the confidence placed in it by society, it can no longer be trusted to hear the confessions of young children. Priests may be paedophiles who take advantage of what the children confess. It's far too risky.
.

I wrote: « no god, no sins ». You commented : « interesting logic: assuming there is no god, believers still sin... »

No they don’t, Yuyutsu, but they believe they do. The OED defines “sin” as :

« An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law »

For there to be “divine law”, there must be divinity, i.e., deity. Many people say they believe in deity but, so far, it’s just a hypothesis – defined by the OED as :

« A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth »

Many people believe that they “sin” because they accept that proposition. That’s fine with me. They are perfectly free to believe what they will.

Karl Popper argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Others prefer the criteria of verifiability. In both cases, the hypothesis must be submitted to crucial experimentation to test it before it can be considered “true” or “false”.

Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of this principle in the warning he issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.

As for “reality”, Yuyutsu, I’ll stick to the universally accepted sense of the term :

« something that exists independently of ideas concerning it »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 5 July 2018 3:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I am glad to stand corrected that you do not wish for religion to disappear altogether.

«If there is a problem, it’s not due to religion. It’s due to the difficulty many people have in coping with their daily lives and/or death – an existentialist problem.»

The existentialist problem cannot go away for as long as one believes themselves to be a body. One's body will surely die and cease to exist, so it's not a fantasy or paranoia, but a completely rational and realistic expectation.

«Religion offers a simple solution that anybody, rich or poor, can adopt.»

Simple? I doubt!

Religion does offer a solution, but it requires long and hard work. Theoretical/mental belief is not enough and believers fear death like all the rest. It is one thing to understand the IDEA that you are not your body, thus will never die, but only the direct (non-mental) experience of your identity with God actually saves you from existential/ontological fear. Religion aims at that (but then one must beware of all sorts of pretenders and ignorants who only claim to be religious).

«But I do not exclude the possibility that science might enlighten future generations more fully on these important matters in due course.»

Even if science does come up with correct answers about life and death, these answers will still only be theoretical. Religion [should] provide the practical practices that eliminate and uproot all fear permanently.

«Unfortunately, it is a well-known fact that most abused children never tell anybody about being abused, not even their parents»

And they often have good reasons for it. What they need is the ability to confide in someone else - this is magic, it works, it heals, but they are not likely to do so unless they have the absolute confidence that they will not be judged and that their disclosure will have no consequences.

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 July 2018 4:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

Again, it matters not that the person they confide in is a priest, except that there is no equivalent secular institution where the listening person can be trusted not to disclose what was being said no matter what, not even under threat of arrest, interrogation and torture.

«The OED defines “sin” as:...»

The word "sin" comes from archery, it means "missing the mark". In other words, if you are not yet with God, one with God, then you are in sin.

«Many people say they believe in deity»

But fail to understand that God is not a deity. Deities can be helpful on the religious path to God, but ultimately, to reach God and leave sin behind, one must also leave behind all deities.

«something that exists independently of ideas concerning it»

It was once commonly believed that matter exists independently of energy. Einstein refuted this (E=mc^2).

This was predicted by the ancient seers, who also predicted that just like matter is a condensed form of energy, energy (thus transitively also matter) is a condensed form of mind. Quantum theory just started to bite at this idea - let's see whether science will discover this within the short time we still have on this earth.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 July 2018 4:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few questions, Is Mise: now that Arcbishop Wilson has been convicted of covering up horrific sexual abuse, do you think he should be defrocked? Or possibly excommunicated?

And what sort of message does it send to Catholics if the Church refuses to punish their own for what most people regard as particularly grievous moral lapses?

Perhaps rather than the State trying to force the Church to do things their way, it would be better if the Church did things it's way, and modified the Seal of the Confessional.

If they're not happy to have Priests grass on people, perhaps a compromise can be reached where the church introduces a new level of sin above venal and mortal (let's call it 'Savile') and Priests are forbidden from granting absolution for Savile sins unless the would-be penitent makes a full and frank confession to the secular authorities as an act of penance (a necessary part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation). And if people don't seek absolution for Savile sins they will be considered excommunicate until they do.

Well, it's a start at least...

Lavis for Pope! I'm a baptised male, so I'm technically eligible. Make the Church Great Again!
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 5 July 2018 8:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

The Archbishop intends to appeal, so nothing can be done until that is heard.
Personally, I think that the death penalty should apply to serial paedophiles.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 5 July 2018 10:16:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The Archbishop intends to appeal//

Sentence or conviction?

//Personally, I think that the death penalty should apply to serial paedophiles.//

I am fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.

But I am not opposed to appropriate corporal punishment. Castrate the bastards.

However, this is getting away from the main point. Nobody is any dispute that people who rape children should be punished harshly... but what about people who knowingly and willingly protect people who rape children? I still think Tim Minchin says it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkOHDoEkPW0
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 5 July 2018 11:10:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni,

«But I am not opposed to appropriate corporal punishment. Castrate the bastards.»

If only the church was allowed to do so, but it isn't, their hands are tied. If they tried, then clergy would be paraded before secular courts on charges of "causing grievous bodily harm", that being the case even when paedophiles willingly accepted their treatment.

In fact, let alone castration, churches cannot currently even name-and-shame paedophiles in order to warn the community, this being the simplest and most effective method of prevention - lest the information gets to the secular regime who would parade church-people before their secular courts and throw them in their secular prisons.

Have true separation of state and church, then you will see how the church itself can clean its stables!

On a second thought, this may be happening already, but as matters are being closed quietly within the confines of the church, you and I would never know about it (if discovered, castrated paedophiles could claim that it was a skiing accident).

The biggest bastards in town are those who try to force religious people to forsake God and submit to the secular regime. They will never succeed, there will be many martyrs.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 5 July 2018 11:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

It seems that Adelaide’s Archbishop Wilson has decided to play poker with the judges of the District Court of New South Wales.

The stakes are high. He’s going for double or nothing : either two years imprisonment or he walks free. He’s sitting on a hand of twelve months prison with six month non-parole but with the right to continue on bail while being assessed for home detention. He’s called for another card.

Some say he’s trying to protect the Church, but that seems unlikely. Prolonging the affair in the courts and the media can hardly do the Church much good.

The immobility of the Vatican is in full swing. The silence of Pope Francis gets louder and louder with every day that passes. Like his predecessors, he knows that in crises such as this, silence is golden : do no evil, see no evil, hear no evil.

Archbishop Wilson is the most senior Catholic official in the world to be charged with the offence of covering up historical child sexual abuse in the Church. Because of this, the matter is so important the decision has to be taken at the highest level. It’s actually out of Pope Francis’ hands. He’s busy seeking guidance from above.

The lawyers are working day and night. They leave no stone unturned. It’s the Battle of the Titans, the power struggle of the gods and the secularists, of divine justice against human justice. It is fearmongering at its finest. The tension is palpable, due to the sheer magnitude of the stakes.

But, whoever comes out on top in the end, as the poet so wisely observed in relation to another, less important matter of a similar nature ... Oh so long ago ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a2lTelg

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 6 July 2018 9:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I'm not opposed to the death penalty, the money spent on convicted serial killers, rapists, serial paedophiles etc., could be far better spent on society in general.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 6 July 2018 4:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

It would not be right to kill people against their will, but why not ask them?

As far as I am concerned, jail is much worse than death, so I would choose the latter.

Better still, if I were a paedophile then I would castrate myself then get on with my life.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 July 2018 5:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Well, I'm not opposed to the death penalty...//

You seem awfully keen to change the subject, Is Mise. What's wrong, unwilling to face up to the uncomfortable truth that if the Catholic isn't seen to be doing something to keep it's own house in order pretty damn quicksmart they're going to lose whatever little moral authority they have left?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 6 July 2018 7:04:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

For those who may not have seen it, here is an interesting account of the Wilson affair by Frank Brennan, a Jesuit priest, human rights lawyer and professor of law in the Public Policy Institute at the Australian Catholic University :

http://johnmenadue.com/frank-brennan-the-sentencing-of-archbishop-wilson-eureka-street-3-7-2018/
.

Guilty or innocent, Archbishop Wilson obviously has no desire whatsoever to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I guess faith has its limits.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 6 July 2018 10:57:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

As far as I'm concerned any Religious who are paedophiles should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law and if they are serial paedophiles, and found guilty, then they should be executed, this also goes for any other serial paedophiles.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 7 July 2018 8:28:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

"Guilty or innocent, Archbishop Wilson obviously has no desire whatsoever to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I guess faith has its limits."

Christ had no earthly court to which to appeal, Wilson has, and as he considers himself innocent then he has a duty to appeal.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 7 July 2018 2:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Christ had no earthly court to which to appeal, Wilson has, and as he considers himself innocent then he has a duty to appeal »
.

The judicial system was not organised in Jesus’ time as it is today, but his conviction was not quite as simple and summary as the absence of a court of appeal (such as it exists today) would have us believe.

I understand that there were several phases to the judicial process of Jesus – any of which could have acted as a safeguard and influenced the final result, one way or another :

« There were six parts to Jesus’ trial: three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court.

The night of Jesus’ arrest, He was brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and an assembly of religious leaders called the Sanhedrin (John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:57). After this He was taken before Pilate, the Roman Governor (John 18:28), sent off to Herod (Luke 23:7), and returned to Pilate (Luke 23:11-12), who finally sentenced Him to death » :

http://www.gotquestions.org/trials-of-Jesus.html
.

In any event, it seems that Jesus did not seek to appeal his conviction. He accepted it. It appears that his execution was “God’s deliberate plan” :

Romans 3:25: “God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death”.

Acts 2:23 New International Version (NIV) :

“This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross”
.

Here is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter :

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM
.

Presumably, any “duty” Jesus may have had to appeal his conviction (as you suggest), because – no doubt – he considered he was innocent, was over-ruled by “God’s deliberate plan” for his sacrifice.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 7 July 2018 8:22:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

Are you postulating that Wilson's conviction was God's plan and that he should go along with it?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 7 July 2018 8:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You asked :

« Are you postulating that Wilson's conviction was God's plan and that he should go along with »

No. I simply observed that while Jesus accepted to die on the cross as a scapegoat for mankind, Archbishop Wilson refuses to serve a 12-month prison sentence (with six months non-parole) as a scapegoat for His Holy Church.

Hence my remark :

« Guilty or innocent, Archbishop Wilson obviously has no desire whatsoever to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. I guess faith has its limits »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 8 July 2018 7:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy