Dear O Sung Wu,

Sadly, it is not only those who committed heinous crimes who will be forced to go overseas for confession - everyone would, perhaps to the exclusion of some middle-aged ladies and those on their death-bed: even when one has done nothing illegal, still very few priests will risk providing them the service because they cannot tell in advance what will be said in the confession. Those who will suffer most, will be the children victims of abuse. They wouldn't even have the means to travel overseas so more likely they would instead jump down from a roof in shame.

The police would also be among the losers: while they will not receive any more reports, at least at the moment they can trap suspected paedophiles using an undercover policeman who pretends to be a priest to catch the unsuspecting criminal - this too will be over.

---

Dear Daffy,

Thank you for the pointer regarding Concordats, it is very interesting.

Something becomes sacred when people treat it is sacred and use it as a representation of God.

Of course, the Catholic Church has been quite unholy for centuries, but this does not exclude the possibility of individuals within it - priests and laypeople alike, doing the right thing despite the organisation and fulfilling the confession as a genuine spiritual practice.

The thing is, since the perpetrator is made aware of the very reasonable expectation that priests report abusers who confess, they simply will not admit to their actions in the confessional. Also, how does this apply to priests who are abusing children? Given the criminal obfuscation/lies/denial/blaming victims reaction by the church in front of the world as it rushes to cover up and protect it's own, how can we possible trust them to obey the law of the land?

Just suppose that the priest decides to abide by a law that says he must report a penitent how does the priest know the identity of the offender?

Without any way to in force this kind of law, it will come down to the priest and the confessors. A matter of conscience indeed. Unless confessional become wire taped, or those who confess in them speak out later about what they confessed to a priest, there's no way to know what was confessed and was wasn't in a confessional.

The priests doing confessions might be able to gadge how often (if they ever have had) an abuser will confess their sins against a child. Or how often a child confess such things. And if the law is passed only the police will know which priests will turn people in.

If it passes it will be a matter of conscience for who will follow it. I doubt every priest will have the same reaction to this. I doubt Catholics that feel the need to confess will stop going to a confessional either. Because it's a matter of their guilt.

That said. Watch the actions of the state. This is brought to light and brought to law not long after laws have been suggested removing Christian observation and discussion among students within schools. (Even to give Christmas greeting cards). Whether this law for child abuse goes through or not, or is followed or not, it seems to me that Australian legislation might be forming an agenda against religion, (or maybe just Christianity). Watch out and be alert.

JBSH wrote: "Clergy have in my view forfeited any claim to have special rules applied to them."
And Yuyuysu wrote in reply: "Then there should indeed be no special rules: nobody, regardless of profession or standing, should be forced to serve as an informant to the regime against their conscience."

This is dependent upon the clergy having the divine blessing of a divided conscience. Though his conscience be bruised by the depredations of a predatory monster feeding his dreadful desires by causing irreparable harm to the most innocent of his flock, he suffers a mental breakdown at the contemplation of being stripped of the "right" by civil and criminal law to channel his god's word to the "penitent".

The "regime" as Yuyutsu puts it is generally a democratically elected government who has the power to put in place legislation reflecting the electorate's moral and civil opinion, which electorate seems to be more outraged by pedophilic clergy than by the possibility of said clergy being disgraced and barred from connection on the Royal Telephone.

In a response to Old Man, Yuyutsu writes: "What you ask is to abuse innocent and peaceful people for refusing to serve your regime. Suits you to live in North Korea."

A society has laws requiring "innocent and peaceful people" to report criminal behaviour because not all citizens are innocent, some even promote criminality and there are sufficient of these to make such laws necessary. Societies develop codes of laws because the electorate deems them necessary. In a FAIR AND OPEN society where conflict arises between the sacred and the profane the profane must prevail. If it doesn't we will be governed by a theocracy, not a democracy.

I find Yuyutsu's attitude to be repugnant in the extreme. The way religious authorities have acted over the past 20 years or so to protect their hierarchies from legitimate charges of criminality brands them as vile minions far more dedicated to self-preservation than to the welfare of the innocent. That they have the gall to claim privilege in any human endeavour insults intelligence.

So, a special rule for Catholic clergy is proposed. But none for other religions which don't have confession. Just another anti-Catholic rant, then.

The royal commission into institutional child abuse has generally been reported as a royal commission into the Catholic church, yet many other churches (excluding the Left-voting Muslim child abusers, of course, and the "safe" schools criminals) are free to carry on.