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

'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.

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!

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.

.

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.

.

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.