From Wikipedia:
"According to Roman Catholic canon law, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." The confessor is always an ordained priest, because in the Catholic Church only ordained priests can absolve sins; lay confession is not recognized. Any person who overhears a confession is likewise bound by the seal."

If Australia passed a law making it compulsory for priests to report instances of child molestation that were confessed to them, would such a law be workable or would it be a useless piece of political grandstanding?

Such a law could serve as a potential wake-up call for the church.

For centuries, the church has been rubbing shoulders with the secular regime, benefiting from its funds and diluting its own teachings - but this would no longer be tolerable, so hopefully it could spell the end of that unholy romance.

The church could be much more religiously-effective as an underground movement!

One possibility will be the creation of new martyrs, who will be proudly dragged to jail, keeping their mouth shut.

Short of this, confessions will no longer be conducted in Australia, save for the dying who will take their secrets to their grave. Perhaps people will then be flying overseas to confess, but better still, states could break away from the commonwealth and stop being subject to its laws - in that case, people will start travelling interstate to confess.

The Catholic confessional has knobs on it. Apart from the bizarre belief that a priest - a mere human being like the rest of us - can absolve sins, they don't seem to get the difference between sins and crimes. Child abuse, for instance, is a crime, not a sin, and should be reported to police. Teachers, medical practitioners etc. are required by law to report any abuse that comes to their notice; so should Catholic priests be so required. Do these priests really believe that their God would want child abusers to escape the legal consequences of their crimes?

ttbn,

"The Catholic confessional has knobs on it. Apart from the bizarre belief that a priest - a mere human being like the rest of us - can absolve sins,
[no one believes that, or if they do then they are seriously misinformed]
they don't seem to get the difference between sins and crimes. Child abuse, for instance, is a crime, not a sin,
[child abuse is a sin and a crime]
and should be reported to police.
[of course, it should be, but not without some evidence]
Teachers, medical practitioners etc. are required by law to report any abuse that comes to their notice; so should Catholic priests be so required. Do these priests really believe that their God would want child abusers to escape the legal consequences of their crimes?[no, of course not]

How do you propose that priests report child molesters that may go to confession?

Before answering inform yourself a bit more about Confession and the practical aspects of identifying a penitent.

"How do you propose that priests report child molesters that may go to confession?"

In exactly the same way as other officials do.

ttbn,

You didn't take my advice; one of the problems is that the priest usually cannot see the penitent, so does not know who he, or she, is.

Still, I suppose that the priest could ask them their name and address but there would be no obligation to give a correct answer.

CCTV? Tape recording?

Dear Is Mise,

A priest cannot break the Seal of the Confessional.
No matter what. He could try to persuade the confessor
to turn himself in to the authorities but the priest
could not testify as to what was told to him in a
Confessional. He would be excommunicated if he did.

On the other side of the coin -

Our State is a secular State and there is not a separate
stream of law derived from religious sources that
competes with or supplants Australian law. We have one
law we are all expected to abide by. The law enacted by the
Parliament under the Australian Constitution. Religious
laws have no legal status in our country.

However, I'm not sure how you would get priests to
abide by State laws that would go against the laws of
their Church. Therefore, I doubt very much whether any
Government in this country would force such laws onto
the Church. It would politically be a disaster.

The answer is simple, if priests become lawyers then they cannot discuss their conversations with anyone.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Lawyers have to obey the law like everyone else.
Priests are bound to a higher authority.

Dear Ttbn,

«they don't seem to get the difference between sins and crimes.»

Priests are supposed to recognise a sin. Whether they actually can or not is a different question, but in any case it is not their role to recognise crimes.

«Child abuse, for instance, is a crime, not a sin, and should be reported to police. Teachers, medical practitioners etc. are required by law to report any abuse that comes to their notice»

So you do not consider child-abuse to be a sin?
In my view it usually is.
And also in my view, obeying the above law by reporting people to the regime - is also a sin!

«so should Catholic priests be so required. Do these priests really believe that their God would want child abusers to escape the legal consequences of their crimes?»

Some priests may believe so, others not - either way, the priest's private beliefs are totally irrelevant: all that matters here is the sanctity of the confession.

Lets have a counter-example: a person was charged with murder and is now on death-row. In his last confession, he informs the priest in full detail that it was someone else who committed the murder, but that he is happy to die in their place. Still, whether the information is positive or negative, the priest may not disclose it to anyone.

Passing a law to require priests to report what they may hear in Confession would be unworkable and so easily circumvented that to pass such a law would be a waste of time and money, hmmm, the Government will probably pass one then!

Religion is fake, simply go back a century or less and if you commit any sin go to the church and pay them for absolution, miraculously your sins are forgiven.

Religion is for money and people control.

Dear Philip,

That was an easy way to escape the topic.

For whatever reason you hate a certain group of people, thus you call them "fake". We could have entered prolonged arguments whether these people are indeed religious and whether they are indeed financially-greedy, but all that would only take us further from the point of this discussion:

How would you personally feel if government legislated that you must break your own most profound and sacredly-held principles?

I don't know you and I won't ask what specific principles are sacred for you, I also don't care whether those principles are based on fact or otherwise, for that's none of my business. All I want is to draw your attention to the agonising pain and helplessness that you would be feeling had the state legislated that you must abandon and break your most dear, beloved and fundamental principles, whatever they happen to be.

Nobody should be subjected to such pains.

Yuyutsu You draw too long a bow, how you can say a person hates something because they view it as fake is beyond me.

Simple question for you out of the multitude of religions which one is the real one if there is a real one?

Foxy,

The discussions between a lawyer and his client are protected, and the lawyer would face jail and disbarment if he breaks the lawyer client privilege. Not even a judge can order him to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_professional_privilege_in_Australia

One pedophile confessing to another pedophile doesn't mean much. More likely a case of comparing notes. When I was a lad of about 12 at Catholic school, Friday 'confession' was a regular must do. In the box following the "Bless me Father for I have sinned..." you always fed the old bloke a little bit of the innocuous stuff, which should get you off with three Hail Mary's and a Glory Be. But the old bloke was never satisfied with that, no... he would wanted to know if you were having impure thoughts and were you engaging in impure actions, stock answer..."No Father!". When you got out, you asked your mates. "Did the old poofter want to know if you were wonking yourself?" The lads would all answer..."Yep. he always want to know that!"

Dear Philip,

If you do not hate religion, then why mention your belief that it is fake in the midst of a different discussion? Why blame all religion for a hardly-related claim by a particular denomination? why should it matter for the purpose of this discussion whether or not absolution can be achieved through confession? When the topic is government's encroachment on the Christian confession, are you aware that in the Catholic tradition, a priest can grant absolution even without confession?

To your question, there is no multitude of religions - religion is one, yet many schools attempt to teach it in different ways, offering different religious techniques. Some schools are purer and more competent than others, thus are more successful in bringing people closer to God; and while some techniques could have worked better in past ages, they could have since become obsolete due to the change of times and circumstances.

Confession, when properly done, is a wonderful and miraculous technique. Besides the religious benefits, also on a human level it can bring about genuine contrition and the cessation of crime.
But if made for the sake of financial and/or vicarious gain, then it is not properly done and then it does not work. Also when confession is solicited with the unrealistic promise of escaping the natural negative consequences of one's transgression.

But is it an imposition on those who believe in Confession and its secrecy to pass a law compelling priests to tell if a crime has been confessed?
This affects not only Catholics but some other denominations as well.

What of the fact that no law can effectively break the seal of Confession?

Hi IS MISE...

Mate that's a tough one you've raised here, nevertheless a good topic! The government could introduce legislation requiring Priests to give-up these types of crimes, but only that of child abuse? Why not a heinous murder of a child (the ultimate crime against a child, no doubt) but strictly not child abuse is it?

Many of the older more traditional Priests would probably fail to do so, based on their strict religious obligations as FOXY eluded too in her Post? And how would police prove such a crime?

I could only imagine such a citation: e.g. '...In that Joseph O'BRIAN being an ordained Catholic Priest; on: (time and date) did hear the confession of one Bill BLOGGS, the said Mr BLOGGS admitted he touched up a young male child of 9 years in an inappropriate way; and...? It would end up a disaster.

Defence Counsel would rip it apart; hearsay evidence, proving identity, lack of corroborating evidence; IS MISE it would end up a real dogs breakfast I reckon. Sure, the law could be adequately drafted to encapsulate all the various 'proofs' and legal issues of the crime, and it would be a crime, and what next I wonder?

Those in the judiciary who're practicing Catholics, would they see themselves being able to hear such a matter without allowing their own beliefs and prejudices to enter into their judgments?

I dunno , somehow I can't see this idea getting any legs, and do you think it may well preclude some believers from giving their confession at all, wondering whether their Priest might give 'em up someday, for some yet to be determined crime?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I wish I could be as optimistic as yourself - what those bastards are going to do, is to send undercover policemen to "confess" to molesting children.

If a law is passed then the Pope can nullify it with a few strokes of the pen, so the exercise is rather futile.

Paul1405:

We all know how much of a victim you were as a child but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps you would be better if you saw a therapist as you seem to be crying out for help.

It is worthwhile noting that priests are not obliged to grant a confessor absolution if they do feel that the confessor is truly penitent.

It is also worthwhile noting that there is popular school of thought among Catholic clergy that anyone who confesses to crimes against the person - murder, rape, assault etc. - cannot be considered truly penitent unless they also confess to secular authorities, i.e. hand themselves in to the police. Unless that condition is met, no absolution will be granted, which rather defeats the point of confessing.

Hi there TONI LAVIS...

Well, that is interesting. If the Priest feels the 'confessor' as it were, was not genuine in their confession they don't have to give that individual absolution. As you rightly say, perhaps the whole notion of placing some legal obligation upon Priests to report a serious crime is essentially unnecessary. Moreover I think police wouldn't want a bar of such a law themselves, especially those who are of the Catholic faith. From a legal point of view, somehow I can't see it gaining any substantial traction. Thank you TONI for that perspective, right out of left field for me, I must confess.

Hi (again) Folks...

Purely from a humble policeman's point of view, I honestly can't see how our very bright legal draftsmen and women, can draft legislation, to make it mandatory that a Priest 'must' report instances of Child Molestation. As horrid as that crime is.

I could type pages until I had only 1/2" fingers left, giving the reasons how difficult it would be for police to apprehend and then prosecute an offending Priest. Still I'm not a brain, perhaps others herein may have a way, I dunno I'd hate to be the arresting officer is all

o sung wu,

Spot on, and as the priest normally cannot see the penitent and vice versa, no positive identification could be made.

As the priest usually hears multiple penitents over the hour or so set aside for the purpose, one could well imagine the defence having a ball.

Hi there IS MISE...

I agree with you absolutely, Counsel for the Defence wouldn't even raise a sweat with any of this. I don't know of the various technicalities associated with the confessional, but as you rightly say, the Priest may see up to a dozen or so males, and what do they expect him to do? Suddenly leap from his confessional room and chase after a bloke who's just admitted to molesting children.

At his hearing, he need simply to aver, '...the Priest misunderstood what it was I was saying...'? One word against another?

Slowly but surely the huge amount of pedophilia within the Catholic Church is being exposed. There is much still to come, the aftermath of this systemic abuse by clergy still has to be dealt with.
Unfortunately, the very person appointed by the Church Elizabeth Proust, to head of the Church's own Truth, Justice and Healing Council, fears the institution will emerge from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse only "partially cleansed and unreconstructed".
If the Church is not willing to take full responsibility, then the Church has to be made pay in other ways.

Paul,

What has that got to do with the discussion?

Issy, maybe the Church hierarchy feel it can all be dealt with, within the confines of the confessional.
The confessional grew out of a medieval practice of kings and nobles having a personal confessor, usually a bishop, who after listening and advising could give absolution, which absolved one of past sins, including murder etc. There was no requirement for anonymity, just penitence.

So what?
If a law is passed requiring priests to report child molesters then the Pope only has to decree that personal confessions will no longer be held, except for the dying, and that general absolution may be given.
End of the law as there are no longer any confessions to be reported.

So to pass such a law would be a waste of time and money and to absolutely no purpose.

If you don't agree then tell us how the law would work.

It worked at US airports ."Are you now or have you ever been a communist?" "Yes sir I joined the Moscow Workers and Nuke Launchers Cell last year".

"Did you rape anyone this weeK?" "Yes Father , 2 nuns and six kids at the pool". "Read 3 pages of the Crimes Act , ring a lawyer and report to the Catholic Major Sex Crime Unit at Police HQ". "Thank you Father and I kicked the cat".

Hi there IS MISE...

You're right, I can't see any such law being effective in any way? And without that efficacy, what would be the point of introducing such a law, to enter into the criminal Statutes, if it were seen to be unenforceable and totally benign? Moreover, there'd be strong opposition from all strata of the priesthood, the police, and most sectors of the legal profession including the judiciary, purely on machinery grounds. And that's not including other clergy from Christian faiths, who would see such an action to be a direct betrayal of a Pastoral trust.

That's despite what faith they happen to adhere to. When someone confesses a transgression that's so serious, and so personal, I couldn't imagine any member of the Clergy betraying that trust. In reality the proponents of such legislation are actually asking the Priests to become police informants; in other words, collaborators, a judas, even an infiltrator. And without stretching possibilities too far, people have been 'shived' for far less in Long Bay, believe me!

Issy, I have no interest in the practices of the Catholic Church, in fact Confession (now refereed to as Reconciliation, get it right) would be no more than some sort of joke, as it was when I was a 12 year old pubescent school boy, with people fronting up with their list of contrived sins, and be given absolution.
I'm not aware of any push for some law making it compulsory for cleargy to report instances of child molestation that were confessed to them. The Church hierarchy mostly became aware of child abuse within, from complaints received from a variety of sources in their office. Unanimously they chose to hide those complaints, mistakenly believing they could deal with them internally, and still protect the good name of the Church.
To this day, their primary concern is to protect both the name and the assets of the Church. Why would a law change that mentality.

'The sacremental seal is inviolable'.
But young Alter boys bums and mouths they have no issue with.
This world is so screwed up....

You know when I think about this I don't don't know what to make of it...
You have a group of people that you can go and tell all your crimes, criminal acts, and immoral acts of perversion to, and it feels like a support mechanism for the scum of society, with these so-called religous people becoming aware of all sorts of dangers present to the innocent general public and doing absolutely nothing to protect them.

I agree with the proposed law in regards to crimes against children.

Paul,

You said "I'm not aware of any push for some law making it compulsory for cleargy to report instances of child molestation that were confessed to them"

all after 'aware' is superfluous.

AC,

How would you enforce such a law?

"The rack is a wooden frame, . By means of pulleys and levers this roller could be rotated on its own axis, thus straining the ropes until the sufferer's joints were dislocated and eventually separated. Additionally, if muscle fibres are stretched excessively, they lose their ability to contract, rendering them ineffective..withloud popping noises made by snapping cartilage, ligaments or bones."

Dear Critic,

«But young Alter boys bums and mouths they have no issue with.»

So you want to hurt those boys even further?

They are already barred from therapy because the therapist is obliged to inform the police, now they would even be barred from telling what happened to them in the confessional - what's left for those of them who are becoming crazy but cannot tell anyone lest their parents/family come to know? Right, jumping off a tall building - that's the solution!

You might not like the Catholic priesthood and consider them all paedophiles (though 90% are not), but such laws affect and harm everyone, Catholic or otherwise.

There are all kinds of workshops - spiritual, semi-spiritual and therapeutic, where participants and staff agree to total confidentiality, at times even regarding the identity of the other participants. This is needed in order to create a sacred, non-judgemental, safe space for all and allow people to open up, release their stuff and grow. Though confession is not the aim at these workshops, it often occurs, either in front of the whole group, with one's partner to the exercise or with a small group of 3-4 people. Perhaps some paedophiles attended such workshops, but I've never heard any such confessions there. I did OTOH heard some confessions by the abused, who never told anybody about it before and could only do so because they trusted that space.

The denial of this sacred space would be devastating to all participants and potential-participants, including those who have no connection whatsoever with child-abuse.

As a Hindu, I believe that if my actions cause someone to be jailed, then the karma I've created will eventually cause me to be jailed as well, either in this lifetime or in a future one. Possibly you regard my faith with a similar contempt as you have for Catholics/Christians, but as Hindu boys/girls do share my belief, they too wouldn't tell anyone that they were abused if they knew that it would likely cause someone to be thrown in jail.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

I again agree with most of what you've said herein. Particularly the words 'a safe place' and should that 'safe place' be removed through some ridiculous ill thought-out piece of legislation, there'll no longer be a 'safe place' for many of these young people to go.

The end result is more hanging's, leaping from bridges and tall buildings, and other means of suicide. And I must tell anyone who cares to read any this stuff to know, in my time I was utterly fed up of attending the many completely useless or pointless suicides of the young!

Why you might ask, mostly because they ('the young folk') couldn't get the necessary CONFIDENTIAL guidance/advice or even straight out help (in the case of mental illness) they need, at that crucial point of time.

I had a pretty 'loose' arrangement with a couple of female volunteer counsellors at the Wayside Chapel at the X, who'd often ring my shift if they considered a person was a legitimate suicide risk. In some cases we managed to circumvent their attempt(s). With others, we managed to intervene at the time, but after a couple of months you'd occasionally hear down the grapevine that such 'n such was found dead in the toilets of 'Costello's' a seedy Bar at the X frequented by crooks and drug pushers. A popular place at the time to 'knock yourself' so it seemed?

Take away the privacy of the Catholic confessional, and watch your dead grow. I'd dearly like to take some of these lousy, morally corrupt, useless Politicians on a few shifts with me, together with other members of my squad - and show these useless political maggots, a few facts of life.

I don't know how many here have had anyone share with them that life wasn't worth living.

Where a penitent states s/he is intending personal harm or suicide and it is likely a strong believer s/he would want to go to confession 'to clear the decks' and 'tidy up' before the dreadful deed, one assumes that the 'seal of the confessional' is generalised to apply to those cases too. That is, the priest would take no action whatsoever to help or for others to intervene after leaving the confessional.

I am not happy with that and I am hoping that the priest wouldn't be either.

Priests should be trained, practised, in handling depressed people. And I don't mean by prayer. To seek the person's (hardly a 'penitent', that would be crooked, antiquated religious thinking) agreement that s/he:

- would not be taking any step without telling someone first. -That could be to see a priest OUTSIDE of, perhaps before, the confessional, or preferably a doctor or someone of trust (which could be sounded out with sensitivity when the risk is first heard of), and,

- in any case would be seeing someone s/he could trust and share with and that could be a priest in the same church or another close nearby.

Time is of the essence.

"Priests should be trained, practised, in handling depressed people" They should be, they have created enough of them.

Issy, one of the 85 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse reads in part, quote;

"making failure to report child sexual abuse in institutions a criminal offence. This recommendation extends to information given in religious confessions. Clergy should not be able to refuse to report because the information was received during confession."

Of Course I agree with this recommendation. As yet no politicians have taken steps to seriously run with it. In time the government will have to respond to this, and all the other recommendations. Puts a bloke like the devout Catholic, Barnaby Joyce (assuming he is still there) in a position where he has to chose between his religious convictions and Church demands, and the necessary implementation of community supported recommendations.

If reporting confession becomes Law , then confession of crime stops at 9am when the Law starts. Then priest and police are in the same boat .It stinks but some people need the escape device of confidential talk , at least their psychotic condition can be relaxed a bit which probably is for some one's good.

Yuyutsu
Is it really the case that Hindus feel it's wrong to jail a crim? Do judges also feel that way? Is that connected with the amount of political corruption in India?

Paul,

How would a priest know the identity of the penitent?

Any law that mandates reporting of legally punishable offences would require positive identification to be effective.

Or are we to start Soviet style denunciations without the proper rules of evidence; I could see this appealing to some of our politicians.

A bishop may have a rough idea of which priest is confessing his love for children.

Paul,

At least we know where the greens get their interest in children?

Dear Nick,

«Is it really the case that Hindus feel it's wrong to jail a crim?

Not necessarily wrong, but the consequences have to be borne nevertheless.
If you hurt another, then you will be hurt yourself in an equivalent manner, so if you imprison another then you will be imprisoned yourself or experience something equivalent of that magnitude.

Everyone ought to do their duty, but you ought to perform your own duty, rather than another's. In society there is the warrior (Kshatriya) class/caste and it is their duty to keep law and order, rule and administrate. By nature, a true Kshatriya would never mind being injured or going to prison himself/herself if that's what it takes to perform his/her duty to keep law and order. They consider it their honour to do so.

«Do judges also feel that way?»

A judge would naturally be a Kshatriya, so they won't feel that way.

Whereas a true priest would naturally be a Brahmin, not a Kshatriya, thus should not be required to perform the duties of a Kshatriya.

«Is that connected with the amount of political corruption in India?»

When judges and politicians are not Kshatriyas, especially when instead Vaishyas (the trade/merchant/craftsman class) are elected to those positions, corruption occurs.

Society works well when everyone performs their own duty.

The phenomena of caste is natural and is based on each person's own characteristics, skills, temperament and inclinations.

The Tragedy of India is that the caste system was wrongly understood to be rigidly hereditary, where a person was assumed to belong to a caste only because their parents were of that caste. While on the balance of probabilities, one would usually be of the same caste as their parents, this is often not the case - and over a number of generations this would be totally incorrect.

Mahatma Gandhi did his best to eradicate this unjust and rigid division into castes by birth, but healing takes time and the system could not have been completely fixed and balanced in one day.

" By nature, a true Kshatriya would never mind being injured or going to prison himself/herself if that's what it takes to perform his/her duty to keep law and order. They consider it their honour to do so.

«Do judges also feel that way?»

A judge would naturally be a Kshatriya, so they won't feel that way."
-
Could you say that again? Mahabharata and Ramayana suggest a Kshatriya may occasionally stick a sword in to make a point .
Modi is Vasya or Sudra so he won't be doing jail time to help a crim ? Is it hard for police to get evidence from devout Saivites and Vaishnavas?

nnn,

"A bishop may have a rough idea of which priest is confessing his love for children."

You don't seem to know much on the subject.

It's 1 situation in hierarchy where abuse is known. If a specific confessor ( a priest) is hearing it then wouldn't he know who the abuser is?

Dear Nick,

«Could you say that again? Mahabharata and Ramayana suggest a Kshatriya may occasionally stick a sword in to make a point.»

Kshatriyas in general use swords and other weapons to defend society. It is their nature to do so. Which particular incidence are you referring to?

«Modi is Vasya or Sudra so he won't be doing jail time to help a crim?»

Personally Modi is not, but there are many others in the Indian administration.

«Is it hard for police to get evidence from devout Saivites and Vaishnavas?»

What has the choice of deity to do with it? It's primarily a matter of caste.

Issy, what is of greater concern is the institutional cover ups the Catholic Church hierarchy engaged in over many years. Their sources of information was generally not from within the confines of the confessional, but supplied directly to them in their offices.

Paul,

At least we know where the greens get their interest in children?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 20 August 2017 6:36:04 PM

SM as your favorite political chick would say PLEASE EXPLAIN! But be careful what you say. What are you accusing me or anyone else of?

Hey Is Mise,
'How would I enforce such a law?'
I dunno, I didn't really think enough about it past microphones and CCTV, though I'll admit it's a little bit intrusive...
People might criticise me for wanting to put oversight into the house of the lord, (or at least consider it) and I guess thats fair enough, but I just can't deny this foul vibe of it all being a perverted and unregulated peedo-sanctuary.
It couldn't hurt to have some sort of oversight Mosques as well, if they are havens for radicalism.
- And this coming from someone who doesn't like government poking their nose into everyones business...

Yuyutsu,
'So I want to hurt the boys even further?'
Whoa... Slow down.
What!? Where the hell did you get that stupid impression from and why would you even think it?
- Of course bloody not.

...So what, you're complaining / making the point that young alter boys who've been used as sex toys by perverted preists won't be able to trust in or use confessional?

Holy crap... !!??
- Those boys need to be as far away from away from the damned Catholic Church as is humanly possible, if you want my opinion.

As for your belief in karma, I don't really have any issue with that; but I don't really know much about Hinduism.

AC,

Any law requiring a Catholic priest to report what is said in the Confessional won't work because the Pope could do away with general confession (except for the dying) and authorize the giving of General Absolution, wherein no one need confess at all.

I'll ask this again also; would such a move by the Pope be an interference in the internal affairs of Australia?

"Issy, what is of greater concern is the institutional cover ups the Catholic Church hierarchy engaged in over many years. Their sources of information was generally not from within the confines of the confessional, but supplied directly to them in their offices."

You were there, Paul?

Dear Critic,

«...So what, you're complaining / making the point that young alter boys who've been used as sex toys by perverted preists won't be able to trust in or use confessional?»

There would be no question of trust because there would be no confessional, for anyone, except for the dying and perhaps also for some middle-aged ladies. The service would simply not be available... or perhaps it would only be available by the 10% of the priests who are paedophiles and have nothing to lose (and much to gain in their perverted way) - the 90% other priests who are OK would be too afraid to run the service.

Those boys who are willing to tell their stories have already done so and been out of that circle long ago. Now what about those that aren't willing? They are already excluded from therapy - doctors, psychologists, counsellors, teachers, social-workers, because these are already legally obliged to divulge their secrets; and with the new laws they would not be able to talk about this with ANYONE. Not with the 90% good priests, not with clergy of other denominations, not in confidential workshops, not with their friends' parents, not with a compassionate shopkeeper or hairdresser, NOBODY. You get it? The degree of loneliness and despair which only suicide can relieve!

«Those boys need to be as far away from away from the damned Catholic Church as is humanly possible, if you want my opinion.»

Even if that's the case, the suggested law would do nothing in that direction. They would simply remain in the same church and in the same choir with the same priests - only without the ability to let off steam through confession.

Yuyutsu,
Mate, you've totally lost me and I don't know what you're on about.
What does a victim need to confess to anyway, your line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me; and if someone doesn't want to deal with their own problems, talk about it and/or get help... and probably become a peedo themselves in future anyway; well what the hell do you want me to do about it?

But why criticise me for wanting to stop the cycle of abuse?
Or do you just argue for the sake of it?
Or do you support the peedo-sanctuary?

What ideas have you come up with to address the problem of serial sex pests and buggerers of boys in the preisthood?

The Hounds of Peedoville?
Or are you too busy defending them?
What exactly is your problem and what are you defending?
Why attack me like I'm the pervert running the show?
I really just don't get whatever it is you're on about sorry...

Dear Critic,

«What does a victim need to confess to anyway»

It is quite common for victims to feel guilty about the whole thing.
You may not consider the victim as guilty, but they consider themselves so.
Especially when they have nobody to talk with about it.
Reasons vary: they could have enjoyed it; they could have received a reward; they could have escaped punishment for some other naughty action of theirs; they could have failed to observe their parents' words of caution, etc.

Had they not been [wrongly] feeling ashamed, then they would have immediately told their parents/teachers and the story would have ended there.

«But why criticise me for wanting to stop the cycle of abuse?»

I am not criticising you for that, only for the specific method that you want to employ to stop it.

«Or do you just argue for the sake of it? Or do you support the peedo-sanctuary?»

No for both.

«What ideas have you come up with to address the problem of serial sex pests and buggerers of boys in the preisthood?»

Let's nuke the planet, kill everyone, then there won't be any buggerers left...

Actually, I have not so far commented on that question at all, but for me, the kind of "solution" that you offer is no better than the above.

«What exactly is your problem and what are you defending?»

Freedom of religion.
Freedom of conscience.
Freedom from impossible dilemmas.
Freedom to exercise common-sense.
Freedom from punishment for passive non-cooperation with the regime.
Freedom to continue to create safe, confidential and trusting environments, including for abused children.

«Why attack me like I'm the pervert running the show?»

You are not a pervert. The government's proposed law is pervert.
The collateral damage it would cause would outweigh by far 1000 times the damage done by all paedophiles, past present and future.

Doesn't matter if 90% of them are good preists, if the church establishment pulls rank and file and covers it up.
The might as well all be depraved serial sex-pests when the apple's completely rotten to the core...

I remember years ago when Pell first become the Australian head of the Catholic church, due to previous sex scandals if I remember correctly; I said "That guys probably in on it too, he probably even is one'...
Years later he's involved and up to his neck in scandal as well, and I'm like 'see, told you all so'.

Hang on, just wait a second Yuyutsu...
You said my solution is no better than 'nuking the planet and killing everyone on it'!!??

Ok, whatever... (backs away slowly from potentially unstable individual, realises he's arguing with a possible lunatic)
I suggest you go take you meds and think about how ones gets 'karma' from that type of act ?

You've crossed over into 'mental illness' territory...
- No offense.
It's irrational, religious based madness.
ISIS type 'ends justify the means' crazy stuff.

- I honestly don't get why people argue with me trying to prove their point, to the extent of making themselves look irrational and ridiculous.
Might as well just go and stand out on the M1 with a sign around your neck that says 'I'm an idiot'...

I just say whatever I think, its never personal.
Plus I'm getting older, and when I open my mouth crap just falls out.

Issy, I'm not sure what you are trying to do? Are you an apologists for perverted Catholic priests? Are you playing the Devil's advocate, or are you just being provocative.

How's this for a solution; We put truculent priests on the rack, they have a few spare in the Vatican that they might off load cheap. We extract a CONFESSION, we given them ABSOLUTION (they will like that, a one way ticket to heaven), then we apply rule 303, where we take them out, and we shoot them, you can be the firing squad. This can all take place while the 'Legal Eagles' sit on the sideline debating the finer points of the law. Should his exalted holiness, the divine one, the Pope, pop in to protest our action, we shall stick it up him to. Is the problem solved to your satisfaction?

p/s I think that is all in the Constitution and wont require a referendum! Although Barney and Archie (if he's not too busy himself) might try and put up a stink.

"I'll ask this again also; would such a move by the Pope be an interference in the internal affairs of Australia? "
A confession law would not work and like Pauline's burqa has no place in Parliament, nor does her burqa ban. The burqa's are better at..hungry Pauline's? However , back in the sanity of pollie Popes :
Bishops have asked Poppa for advice on clergy abuse and Holy See , the papal bull says shut uppa your face , I know nothing.

Everyone,

Why focus so much on the Catholic church?

All Christian churches have confessions and confession-like situations, both formal and informal, where trust and safety is paramount, occur in most walks of life.

No government is going to make a special law only for the Catholic church, so a law like that would hurt everyone (except hardened paedophiles and other criminals who do not tend to confess anyway). It will destroy all trust and goodwill between ordinary people who have no connection with child-abuse and would stop natural and healthy contrition in its tracks - and children would be hit the hardest. The absence of the confessional (or an equivalent) would also stop one-off offenders who had a slip and regret it from repenting, thus encourage them to become hardened instead and repeat their crimes. While non-judgemental confidentiality is essential for religion, it is also essential for general well-being, personal growth and mental/emotional health.

//I remember years ago when Pell first become the Australian head of the Catholic church//

No you don't. There is no Australian diocese and there is no Australian head of the Catholic church. There is the pope, who is head of the entire catholic church, and then there are (arch)bishops, each in charge of a particular (arch)diocese, who all take their orders direct from the pope. Pell was made a cardinal, which is a special kind of bishop that gets to elect popes. But as a cardinal he had no authority over other bishops or priests outside his archdiocese.

Yuyutsu
The topic has something to do with the Church.
Cardinal Pell was probably the head as the other one was away:

Cardinal Deaconry
Australia Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy
(2002.02.26 – ...)

Basilica di Santa Maria in Via Lata Basilica di Santa Maria in Via Lata, Roma

Toni,
I must admit I'm not to savvy on the ways of the Catholic peedo sanctuaries.
But I remember he was just a Melbourne Bishop or something before he was lifted to a higher position in the church, on the back on previous sex scandals.
I'm happy to admit my mistake if I am in fact incorrect.
It was quite a few years ago.

The Catholic church is ripe with corruption anyway.
Knights of Malta diplomatic passports are known to be used for dubious means.

Paul,

All that I want to do is point out that any law that requires a priest to dob in an offender who has been to him in the confessional will not work because, primarily, the Pope can nullify it as soon as it seeks to take effect.

I would also like to see if anyone considers such an action by the Pope to be an interference in Australia's internal affairs, he is, after all, the Head of State of a foreign power.

o sung wu has very cogently explained why such a law would fail in practice.

AC,

Cardinal Pell has not been convicted, so fair go!!

Hi there ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

The Knights of Malta Diplomatic Passports are used for dubious means, you say? And how would you know? Or is this just another example that you're getting older and every time you open your mouth, '... crap just falls out...'?

While we're at it, why not the Freemasons, with their plethora of secret words and handshakes etc. and lets not leave out Rotary International, the Lions Club or any number of fraternal organisations we have in our society?

ARMCHAIR CRITIC, it's so easy to cast aspersions against one group or another, essentially because we often don't know what it is they do, but without proof, your case is on very shaky ground, believe me. That's why in our system of criminal jurisprudence police need to prove their case to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt. Assumption, supposition or inference is manifestly insufficient in most disciplines of law, and can be so very harmful to those wrongly accused.

Hey o sung wu,
I can't remember where it was exactly that I obtained the info that Knights of Malta diplomatic passports were being used for dubious means, (I have a hunch but theres a lot of videos to sift through to find it), so I guess in some ways it's me that is seems to now be hypocritically trading in narrative and conjecture, that I openly despise.
So I'll accept your point, because it's in line with my ideals, but only on the basis that it would be difficult for me to find the youtube video where the topic was mentioned right at this moment, to share it with others and allow the info to be scrutinised by all.

Most likely I will come across the info again, (I will look for it) and I'll share it when I do but there no guarantee I'll find it before this thread runs it's course.

You'd be surprised the things I dig up.
Did you know that rebel arms shipments are being transported via civil aircraft under diplomatic immunity?
We have the shipping manifests, it's coming from Silk Ways airlines, coming from arms factories in Bulgaria.

It doesn't in any way mean I'm right about Knights of Malta passports, but I never intentionally mislead anyone.
Give me a little time and I'll see what I can come up with...

Issy, if laws are passed requiring all in authority to "dob in a peodo" under all circumstances, then the reality is there is little that a Pope could do, other than mouth off about it. Maybe we should test him out, he could send those funny looking Swiss Guards to right the wrong on his behalf.
There is no head as such of the Catholic Church in Australia. Although George Pell as the senior Australian cleric, was perceived as, if not actually in that position.

No I've never heard of Popes making any political comments or dividing the planet between Spanish and Portuguese empires. They stand at the window and kiss babies and give advice on organic milk powder.

Hey o sung wu,
There's a little bit about the Knights of Malta diplomatic passposrts in the following video.
This video was Day 104 in the series and it's now Day 303, so it was a fair way back.
It's an effort to go back through all the videos and find the right ones but I hope this gives some indication that I wasn't being deceitful.
http://youtu.be/v6tixRpdTjA

Dear Paul,

«then the reality is there is little that a Pope could do»

Please allow me to explain Is Mise's point about the pope:

On the pope's order, all confessions will be stopped in the Australian Chapter of the Roman Catholic church.
No law can make a priest (or anyone else for that matter) inform the police about things that he himself doesn't know about: no confession - no information.

While the government eyes the Catholic church, first they will gain nothing from its priests in terms of new information; and second, the collateral damage to unrelated parties would be enormous.

And 'Hey' to you as well, ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

I never called you 'deceitful' as you've described herein. And I have watched your clip that you've kindly provided me from 'Y' tube. However it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever, anything that emanates from 'Y' tube to represent any empirical evidence or otherwise in order to support your assertions. Neither am I suggesting you're wrong. I don't know, and neither do you know that you're right, if truth is to be known?

You've seen something on this 'Y' tube attributed to this fellow, who points to images all over a board making all manner of assertions. Who is he, what are the sources of his information, and is he a truly credible source, or just another one of these conspiracy theorists who tends to see 'Reds' under every bed you care to look?

AC.CRITIC, I'm in no was saying you're being deceitful, rather how do you know you're right? Nor can I allege you're wrong - such is the nature of proof. And what you've shown me, vide the 'Y' tube clip, lacks a considerable amount of veracity and authenticity for me I'm afraid.

Paul,

Don't act dumb, you know as well as I do that the Pope can stop the use of Confession in Australia or any other part of the world, and instead authorize General Absolution; thus rendering any law about reporting what is said in the confessional utterly void.; no Confession, no reporting.

"I would also like to see if anyone considers such an action by the Pope to be an interference in Australia's internal affairs, he is, after all, the Head of State of a foreign power."

If there are millions who confess then the Oz clergy and thus the Pope would have more info about crime than police and probably the tax office. More than Soviet Russia knew about Australians and probably equal to China's data store? So in terms of volume the Church interfered in Oz by with-holding evidence on a cosmic scale.

nnn,

Don't you think that the Pope should interfere in Australia's internal affairs?

1. The Pope as king of the Vatican has the right to be diplomatic.
2. Cook interfered in the internal affairs of Botany Bay and Australia interfered with Italian soldiers in WWII .
3. Confession with the fear of hell and hope for heaven is a Papal influence in Australia.
4 . Cancelling compelled confessions of guilt is passive withdrawal from the Oz police .
5. So maybe that is less interfering than gathering confessions of guilt and holding it secret.
6 . I have no opinion on what Popes should do or not and that suits Francis also.

nnn,

Thank you for that most enlightening reply.

bless you old son

Hey o sung wu,
Sorry if I seemed to imply that you'd called me deceitful.
I know you didn't say that and it was the wrong word to use.
I guess I was expressing myself in a way that was not only directed at you but towards all readers; in that I don't just make things up, and that there's always a basis for the stuff I come out with.

Thanks for watching the video.
I'm the type of person that won't argue the facts for the sake of my ego, if someone makes a valid point or proves me wrong, it's easier to just accept it as well as my mistake and move on.

And that said, I accept the validity of your argument; you're right.
I don't know if the things spoken about in that video are true or not, and there certainly isn't enough in that video alone to constitute proof.

In regards to the author of the video, he started something new.
The concept is 'Crowdsource the Truth', so even though George Webb hosts the videos, in the background all the viewers are actively doing much of the research (looking things up online - correlating news articles, timelines, information etc) and pushing the investigations forward.
I like the concept because it brings back the idea of investigative journalism over narrative and conjecture based fake news.

As you have seen the videos are quite involved, theres a lot to them, people, companies, NGO's, government agencies, ratlines etc.
A lot of stuff to look up online and many dots to connect, and new info daily as more information is uncovered.

I found another video where he mentions Knights of Malta again, (Day 116 Part 3) and this video is much better laying things out than the previous one I linked to, it gives a better overview.
http://youtu.be/WO6BCru9X_M

Hi there ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

Thank you for your most comprehensive answer to my last post, I appreciate it. So who is this George WEBB Esq. I wonder? Another political animal like Michael SAVAGE, or a much more moderate fellow perhaps. Neither I suspect AC CRITIC, it's hard to pin down the fellow, and when I asked the question on YouTube, I still couldn't get a definitive answer.

Apparently, he's not a supporter of the previous CLINTON Administration, neither am I as it happens, he was a thoroughly dishonest President, who's spouse has a byline of mendacity I believe. In any event I'd reckon I'd be digging forever and a day to establish whether Mr WEBB has an legitimate place as a bona fide political commentator or investigator. Finally, I would think if he were known as a somewhat sinister figure, the FeeBee's, would be keeping an eye on him without doubt.

Back in 1986 & '87 I was privileged to have attended several of their Schools in Quantico VA. and I was most impressed with the level of training, together with the quality and overall criterion they've established for their men and women, both sworn and unsworn. Put simply, I'd hate to have them on my tail, believe me.

Anyway, I think we've done to death this Topic, well I have without being too presumptuous at least. It's been a real pleasure ARMCHAIR CRITIC, so I'll bid you farewell until we next meet in some future Topic I expect.

Hey o sung wu,
George was a Bernie Sanders supporter.
I don't think he's a bona-fide political journalist, but I have to say he does a better job than most of them.
They just mostly echo establishment talking points these days and do little research of their own.
And he did have a recent run in with the feds, but he won his case in court several weeks back.
There's no doubt he was being monitored, the nature of some on the things he digs into would no doubt raise a flag.

The spy ring in congress led by Debbie Wasserman Shultz IT staffer Imran Awan and the hacked blackberries, DNC leaks (not Russian hacks) is probably one of his more focussed investigations.
He didn't go looking for it, but thats the direction the investigation took, and it's still slowly coming together.
To be honest I'm surpised Hillary hasn't engaged in a little wetwork...

I've heard him talk about JTTF and the Fusion centres brought in after 911 and The Patriot Act, and the way the Federal Government extended its reach into local and state police.

I really like the investigative side of it, how more things come to light and the investigation branches out and moves forward.
Also good to see real news come together, rather than just establishment talking points, narrative and conjecture within the MSM to keep us all confused.

Going to Qantico must've been an awesome experience for someone such as yourself in the force. I'm sure it was a real eye-opener and that you learned a lot and met some interesting people there.

I think George himself just wants all the corruption to stop, as well as the black weapons (Sarin, White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium), sex trafficking, organ harvesting, vacinne testing, black diamonds, etc, etc

Hi (again) ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

You're surprised Hilary C. didn't involve herself in a little bit of 'wetwork' as you put it, however as the Secretary of State she was most certainly in a good position to organise, and approve it!

Apropos Quantico, indeed I did meet some very interesting folk while there. Myself I was involved mostly in the Firearms side of things, but did have the opportunity of meeting many different people across the board. Especially in their forensic laboratories, and the many tactical areas they have. Of course Quantico itself is a large facility, with most of it under the aegis of the Marine Corps, with the Bureau occupying only a small section of the facility altogether.

Their classrooms are superbly fitted out, with all the very latest mod cons needed for the instruction of law subjects and other theory based topics of importance. They have a 'Hogans Alley' which is a small 'mock up' town equiped with stores, a Post Office, School, a Bank (naturally) and with ordinary domestic housing and several side streets. All of which are used in constructing ambush's and hostage negotiation exercises. Instructional Video camera's are setup everywhere, so students may review the results of their many training exercises.

Parts of it can be immediately turned into a 'hot zone' with couple of structures fitted out as 'killing houses' again for 'live fire' exercises. To be honest I don't know if the Marines use 'Hogans' as well as the Bureau, but you see people wandering about dressed in Camouflage fatigues etc, I can only assume they are Marines? Apparently the Corps has overall command of the place, but they all seem to get on very well I must say.

Enough of my rambling, only to say American law, though based on the English common law (as are we) is generally quite different in the mechanics and application than ours. However, their Criminal jurisprudence is similar to us, broadly speaking. Sorry for this incessant rambling, another overt sign of my declining years I'm afraid!