This is terrible.

An innocent man convicted and possibly jailed for conscientious non-action.

This brings us to the dark days of Stalin, where family members were set against each other: parents against children, children against parents, husband against wife and wife against husband, all sent to Siberian gulags for failing to inform the regime of the actions and thoughts of their beloved. Others were shot for failing to inform the Gestapo about Jews in hiding.

Suppose your mother tells you: "Son, I'm still sad about this miscarriage of what would have been your elder sister: I was 14 at the time and your father was 24, we kept it secret but been loving each other deeply ever since". According to this case and proposed legislation, the son must either to inform the regime and send his own father to jail, breaking his own, his mother's and his siblings' heart - or face jail himself.

Westerners are generally not aware about karma, but are still aware of the Golden Rule: That which you would hate done unto thyself - do not do unto others!

Would you like to be convicted and thrown in jail?
Then why would you do this to someone else?

Know that if your action causes somebody else to be incarcerated, you incur that karma that will cause you to be incarcerated yourself - if not in this lifetime then in a future one.

One should not provide the regime such information that is likely to put another in jail except:

1) If others are still at substantial risk from the perpetrator and you have no other way to protect them.

2) If you are a kshatriya by nature and the regime is legitimate and wholesome, then you should be doing your duty and accept the implications honourably, even if it means that you will be incarcerated yourself as a result.

Here, the perpetrator is DEAD and can no longer harm anyone. It all happened long ago, but the regime is ideologically all about revenge, never to forget, never forgive - well Christians, martyrdom times are upon us!

//Paul seems to have an unwholesome interest in paedophilia and the Catholic Church.//

Shadow, should I take offence at your innuendo. No I do not, I do take an interest in this matter. You sir, being an apologist for the actions of your church, your innuendo is understandable. One day I will tell you about my younger brother, 10 years my junior, who also attended a Catholic School. I believe the cases reported are a small minority, most choose to leave their experience in the past. I think many practising Catholics have an unwholesome interest in avoiding the subject of paedophilia and the Catholic Church.

Foxy, I mentioned Cardinal George Pell once, but my discussion didn't see the light of day, it was for understandable reasons. As usual your insight is correct, Frances and all the rest of the motley crew are going to one day have to bend, face reality, and stop resisting the inevitable.

Runner, in your typical fashion you try to protect the Catholic Church, by making it a left/right political debate, and using erroneously deflection. How many in your church have been prosecuted for pedophilia? Given the way you like to protect the religious on this matter I suspect none, if your heading the investigation.

ttbn, canon law should have no more standing that Sharia law. The only law I respect is the law of the land, not some religious guff!

David, I was aware of similar decisions in other countries, but it was landmark in as much as a legal precedent has now been set in Australia. I would think if there is an avenue for appeal then the Catholic Church will pursue it vigorously, they can not afford not to. If it was only the isolated case of Wilson, then the church could afford to throw him to the sharks, and write him off as a geriatric fool, but the widespread ramifications are too great for them to ignore.

Yuyutsu //An innocent man convicted and possibly jailed for conscientious non-action.// Rubbish.

«Yuyutsu //An innocent man convicted and possibly jailed for conscientious non-action.// Rubbish.»

No explanation?

But I probably understand your bias: this was a Catholic priest, a leader of the hated conservative class.

What if the news were: "A Greenpeace ship-captain failed to report to the police about an activist-sailor under him shooting and killing a Japanese whaler"? or "An activist fails to report friend who planted a bomb in a coal mine that threatened the great barrier-reef: the explosion that collapsed a mine-shaft and killed 3 miners was previously believed to be an operational accident"?

For me it is all the same: the freedom of non-action is sacred. Same for a Muslim who refuses to stand for a judge. Nobody should ever be forced to cooperate with a regime against their will.

Does this case mean persons who suspect or know of a paedophile could face two years imprison if they fail to tell police? Does it only apply to Catholic priests?

Dear Paul,

I am so sorry for forgetting to address you in my above post.

SM,
Yes where do the prosecutions end?

In NSW, maybe other states as well, a person can be prosecuted if he is given information about a possible crime and does not report it. So where does that leave the police, politicians, parents and others with church connections? It seems everyone knew about it going on and nothing was done. The priests, Brothers, Nuns were 'untouchable'

What still gets me is that most parents knew about it from when they attended the same schools and yet sent their own kids, of both sexes, to the same schools. With such knowledge, why would they put their own kids in danger of sexual abuse? Us non-catholics knew because our RC mates told us when we met.

Surely now many parents must have major guilt feelings