"Priests in Tasmania and Victoria will now face possible jail terms if they do not report information regarding child sexual abuse made during the sacrament of confession.

In Tasmania, mandatory reporting laws passed on 11 September require anyone with knowledge of child sexual abuse, including priests in the hearing of confessions, to report the crime to police. The maximum penalty is 21 [ misprint perhaps?] years’ imprisonment or fines of up to $3,360.

Victoria’s state parliament passed similar laws on 10 September, also scrapping the previous religious confession exemption, with the maximum penalty set at a three-year prison sentence."
http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/confession-challenge-made-law-in-victoria-tasmania/

One thing that comes to mind is, how would evidence be gathered?

'One thing that comes to mind is, how would evidence be gathered?'

One hope that its not made up in people's mind like it was the Pell case. I certainly don't trust the Catholic church but less so activist leftist judges. Just look at the lying liberal media, lying feminist, fake made up crimes and the democrats in the US. Just like academia has become corrupted so its heading that way in the courts.

How many people who have committed a criminal act do confess that act to a priest? If they do confess, how would police know they had done so? Would priests actually voluntarily dob in a penitent?

The whole thing is bluff and bullshite.

Dear Is Mise,

I know runner is a staunch defender of pedophiles, particularly given his faith has proved to be so rife with them, but I'm kind of glad finding solace in the confessional will denied them, don't you?

On the face value of it, I say:

Good. No sanctuary for peedos.

But while we're on the topic, is there any reason why someone like a priest who's supposed to have the best interest of the people and the local community, should not report things like rape and murder as well?

Why should it be a sanctuary where you can redeem yourself from guilt but not face the community's scorn and punishment for your crimes.

So I say no sanctuary for rapists, murderers, peedos or anyone else who preys upon others either.

Why only make legal provisions against the Catholic Church with this legislation though?

So I say make similar legal provisions for all religious entities.

'So I say make similar legal provisions for all religious entities.'

yep including all the global warming high priest virtue signallers in Hollywood who have hidden deviants for years along with the bbc.

"mandatory reporting laws passed on 11 September require anyone with knowledge of child sexual abuse, including priests in the hearing of confessions, to report the crime to police"

A silence-for-life sentence for abused children who of the goodness of their heart choose forgiveness over vengeance. Previously if they wanted, they could unburden their bad feelings, including shame, guilt and fears, by sharing what happened to them confidentially with some trusted adult, perhaps a priest during confession, perhaps someone else who could equally be trusted, but now with this law they must bury this painful secret deep in the far recesses of their mind until it festers and makes them mentally ill. Whom must they thank for this?

Perhaps even, this law could be interpreted to imply that such good children themselves should also be punished and imprisoned for 21 years?

Hillel's Golden Rule says, "That which you hate done unto yourself, do not do unto others". Would you not hate being thrown in jail yourself? If that is the case, then you ought not to become the cause of someone else suffering that way!

You could also look at this from the standpoint of karma: if you cooperate with such a law and cause someone else to be imprisoned, then you too have incurred such karma that will make you suffer the same or an equivalent fate (either in your current or in a subsequent life-time). The wise would disobey such laws even if they be punished and get some short prison sentence as a result, because otherwise they would incur an even longer prison sentence, similar to what the person they dobbed in got.

Steele,

They'll still find solace in Confession, if they ever could, because priests aren't going to comply with the law but will continue to tell the penitent that absolution is dependant not only on them being sorry for their sin but also upon them giving themselves up as well as giving up the practice.

Do priests give such directions, some but not necessarily all.

However, the big question is; how would police collect evidence?

To me, it looks like a public money-wasting "feel good" law that says,
"look at us, we're doing something".

Can someone who supports this law change please tell me:
why should lawyers have a monopoly on confidentiality?

Dear Aidan,

«Can someone who supports this law change please tell me:»

I do not, but please allow me to explain:

«why should lawyers have a monopoly on confidentiality?»

Because the British tradition (hence derived traditions, like Australia) worships the institute of punishment and lawyers are an essential part of that ritual.

As long as deviates are protected nothing will ever get better ! To withhold knowledge of a crime purely out of superstition is also criminal.

"To me, it looks like a public money-wasting "feel good" law that says,
"look at us, we're doing something".
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 29 February 2020 10:48:47 PM"

Exactly!

individual,

" To withhold knowledge of a crime purely out of superstition is also criminal."

Superstition has nowt to do with it, the law says that it would,

"... require anyone with knowledge of child sexual abuse, including priests in the hearing of confessions, to report the crime to police"

This includes atheist counsellors.

Any ideas on how evidence could be collected?

Dear Is Mise,

You are right about the hierarchy.

"Senior counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness SC said the inquiry had heard successive bishops effectively heard priest Gerald Francis Ridsdale admit his offending – outside the confessional – in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and did nothing to stop him."

So it is hard to believe they are going to fess up after hearing a confession.

“It’s not yet public, but we have heard from at least one priest who confessed to his confessor, and in that way reconciled his offending behaviour, which continued with his belief in God,” justice Peter McClellan told the commission in Ballarat on Friday.

I don't mind putting the wind up the lot of them. Their duty of care for children was and likely is still sorely lacking.

Utterly shameful. Worse still people like runner are constantly attempting to absolve them of their behaviour.

SteeleRedux, you are a despicable individual in you claims runner approves of paedophiles.

Dear Josephus,

Don't be a dolt.

My words were “Worse still people like runner are constantly attempting to absolve them of their behaviour”.

George Pell is a convicted paedophile and runner is showing support for him on this very thread for God's sake. Wake up.

I don't think runner approves of grabbing women by the pussy but he certainly supports the right of his president to do so without censure from those with so called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Go find something more useful to do than coming on here and churlishly misstating the bleeding obvious.

When a mild mannered and polite poster like Josephus describes someone as a "despicable individual", it's time to take notice.

One aspect of this law that has so far gone unnoticed is that a malicious person may enter the Confessional, tell the priest that he is a paedophile and confess some imaginary sins.
The priest does not report him and so is guilty of a crime.

Meanwhile, the malicious person tells the police what he has done and on investigation is found to not be a paedophile and not to have committed any crimes, this would still leave the priest/whatever guilty of not reporting the matter.

Of course, the offender could lie and say that he didn't hear the malevolent one's confession.

Anyone yet come up with an idea of how to collect evidence?

While I sympathise with the motives of the proposal, there are two major flaws in implementing this "policy"

1 If a confession is no longer secret, criminals of any stripe will clearly no longer confess anything that could put them in jail,

2 If a priest does not come forward, who the hell will know, and the only witness will be the offender.

In short this entire exercise is futile.

A true repentant goes to God direct and confesses and repents [means abandons the sin as abhorrent]. The Roman Catholic Confessional should have a recording device if it is to take action against Criminals. However this means the confession is invalid, as the sin is not forgiven but held to account at a future date. Hence private confession and repentance is the only valid forgiveness.

The sin might be forgiven but the crime had been made known to a trusted member of the community;
And the person needs to also answer to the people they've wronged, not just to God.
They can be absolved by God, (or someone who claims to speak for him) but they enjoy no such freedom within the community.

The alternative is that so called 'trusted' religious authority figures who hear people confess to crimes and offer a path for the criminal to be removed from guilt, are probably people that should NOT be trusted by the community.

Is what they're doing in the communities best interest?
Is it in the criminals best interest?
Or is it in the religions best interests?
Or is it in their own interests?

Steele, well said as usual, your assessment of runner is spot on. Pell the innocent victim, is pathetic. runner reminds me of the "Good Nazi" the bloke who agreed with the good stuff but disageed with all the bad stuff, until a little digging shows what he really was. CATHOLIC CHURCH, runner's mob, all tared with the same brush.

Paul,

Perhaps you'd know how to collect the evidence?

So are defence lawyers going to be required to 'out' their client if he/she admits to the crime?

Well everyone seems to only refer to the confession of the criminal, but this is only one [and a very unlikely] possibility. Rather, the priest might hear the confession of a third-party or even more likely of the victim him/herself (if indeed they were actually a victim) who deeply trusts the priest to never tell anyone else about what happened.

Suppose a certain boy (or girl) sexually seduced a disabled adult. The adult found it too hard to resist the child's advances (because in their condition they otherwise have no sex-life), thus the child gained their trust, entered their house and stole all their money. Please don't tell me that things like that do not happen!

Now the child feels guilty - and rightly so, so they repent and go to confession. They ARE the guilty party, so why should the actual victim suffer more instead? Under the new law, the child will never confess, probably because there will no longer be any confessions held as no priest will be willing to risk jail. The child will therefore receive no spiritual guidance, will have to keep it all inside and will continue to perpetrate similar crimes.

Another possibility is the confession of the child's parent who somehow finds out about the abuse, but knows too well that their child desperately wants to keep it secret so if the parent told the police (directly or otherwise), then they will be hated and lose all trust by their son/daughter forever who would (rightly) feel bitterly betrayed. Suppose the parent feels guilty because they believed that the abuse happened due to their own negligence - why can't such a suffering parent at least be able to confide in a priest?

Confession is not about forgiving/absolution: the enormous value of confessing is in the fact of telling someone else, anyone really, about exactly what you've done. In that alone rests the healing - the absolution is only a carrot to encourage people to confess, rather than the true reason why one ought to confess.

I'm sure that runner is capable of laughing at the two halfwits who have resorted to calling him names and insulting him. He has faith and beliefs; they have nothing.

Hi Issy, gathering evidence no problem, The Inquisition will do the trick. 5 mins on the rack and Fr Fookemup will be singing like a bird. In fact he'll be confessing to all sorts of sins, even those of his mate Br Stickitinem. First offence let off with only a drawn and quarter. Do it again and well it will be a bit of nasty punishment a second time around. Burning of his entrails is very popular this season, and the guilty bugger gets to watch what a bonus.

Paul,

Obviously you have no idea; so I eagerly await someone telling us all how the evidence will be collected.

Surely the MsP who voted for this Bill could give us some idea as they must have considered the matter during their discussions in the run up to the vote.

Sorry Issy, do you prefer thumb screws? How about the Iron Maiden? When I was a good little CATHOLIC BOY I went to Confession many times "Bless me Father for I have sinned...." I would make up sins to keep the old git happy, but the old b always wanted to know if you ever had impure thoughts or actions...like jerkn' the gerkin me thinks given half a chance the old b would have the kiddies jerkn' his gerkin or some such thing.

Paul,

How's your eyesight?

Probably very good, so now you know that your favourite practice doesn't make you go blind.

How would you collect the evidence?

You're not alone in avoiding answering this question.

As I said before it's a bit of feel good legislation.

Now Issy, if we throw ya on the rack, me thinks we'll have ya confessn' to all ya sins including some ya didn't even know ya committed. Hows that! It's most effective at gettn' the truth out of the guilty! I can tell ya, works every time!

The ungodly here, struggle with the concept of confession.
The Priest, etc acts as Christ in hearing the confession. So therefore, for that moment listening to the confession, he is considered in a metaphysical state of being. Not human.
That's the basis of his freedom from responsibility towards the world and its dictates.

Demanding a priest etc, to spill the beans to the local plods, is not reasonable, and lacks understanding of the holy mans position.

So he should not be put into this invidious position, with unreasonable demands.

The church however, could assist the process of clarity, by abandoning the secret confessional, and forming a period for confession in public during a normal service of the day.

There is a precedent for this situation in the past history of the Catholic Church.

Dan

Christianity has been persecuted for 2,000 years. Catholics in particular are used to witch hunts, which are increasing with neo-Marxist hatred. I'm confident that they will be able to handle this latest assault.

Dear Diver Dan,

So a school counselor who learns through one of their confidential sessions with a student that the student is being abused, even though they swear it is consensual and that they love the teacher in question, should not be forced through law to report the abuse?

SR

Read what I said. There is no comparison between a priest performing in confessional, and a school councillor.

A priest is in a metaphysical state of being, (according to his religious belief system).
No comparison.
But to use your example, say your son Ao daughter confessed privately to you they sexually abused a child, would you report them to the plods?

That is a more fitting example, suitable to the logic of your argument.

My feelings on his are also stated above. The Church should, in my opinion, make moves to abandon secret confessionals.
They are now divisive in the view of our community, and Christ would not stand idly by creating division when there are simple alternatives that would defuse the situation.

Many differing Christian congregations deal with confessions in a more open way.
Evangelicals for example, often make public confession of past sins, an example of the power of Christ in their life to overcome sin and change themselves for the better.

Catholics have many examples of alternatives to secrecy in front of them.
I consider their lack of cooperation on this subject to be arrogant.

Dan

Steele,

A lot depends on the age and sex of the student and teacher; if the student is male and the teacher female then most of us would have liked to be abused in like circumstances.

Dan,

The Catholic Church already has General Confession where there is no one to one with a priest, in the case of the law which we are discussing there is nowt to stop the Church from using General Absolution/Confession and laughing at the petty lawmakers.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33707
"The term has two different meanings, both referring to the reception of the sacrament of penance. Most commonly, it means a private confession where the penitent (exceptionally) resolves to confess as far as he or she can all past sins, and not only those since the last confession. The practice is recommended when a person is entering on a new state of life -- the priesthood, religious life, or marriage -- and is required in some religious institutes by rule to be done annually. Less often, general confession is associated with the granting of general absolution. When general absolution may be validly given, the provision for general confession is that "the penitents who wish to receive absolution" are invited "to indicate this by some kind of sign." The penitents then say a general formula for confession, for example, "I confess to almighty God." 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."

Paul,

Give it up, there might be truth in the blindness warning.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Anyone can represent God. It is not up to the confessor or their organisation to assume that role, but rather for the one who confesses, whether they can see the image of God in the confessor.

So yes, it could be a secular school counselor, in which case that counselor is morally obliged to remain quiet and not betray their student, even under threat of prison, torture or death.

Is Mise

You raise some valid criticism. I think the situation as it's developing, re criminalising a priest for not turning in a confessional criminal, is pretty much a straw man argument.

The real issue is the protection of pedophiles by the church, and ignoring their crimes against the children they are charged with nurturing, by simply moving them on to another location, is the issue.

In view of that outrage, I submit that evidence points more to the untrustworthy nature of the church and as a "consequence" of that crime, as it is. It's reasonable to demand legal oversight to the confessional.

They simply can't be trusted with either the truth, or the welfare of children in particular.
The evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction.

And since the RC church in particular, but not only, have more public options to secret confessionals, they could take instruction from the scriptures re James 5:16.
A clear direction to: "confess your faults one to another"... etc. as in evangelical circles.

The clear advantage there is of course, the evidence of a criminal confession is witnessed by many.

Dan

Issy this may be of help.

The Reverend Clarence Devine of the Golden Tabernacle Cathedral in Boysie Ideho is offering the limited edition 'The Complete Home Confessional'. Made from sound proof cardboard and with easy to install instructions, you can conduct confessions in the privacy of your own home, and no one needs to know. Just 4 easy payments of $49.95 And you will be conducting your own home confessions in no time. Wait there's more call within the next15 minutes and you will receive a second home confessional absolutely free. If your sins are not completely cleansed in 30 days return for a full refund of the purchase price. Also included is the Fr Ted blowup priest who will hear your sins and at the press of a button give you absolution! An amazing offer call now they are going fast.

Call 1300 HEAVEN our sisters are standing by to take your order!

Not your bag Issy. How about calling our sinful hot line and confess your bad deeds to one of our Russian Unortherdox Nuns. They are ready to listen! No telling if you don't.

Dan,

How do you propose that there be legal oversight of the Confessional?

Paul,

Leave it alone; it might drop off.

Dear Dan,

«they could take instruction from the scriptures re James 5:16.
A clear direction to: "confess your faults one to another"... etc.»

Yes, a very proper instruction indeed, but the new law takes this option away too.

Moreover, one can no longer confess even the faults of others to anyone, lest they turn their listeners into criminals. Under this new law, even the abused victims themselves can be criminally charged if they are unwilling to disclose to the police what happened to them!

Paul,

Given your intimate involvement in the catholic church and your hyper interest in their goings on, I would suggest that you have deep personal issues that you are hiding?

Issy the more you tell me the more I keep it up. I'm flying to Sydney this morning. Next time I'll try flying in an airplane. Don't mock the Rev Devine.

The above contribution by the village idiot is what we've come to expect.

Issy, you should apologise to Shadow Minister, he no longer lives in the village, he's moved into the town! Catholic priests should have no more rights when it comes to the law than any other citizen. Many in the Catholic Church knew of the pedophlic activity of other cleargy but failed to report it as they should have. Jail is what they deserve.

Paul.

The above, above, refers to the post immediately above it, no deflections.

No matter what the faults/misdemeanours/crimes of the Catholic clergy etc., etc. the question is, how would the law be enforced and how would evidence be collected?

Seems to be a bit of a void there, does no one have any ideas?

Dear Diver Dan,

You put to me the following;

“Read what I said. There is no comparison between a priest performing in confessional, and a school councillor. A priest is in a metaphysical state of being, (according to his religious belief system). No comparison.”

Sorry what?

So a claim of being in a metaphysical state means you are above the laws of the land? Further he is not hearing about metaphysical matters but very worldly ones. No leave pass here I'm afraid.

Dear Is Mise,

You asked of Paul;

“No matter what the faults/misdemeanours/crimes of the Catholic clergy etc., etc. the question is, how would the law be enforced and how would evidence be collected? Seems to be a bit of a void there, does no one have any ideas?”

Sure. If an abuser is identified and confesses to the crime and when asked if they had told anyone of their crimes and they answer “Yes, I confessed it to so and so on such and such a day” then the matter should be investigated and charges should be laid if there is a substantial likelihood the non-disclosure occurred.

What is so hard about that?

Steele,

"What is so hard about that?"

Everything because it's one person's word against another's and there is no evidence.
Though the time and date be known and the priest identified it's still one person against another.

The Confessional and what's said therein is secret and unless recording devices are made mandatory in Confessionals then there is no way to collect substantive evidence.

Shades of Joe Stalin and the police state.

Dear Is Mise,

Or shades of a society which holds the safety of its young as a paramount concern and is calling to account the practices which allowed confessed abusing priests to be moved to fresh parishes to continue their evil.

I agree with Steele on this. More like shades of St Kevin than Joe Starlin. How about the sicko 'Beat Up' Bolt trying to mitigate what was going on at that pathetic Catholic school. Even Ray Hadley, no friend of the left, couldn't believe it and said so!
Issy in the past you and others of the hard right on the Forum have been dismissive of pedophilia, basically defending the perpetrators whilst attacking the victims. Claiming it's all a bit of "slap and tickle", nothing to get excited about. I recall your own story about your personal experience with a rock spider.

Steele,

How are the police going to get evidence?
Are one person's unsubstantiated accusations going to be evidence against another?
There is no way that substantive evidence can be collected in a Confessional without State authorized listeners or listening devices and that smacks of Stalinism and the police state.

Don't let dislike of Catholicism override your commonsense.

Paul,

I'm actually more left than right and when did I ever stick up for paedophiles?

Those of you who are pondering the question might also consider the difficulties posed by the physical properties of the Confessional; priest and penitent are not face to face but are separated by a wall in which there is a small window and anonymity is further provided for by a screen, usually of a cloth fabric through which features cannot be distinguished.

Names are not exchanged nor asked for, nor need to be given.

Makes identification a bit of a guess.

Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 4 March 2020 1:07:24 PM

" ... Catholic priests should have no more rights when it comes to the law than any other citizen. Many in the Catholic Church knew of the pedophlic activity of other cleargy but failed to report it as they should have. Jail is what they deserve. ... "

No they shouldn't but if I'm not mistaken the rock spider church itself does have certain protections from prosecution at law. This ought not be surprising giving their intimate involvement in atrocities in the post WWII era. I see them as the "handmaiden" of the "transplanted, genocidal pom."

Gaol is not enough in my view. I personally would completely destroy them as an organisation and execute key offenders post torture and public humiliation.

More broadly, I would further enshrine the rights of Children not to be indoctrinated by their parents and get these fruit cakes out of the educational and medical sectors altogether.

And don't forget it is not only sexual abuse but also significant violence that we are talking about here. The"brothers" in these institutions were well know for their physical brutality, and it was in this environment of fear and terror that the sexual abuse also took place.

I think Runner and others are likely able to testify regarding this.

As for how to catch them out protecting criminals via the confessional, it would be one persons word against another's, BUT, so many of them are on record now demonstrating blatant defiance and quite openly stating that they would never admit to anything said during confession, so that immediately puts a question mark over all of them as they are following church policy in this regard.

Some of the laws visa vi violence and abuse do consider what someone "may yet do" and on that belief alone make orders and judgement against them. Given their open defiance, and further recent incidents in the education sector, plainly they have not learned their lesson and need i.m.o. to be collectively punished.

Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 29 February 2020 8:30:56 PM

" ... So I say no sanctuary for rapists, murderers, peedos or anyone else who preys upon others either.

Why only make legal provisions against the Catholic Church with this legislation though?

So I say make similar legal provisions for all religious entities. ... "

Spot on AC, except I would say it should simply apply to everyone, religious or not.

But what you need to understand is, when the white trash in this country was waging its genocidal campaign against the Original people

(stealing children, destroying families, poisoning the wells, leaving out small pox ridden blankets, wholesale rape, pillage and slaughter)

the filth of these rock spider churches was aiding and abetting this at every step along the way. And certain fundamental legal protections (I'm pretty sure) remain in force to protect them from prosecution in their complicity to this.

so, in certain significant ways, the fact that they still exist as an organisation is because successive guvments are protecting them, as they protect the crown itself.

rEPRUSu,

Have you ever thought of giving a reference or three so that the less enlightened amid your enthralled readers may further their knowledge?

Let's face it. There is no way that our idiotic politicians are going to get over their mania for enacting useless legislation act, after act, after act. They think that we are all as stupid as they are, and that we will admire them for 'doing something' even though there is Sweet Fanny Adams that can be done about the evils of child abuse and domestic violence. Nobody knows about it until after it has happened, so all the legislation in the world is not going to have any effect.

ttbn the Church hyerarchy was well aware of past offending by clergy, and by reporting could have avoided future violation of children, but they chose to do nothing, except move pdophiles to new fertile ground where they continued offending.

So no one can suggest how evidence might be gathered in a legal way.

We may take it then that the Victorian and Tasmanian legislation is garbage that wasted taxpayers money to no end.

With all the huffing and puffing from the left whingers incl the village idiot, none of them have any clue as to how this proposed law could be inforced. In reality unless these confessions were taped, no one else would ever know.

Shadow, as you claim to be a person of "legal letters" something you obtained from the back of a 'Corn Flakes' packet, or some such place, who would take any notice of your legal judgements, you did say Bridget dear was in the clear! Bad call that one. You said you have been away, were you Harvey Weinstein's defence council? Why I ask is, dear old Harv got 23 years.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You say;

“With all the huffing and puffing from the left whingers incl the village idiot, none of them have any clue as to how this proposed law could be inforced. In reality unless these confessions were taped, no one else would ever know.”

Well I suppose that applies to all one on one sex crimes against children which go unreported until they are brave enough to speak out.

Do we just give these fine upstanding members of the church a free pass at our kids?

SR,

So very liberal of you, unenforceable legislation must be passed to virtue signal?

Paul,

How very sad for you that your fellow greenie Harvey got 23 years. I wish I had been his lawyer as I would be a lot richer.