Australia and the Confessional

  • Thread starter Thread starter bkovacs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bkovacs said:
Looks like Australia may follow Irelands lead.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/australia-a-bill-to-force-priests-to-break-the-seal-of-confession/
Click to expand...
Stupid move. Don’t they think that with this law there will be no more confessions of these sins and so no more disclosures ? But it is politically correct but leads nowhere, which does not seem to bother the politicians.

The Catholic Church is an easy target, a sitting duck. And the media are after It. Is disguises other profession’s sins which are much greater, from the statistics… But these sins are not so mediatic …

Other professions have deontological secrecy which do not seem to get so much noise !

Confession by itself is a good help for these sins. Is the State going to find better solutions? From the past, I doubt it.
 
ibo said:
Stupid move. Don’t they think that with this law there will be no more confessions of these sins and so no more disclosures ? But it is politically correct but leads nowhere, which does not seem to bother the politicians.

The Catholic Church is an easy target, a sitting duck. And the media are after It. Is disguises other profession’s sins which are much greater, from the statistics… But these sins are not so mediatic …

Other professions have deontological secrecy which do not seem to get so much noise !

Confession by itself is a good help for these sins. Is the State going to find better solutions? From the past, I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Don’t lawyers have “lawyer client confidence” or something? I can admit to my lawyer my guilt but my lawyer can get me charged with a lesser crime? Or get me off completely?

Also, wouldn’t most priests advise pentients who committed a grevious crime to turn themselves in - no as a penance - but as the right thing to do?
 
Dale_M said:
Hm… I am not sure this proposal has legs. It is being made by one senator, who doesn’t belong to a political party. And news reports don’t indicate that he has any support in the legislature.

The senator, Nick Xenophon, made a similar call back in 2003 when he was in the South Australian Parliament.
brisbanetimes.com.au/national/call-to-end-confessional-confidentiality-20110721-1hr0d.html
Click to expand...
Australia has a minority run government at the moment. Which means The two major parties have to rely on independents to govern. Which in turn means, the governing party has to listen to the independents or risk losing government.This idiot is already bringing in an unpopular legislation that the government doesn’t want but must do or lose power.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Don’t lawyers have “lawyer client confidence” or something? I can admit to my lawyer my guilt but my lawyer can get me charged with a lesser crime? Or get me off completely?

Also, wouldn’t most priests advise pentients who committed a grevious crime to turn themselves in - no as a penance - but as the right thing to do?
Click to expand...
There are limits to lawyer-client confidentiality. My understanding is that if a client tells their lawyer that they are guilty of a crime, for example, the lawyer cannot argue that they were nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time or anything.

If there are technical defences still available, for example the client was insane,
or was acting in self defence, or the client’s version of events indicates that they are indeed only guilty of a lesser crime, or the police didn’t follow proper procedure, then the lawyer can fight the charge based on what is available.

Doesn’t mean they can reveal what the client has said to them in confidence, but they can refuse to use arguments or defences that run counter to the client’s admissions.

And if a client reveals plans to break the law in future their lawyer needs to report it.

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.
 
latin_rite said:
Australia has a minority run government at the moment. Which means The two major parties have to rely on independents to govern. Which in turn means, the governing party has to listen to the independents…
Click to expand...
Apart from that, the totally spiritually bankrupt “Greens” would be only too happy to support Xenophon`s push: anything to crush the Church!!! :mad:

As for some high profile figures here:
A Prime Minister whos in a "shackup" (heterosexual), and a member of EMILYs List Australia.
The leader of “The Greens” is a self-proclaimed practising homosexual in a “shackup”.
A High Court judge who`s a self-proclaimed lesbian in a “shackup”.
Ad nauseum.

This country`s already a cesspool! 🤷

Rome had Julian the Apostate…
 
The Irish call is clearly aimed at Catholics, but is the Australian one aimed at Catholics or all priests who hear confessions? Because this senator is Greek Orthodox, and they practice confession, so what about them? And the Orthodox have their problems, too, just for some reason the media doesn’t hype it, and, well, there just aren’t as many Orthodox as there are Catholics so it doesn’t get the attention. I am inclined to say this is anti-Catholic bashing. 😦
 
LilyM said:
There are limits to lawyer-client confidentiality. My understanding is that if a client tells their lawyer that they are guilty of a crime, for example, the lawyer cannot argue that they were nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time or anything.

If there are technical defences still available, for example the client was insane,
or was acting in self defence, or the client’s version of events indicates that they are indeed only guilty of a lesser crime, or the police didn’t follow proper procedure, then the lawyer can fight the charge based on what is available.

Doesn’t mean they can reveal what the client has said to them in confidence, but they can refuse to use arguments or defences that run counter to the client’s admissions.

And if a client reveals plans to break the law in future their lawyer needs to report it.

I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I’m pretty sure a lawyer can argue anything. It’s where we get the immoral lawyer stereotype from.

What a lawyer cannot do is give an inadequate defence for their client. They have to defend to the best of their ability. Failure to do so can lead to malpractice suits and even disbarment for unethical conduct.

Where the attorney-client privilege ends is if the lawyer is a co-conspiritor in the crimes. ie. if you help your client break the law. Then the privilege is null as you’re no longer representing a client.

Now, if you are part of a private practice, you can of course refuse to take on a client if it appears that they are very likely to be convicted (it sounds convoluted, but only a court/jury can make a determination of guilty/not guilty). If your part of Legal Aid/Public Defenders, then you don’t have a choice.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Don’t lawyers have “lawyer client confidence” or something? I can admit to my lawyer my guilt but my lawyer can get me charged with a lesser crime? Or get me off completely?

Also, wouldn’t most priests advise penitents who committed a grevious crime to turn themselves in - no as a penance - but as the right thing to do?
Click to expand...
Yes, lawyers can do that.

As for penitents turning themselves in as the right thing to do, we are done. The state knows better and human justice is the real good one ? So, the person is put in jail where he/she will have the occasion to learn a lot more more of the underground vices. Probably, will come out worse. So much for human justice.

If i were the priest, I would advise to get immediate medical or psychiatric or psychological treatment.🙂

Best Regards, José Carlos
 
latin_rite said:
Australia has a minority run government at the moment. Which means The two major parties have to rely on independents to govern. Which in turn means, the governing party has to listen to the independents or risk losing government.This idiot is already bringing in an unpopular legislation that the government doesn’t want but must do or lose power.
Click to expand...
Sexual abuse is a crime under State and Territory laws. The Commonwealth parliament to which Senator Xenophon belongs has no power to legislate about sexual abuse, or about failure to report to State or Territory authorities matters which are crimes under State or Territory laws.

This astonishingly ignorant and bigoted outburst by Senator Xenophon will have no effect on legislation, it is merely populism intended to raise his electoral profile regardless of the effect on others.

Until this statement Senator Xenophon had actually been one of the more intelligent and sensible of our federal MPs. For example he is one of the few who has dared to call for an inquiry into the scientology cult/scam.
 
IIRC isn’t this an overextension of Federal power over State policy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top