Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse reports

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

It has much disturbing detail about the Church and its actions and many excellent recommendations, like this one:

Recommendation 16.26
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should consult with the Holy See, and make public any advice received, in order to clarify whether:
a. information on received from a child during the sacrament of reconciliation that they have been sexually abused is covered by the seal of confession
b. if a person confesses during the sacrament of reconcilia on to perpetrating child sexual abuse, absolution can and should be withheld until l they report themselves to civil authorities.
 
Last edited:
Nothing can be revealed by the Priest. Nothing within Confession. Furthermore, absolution cannot be contingent on turning oneself in. The Priest can refuse absolution and/or the confession. The penitent is responsible for relaying any information to authorities as they see fit. This whole thing is one disgusting demonic attempt to undermine the Seal of Confession. It ain’t happening.
 
Cruciferi said:
Nothing can be revealed by the Priest. Nothing within Confession. Furthermore, absolution cannot be contingent on turning oneself in. The Priest can refuse absolution and/or the confession. The penitent is responsible for relaying any information to authorities as they see fit. This whole thing is one disgusting demonic attempt to undermine the Seal of Confession. It ain’t happening.
Click to expand...
Not so. Absolution can be made contingent on informing others of your sin, only this protects innocent priests, not innocent children.

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Absurdity! It’s not happening.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
only this protects innocent priests
Click to expand...
who did nothing wrong and whose lives and ministry and all of the souls in their care are in grave peril because of lies.

Innocent priests.

The innocent children aren’t being accused of anything. What would innocent children be accused of?
 
I say this to the Royal Commission concerning this matter, “Be gone Satan! Away with your pathetic machinations!”
 
Recommenders gonna recommend. Church is not going to change the confessional rules over this. If they did it in this country, they’d have to do it in all of them, and it’s not happening. Nope.

I also don’t see how celibacy has anything to do with child sex abuse, given that plenty of men with wives and adult partners abuse kids, sometimes even their own kids. Jerry Sandusky had a wife. While some people who recognize unhealthy attractions in themselves might gravitate toward priesthood because they feel it will force them to be celibate and thus not “do bad things”, or worse yet because they think a priest would be able to “do bad things” and get away with it, it seems like what is needed is better training for those who admit candidates to the priesthood to be able to weed out the psychologicaly unsound apples, not “get rid of celibacy”.
 
Teek said:
who did nothing wrong and whose lives and ministry and all of the souls in their care are in grave peril because of lies.

Innocent priests.

The innocent children aren’t being accused of anything. What would innocent children be accused of?
Click to expand...
Well, in the case of many clerical child abusers, they are accused of lying. But that is not the point. The point is that canon law protects priests falsely accused by withholding absolution but does not protect the future (likely) victims of child abusers. I was responding to a claim that it was not possible to require sinners to inform others of their sin before absolution. It is possible and is required now. But to protect priests, not children.
 
FiveLinden said:
Try reading the report. You will change your minds.
Click to expand...
It is very long. I will read some of the brief guides to the Final Report.

At the moment, I don’t think changing the rules for Confession is really going to help the cause.
 
Notice that the Commission is asking the Australian Church to seek clarification from the Holy See. When a child reports something that is not a sin,can it be revealed?
 
FiveLinden said:
When a child reports something that is not a sin,can it be revealed?
Click to expand...
If it’s within Confession the answer is NO!! The child can tell anyone they want. The priest cannot. This is merely a disguised attack on the sacrament. It’s quite bizarre. The secular world says we’re over populated and shouldn’t have children. However, when they need to further their agenda suddenly, “We must do it for the children!”
 
Cruciferi said:
When a child reports something that is not a sin,can it be revealed?

If it’s within Confession the answer is NO!! The child can tell anyone they want. The priest cannot. This is merely a disguised attack on the sacrament. It’s quite bizarre. The secular world says we’re over populated and shouldn’t have children. However, when they need to further their agenda suddenly, “We must do it for the children!”
Click to expand...
So if a child tells a priest in the confessional that the church is on fire, the priest just has to sit there?
 
These are absurd hypothetical situations that you’re really grasping at air for. Confession is for sins. You don’t report News in the confessional to the priest! Let’s say a “child” enters confession and says he’s being abused and that he wants forgiveness. The priest would tell him that he’s the victim and not guilty. The priest can advise him to seek out help such as social services; however, the Priest cannot “forward” the story to anyone else! The penitent can be counseled but must take the initial step.
 
Last edited:
This has already been the case, at least in North America, for years now… since the first sex abuse scandal broke. Potential seminarians always undergo psychological evaluation.
 
Right, and if the same is not happening in Australia, it should.
If the screening is already happening in Australia, then the recommendation would seem to reflect the erroneous position that celibacy drives one to become a sex abuser. Which is riduculous. Sexual abuse is not something that happens when people deny themselves sex or don’t have a sexual outlet.
 
That’s a pretty disturbing accusation actually. What’s next? A government program where all single men are obligated to frequent prostitutes to avoid abusing children? It’s the same logic. And it’s sick.
 
Virgin shaming or chastity shaming are acts of faith in the new major secular religion, where contraception and abortion are sacraments and its hymns involve praising the sexual revolution.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think there are people in this world who believe that if someone isn’t having sex, they have some type of mental disorder. It’s bizarre. Nobody ever died from not having sex. It’s not food, water, or shelter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top