Australian Royal Commission on Child Abuse reports

[ATraveller]

Exactly. I thought we were living in an age where science was valued but you eventually realize it isn’t science but ‘science’.
Bragging about sexual conquests, which is objectifying for both men and women, is praised but when queried and responding with ‘waiting for marriage’ brings ridicule and crass comments involving car metaphors. Christian men have it tough on this issue.

 

[Cruciferi]

The paradox is that we’re encouraged to go about indiscriminately breeding like animals and engaging scandalous activities; yet, you’ll be crucified for your transgressions if someone else feels violated. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too! Nowadays, everyone has so many sexual skeletons in their closet that it’s only a matter of time before they’re shamed publicly by their hypocritical peers. If you don’t want drama DO NOT engage in an immoral lifestyle. Unfortunately, most people will not amend their ways and instead will try harder to hide their debaucherous lifestyles.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The paradox is that we’re encouraged to go about indiscriminately breeding like animals and engaging scandalous activities; yet, you’ll be crucified for your transgressions if someone else feels violated.

That’s for sure. If I were going around in this day and age, I’d be afraid to engage in relations with anyone I wasn’t married to unless they signed a consent form and a covenant not to sue first. Not kidding. Very glad those days are way in the past for me.

 

[Entwhistler]

I find it hilarious that the Commission advises the the Vatican to change Canon Law. So they are Canon Lawyers now? The Church will change Canon Law when it is good and ready. And when there there is something fundamentally wrong.

Which is not the case when it comes to blabbing about people’s secrets.

 

[Cruciferi]

“It’s for the children!” Who can argue with that statement… This whole scheme is constructed by politicians, who’re guilty of God knows what, and they’re lecturing the Church!? Good Grief

 

[Teek]

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.

Oh! I’m sorry. I missed your point entirely.

I think the reason it is done this way is FOR the children, the Church, the world…everyone.

If they removed the seal of the confessional, or forced people to turn themselves in in order to receive absolution, these people will avoid the Sacrament. These people who have horrible tendencies towards vile sins that they cannot overcome on their own will turn away from the only thing that could give them what they need to have even a remote chance of stopping.

Without that grace, they will hurt more people, more deeply, and all of the pain those crimes cause will ripple throughout the world.

Confession isn’t just about the sinner, just like the crime isn’t just about the victim. Sin hurts the person, the Church, and the victim, and so therefore the world. The victim most grievously, the perpetrator eternally (unless reconciled), but the wound to the Church is also rather large.

The Church keeps the channel of grace available to all sinners in order to provide to the world the protection and healing that only God can provide.

 

[Teek]

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.

I see your point! Yes, that is possible.

There are other examples of sins that require either a Bishop or even the Pope to absolve.

It is complex. Pope Francis relaxed many of those for the Year of Mercy, so that it would be easier for people to receive absolution and healing.

 

[Teek]

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!”

Not to mention they vehemently defend the right to kill children before they are born.

It is weird!

Killing a baby in the womb is not bad at all!

Harming a child is the worst crime possible.

It is less bad to harm adults, because of less innocence.

So, rationally speaking, it should be a consistent continuum—the more innocent, the more vile the offense!

Never ever saying any of it is ok, of course!

 

[Teek]

So if a child tells a priest in the confessional that the church is on fire, the priest just has to sit there?

Only if the child does.

Ha ha.

But really, that is not really what is being discussed here.

 

[FiveLinden]

Oh! I’m sorry. I missed your point entirely.

I think the reason it is done this way is FOR the children, the Church, the world…everyone.

If they removed the seal of the confessional, or forced people to turn themselves in in order to receive absolution, these people will avoid the Sacrament. These people who have horrible tendencies towards vile sins that they cannot overcome on their own will turn away from the only thing that could give them what they need to have even a remote chance of stopping.

Without that grace, they will hurt more people, more deeply, and all of the pain those crimes cause will ripple throughout the world.

Confession isn’t just about the sinner, just like the crime isn’t just about the victim. Sin hurts the person, the Church, and the victim, and so therefore the world. The victim most grievously, the perpetrator eternally (unless reconciled), but the wound to the Church is also rather large.

The Church keeps the channel of grace available to all sinners in order to provide to the world the protection and healing that only God can provide

So why is it ok to retire someone who has falsely accused a priest to tell everyone they told of their sin before absolution?

 

[Teek]

So why is it ok to require someone who has falsely accused a priest to tell everyone they told of their sin before absolution?

Wouldn’t it interfere with justice if a priest came forward?

There is lawyer/client privilege, spousal confidentiality, and this kind. By no means do I know the specifics here, other than watching Law and Order or some vague references to it in high school government classes. Which means I know almost nothing.

What I think I might know is that it would be thrown out in court, anyway. And any evidence found based on what the priest said would be thrown out, too.

It would do more harm to the victim. It would be obstruction of justice.

Unless they changed the way the judicial system does these things.

At least here in the United States.

Please someone, correct me if this is wrong and I will fix it.

 

[twf]

In such cases, I understand that the penitent’s true name is not revealed. The Confessor corresponds with the Bishop or Rome discreetly.