New Australian Law Requires Priests to Break Seal of Confession to Report Admissions of Child Abuse

[Alex337]

Alex337:

yankeesouth:

So what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

Well my priest always tells me to seek contrition with the wronged party. I’ve not broken the law but I suspect they would tell me to confess to that as well as part of my contrition. Otherwise I’m not contrite.

I have had a couple of confessions where I was “told” to make amends which would have involved disclosing my sin. I asked the priest whether he was obliging me to the action, or whether it was a pre-condition for absolution, and he said no. Perhaps this is something they assume we know, that we actually don’t.

It feels to me that not disclosing some things are a further sin.

 

[Alex337]

Yes but what other confessions should a priest break the seal for? If the government wants to find a murderer? How bout treason as someone mentioned before? What about other things that could hurt a child…parents drug use?

I imagine it would need to be looked at to decide. As stands I think I’ve come to the conclusion that much like a psychologist if the penitent shows that they are going to harm themselves or others they should be reported.

Actually there’s a point; what should a priest do out someone admits to being suicidal in confession? Can they alert authorities and medical professionals?

 

[po18guy]

Headlines are sensation and often, little else.

If it comes to pass, what happens is that there will be many more masses celebrated in Australia’s correctional facilities. It is the time of testing!

However, I suspect that Australia has a supreme court and that there may still be a religious freedom or conscience clause in their founding document.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

For better or for worse, the United States and its Monroe Doctrine has ensured that (save for a few unsavory examples) Communism hasn’t gained a foothold anywhere in the New World. I strongly believe that Marxism is still idealized in the New World (including American college campuses) because nobody here has had to actually live under the yolk of communist totalitarian control.

 

[Cruciferi]

It’s the beginning of the end in my opinion but I’ve been awaiting a persecution for sometime now. So, let the chips fall where they may…

 

[redbetta]

Karl Marx has the best PR of any man that has ever lived. How can someone be so consistently wrong, on so many levels, yet still be taken seriously and even celebrated to this day, I will never understand.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Today in the 21st century I highly doubt (I highly hope!) that it would come to priests being shot dead in the streets like it was in Guadalajara in the 1920s, but we cannot deny that this law is inherently anti-clerical despite it being non-violent.

I also don’t expect that priests will be shot dead in the streets, but I do expect that a range of laws will continue to encroach on Catholic life and witness, and that society and even large numbers of Catholics will aquiesce to the apparent “good intent” of them.

I don’t know about you, but all the priests of Australia are objects of my prayers tonight during Compline.

Thankyou! I’ll remember to do the same, and take note of any movement from the laity to support our bishops.

 

[Rozellelily]

In my view,the priest has a strong responsibility to try to convince the child abuser to turn themselves in and make them see that they are harming someone.
That seems more reasonable then expecting priests to break their confessional seal.

 

[Edmundus1581]

However, I suspect that Australia has a supreme court and that there may still be a religious freedom or conscience clause in their founding document.

The constitutional separation of church and state has already been considered on previous (related) issues in Australia.

The expert opinion is that our constitution is weak on freedom of religion.

Australia, like the UK, has no bill of rights and has a minimalist constituion. This comes from a time where people saw different threats to liberty, and is now coming back to bite us.

 

[yankeesouth]

Looked at by who? The government? And who decides what ‘harm’ is?

And the issue is not about confessing a future sin. We are talking about confessing a prior sin. So again I’m asking you what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

 

[Alex337]

Looked at by who? The government? And who decides what ‘harm’ is?

And the issue is not about confessing a future sin. We are talking about confessing a prior sin. So again I’m asking you what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

I’m rather sure I answered that It would need to be considered, probably by legal experts much as was considered for psychiatrists.

 

[Alex337]

Oh, and what about the suicide question? I’m intrigued

 

[Edmundus1581]

yankeesouth:

Looked at by who? The government? And who decides what ‘harm’ is?

And the issue is not about confessing a future sin. We are talking about confessing a prior sin. So again I’m asking you what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

I’m rather sure I answered that It would need to be considered, probably by legal experts much as was considered for psychiatrists.

I am suspecting that you are young(ish). Those of use disagreeing with you have been around long enough to know that society can change quite radically in its abhorrence of particular offences. What was a grievous crime in one decade is not so grievous the next, and a new “horror” has emerged.

The Salem Witch Trials are the archetype of this.

It’s at the whim of public prejudice, “virtue signalling” (a new word for an old behaviour), and also political opportunism.

The Seal of the Confessional is always inviolable and one reason, but certainly not the only one, is that the Church doesn’t allow society to tell us which sins are the most grievious. Well, the Catholic Church doesn’t - the others are not so strong.

 

[yankeesouth]

No you still haven’t answered the question. The government wants information of past crimes.The issue is someone confessing a past sin. So what other sins do you think a priest should break the seal for?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

yankeesouth:

Looked at by who? The government? And who decides what ‘harm’ is?

And the issue is not about confessing a future sin. We are talking about confessing a prior sin. So again I’m asking you what other confessions should a priest break the seal for?

I’m rather sure I answered that It would need to be considered, probably by legal experts much as was considered for psychiatrists.

I am suspecting that you are young(ish). Those of use disagreeing with you have been around long enough to know that society can change quite radically in its abhorrence of particular offences. What was a grievous crime in one decade is not so grievous the next, and a new “horror” has emerged.

The Salem Witch Hunts are a permanent reminder of this.

It’s at the whim of public prejudice, “virtue signalling” (a new word for an old behaviour), and also political opportunism.

The Seal of the Confessional is always inviolable, and one reason, but certainly not the only one, is that the Church doesn’t allow society to tell us which sins are the most grievious. Well, the Catholic Church doesn’t - the others are not so strong.

I’m honestly not that young. I tend to use emoticons as I find my internet tone can be brusque and I try to soften it with pictures.

If a person is confessing in a confessional isn’t it likely to be a sin? Something the church has also deemed immoral?

 

[Alex337]

No you still haven’t answered the question. The government wants information of past crimes.The issue is someone confessing a past sin. So what other sins do you think a priest should break the seal for?

Now friend, I’ve already explained my stance on this a couple of times (while you seem to have not noticed my question? )

I think priests should hold to the same rules as psychiatrists and report of someone has expressed that they will harm themselves or others. What that means should be determined by legal experts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well my priest always tells me to seek contrition with the wronged party. I’ve not broken the law but I suspect they would tell me to confess to that as well as part of my contrition. Otherwise I’m not contrite.

It is against canon law for a priest to require a penitent to reveal the sin to another human being, as a condition of absolution. In other words, the priest simply does not have the power to claim that the person is not repentant from the mere fact that the person does not turn him or herself in.

He can strongly recommend and warn, but not require.

 

[Alex337]

Here’s the question:
“Actually there’s a point; what should a priest do out someone admits to being suicidal in confession? Can they alert authorities and medical professionals?”

 

[po18guy]

Sad. A time which will prove the faith. Of course, the secular left uses concern for “the children” as the leverage to destroy the Church. All the while permitting/advocating/promoting abortion which destroys…

…“the children”

And, the “grace period” is a message to molesters to confess while it will be kept under the seal of the confessional - therefore unusable in favor of “the children.”

Surreal.

I’d rather watch sausage being made than the law.

 

[yankeesouth]

What if the harm was already done and the government wants evidence to convict?