Posted on 11/14/2012 10:52:47 AM PST by marshmallow
Australian priests could be forced to breach the seal of the confessional to report child sex abuse amid growing calls to end cover-ups involving the Catholic Church.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday slammed the use of the confessional to avoid reporting abuse, saying it is a "sin of omission" and all adults have a duty to protect children.
She announced this week the launch of a Royal Commission to investigate offences involving religious and non-religious organisations and insisted it will examine not only abuse but the role of institutions in covering it up.
Though the commission's terms of reference are yet to be decided, Ms Gillard said on Wednesday she was concerned about adults "averting their eyes" from crimes against children.
''It's not good enough for people to engage in sin of omission and not act when a child is at risk," she said.
Australia's most powerful Catholic, Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, was this week widely condemned for insisting that priests who hear confessions of child sex abuse must keep quiet because "the Seal of Confession is inviolable".
He said priests should avoid taking confessions from colleagues suspected of being paedophiles but that they cannot then report the crime to police.
"If that is done outside the confessional (it can be passed on)," he said.
"(But) the Seal of Confession is inviolable If the priest knows beforehand about such a situation, the priest should refuse to hear the confession." The strict secrecy of confessions is believed to be more than 1000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
It won’t happen.
And if the priest refuses, I doubt whether there could be any convincing proof in court that he was covering anything up.
Well said. The Church is a social organization and authority structure independent of, older than, and not entirely subject to the State. Tyrants cannot tolerate such.
Better they become martyrs than that. Plus if the government can do that why not also force lawyers to still out thier knowledge of crimes too.
Why not require defense attorneys to report to the prosecutor, during the “discovery” process, whatever their clients have told them?
Actually, no. Do unto others refers to personal actions.
Very interesting.
I assume that lawyer, doctor, spousal privacy laws will be revoked also.
I thought the sarcasm would shine through. Perhaps not.
But you correct that Liberals do get annoyed at the whole due process requirement when it holds back their demigod.
I thought the sarcasm would shine through. Perhaps not.
Instead of the state forcing it, why doesn’t the church just do the right thing, and say it’s ok? Why does the church fight this? They certainly don’t support pedophiles and I’m sure they think it’s illegal.
Why? What kind of power does it take to just say we should help put pedophiles away?
What’s the purpose of confessing to a priest anyway? God already knows if someone is a pedophile and if that person is sincerely sorry.
I don’t understand the value of it anyway. The pope can’t change something that his priests do, yet a priest can tell someone to do penance, and then it’s ok?
I thought we hated lawyers that defend scum? Besides, that’s 100% legal, this issue with priests, is different.
I don’t hate lawyers that defend scum.
Breaking “Attorney-Client” privilege is NOT 100% legal.
So much ignorance, so little time.
See #7
The church fights it because it is an attack on one of the direct commandments from the New Testament.
So what is the purpose of going through a human? Doesn’t God already know all this?
What was the original reason for this commandment?
You’ll have to take that up with Jesus; He’s the one who gave priests the authority to forgive sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.