Aus gov't announces Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse

[Lord Zentei]

If the "sanctity of the confessional" business becomes a problem, people can draw parallels between it and the patient-doctor confidentiality in secular institutions; which is considered sacrosanct, but not so much that it overrides the law.

[Alkaloid]

I'm loving the people who are saying the reason the confessional should be private in all circumstances is because secular law should never interfere with theological law. I want to remember their names so next time I hear them screaming that muslims are introducing sharia law everywhere and it is terrible and awful and must be made illegal post haste.

[Carinthium]

Alright, now THAT's something worth arguing (although I'm not making the case that, assuming it exists, Allkaloid rightly mocks). To make the case:
(Disclaimer: Not knowing the facts well enough, I'm taking Stark's word that these cases are statistically insignificant anyway. I'm arguing the case because this is an internet board, not a policy forum)

-A Catholic priest, at least (and most denominations, I'm pretty sure), that breaks the sancity of the confessional is a hypocrite. Therefore, mandating by law that they confess is mandating by law that they be hypocrites.

-A priest who breaks the sancity of the confessional, at least in the Catholic Church, has destroyed in his own career. A man of religious devotion(almost certainly) who has devoted his life to only be able to do one thing, he will be excommunicated and shamed in the eyes of the entire religious community (a severe psycological blow). In addition, he will no longer have an income to support himself as the Catholic Church would refuse to do so.

-The priest almost certainly believes that by breaking the sancity of the confessional he faces, or greatly increases the chances of, going to Hell and the resultant punishment. I doubt any of us (including me) can through empathy understand the sheer fear this creates in a truely religious person.

-I am given to understand it is difficult to enforce and catch the offenders in this context (meaning not the actual abusers but the priests who hear their confessors)

-Once such a law was passed, the increase in reporting would be dependent on people actually confessing to priests- very unlikely.

[Alkaloid]

-A Catholic priest, at least (and most denominations, I'm pretty sure), that breaks the sancity of the confessional is a hypocrite. Therefore, mandating by law that they confess is mandating by law that they be hypocrites.

-A priest who breaks the sancity of the confessional, at least in the Catholic Church, has destroyed in his own career. A man of religious devotion(almost certainly) who has devoted his life to only be able to do one thing, he will be excommunicated and shamed in the eyes of the entire religious community (a severe psycological blow). In addition, he will no longer have an income to support himself as the Catholic Church would refuse to do so.

-The priest almost certainly believes that by breaking the sancity of the confessional he faces, or greatly increases the chances of, going to Hell and the resultant punishment. I doubt any of us (including me) can through empathy understand the sheer fear this creates in a truely religious person.

Who gives a shit. If religious law conflicts with the law of the land then a follower or official of any religion has to make a choice. He can follow his religious laws and risk prison, or the national laws and risk whatever his religion does to people. If thats a priest knowing another priest is raping children because he confessed it to him and electing not to alert the authorities, or if its an imam killing his daughter because she had sex out of wedlock makes precisely no difference. Crime is crime, confession to a priest should be not different to a mental health professional or medical doctor, at the very least, confessional box or no. I don't get a free pass for helping my company embezzle money, and 'they would have fired me had I not helped' isn't an excuse.

I am given to understand it is difficult to enforce and catch the offenders in this context (meaning not the actual abusers but the priests who hear their confessors)

Once such a law was passed, the increase in reporting would be dependent on people actually confessing to priests- very unlikely.

I also doubt it's happened often, but not often is not never, and anyone being able to confess to that sort of crime and not have it brought up is so out of whack with the way the rest of the legal system works in this country its absurd and pandering to religions with confessions. Hell, we would be precisely no worse off now than we are anyway, except the church would be less able to stick its nose into police business and have one less layer of bullshit to hide behind.

[Carinthium]

Who gives a shit. If religious law conflicts with the law of the land then a follower or official of any religion has to make a choice. He can follow his religious laws and risk prison, or the national laws and risk whatever his religion does to people. If thats a priest knowing another priest is raping children because he confessed it to him and electing not to alert the authorities, or if its an imam killing his daughter because she had sex out of wedlock makes precisely no difference. Crime is crime, confession to a priest should be not different to a mental health professional or medical doctor, at the very least, confessional box or no. I don't get a free pass for helping my company embezzle money, and 'they would have fired me had I not helped' isn't an excuse.

Actually, I am given to understand that an iman who directly kills his daughter (rather than turn her into the state to be sentenced to death, which is closer to what Mohammed would have wanted) is on shaky theological ground- if so, that point isn't justified.

In addition, I should point out that your policy makes all people who follow it into de facto athiests, and thus is comparable in effect to an indirect ban on freedom of religion (the closest analogy I know of being the Roman policy of forcing all to worship their Gods but allowing them to keep their own).

How can you support this yet oppose formal state athiesm and the suppression of religion by force? I can understand the case for creating a formal athiest state and sympathise with it, and I can understand the case for freedom of religion. I can see NO reasonable argument for your hypocritical compromise.

A priest's situation is different from that of a company for several reasons:
-For a serious believer, a Church creates psycological pressure comparable to a cult (the reason this doesn't have wide-spread effects is because most 'believers' are hypocrites). To give up one's life to become a priest implies that one is a serious believer. The family of one who become a priest will probably (for effective purposes) disown them, as they are likely to be serious believers, or close to it, themselves.
-The longer a priest remains a priest, the more they are cut off from any other career. You can just get another job- the priest has nowhere else to go.
-As I mentioned earlier, such reporting will have little effect anyway.

I also doubt it's happened often, but not often is not never, and anyone being able to confess to that sort of crime and not have it brought up is so out of whack with the way the rest of the legal system works in this country its absurd and pandering to religions with confessions. Hell, we would be precisely no worse off now than we are anyway, except the church would be less able to stick its nose into police business and have one less layer of bullshit to hide behind.

You'd put a lot of priests in jail for unmitigated terms despite the psycological and economic pressures upon them. From a purely utiltarian perspective, you wouldn't catch enough abusers that way (given the paucity of times this actually happens) to justify it. It would be a lot easier from a utiltarian point of view to simply drop the Confessionals argument and emphasise the coverups outside the Confessional.

The legal system has several competing influences from different groups each with their own moral systems, to the point where your claim about it being out of whack isn't quite right. Laws which fit into the same moral framework include conscience votes, the right of doctors to refuse to perform operations which go against their conscience, freedom of religion rules in the Constitution (If you want to press this point I'll clarify it), etc.

[Lord Zentei]

Freedom of religion does not mean that you get away with being complicit in crimes, especially severe ones like rape of children. Seriously, WTF?

The law is supposed to be universal, and it is so with good reason.

[Carinthium]

'Freedom of religion' means freedom to practice your religion- not to practice some parts of it but not others. Whether you approve or disapprove of it, a person who can follow some tenets of their religion but not other tenets clearly does not have freedom of religion.

To use another analogy- say for some reason people going to Church had a massive opportunity cost as far as policy were concerned, so the State (state government or federal) banned it. Would it not be ridicolous to say 'You can be a Christian, but if you go to Church we will arrest you'? It would come to the same thing as suppressing the religion, and arguably (I'll clarify this if asked) be worse. With regards to all sects that uphold sancity of the confessional, the same applies.

Lord Zentei, requesting clarification from you on an important point- what do you believe the purpose to be of giving people freedom of religion?

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, right. And so if I want to join the Thuggee cult of Kali, I should be allowed to do so? And in what way is it comparable to go to church on the one hand and to cover up child rape on the other? Take your sanctimonious bullshit and shove it up your ass.

The purpose of freedom of religion is that it is a manifestation of freedom of opinion. That does not imply freedom of action.

[Grumman]

'Freedom of religion' means freedom to practice your religion- not to practice some parts of it but not others.

"Freedom of religion" only means (or should mean) that the "God says so" aspect carries no weight for or against a thought or action. If it's legal to gather together at a clubhouse once a week, it's still legal to gather together at a church once a week. If it's illegal to murder innocent people, it's still illegal to murder innocent people in the name of Huitzilopochtli.

[ryacko]

Stark.

Are you proposing that we arrest the pope?
Wouldn't God be quite irate?

What's funny is that you think God would be irate over arresting the Pope for crimes but not over the Pope abusing his position of authority.

Evidently God isn't irate over Popes abusing their position of authority.
Just look at the Popes in the dark ages. Real party animals.

[Carinthium]

I said IF it somehow had some public policy reason that worked against people going to Church- which is obviously not the case. I was simply trying to find another way to make my point- Freedom of opinion without freedom of action is meaningless (assuming no effective brainwashing technology- and I don't think anything that exists today counts sufficiently as 'effective').

Another argument is what the distinction is between a cult, a religion, and insanity- I am given to understand most people here would disapprove of a cult, tolerate a religion, and lock up people for insanity. But where do you draw the line?

To make some more clear divisions, I will distinguish between freedom of thought (PURELY what an individual thinks internally), freedom of expression (what they say/type/write/express to the outside world in some other way), and freedom of action(actually acting on what they say). Suppressing freedom of thought is to a degree possible but not meaningfully on the table- therefore the discussion comes down to freedom of expression and freedom of action.

It is both absurd and contrary to current precedent to be able to have freedom of expression for an action but not freedom of action (e.g. incitement to crimes). However, to advocate the Catholic Faith is to implicitly advocate every doctrine of it- including sancity of the confessional. If you're going to outlaw that, you should outlaw the entire Faith.

To make my posistion a bit more clear:

Say we have a hypothetical religion with two sects, Sect A and Sect B. Sect A are a terrorist sect who kill unbelievers. Sect B are completely harmless, but (this is much, much harder to prove in the real world making this much more difficult to decide in practice, but for the purposes of this scenario I'll say it's true) looking at the theology they share with Sect A shows that there are no possible justifications except for bullshit rationalisations that don't stand up under scrutiny for Sect B NOT going around killing all non-believers. As a result, if I were a government faced with both and with the constitutional power I would suppress both sects as illegal and prosecute members.

Why? We'd both agree that Sect A does not justify freedom of religion. However, Sect B is not truely following their religion either- they're just pretending to. A government should not lie to it's people, or at least not for such trivial reasons- to drive people into Sect B is to drive them into the lie that they are in fact following their religion properly when they aren't. Furthermore, from a pragmatic perspective any intelligent person in Sect B could easily drift into Sect A-like beliefs to avoid ludicrous rationalisations.

Most people here, however, do not want to outlaw the entire Catholic Church (a posistion which I would consider perfectly respectable, if unconstitutional). Unless you're going to take the argument "We won't do this because it's unconstitutional" (a respectable and formidable argument but one I predict it highly unlikely anybody opposing me here will believe valid), how can you justify not outlawing Catholicism?

[Stark]

Freedom to believe in stupid crap and perform meaningless rituals does not imply or require that those rituals have any legal weight whatever. This is why its so funny that you have been completely sidetracked into irrelevant doctrinal bullshit. Its what they want, because you can feel clever arguing meaningless philosophical crap instead of engaging with the real question.

PS the real question is 'what to do with all those disgusting cowards who enabled rape for decades'. Stick a feather in it and call it Robin Hood if you want, but a red herring is still a red herring.

Its sad that this is why the religious organisations find it so easily to socially get away with stuff; they just have to wave their magic wand and the devout masses go crosseyed and the so-called 'clever' 'intelligentsia' end up arguing totally irrelevant crap instead of hitting the bullseye.

[Carinthium]

As I said, I was not arguing about the relevance of the doctrine of the confessional issue, but about the issue itself. Why? Because this is an internet forum, not a public policy forum.

If you want to join the argument despite it's admitted lack of political relevance, feel free to go ahead and do so.

[Stark]

Maybe I'm more concerned about punishing people responsible for terrible crimes, who have taken advantage of social forces and lied and pressured victims to protect their own money tree and who now plead VICTIM because their precious garden gnome powers are under threat than

y'know

pretending to be clever because I got tricked by Tony Abbott into talking about something worthless?

In a perfect world this commission would dismantle the Catholic Church in Australia by removing all of its special rights and protections as an example of why cheating idiots isn't a way to get away with raping kids. Of course, it won't, and it actually IS a great way to get away with rape. Polish all the silverware you want.

[Carinthium]

As I have said several times, I am aware of the statistical insignificance of these cases. If you don't want to argue on this point, fine. I agree that the people involved guilty of rape or child abuse, and those who actively aided a coverup should be punished. The reason I am arguing on the issue is because people disputed the confessional question and I disagreed.

There is also a slippery slope with mandatory reporting laws alltogether- basically, their existence makes a mockery of the idea that we are in any way free people. If you wish to talk about this, I'll clarify.

[Lord Zentei]

It is both absurd and contrary to current precedent to be able to have freedom of expression for an action but not freedom of action (e.g. incitement to crimes). However, to advocate the Catholic Faith is to implicitly advocate every doctrine of it- including sancity of the confessional. If you're going to outlaw that, you should outlaw the entire Faith.

Slippery slope, you complete moron.

Freedom of expression does not imply freedom for incitement. However, that does not negate your right to freely express your opinion. For example, you have the right to make comments criticizing such-and-such, that does not mean you can incite crimes against them.

[Carinthium]

Perhaps I was unclear- by 'freedom of expression for an action', I meant the right to advocate doing said action. As I just explained, advocating the Catholic faith implicitly means advocating sancity of the Confessional, which means implicitly advocating 'covering up' (in accordance with Catholic doctrine the relevant priests would not say anything rather than actively help the coverup) abuse reported in the Confessional.

EDIT: Not to mention, I'm given to understand that in Australia removing sancity of the confessional would actually mean priests had LESS confidentiality on their behaviour than lawyers, doctors, psychologists, etc.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course you have the right to advocate doing something. That's why shitbird brigades like NAMBLA exist. They're not placed under arrest for believing in odious things, but if they were to actually do those things or to enable them, that's different. The "incitement of crime" would cover things like exhorting a mob to commit vandalism and murder, not saying "we think that the law should be different because of bullshit X, Y and Z".

[Carinthium]

NAMBLA, I'm given to understand, can legally advocate for changing the law- they can't, however, advocate acting the way they do under current law. Preaching the Catholic faith, however, is in effect incitement for priests to keep the sancity of the confessional no matter what the law says.

[Lord Zentei]

Are you on the stupid pill?

NAMBLA:

• MAY advocate changing the law
• May NOT have its members commit pedophilia or cover it up.

Catholic Church:

• MAY advocate changing the law
• May NOT have its members commit pedophilia or cover it up.

What is so hard to understand here?

[Carinthium]

O.K, I'm trying to be a bit more civil than most people but you're taking it too far. I'll settle for- I got that, moron!

What you don't seem to understand is that to preach that somebody should follow the Catholic faith is to implicitly say that one should follow all of it's doctrines. One of these doctrines is the sancity of the confessional. Therefore, to preach the Catholic faith is to preach the coverups you are so greatly against.

[Lord Zentei]

O.K, I'm trying to be a bit more civil than most people but you're taking it too far. I'll settle for- I got that, moron!

Oh, aren't you precious.

I'm sure we're all enriched by your enlightenment.

What you don't seem to understand is that to preach that somebody should follow the Catholic faith is to implicitly say that one should follow all of it's doctrines.

Wrong.

One of these doctrines is the sancity of the confessional. Therefore, to preach the Catholic faith is to preach the coverups you are so greatly against.

And wrong. Preaching and doing are two different things, as has been explained to you by multiple posters here. And even if you were right, so what? The Thuggee don't have freedom of action, regardless of whether they have the right to preach their values.

So very disingenuous.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO EDIT:

Incidentally, regarding the phrase "the coverups YOU are so greatly against"... while the emphasis is mine, the wording is nonetheless rather odd, isn't it?

And the bottom line is that you're essentially advocating that the RCC have the power to maintain these coverups under the guise of "freedom of religion". The systematic coverups of mass child rape.

You, sir, suck.

[Carinthium]

Actually, what I am advocating is that either the Catholic Church should be outlawed OR, in ONLY those cases involving freedom of the confessional, they should be allowed not to report (as opposed to actively aiding the coverup). In those cases not involving the confessional, which are the overwhelming majority, I agree that they should be punished.

To preach killing people is, in your view I'm pretty sure, incitement to killing those people- this is true if the person expressly says to kill them or implies it. If a priest says "Follow all the doctrines of the Catholic Church", and one of the doctrines is the sancity of the confessional, logically they are advocating the sancity of the confessional- anybody intelligent might look it up and see the doctrine. Making people into Catholics makes them to support sancity of the confessional, obviously.
(Incidentally, either way if you're following the rules to their logical conclusion you'd have to gut most of the Catholic hierarchy- however since I don't think most people here have a problem with that it's a minor point)

The same contradiction is a problem in policy towards the Thugees as it is towards the Catholic Church- if the organisation is legal, it shouldn't be. Actually converting people to their ideas will create future murders, for a start.

[Metahive]

Carinthium, stop BSing. Have a look here, these are the precepts of the church, supposedly "binding" commandments for the faithful from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In other words, OFFICIAL DOCTRINE:

You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and remain free from work or activity that could impede the sanctification of such days.
You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

There's a sizable portion of self confessed Catholics who don't bother to follow some or even all of these (I call them Christmas-Easter Christians). The Church is not enforcing them either, there's little to no penalizing of tardy believers. So, no, your argument that the RCC absolutely needs to adhere to the "sanctity" of confession due to "doctrine" holds no water. They're already arbitrarily picking and choosing what commandments they follow, the cat's out of the bag.