Tag Archives: Royal Commission

“Mandatory Reporting” of Abuse Confessed in Sacramental Confession

PADRE PIO SEAL OF CONFESSION

– Katherine Gregory, a political reporter for ABC News (that’s Australia Broadcasting, btw), headlines this: “Catholic leaders ‘willing to go to jail’ to uphold seal of confession and not report child sex abuse.”

Wow. So, that makes it sound as if priests want to protect child abuse. No. The vast, vast, vast majority of priests are honest, have integrity of life, and are offended by those who have betrayed Jesus Christ our Lord and God and all the rest of us priests and all members of the mystical Body of the Divine Son of God who will come to judge the living and dead and world by fire.

So, this is dishonest and manipulative reporting from the outset. Irresponsible. It represents hatred of God, hatred of neighbor and, as we will see, actually promotes the abuse of those who are vulnerable.

But I’ll tell you this, people are eager – so eager – to tell all priests to go to hell with absolutely zero due process. Like Judas betraying Jesus. It is what it is in this cowardly society of tender snowflakes in which we live. Are we brave? Honest? Do we have some integrity? O.K. Let’s actually take a look at the issues then, shall we? Here’s her article with emphases and [[comments]] by yours truly.


South Australia has joined the ACT [[Australian Capital Territory]] in moving ahead with laws to force Catholic priests to break the seal of confession, to report paedophiles to police. [[No one is ever forced to do the wrong thing like breaking the seal of confession. One can always choose to face the consequences like going to prison.]]

Other states are still deliberating over whether or not they will adopt that recommendation from the royal commission. [[Another has already gone along with this. All the others are expected to follow in short order.]]

But Catholic Church leaders have rejected the idea. Father Michael Whelan, the parish priest in St Patrick’s Church Hill in Sydney, said priests would not break the seal of confession:

“The state will be requiring us as Catholic priests to commit as what we regard as the most serious crime and I’m not willing to do that,” Father Whelan said. [[That’s just a lot of bluster. He is willing to do this, but in a more idiotic manner, as we will see…]]

The New South Wales Government has said it would respond later this month about whether priests would be legally obliged to report confessions of child sex abuse.

“I expect every jurisdiction in Australia now will follow that recommendation and I expect the church throughout will simply not observe it,” Father Whelan said.

Asked if the Catholic Church was above the law, he said:

“Absolutely not, but when state tries to intervene on our religious freedom, undermine the essence of what it means to be a Catholic, we will resist. The only way they [the states] would be able to see whether the law was being observed or not is to try and entrap priests.” [[That would be right. But confessionals have been bugged in New York by the FBI. I was personally asked by the Italian Department of Defense to do this for them. I did not do this! Communist China regularly sends agents to “confess” to, say, subversion, like planning something like the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. If the priest doesn’t immediately intercept the “penitent” and drag him to the police for torture and death the priest himself will be sent off to re-education and labor and prison camps where bad things like torture and death take place.]]

Father Whelan said he was “willing to go to jail” rather than abide by a law. [[But not really. Watch what he does:]] An alternative, if a priest hears a paedophile confess sins of child sexual abuse, would be to “stop them immediately”, says Father Whelan:

“I would say, ‘Come with me now, we will go down to the police station in order for you to show that you are remorseful’,” he said. [[Well, sugar. That’s the same as breaking the Seal of Confession. Even worse. This makes priests into Law Enforcement Officers because they are priests. I can see it now. The priest and therefore police officer with divine mandate causes a huge scene, tackling, fighting, hand-cuffing, pepper-spraying, tasering, and, if there’s resistence that turns into a life endangering fight (which it might at the first suggestion of a police station), shooting the guy until the threat stops. Yep. I can just see it now, all those priests so highly trained in interrogation and take down techniques, verifying IDs (impossible), arresting the worst criminals in society and singlehandedly bringing them down for a public interrogation, confession and absolution. That’s realistic. Not. Can you imagine? Does that also refer to anything else that would be against the law? Murder, theft, illegal parking? Where do we draw the line? Is any confession to be private?]]

NSW Labor senator Kristina Keneally, who is a scholar of theology[[!]] and a Catholic[[!]], said church [[definite article?!]] could not put itself above the law, but mandatory reporting was not the most effective way to prevent abuse. [[She sounds reasonable so far, but watch this, she’s going to capitalize on the suffering of real victims to get her ideology accepted:]]

“I would look to ordination itself, I would look to who we ordain,” she said. “I have no doubt that if more women and more parents were involved in the leadership of their Catholic Church, that the problem of child sexual abuse would not have been as big as it was and would have been dealt with far differently when it came to light within the institution.”

========= The rest of what follows are my comments:

Did you see the clever switcheroo in this last bit? What we’re talking about statistically is, say, a layman going to confession for committing abuse (pretty much 100% of that being incest) and whether the priest should bring that fact from the confessional to the police. But this politician all of a sudden takes the confessional out of the picture and implies that the whole problem rests with priests and that women and parents are always innocent. That sounds like guilt speaking, the ol’ projection of one’s own guilt trick. As it is, incest stats are staggering. The Atlantic has this:]]

“Here are some statistics that should be familiar to us all, but aren’t, either because they’re too mind-boggling to be absorbed easily, or because they’re not publicized enough. One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18 [[I think those gender-stats are in reverse…]], an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. [[“Overwhelming” – “Within the family”]] These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, ‘and this is a notoriously underreported crime.’”

============ Some other points:

  • The priest has no right to what is said in Confession. This belongs to Jesus who shed His blood to forgive sin. If the priest betrays this it seems to me that he takes on the guilt of those sins himself. You won’t want to see the punishments he will receive in hell. If the State tries to get this information, recording this or whatever, it seems to me that the same dynamic holds. Whoever it is in the State doing this will take on those sins before God. Yep.
  • The Seal of Confession is absolute, between the penitent and God. What’s said in confession stays there.
  • The priest is not a law enforcement officer (and even if he was, he still wouldn’t have a right to this information).
  • There is often a screen between priest and penitent, and so the priest doesn’t know who it is anyway.
  • The mention of the crime may not be by the perpetrator, but by the victim, who is asking for advice on how to bring this to police and how to find some peace with God and neighbor.
  • If there is mandatory reporting for some sin, the result will be that either there is public confession of all and any sin or no confession at all. It is what it is.

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Confession, Missionaries of Mercy

Australian Royal Commission’s vortex Down Under

australia toilet bart simpson

Australia’s Royal Commission investigating abuse pretty much ignored all abuse except allegations in the Catholic Church. They’ve concluded with two conclusions which show that the Commission itself is again abusing those who were actually abused by hijacking real victims’ suffering for the Commission’s own political end, which is, for wanna-be Brits still in love with wife-killer Henry VIII, to control the Catholic Church. Period. Thus:

  1. The first recommendation is getting priests married so that they can have, you know, experiences, which the Commission says will pretty much eliminate abuse of minors. In other words, the Commission thinks that superstitiously throwing a sacrament (Matrimony) at someone, but with mere coitus on their minds, will resolve deep psychological problems. This is simply jungle witch doctor idiocy that will result in more incest, which is already present at any rate in a huge percentage of families. In this way, the Commission thinks that psychological perversion is just fine in both the priesthood and in families. That this is recommended by such a tribunal is, in my opinion, criminal. Intimating that having sex in one way is a cure to having sex in another way is ludicrous. This is as much about abuse of power as it is about abuse of sex. Priests are married to the Church by the Sacrifice of the Mass they offer, the wedding vows being: This is my body offered for you in sacrifice, the chalice of my blood poured out for you in sacrifice… But what is also criminal is that any seminary teaching the truth like this would be reprimanded by pretty much any bishop in Australia, for so many Australian bishops think and even say what the Commission says, as I’ve written about many times. The Commission, in my opinion, is simply parroting such bishops who have no idea what religion and celibacy and priesthood and family is all about. They are clueless. Or are they?
  2. The second recommendation of the Commission is that Confession will no longer have the benefit of the Confessional Seal, so that priests will be forced to turn penitents over to the law who confess to crimes against minors. This turns religion into State sycophancy. Where this is the law, this is tested by religion police (such as happens in China), whereby a State employee, conducting a sting operation, goes to Confession and falsely reports being an abuser (or a political dissident in China) to see if the priest will report the fake penitent to the police. If the priest doesn’t show up at the police station to make a report, he is imprisoned or worse. Of course, in all this the priest can have no comment because of the Confessional Seal. Just. Wow. The only effect this will have is taking away the benefit of Confession to all penitents and will make abusers go underground altogether. And that, in my opinion, is aiding and abetting of sorts. Criminal. Crazy. This all manifests total hatred of God and neighbor, using politics for this end. There are already priests in Australia who for years have said that they will no longer hear confessions. Get it?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse

Royal Commission in Australia: Clergy accused of abuse is 7%. “Accused…”

royal-commission-abuse-report

Sure, there has been some abuse. Some are guilty. Many are innocent, but are sitting ducks because they are not allowed due process. The numbers of the actually guilty are much lower than the numbers of the merely accused. And on that score, it should be pointed out that whatever the numbers that have been reported, they are vastly smaller than the numbers reported for incest, which stands at something like 10-20% percent of the population, so that one in every five lay people you meet is an abuser. Anyway…

There’s a difference between accused and convicted and between convicted and guilty, right? Right? But as one judge told a bishop who asked if the judge if this was about money or justice, the judge said that it has nothing to do with justice, only money, and he intends to take as much money from the Church as possible.

But in the perception of people, you know, those with pious ears, if someone is accused of such a thing they are automatically guilty of everything for which they stand accused, you know, like the case of an accusation against a priest which was allowed by a judge even though the abuse is said to have taken place before the priest was born. This has nothing to do with justice. Generally speaking, clergy are not allowed to have due process. Settlements are made by their (arch)dioceses and they are removed from the priesthood forever, even while the accuser pockets money. Many church officials, making themselves heroes for being “tough”, stack juries against priests by making public statements about the certain guilt of the priest (with no proof) even before the jury is selected, with that statement from a diocese being used in the trial as the only “proof” which convicts the priest, with those church officials getting promotions for being heroes…

When, at the last judgment, the devil accuses before God those who falsely accused priests on this earth, and denied those priests due process, it seems to me that the advocate we have before God, Jesus Christ, with His wounds pleading for our forgiveness, will be denied them, so that everything the devil wishes to accuse them of will be attributed to them whether they are guilty of it or not. It’s only just, right? Right?

Here’s the deal: SNAP is being sued for corruption, for allegedly taking kickbacks, feeding lawyers any and every case and getting money in return from outcomes. SNAP, it seems to me, is on a world-wide blitz to take attention away from themselves by having such as those in the Royal Commission publish ludicrous numbers with no distinction between the accused and the convicted and the guilty.

We will see what the reality is at the judgment, for, let it be known, Christ Jesus, Himself falsely accused, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

P.S. I often hear from lay people, from priests and from bishops who are aghast that I would say such a thing about Jesus, exclaiming all breathlessly that Jesus wasn’t accused of such a thing as that and how dare you make such a statement. I explain to them that all false accusations are false accusations (easy logic, no?), and that any kind of false accusation leads to the death or dismissal also of innocent priests. They simply remain aghast, or put on such a pretense, revealing, it seems to me, an indication that they themselves may well agree that all accusations must be true, having invested themselves into this dynamic in conversations by quickly agreeing that so and so must by guilty, you know, just because, with the idea that in smacking others down they lift themselves up, making themselves heroes in being tough.

But here’s the deal. Those “heroes” only encourage real abuse: “Come get money! I’ll be your hero!” Even more, when people are sick of this kind of abuse of authority, they will no longer listen even to real victims. That’s terrible.

The way to go is justice all around. None of this “The victim is always right without any due process for the priest” rubbish. That only encourages abuse with impunity. Get it?

11 Comments

Filed under Abuse