Paedophilia by priests is spiritual encounter with god

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-02-2018 10:53PM #1

Australia's most powerful clergy the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart says he would rather go to prison rather than report paedophilia to the police and that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

http://nativescomunity.info/2018/01/31/catholic-archbishop-id-rather-go-to-prison-than-report-child-abuse-to-police/

Pherekydes · 08-02-2018 11:12PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Australia's most powerful clergy the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart says he would rather go to prison rather than report paedophilia to the police and that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

http://nativescomunity.info/2018/01/31/catholic-archbishop-id-rather-go-to-prison-than-report-child-abuse-to-police/

Shouldn't this be posted in the Christianity forum?

Avatar MIA · 08-02-2018 11:18PM

Someone needs their PC searched. :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-02-2018 11:20PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Shouldn't this be posted in the Christianity forum?

Thought about thay but would.jusy be accussed of RCC bashing

magicbastarder · 08-02-2018 11:20PM

that's a rather strange source for the story in question.

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-02-2018 11:22PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a rather strange source for the story in question.

It came up on face book

Heres a different source

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession

eviltwin · 08-02-2018 11:22PM

Bit confused, is he saying sexual abuse is a good thing?

Avatar MIA · 08-02-2018 11:25PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Bit confused, is he saying sexual abuse is a good thing?

He's practically calling it a sacrament

robindch · 08-02-2018 11:55PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

He's practically calling it a sacrament

Not according to a more sober publication, which doesn't mention anything about "spiritual encounters":

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession

All he seems to be saying is that catholic confession should have the same confidentiality as, I suppose, discussions with one's lawyers. Which has always been the Vatican position and, so far as I'm aware, still is.

jimmycrackcorm · 08-02-2018 11:58PM

In the video in the ops link, he is talking in the context of confession. The article doesn't make that clear.

Avatar MIA · 08-02-2018 11:59PM

robindch wrote: »

Not according to a more sober publication, which doesn't mention anything about "spiritual encounters":

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession

All he seems to be saying is that catholic confession should have the same confidentiality as, I suppose, discussions with one's lawyers. Which has always been the Vatican position and, so far as I'm aware, still is.

That's more plausible

uck51js9zml2yt · 09-02-2018 12:02AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Shouldn't this be posted in the Christianity forum?

No..it has nothing to do with Christianity no matter what anyone else thinks.

BorneTobyWilde · 09-02-2018 12:15AM

He words were twisted. Asked if he would rather go to prison than breach the seal of confession,

“I’ve said that I would.”I believe that this is an absolutely sacrosanct communication of a higher order.”

I dunno where the rest comes into it.

wexie · 09-02-2018 12:21AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

He words were twisted. Asked if he would rather go to prison than breach the seal of confession,

“I’ve said that I would.”I believe that this is an absolutely sacrosanct communication of a higher order.”

I dunno where the rest comes into it.

Yeah I'm not a great fan of the RCC but I think that this quote :

Hart insisted that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

Seems to be taken out of context or misquoted. Perhaps it should be :

Hart insisted that sexual abuse confession was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

In which case I still don't agree with him, but still.

09-02-2018 12:24AM

If the confession is a communication to God as they say in the article, then why would anyone need a priest?
Its still an astonishing view to take, that someone can commit something horrific and it will not be reported? is there a limit?

wexie · 09-02-2018 12:31AM

1874 wrote: »

Its still an astonishing view to take, that someone can commit something horrific and it will not be reported? is there a limit?

time limit or limit to how horrific something is?

I think they're arguing there is neither. Basically their stance is doesn't matter what you confess to it will always ever be between you and the priest. (and god I guess).

Killed JFK.....won't go any further.
Killed and ate 4 kids....won't go any further
Wiped out an alien civilisation.....you guessed it....

I think it's insane this is still allowed...on the other hand I'm not really sure legislating against it would make too much of a difference, not really something that can be enforced.

Wouldn't hurt to take a stand though.

09-02-2018 01:03AM

wexie wrote: »

time limit or limit to how horrific something is?

I think they're arguing there is neither. Basically their stance is doesn't matter what you confess to it will always ever be between you and the priest. (and god I guess).

Killed JFK.....won't go any further.
Killed and ate 4 kids....won't go any further
Wiped out an alien civilisation.....you guessed it....

I think it's insane this is still allowed...on the other hand I'm not really sure legislating against it would make too much of a difference, not really something that can be enforced.

Wouldn't hurt to take a stand though.

I meant is there some limit to the extent of the act committed, doesnt seem so. What if someone commits murder or a sexual assault or numerous acts, confesses, carries on with their crimes, is caught later by other means, admits they confessed and felt ok to continue, does this not make the priest that ignored whatever horrific act the person committed complicit in the later crimes? or is the entire church not complicit given this is their stance?

Peregrinus · 09-02-2018 02:59AM

wexie wrote: »

time limit or limit to how horrific something is?

I think they're arguing there is neither. Basically their stance is doesn't matter what you confess to it will always ever be between you and the priest. (and god I guess).

Killed JFK.....won't go any further.
Killed and ate 4 kids....won't go any further
Wiped out an alien civilisation.....you guessed it....

I think it's insane this is still allowed...on the other hand I'm not really sure legislating against it would make too much of a difference, not really something that can be enforced.

Wouldn't hurt to take a stand though.

This, basically.

The current position is that if I tell wexie that I have committed some horrific crime, and wexie does not report me to the police, wexie has committed no crime. Wexie is under no legal obligation to report me. That's the default position.

Mandatory reporting laws seek to change this by identifing particular crimes, particular offenders, particular classes of people who hear about crimes, and impose a reporting obligation.

The issue, then, comes down to this; should mandatory reporting obligations extend to priests who hear in confession of crimes of child abuse?

Couple of points to clear out of the way first off. This isn't about reporting clerical sexual abuse. It's about reporting sexual abuse commited by anybody which is reported in the confessional.

Secondly, this isn't about reporting abuse confessed by perpetrators. It's about reporting abuse which is reported in the confessional by anybody - in many cases, presumably, by the victim.

Thirdly, this isn't a live issue in Ireland. We already have mandatory reporting by members of the clergy.

But, in principle, should such requirements be imposed? I take wexie's point that "it wouldn't hurt to make a stand", but I think the bigger question is, does it contribute to child safety/victim protection? And I think there are some issues there, mainly with respect to the fact that the provision (as least as it applies to the confessional) is unenforceable and likely to be widely disregarded. On balance, I think it's better to have such a provision than not, but to expect that it will make little impact in practice, and not to focus on it to the exclusion of other, hopefully more effective, policies and measures.

And a footnote: as others have pointed out, the report linked in the OP grossly distorts what the archbishop said, in a way that's hard to explain as a simple error. He said it six months ago, and it was widely reported in its correct form, and his original press statement is still available on the Melbourne Archdiocese website, so there's not much excuse for this.

Pherekydes · 09-02-2018 08:45AM

Daniella Black Cereal wrote: »

No..it has nothing to do with Christianity no matter what anyone else thinks.

Well, it has nothing to do with this forum, either.

robindch · 09-02-2018 11:00AM

1874 wrote: »

If the confession is a communication to God as they say in the article, then why would anyone need a priest?

It's always been the Vatican position that priests are needed to interpret the deity's wishes correctly - for example, to interpret the bible correctly (which was always published in Latin and Greek, the languages of the educated elite, not the languages of the believers - hence protestantism which introduced bibles in the vernacular). And confession, of course.

Protestants believe they communicate with Jesus + the deity without the need for priests to mediate.

As to why the Vatican believes this - well, it's basically the Vatican's raison-d'etre and without the claimed need to mediate, well, what's the point of the Vatican?

1874 wrote: »

Its still an astonishing view to take, that someone can commit something horrific and it will not be reported? is there a limit?

There are mandatory reporting requirements for most professions, and I believe the general population as well, but so far as I'm aware, solicitor-client conversations are considered confidential and there are no mandatory reporting requirements for whatever takes place there. The Vatican seems to be trying to slip in on the same terms.

Peregrinus · 09-02-2018 11:07AM

robindch wrote: »

. . . There are mandatory reporting requirements for most professions, and I believe the general population as well,

That last bit is not correct, either in Ireland or Australia.

robindch wrote: »

. . . but so far as I'm aware, solicitor-client conversations are considered confidential and there are no mandatory reporting requirements for whatever takes place there. The Vatican seems to be trying to slip in on the same terms.

The solicitor/client privilege is a bit more limited than that but, yeah, there is basically a privilege under which most discussion of past crimes is protected.

The privilege the church would like is a bit different, and if there's an analogy it's probably thatt what they want is more like a doctor/patient privilege than a solicitor/client privilege. But they won't put it in those terms because, in most countries which have a mandatory reporting law, the doctor/patient privilege gives way to the mandatory reporting law.

robindch · 09-02-2018 11:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

. . . There are mandatory reporting requirements for most professions, and I believe the general population as well,

That last bit is not correct, either in Ireland or Australia.

Yes, the legislation to cover mandatory reporting of concerns concerning child abuse covers only a certain number of nominated professions, and only came in last December. There seems to be no requirement for the general population to report anything.

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=%2Fdocuments%2FChildren_First%2FChildrenFirstLegislation.htm
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/36/enacted/en/pdf (pages 24 + 25)

Thanks for the correction!

wexie · 09-02-2018 11:28AM

robindch wrote: »

Yes, the legislation to cover mandatory reporting of concerns concerning child abuse covers only a certain number of nominated professions, and only came in last December. There seems to be no requirement for the general population to report anything.

Is that for crime in general or child abuse only?

Either way that's nuts :eek:

Hotblack Desiato · 09-02-2018 01:50PM

Daniella Black Cereal wrote: »

No..it has nothing to do with Christianity no matter what anyone else thinks.

The pronouncements of a fúcking archbishop in relation to the sacraments of his church are nothing to do with christianity? :rolleyes:

Avatar MIA · 09-02-2018 02:22PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The pronouncements of a fúcking archbishop in relation to the sacraments of his church are nothing to do with christianity? :rolleyes:

Erm, I think I was the one that used the sacrament word (sorry, my bad), and at that it looks like FakenewsTM.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-02-2018 02:19AM

Doesn't look like fake news to me, unless anyone can say differently.

Confession is a sacrament (the post Vatican II hippies call it Reconciliation :rolleyes: ) and it's still up to the defenders of the faith to justify their latest loony archbishop's ramblings - if they can be bothered.

Peregrinus · 10-02-2018 06:13AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Doesn't look like fake news to me, unless anyone can say differently.

I think the problem is that the claims repeated in the OP, that the Archbishop said certain things, are false. The archbishop never said what is ascribed to him, or anything remotely like it. Those claims are therefore, a pretty textbook case of fake news.

recedite · 10-02-2018 09:52AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Doesn't look like fake news to me, unless anyone can say differently.

From the Australian aborigine publication..

Hart insisted that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

From the colonial oppressor media..

"Confession in the Catholic Church is a spiritual encounter with God through the priest," he said in a statement to the Catholic Leader.

I think that's more than just "taking something out of context"

I know which one I would believe first.

It would be simple enough for Australians to adopt their own version of the Irish legislation. Places Like Australia and Boston seem to be a few years behind us, in terms of dealing with clerical child sexual abuse.
We are world leaders when it comes to paedophile priests.

Peregrinus · 10-02-2018 11:20AM

recedite wrote: »

From the Australian aborigine publication..

From the colonial oppressor media..

I think that's more than just "taking something out of context"
I know which one I would believe first.

I've already posted a link to the original statement on the archdiocesan website. The colonial oppressors have it right. As do most of the mainstream media; the statement was widely covered at the time.

The bogus version doesn't appear until about 5 months later, is the impression I get from googling it, and it tends to be repeated in fringe media/sites who are presumably all be copying it, directly or indirectly, from the same original source.

evolving_doors · 10-02-2018 11:25AM

A bit nsfw and blasphemous maybe

https://youtu.be/VABSoHYQr6k

Hotblack Desiato · 11-02-2018 03:38PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the problem is that the claims repeated in the OP, that the Archbishop said certain things, are false. The archbishop never said what is ascribed to him, or anything remotely like it. Those claims are therefore, a pretty textbook case of fake news.

To be clear, I thought we'd moved on from the claim in the OP. I was referring to his comments on confidentiality, which are not fake.

Paedophilia by priests is spiritual encounter with god

Comments