The Australian state of Victoria has passed an anti-Catholic law, which they believe would force priests to reveal what happened in the confessional. So reports The Age.
The Victorian government says it hopes it does not have to jail priests who fail to report child abuse revealed in the confession box.
The state’s Parliament passed laws on Tuesday carrying sentences of up to three years for failing to report abuse, but Premier Daniel Andrews said on Wednesday morning that he did not know of any convictions under Victoria’s broader mandatory reporting laws, in place for 25 years.
The Premier said the laws, and the new legislation passed on Tuesday, were intended to create a culture in which all abuse or mistreatment of children was reported, regardless of how it came to light.
Mr Andrews said the bill, which passed the upper house on Tuesday night with bipartisan support, was intended to send a message all the way to the top of the Catholic Church in Rome.
My flaming nether regions they hope they do not have to jail priests. They are positively salivating over the idea.
It’s unclear whether this new what-about-the-children law, which requires reporting child abuse “regardless of how it came to light”, would require lawyers to violate client-attorney privilege. Though if anybody who wants to take the Yes side of that bet, message me. Since lawyers make these laws, and interpret them, there is zero chance they’d require of themselves what they require of others.
There are some brave words from various Catholic spokespeople swearing they’ll accept prison before violating the confessional. Maybe so. We pray this is so. But see the predictions below.
What do these brilliant lawyers expect a priest would do when hearing a confession? Interpret the penitent’s words in some unambiguous legal way, bolt out of the confessional and tackle the penitent as he attempts to leave the church? The priest would have to do this, because the priest can’t learn with certainty the identity of the penitent any other way.
Or do prosecutors hope the priest reports some anonymous voice who said something vague, that, looked at in the right way, possibly maybe perhaps kinda sorta indicates abuse took place? If so, look for the definition of what counts as “abuse” to broaden, but only for what should be reported. Some bottom feeding prosecutor looking to make a name for himself is surely going to stretch the limits of this law.
We need to make predictions. What will be the first thing that happens?
(1) Nothing. Not an unreasonable expectation. The law is obviously a political stunt by power-hungry virtue-signaling fools. Prosecuting it would be difficult. Though we mustn’t forget Australia changed precedent for the burden of proof for priests in the Pell case: a priest must now be able to prove his innocence. Good luck!
(2) A priest violates his oath and rats out a penitent. This would almost certainly be a nu-Church homosexualist who “accepts Church teaching”, but interprets it in such a way as to violate it in practice. Hello, Jim Martin.
If this happens, the real matter of import will be what this despicable priest’s bishop does. Bookies would likely take the side of “nothing”. The Church would further splinter.
(3) A penitent is arrested and under interrogation admits he confessed to a priest. A man hunt (and still not a woman hunt) ensues to find the priest. Do we have the right priest? After all, the confessional screen can protect the priest’s identity, too, Does it matter if it’s the right priest? After all, what about the children?
The priest, if he’s faithful, keeps his mouth shut. The prosecution is left only with the word of a child abuser that this is the priest that was confessed to. Some prime lynching opportunities here, especially in the vile press.
(4) A would-be penitent wants to confess, but fears he will be ratted out. He does not confess. His soul is then imperiled. Naturally, this outcome means less than nothing to the great majority. Because they do not believe in an after life, and because what-about-the-children.
Read the comments to the news article. Overwhelming anti-Catholic, many vitriolic. People appear to equate a priest hearing a confession as equivalent to the abuse itself. We can thank the widespread tolerated faggotry among the clergy for this fallacy.
Before your dudgeon is worked up, consider this: would you rat out your most loved family member? The law requires you to.
(5) Prosecutors recruit an apostate priest to work undercover at a church where a suspected abuser attends. The end result is the Church goes underground.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here