Australian Priests ‘Willing to Go to Jail’ Rather than Break Seal of Confessional

'When the state tries to intervene on our religious freedom, undermine the essence of what it means to be a Catholic, we will resist'

South Australian priests have said that they would rather go to jail than break the seal of the confessional to report child abuse.

South Australia has passed laws extending mandatory reporting to priests notified of paedophilic actions, even if it would require them to break the seal of confession. After a recommendation from the Royal Commission, other states are considering enforcing the law as well. However, many priests are rejecting this idea, stating they will not do anything that violates their beliefs.

“The state will be requiring us as Catholic priests to commit what we regard as the most serious crime, and I’m not willing to do that,” said Fr Michael Whelan, a priest at St Patrick’s Church Hill in Sydney.

Fr Whelan said he does not believe the Church is above the law but rather places his faith before all else.

“When the state tries to intervene on our religious freedom, undermine the essence of what it means to be a Catholic, we will resist,” Fr Whelan said.

Fr Whelan expressed concern regarding how they would enforce such a law and how authorities would know if priests are reporting or not. Fr Whelan also proposed an alternative, saying instead of forcing priests to break the seal of confession, if a child abuser confessed, he would try to step in and “stop them immediately.”

Once again, you don't abridge an innocent person's rights because of evil things what other people did. Whether the innocent person and the guilty person(s) are co-religionists (or belong to the same political party, or shop at the same stores, etc.) doesn't matter.

That's basic justice, and basic common sense. It's also, I would venture to say, how you would choose to be treated if someone with whom you could be associated committed a crime. Apply the Golden Rule.

I can understand this point of view, and ordinarily it might make sense.

In this instance, I suspect there is an important reason why Australia doesn't agree with your take on things:

1. Child abuse is and has been systemic in catholicism, across the world.
2. Catholic leaders have acted to perpetuate the abuse and prevent justice.

Given that catholicism hasn't demonstrated it is interested in preventing abuse, but instead, perpetuating abuse of minors, Rome is not an innocent party.

And of course, we are talking about Australia and I am not familiar enough with their laws to know whether your argument has a legal basis down under.

What we do know is that Rome brought this and more down on its own head through its own choices.

That's basic justice, and basic common sense.

Common sense will not be the deciding issue because of the institutionalized history.
Where was the common sense when children were abused and it was covered up and perpetuated?

It's also, I would venture to say, how you would choose to be treated if someone with whom you could be associated committed a crime. Apply the Golden Rule.

If someone I was associated with committed a violent crime or despicable crime, I would hope I'd have the courage to do the right thing and turn them in to the authorities.

I have a close friend whose son committed murder of three members of a neighborhood family. When my friend found out, he called the police and turned his son in for the crime. I would hope I would do the same. The son was convicted, sentenced to life in prison, and later took his own life in jail.

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.