Vatican City, Aug 14, 2017 / 07:20 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The bishops of Australia have indicated that they will resist the Royal Commission’s proposal that priests be legally obligated to disclose details of sexual abuse revealed in the confessional, facing criminal charges if they don’t.
“Confession in the Catholic Church is a spiritual encounter with God through the priest,” Archbishop Denis J Hart of Melbourne said in an Aug. 14 statement.
President of the Australian Bishops Conference, Hart said confession “is a fundamental part of the freedom of religion, and it is recognized in the Law of Australia and many other countries.”
“It must remain so here in Australia,” he said, but stressed that “outside of this all offenses against children must be reported to the authorities, and we are absolutely committed to doing so.”
The statement came the same day Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, established in 2013, released a sweeping 85 proposed changes to the country’s criminal justice system.
In addition to suggestions tightening the law on sentencing standards in cases of historical sexual abuse, the use of evidence and grooming, the commission recommended that the failure to report sexual abuse, even in religious confessions, be made “a criminal offense.”
“Clergy should not be able to refuse to report because the information was received during confession,” the report said, adding that if persons in institutions are aware of possible child abuse or suspect it, they ought to report it right away.
The commission cited cases brought before them in which perpetrators who had confessed the sexual abuse of children to a priest then “went on to re-offend and seek forgiveness.”
Therefore, “the report recommends there be no exemption, excuse protection or privilege from the offense granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession.”
In an Aug. 14 statement from the Australian Church’s “Truth, Justice and Healing Council,” established in 2013 as a platform for the Church “to speak as one” on matters involving the Royal Commission, the council voiced opposition to the proposal involving Confession, but suggested that if implemented, the final decision on whether to comply would come down to each priest and his conscience.
In the statement, Francis Sullivan, CEO of the council, said that while the Catholic Church and the council itself “have consistently argued that these reporting provisions should not apply to the confessional, the Royal Commission has now made a different determination based on information and evidence it has heard over the past four years.”
“The whole concept of confession in the Catholic Church is built on repentance, forgiveness and penance,” Sullivan said, adding that “if a child sex-abuser is genuinely seeking forgiveness through the sacrament of confession they will need to be prepared to do what it takes to demonstrate their repentance.”
Part of this, he said, especially in cases of sexual abuse, “would normally require they turn themselves in to the police. In fact, the priest can insist that this is done before dispensing absolution.”
However, since the commission has now made a suggestion counter to the Church’s position, the final decision on whether or not it will become law is up to individual parliaments to form their own view and then make the relevant changes to the law.
“If ultimately there are new laws that oblige the disclosure of information heard in the Confessional, priests, like everybody else, will be expected to obey the law or suffer the consequences,” Sullivan said.
“If they do not, this will be a personal, conscience decision, on the part of the priest that will have to be dealt with by the authorities in accordance with the new law as best they can.”
Other changes proposed by the commission include changes to police responses, such as improvements to investigative techniques when interviewing; provisions for the improvement of “courtroom experience” for victims, making the process less traumatic; the removal of “good character” as a factor in sentencing when that character carried out the abuse; changes requiring sentences to be placed in line with current sentencing standards rather than those at the time of the offense and the extension of grooming offenses to cover when the offender builds trust with a parent or guardian in order access the child.
Of the proposed changes, another that could affect the Catholic Church in real time is the request to change sentencing policies for historical cases of sexual abuse.
The suggestion asks that “all states and territories should introduce legislation so that sentences for child sexual abuse offenses are set in accordance with sentencing standards at the time of the sentencing, instead of at the time of offending.”
However, they said the sentence “must be limited to the maximum sentence available for the offense at the date when the offense was committed.”
“Many survivors of institutional child sexual abuse do not report the offense for years or even decades and applying historical sentencing standards can result in sentences that do not align with the criminality of the offense as currently understood,” they said.
Although it is unknown whether the change will in fact be made or how quickly it could be enforced, the move would directly affect cases such as that of Cardinal George Pell, who is currently facing charges on multiple counts of historical child sexual abuse.
The charges were announced by the police of Victoria, Australia at the end of June. As the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy since 2013 and a member of the Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis, Cardinal Pell is the most senior Vatican official to ever be charged with abuse.
With the permission of Pope Francis, Cardinal Pell has taken leave from his responsibilities in the Vatican in order to return to Australia for the court proceedings.
He has maintained his innocence since rumors of the charges first came out last year. At a brief hearing in Melbourne July 26, the cardinal said he would be pleading “not guilty” to the charges. He is set to appear at a preliminary hearing Oct. 6.
Despite the fact that charges against the cardinal date as far back as the 1960s, the new proposals to historical cases of sexual abuse, if implemented right away, could go into effect in time to determine how Pell is sentenced should he be found guilty.
At the time the charges were announced, Victoria Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton emphasized that at that point, there had been “no change in any procedures whatsoever,” and stressed the importance of remembering that “none of the allegations that have been made against Cardinal Pell have, obviously, been tested in any court yet.”
“Cardinal Pell, like any other defendant, has a right to due process and so therefore it’s important that the process is allowed to run its natural course.”
[…]
About geometry, and parsing St. Thomas More:
“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will James Martin’s duplicity make it round? And if it is round, will James Martin’s duplicity flatten it? No, I will not sign” (Robert Bolt’s “A Man for all Seasons,” 1960).
To say—”people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies…must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”–does not square the circle, either, for blessing incongruous couplings as “couples,” or justify cross(!)-dressing Calvary with a rainbow banner.
And, to think that James Martin’s duplicity started so simply, when another Martin (Luther) likewise embraced the still-binary (!) bigamy of Henry VIII and the German elector Philipp of Hesse…strange bedfellows.
[A disclaimer: my comment concerns so-called “LGBTQ+ activists” and not common people with different sexual orientation]
I remember, when the situation in the Church began turning decisively bad, I was thinking about purchasing a t-shit “Orthodoxy of Death”, to separate myself from the environment (man-focused homilies, Christ being pushed away by self-glorification etc.) via publicly stating my identity (“true = correct = uncorrupted faith”). But then I realized that it would be a bit silly and proud, in a context of Christ/Christianity, to wave a smaller identity. “Christ or Death” would be more appropriate, for a Christian, but there is no need to shout out the obvious. And so, I continued going to Mass as I am used to i.e. without t-shirts with slogans, simply with a Crucifix around my neck.
If “Orthodoxy of Death” looks a bit silly and proud in the context of the Catholic Church/Christ, then to march on pilgrimage wearing a “LGBTQ+” Catholics” t-shirt, waving rainbow flags is even more stupid, as long as being Catholic means being Christian. If “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” then there is also “nor gay nor lesbian for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. Hence, waving “LGBTQ+” Catholics” identity is nothing else but a refusal to be a mere Christian, like millions of others.
I suspect the point of a pilgrimage is not so much about “Christian” or Christ but about “LGBTQ+” or better to say there is an attempt to subordinate Christ to “LGBTQ+”, to use Him as a mere tool to achieve something. This is not the news. The Church itself in recent years has attempted to use (and abuse) Christ for various, purely human or even diabolical agendas. What we see now is just another (albeit very bold and decisive) step in that direction.
Unfortunately, there is no option here to post a photo of the so-called ‘Rainbow Cross’ which I saw today in the online article about “LGBTQ+ pilgrimage”. It was a very good example of how the sacred images are used and abused for the sake of “an agenda”, the bigger/infinite for the smaller. “Rainbow Cross” is the wooden Cross with cloth overthrown, like it is done on the Passion Friday in the Catholic churches. But instead of the white cloth, the rainbow cloth is being used. But this is not all: the inscription on the Cross, “INRI” = “Jesus King of the Jews” which is the title of Christ, is swapped with the new inscription, “LGBTQ+”. So, now we have “LGBTQ+” people instead of Christ on the Cross. No Christian = one who loves Christ = one who has an identity in Christ would do such a thing so it is very self-revealing. Christians worship the Cross because Christ was crucified on it bringing the Salvation; those who changed the letters into “LGBTQ+” effectively worship “LGBTQ+” = themselves – and invite the rest of the world to worship them as well. It is an extreme act of malignant self-love that knows no sacred, thus it has nothing to do with the “Christians” part of the slogan.
To put it bluntly, if you feel entitled to use the sacred symbols which belong only to Christ, changing and degrading them to suit your agenda, you are not Christians. Truly, either you give up this entitlement, take off your t-shirts with slogans, throw away the flags and go on pilgrimage as all do, not attracting attention to oneself because the purpose of any pilgrimage is to come to Christ, not make your point, whatever it is. The two cannot be reconciled.
PS As for “the rejection and prosecution of “LGBTQ+” in the Church, about 50% of Roman Catholic clergy are homosexual/bisexual (according to surveys). How friendlier it can be?
Life is short and sweet. Evangelization and conversion are ongoing and never-ending opportunities. We need to pray for the wellbeing of fellow pilgrims on journey.
Gradualism: Here we come!
Are we as a welcoming Church endorsing disordered behavior or seeking to convert to Christ? LGBT attendees received the Holy Eucharist.
“Bishop Savino said St Paul’s writings in the New Testament teach us that ‘a small step’ in the midst of great human limitations may be ‘more pleasing to God than the outwardly correct life’ of those who do not experience trials in life. We all have to convert, that is, we turn, we look in the opposite direction than before. The Acts of the Apostles documents this experience as defining and definitive”.
Savino’s remarks [specifically a small step] are right out of Amoris Laetitia, where Francis says in allusion to reception of the Eucharist for those in ‘irregular unions’ – this can be a first step. Although does reception of the Eucharist when one is given the impression of accommodation of their behavior going to inspire conversion?
The Eucharist is not magic. There must be at least an interior desire to reform one’s life to Christ and his commandments. Unless of course there is a different Christ being taught at the Vatican other than the Christ revealed to Paul and the Apostles.
We read: “LGBT attendees received the Holy Eucharist.”
Apparently the abyss of receiving the Eucharist sacrilegiously applies only to conscientious individuals, but not to a privileged category such as the tribal LGBTQ aggregate…
“To respond to this invitation [the Eucharist as the Real Presence, CCC 1374] we must ‘prepare ourselves’ for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: ‘Whoever therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drink judgment upon himself.’ Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385).
Far be it from any of us to judge another (“who am I to judge?”)! But, as for “judgment upon himself,” what of the beckoning clerics at the head of the line? And, what of the roadmap discerned by St. John Chrysostom: “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.”
Whatever?
Reception of the Blessed Sacrament when one is in an adulterous or fornication relationship, which is the case for those who are sexually active outside of the bond of a sacramental marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, is objectively always a serious sacrilege – and the engagement in such a sexual relationship is an intrinsic evil. To ignore or violate this perennial teaching of the Catholic Faith is not a small step – it is a large step that will send one to hell, if not repented of – and ceased altogether. Our failure to re-iterate this truth in today’s world, where relativism reigns supreme, makes prelates, clergy, and teachers in the Church complicit in the deadly sins of so many. Enough with the emotionally-laden, inclusive language. Tell it like it is. Think of the number of souls confirmed in deadly and sacrilegious sin by this so-called LGBT+ Jubilee weekend – not just those who attended – but all who viewed the support of the Vatican for its events via the media. How much longer do we think Our Lord will stand idly by and allow this loss of souls to continue?
The issue isn’t treating gays rudely or dismissively. No one says that’s okay.
The issue is accepting sin as normal.
These pilgrims actually identify as “the gay community.”
They march under banners proclaiming, celebrating — even advocating for — their sins.
This is the doing of James Martin, yes, but also of so many more in the Dark and demonic Vatican. Including and especially Bergoglio himself.
*This* is the legacy of the most evil and destructive pope in history.
Pope Leo must now set about to restore sanity — and sanctity. May God bless and sustain him.
I think if Leo was genuinely interested in addressing the issue of homosexuality in the church, this vile display would never have taken place.
No one has been “denied dignity,” and God’s love is not unconditional in the sense that I can flagrant sin sexually and expect God to look favorably on that. Catering to the LGBT lobby is profoundly sinful.
“. . . the outwardly correct life of those who do not experience trials in life”.
Who would those “those” be?
This guy needs to get out more.
Yikes! I don’t feel peaceful about this. Am I misreading it? To me, this sounds like the organizers are trying to deny that homosexual acts are sinful. Am I committing a sin of judgmentalism to draw this conclusion? I am a musician so I have plenty of gay friends, including sexually active and celibate gay friends. I don’t try to “preach”
to them, but I pray for them. I’m not sure how to interpret this occurrence.
We read: “Yikes…. this sounds like the organizers are trying to deny that homosexual acts are sinful.” Dear Sharon, please consider that rather than simple-minded denial, this “occurrence” almost completes the insurgency of past decades and especially the past twelve years.
Three points:
FIRST, the game is to claim “validation” (!), first in the secular world through the oxymoron of gay “marriage,” and then by the tribal gang-raping of the Church in Rome itself with the position (so to speak) that this staged occurrence is unopposed, and therefore consensual, and therefore the new normal in moral theology and human relations.
Now all that’s needed is the paperwork…
SECOND, for this mere formality we might look to the post-“synodal” Study Group #9 which is charged to conjure “theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues.” But how can one argue any longer with the “spontaneous, informal, non-liturgical” blessing of irregular couples, as “couples” (!), under the kissing car[di]nals Fiducial Supplicans, now that it’s non-spontaneous, formal, and liturgical—and even sacrilegious? A done deal with needed fingerprints! One is almost reminded how in revolutionary France, the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was likewise hijacked—as a dance platform for a nude prostitute. The issue here is much broader than even LGBTQ…
THIRD, over half a century ago, Georges Bernanos said it this way:
“The modern world will shortly no longer possess sufficient spiritual reserves to commit genuine evil. Already . . . we can witness a lethal slackening of men’s conscience that is attacking not only their moral life, but also their very heart and mind, altering and decomposing even their imagination . . . The menacing crisis is one of INFANTILISM.” (Interview with Samedi-Soir, Nov. 8, 1947, cited in Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Bernanos: An Ecclesial Existence” [Ignatius, 1996], p. 457, caps added).
Wha we need is an Inquisition by the Laity of homoheretics, starting with James Martin SJ.
Theologians and Cannon Lawyers can probably argue the nuances of this action and come up with some level of apologetics to create a definition of acceptance for this action. As an average pew buffer, let me provide a “theologically uneducated view” of what this action shouts…Sodomy, and multiple other perversions are, not just O.K., but have the support and encouragement of the Roman Catholic Church.