Catholics in Australia won't make priests report confessions

[Audra]

Catholics in Australia won't make priests report confessions: https://apnews.com/83a3961a3808451193b7982b411d2774

 

This is so incredibly wrong.  Clearly false religion thinks they have governments wrapped around their little finger.  It's no wonder the beast will turn on Babylon the Great.  If course, since Jehovah puts it in their heart to do so, there's no need for need reports like this to bring on the attack on religion.  However, I do think there will be some in the world who will not be surprised - more like RELIEVED to see this nonsense addressed swiftly and completely.

 

 

There was a similar article in the BBC News app.  A law goes into effect that Priests must report abuse and they have vowed not to adhere to it?!?  Satan and the demons must be laughing at these stupid humans they manipulate so easily.  They have a tight hold on abusing humans until they are abyssed.  How disgusting that they do it in such a grand way under the guise of religion/worship.

 

 

[Bob]

OK, I think you're saying two different things here. Its one thing for members to try to force priests to report; its a completely separate thing if they are legally obligated to. Yes, they MUST follow the law on mandatory reporting. However, they are under no obligation to adhere to demands of the membership.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Bob

[Bob]

Oh my mistake misreading your post. You said Catholics won't make them report confessions. That's understandable. But they can be obligated to by the law, which they must follow.

[carlos]

Bob, what the reports above say is that a new law that makes reporting of child abuse compulsory for the clergy in South Australia will come into force next October. However, the leaders of the Catholic church in Australia refuse to report confessions of pedophilia because they consider the seal of confession inviolable. So the government threatens that priests that don't obey the law will be prosecuted.

[hatcheckgirl]

It was non-stop on the news (which I couldn't avoid in the lunch-room at work).  The formal response to the recommendations by the Royal Commission included their sticking to the seal of confession, and considering the practice of celibate priests.  Some experts have contended that this practice may contribute to child abuse.

 

The Church also said it would consider a recommendation from the commission on voluntary celibacy.

The ACBC said expert theological and canonical advice will be sought on changing canon laws so celibacy is not mandatory.

"Inadequate initial and continuing formation of priests … for celibate living may have contributed to a heightened risk of child sexual abuse," the response said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-31/catholic-response-to-royal-commission-child-sex-abuse/10183020

[Audra]

@hatcheckgirl

I remember my grandmother saying the reason priests were required to be celebate is so that the church keeps any property donated in the priests name instead of it going to his wife or children.  It helped maintain the wealth of the church.  I remember seeing a slight reference to this in a WT article several years back.  I just tried to find it 'from the horse's mouth'.  Yep, according to www.uscatholic.org, my grandmother was right! I'm not surprised at all:

 

"Throughout the first centuries of Christianity, clergy continued to get married, though marriage was not required. It was not until the turn of the first millennium that the church started to canonically regulate clerical marriage, mainly in response to clerical abuses and corruption. Of particular concern was the transmission at the death of a clergyman of church property to his wife and children. The Council of Pavia (1018), for example, issued regulations on how to deal with children of clergy, declaring them serfs of the church, unable to be ordained and barring them from inheriting their father's benefices (income connected to a church office or parish).

In 1075 Pope Gregory VII issued a decree effectively barring married priests from ministry, a discipline formalized by the First Lateran Council in 1123. Since then celibacy has been required of Roman Catholic priests, though the Catholic churches of the East have continued to allow priests to marry before their ordination."

https://www.uscatholic.org/glad-you-asked/2009/08/why-are-priests-celibate

[carlos]

3 hours ago, Audra said:

I remember my grandmother saying the reason priests were required to be celebate is so that the church keeps any property donated in the priests name instead of it going to his wife or children.  It helped maintain the wealth of the church.  I remember seeing a slight reference to this in a WT article several years back.  I just tried to find it 'from the horse's mouth'.  Yep, according to www.uscatholic.org, my grandmother was right! I'm not surprised at all:

Yes, the rule of celibate is not doctrinal but practical. It can be revoked if the church decides so. In a way it's similar to brothers serving at Bethel. If they want to get married in most cases they need to leave Bethel. Not because getting married is bad but for practical reasons.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that celibate contributes much to child abuse. If the priest is going to break his vows, he could as well do it with a woman, not with a child. One needs to be mentally sick or demonized to be sexually aroused by small children. That is only my opinion.

[Thesauron]

Yes, the rule of celibate is not doctrinal but practical. It can be revoked if the church decides so. In a way it's similar to brothers serving at Bethel. If they want to get married in most cases they need to leave Bethel. Not because getting married is bad but for practical reasons.
 
On the other hand, I'm not sure that celibate contributes much to child abuse. If the priest is going to break his vows, he could as well do it with a woman, not with a child. One needs to be mentally sick or demonized to be sexually aroused by small children. That is only my opinion.

I don’t think that is true. I do believe pressure to live a celibate life might contribute to deviant sexual expressions with some, and children are easy targets, especially when you put a lid on any attraction to adults of the opposite sex. It has little or nothing to do with mental illness or demonic influence more than anyone else receives.

[carlos]

22 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

I don’t think that is true. I do believe pressure to live a celibate life might contribute to deviant sexual expressions with some, and children are easy targets, especially when you put a lid on any attraction to adults of the opposite sex. It has little or nothing to do with mental illness or demonic influence more than anyone else receives.

Maybe you are right, what do I know.

 

I know I feel attracted to women but I don't feel attracted at all to children. I know some brothers who are unscripturally divorced or that don't have any hopes to get married in this system for different reasons, and they don't feel attracted to children either.

 

Regarding priests, my point was that as sinful (in fact much more) is to have sex with a child than to have it with an adult woman. If they are going to break the chastity rule, there are plenty of attractive women available for a worldly man. But probably the ARC experts know a lot more than me. After all, look at the wise suggestions they gave us.

[hatcheckgirl]

There is some truth to it regarding being barred from marriage as a Catholic priest. But then again, the Anglican Church has also been rife with child abuse, as has been discovered throughout the RC, yet they can marry.  It seems to just attract a certain type of person who loves to "lord it over" vulnerable ones.  Truly demonic motivations. 

[Saffron]

Not that I'm an expert on this topic by any stretch, but I agree with Carlos. My husband left me years ago, and regardless of how long I remain in this state, I am only ever going to be attracted to men. Period. 

 

If these priests just really had to have sex, there is an abundance of grown women in the world who would be happy to do this sort of thing. There is absolutely no reason for them to prey on innocent children other than the fact that this is what they are attracted to. Demonic motivations indeed. 

 

 

[Shawnster]

Pedophilia is not about attraction. It's about control, as Lucy said. 

 

This isn't a normal, healthy sex drive /attraction.  It cannot be compared to a normal, healthy sexual desire.  

 

We cannot comprehend this because it is so different from the norm.  

 

A former /lapsed Catholic once said to me that his opinion was that the priesthood attracts these type of men struggling with this depravity because they think it will be a way for them to control or suppress their sick desire, as if they feel God will help them suppress these urges because they are priests. 

 

Yeah, it's not working out like that. 

[Saffron]

That's interesting. Didn't think of that before. Could help to account for so many child abusers being in the priesthood. 

 

I thought the opposite: That people with a need for power and  control, not necessarily an attraction to children, would be attracted to positions like this. But who knows. Wonder if the two go hand in hand... All I do know is that this is too disgusting for words. If they really just need to control someone, there are women in the world who are into that sort of thing.

[Bob]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Pedophilia is not about attraction. It's about control, as Lucy said.  

Well, a pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children:
 

Quote

Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

I will agree that child molestation is about control. Child molesters aren't necessarily pedophiles.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Bob

[Thesauron]

Maybe you are right, what do I know.
 
I know I feel attracted to women but I don't feel attracted at all to children. I know some brothers who are unscripturally divorced or that don't have any hopes to get married in this system for different reasons, and they don't feel attracted to children either.
 
Regarding priests, my point was that as sinful (in fact much more) is to have sex with a child than to have it with an adult woman. If they are going to break the chastity rule, there are plenty of attractive women available for a worldly man. But probably the ARC experts know a lot more than me. After all, look at the wise suggestions they gave us.

You can never be sure of anyone’s attractions, just of what they do or do not do. As for whether or not it is more or less sinful, I don’t grade sins like that. They are both serious sins and bring death. I just know we are all in need of God’s Kingdom. But it is probably easier for someone under forced celibacy to use kids for sex instead of women as they might argue that it is almost like not having sex at all.

This said, I’m sure most priests are not attracted to children. Perhaps such attractions are even fluid. I guess most who break their chastity vows do it with adult males or women.

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, Bob said:

Well, a pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

 

I will agree that child molestation is about control. Child molesters aren't necessarily pedophiles.

 

 

Maybe I was lumping them together.  

[Bob]

13 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Maybe I was lumping them together.  

Nearly everyone I know uses "child molester" and "pedophile" interchangeably.

[hatcheckgirl]

Regarding "forbidding to marry" as being a demonic teaching, this is an interesting excerpt from an article w96 7/1 pp. 4-7

 

No doubt, many priests live morally chaste lives, but a large number do not. According to the 1992 Britannica Book of the Year, “the Roman Catholic Church was reported to have paid out $300 million to settle cases of clergy sexual abuse.” Later, the 1994 edition said: “The death of a number of clergy from AIDS brought visibility to the presence of gay priests and observations that there were an inordinate number of . . . gays drawn to the priesthood.” No wonder the Bible states that “forbidding to marry” is a ‘teaching of demons.’ (1 Timothy 4:1-3) “In the view of some historians,” writes Peter de Rosa in his book Vicars of Christ, “[priestly celibacy] has probably done more harm to morals than any other institution in the West, including prostitution. . . . [It] has been more often than not a stain on the name of Christianity. . . . Enforced celibacy has always led to hypocrisy in the ranks of the clergy. . . . A priest can fall a thousand times but he is forbidden by canon law to marry once.”

Edited September 2, 2018 by hatcheckgirl
fixed formatting to look better

[Thesauron]

Nearly everyone I know uses "child molester" and "pedophile" interchangeably.

A child molester might be interested in beating, torturing, or murdering children. A pedophile might not. They are not necessarily the same.