Any chance that before you have a go at me you at least address what I said? Am I supposed to be deeply hurt for priests moved to Africa for standing up for children? I am! But they must have stayed with a church that punished them for sticking up for abused children - see anything wrong with that? I do, I wouldn’t. If that’s a high horse, yours is snake-belly low.
Again speaking of which you do not know as though your way is the only way. Grow up and realise life isn’t black and white according to the rules you create.
IT, I can’t insert myself into a time I didn’t exist. You obviously experienced it and for some reason now just get angry at others for looking back on it wrongly.
Tell me what it is you know that makes anything I said wrong?
Your ability to make all guilty of a few who were/are corrupt.
I am protestant and think the RCC is a vile church with a vile system. However I also know that not everyone involved with the church allows the practices of the church (their teachings and their failures) define who they are and what they believe. Many are trying to change the church. If they leave no one changes it.
Ok, I’m still confused though. Would you say the Royal Commission is changing the church where a few others couldn’t? Would you agree that having mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse would also be a good change?
It seems when left to those ‘inside’, these things carried on a long time unchecked.
A public lynching by the mob of a few bad apples (well justified and definitely needed) tends to get the attention of the church leadership and they realise they need to change things or face a large backlash. Something those on the inside had been struggling to achieve.
This should work for the time being, whether it stays that way will be the interesting part.
Those on the inside who are working hard to change things are using this time to cement a better policy about a lot of issues, policies that will stay once the mob’s desire for punishment has faded…hopefully.
I have no issue with religion at all, but the “church” is the problem for me. I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
As a general rule, I don’t like acceptance of anything bad and silence while understandable is what allows bullies, thugs and generally evil people to survive and prosper. I though once that if you ignored it, it would just go away, but it doesn’t work that way, so while I often get into trouble, I won’t shy away from calling out what is wrong.
I was a catholic once, they drove me away, but they didn’t shut me up.
That’s all pretty broad.
The lack of alarm about the child victims and instead a focus on being powerless and a few bad apples. I simply cannot write it off so easily when it was so embedded.
Maybe that is why we can’t see eye to eye. I cannot fathom that stance.
What lack of alarm about child victims? You talk about a broad statement, that is one right there.
I have plenty of alarm about child victims of paedophiles, whether in the RCC or outside it, in the Protestant church or in government run orphanages.
Ok, my apologies.
Came across differently to me.
Peos summed it up beautifully - I have no idea why some are mixing mandatory reporting and confession as they are two separate and distinct areas - Mandatory reporting has been around for around 20 years and this is usually done by observations/enquiries/interviews etc - Now if this responsibility is transferred to clergy its fine - But i doubt you will ever get much out of confession - You may get some information from the abused in which the clergy has a way of closing up shop - Of course it’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY an offender would admit anything in a confession - This is just another case of society implementing a new rule because it ‘feels good’.
Father Michael McArdle was reportedly so distressed by his acts of child sexual abuse in Queensland that he would often seek the succour of the confessional. Over a 25-year period, before he was convicted in 2002, he confessed to sexually assaulting children an estimated 1500 times to 30 different priests. In keeping with Catholic tradition in Australia, the priests did not report his crimes to authorities, but moved him on to different parishes, to greener pastures.
30 different priests
Don’t tar them all from the same brush FMD.
I think it’s more to be highly likely an offender would admit something in confession as they know it wont be reported. This way they can confess, feel better about themselves and go along on their merry way.
Oh yeah, don’t need to go to the law or apologise to their victims as there is no point.
Churches have a general absolution also, where in their mass the priest just says a few magic words and waves his hands over his once disobedient flock and they are instantly forgiven.
News to me if this is a Catholic thing.
Admittedly, I haven’t been to Mass in 45 years.
'tis true. I remember back in the dim, distant past when I used to be hauled into the phantom chanting congregation this happened on special occasions, such as easter and xmas.
(It may happen more often now, dunno)
Sorry for being sceptical, but this sounds like bs to me. I simply don’t believe this exists.
Can.961 of the Code of Canon Law provides for general absolution. However, in 2002, John Paul Ii narrowed the circumstances in which it could be granted to exceptional circumstances - danger of death or grave necessity ( usually involving isolated communities without an incumbent priest or where priests visits are irregular).
Before then, there was a growing trend in urban parishes for general absolution over the individual confession behind closed doors.
BTW, the confessional system is also used by some High Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox churches.
It does. I remember being absolved of my sins enmass. Please forgive the pun.