The Seal of Confession and "weasel words".

Few things get up my nose and arouse my ire like injustice and people, or organisations, using “weasel words” to try and escape scrutiny and to try and maintain their authority! It is almost as if their only “crime” was to be caught! Doesn’t seem to matter what they did.

In relation to the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuses, the Catholic Church used their response to argue, 

“.. that children would be less safe if mandatory reporting of confessions was required.

A perpetrator or victim might be less likely to raise abuse in confession if confidence in the sacramental seal was undermined,” the response said.

So an opportunity would be lost to encourage a perpetrator to self-report to civil authorities or victims to seek safety," it said.

And then Archbishop Coleridge went on to compare the “sacramental seal of confession” to client-lawyer privilege and journalistic protection of sources. 

Less safe! And “protection” similar to client-lawyer privilege! To protect a paedophile Catholic in a House of God! And then to claim that an abused child would be less safe! Words fail me – I’m staggered that anyone, anyone, would make such a claim. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Weasel words indeed! It seems at all costs protect the “Sacred” institution of the Catholic Church!!!

In relation to the Church’s response, mentioned above, I repeat here something I wrote sometime ago – that I think it is worth repeating.

The Confessional:

As I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics. 

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (later adopted as a rule or canon).

So, what’s new? There is nothing “sacred” about the “seal” of confession – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner, someone to talk openly with – not hide behind a screen. To me – hiding behind a screen while confessing, to God presumably, is hypocritical in the extreme. I mean where is God in all this? Is God only “up there?”; or only in a “house of God”; or, as I strongly suspect “everywhere”! If God is everywhere there is no place to hide – least of all behind a screen! 

Furthermore does a “sinner” require absolution from a priest – also possibly a “sinner” himself - to “return to God”? Please!! 

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind its so-called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

It’s high time they realised that this is the 21 Century – after the birth of the man they profess to worship – the man of peace, the man of love!

What we can learn from the past – Take 2

Another of Aesop’s Fables. 

I wonder to whom this may apply – anyone you know?

The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf.

A shepherd boy who tendered his flock not far from a village, used to amuse himself at times by crying out “Wolf! Wolf!” His trick succeeded two or three times, and the whole village came running to his rescue.

However, the villagers were simply rewarded with laughter for their pains.

One day the wolf really did come, and the boy cried out in earnest. But the neighbours thought that he was up to his old tricks and paid no attention to his cries.

Consequently the sheep were left at the mercy of the wolf.

Moral: Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed.

Voting for a lie and Compulsory Voting.

In relation to the examples of the current crowd of self-serving, venial, crassly stupid politicians in Canberra (in my view) I offer the following for those who may be interested. 

My question: Why am I forced to vote for a lie and liars (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting)? I personally have yet to be convinced that compulsion is comfortably associated with democratic principles. 

As a concerned citizen I regard the impact of certain measures and policies the current Federal Government (the LNP) has outlined since the election that we were not asked to vote for – and I might add this applies also to previous administrations – as unacceptable.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was promised were not “core promises” (Re: Tony Abbott in 2014 - what is a “core promise” pray tell?). Why do politicians bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a tax is a tax and promise is a promise in any language?

My concerns are about what are we compelled to vote for – a lie? Is this morally and ethically acceptable? Is this legal? Is this democratic?   

Most people are well aware that trust takes a long time to develop but may be lost in an instant - recall the (Howard era) “Tampa” affair and the “children overboard” allegations; recall the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government “flip flop” on a “mining tax”; recall the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the want of compassion and kindness enveloping the LNP’s activities relating to “illegal” refugees and the events on Manus Island and Nauru, (all done in the name of Australia – i.e. in MY name); note the blatant unfairness of many current budget measures - and so it goes on!! 

To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about morals and justice some twenty-five centuries ago (The Analects – trans. Simon Leys):- 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding levels of abuse of position, the lying and lack of moral leadership shown by many of this country’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for every politician to stop, take a step back and really examine their actions to see whether they make any sense. 

As an example, I was told in a letter, (in my possession and dated 9^thJanuary 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull (in reply to my concerns) that (and I quote):- 

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

In the 2014 Budget (only some four months after this letter) the LNP reduced the ABC’s budget allocation by hundreds of millions of dollars – described as an “efficiency dividend”! They are still doing this – still cutting the ABC’s funding in both the 2017 and 2018 budgets.

And we HAVE to vote? Please!!  

Another curiosity - I notice that in the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) website in the FAQ section the last point in the ‘Arguments in Favour of Compulsory Voting’ states: “The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.”

I find this an astonishing statement – it is of course true, but somewhat defeats the purpose of compulsory voting!

Furthermore I notice that (Federally) informal votes average round about 5 per cent. This, in actual numbers for the 2016 election, equates to about 720 000 people who for various reason “spoiled” their vote. 

There were approximately 630 000 people “missing” from the electoral rolls. That’s a lot.

Now if you add “spoiled” papers to those “missing” this equates to about 1.35 million people who didn’t actually vote out of the about 16.8 million Australians who were eligible to vote or about 8 per cent. That’s also a lot of people.

Also there was a record low level of voter interest in the 2016 federal election, and record low levels of satisfaction with democracy and trust in government. Only 60 per cent of voters were satisfied with democracy in Australia, the lowest level since the 1970s. Apparently.

It appears that about one in five people (20 per cent) believe that politicians who they voted for won’t make any difference, up from 13 per cent in 2007. University research also finds some weakening in the perception that people in government can be trusted to “do the right thing”. Strange that!

There has to be a reason for this and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause. If politicians did not have the comfort of knowing that their margin was X% (because of polling data and compulsory voting) they might actually get out on the road and “stump” their electorate and find out what their electorates real concerns are. As an example, I emigrated to Australia in January 1982 – in the intervening years I have lived at five locations in and around Perth (Western Australia) yet no Federal candidate has bothered to call at my house; only in the last few years, since moving to a retirement village, has a candidate’s “flyer” even landed in my mail box! 

If they show that much interest in me, what level of interest should I show in them?

I suggest that the AEC consider recommending that “compulsory” should be removed from the Electoral Act particularly as we are “not compelled to vote for anyone”? The candidates would then “be compelled” to do the rest! 

A possible reversion to the 1911 compulsory enrolment concept (all eligible people were required to enrol as voters) may be a good alternative. Many people may not be aware that France has a highly efficient registration process. At the age of eighteen, all French youth are automatically registered. Similarly, in Nordic countries all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system) – with an 86% average voter turnout. [I referred to Wikipedia for some of this information].

Compulsory voting in Australia is an unnecessary “impost” on the population.

Such a change, as recommended above, would I believe, still fulfil the AEC’s primary role in ensuring that it delivers a free and fair election.

Such a change would also free up resources wasted on prosecuting those who did not bother (or refused) to cast their vote – for a lie!

Arouse the electorate’s interest and people will vote – the blatant lies, the unfairness, lack of trust, disinterest and boredom, and the crass stupidity of some parliamentarians, are the problem - it is a case of “the same old, same old”. 

And we HAVE to vote??

What we can learn from the past.

I just happened to open a book of Aesop’s Fables that I have not read for many a long year. Some are very apt – even after some 2500 years since they were first collected. 

For those that may have forgotten or didn’t know, Aesop is thought to have been a freed slave and lived for a while in Athens, round about 600BC.

Here are two of his fables that some may feel are apposite today:-

The two bags. 

According to ancient lore every man is born into the world with two bags suspended from his neck – one in front and one behind, and both are full of faults. But the one in front is full of his neighbour’s faults; the one behind, full of his own. Consequently, men are blind to their own faults but never lose sight of their neighbour’s.

Sound familiar?

The trees and the axe.

A woodsman went into the forest and petitioned the trees to provide him with a handle for his axe. It seemed so modest a request that the principle trees granted it right away, and they declared that the plain homely Ash should furnish what was needed. No sooner had the woodsman fitted the staff for his purpose, however, than he began chopping down the noblest trees in the woods. By the time the Oak grasped the entire matter it was too late, and he whispered to a neighbouring Cedar, “With our first concession we lost everything. If we had not sacrificed our humble neighbour, we might still be able to stand for ages”.

Moral: When the rich surrender the rights of the poor, they provide a handle to be used against their own privileges.

Again, sound familiar?