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!

The Catholic Church and its Moral Authority.

I ask the question – a valid question – where is God? Is God “up there”, here, everywhere? If, as I suspect, God is everywhere why is it then claimed that a priest is a required “intermediary” through which a believer can “talk” to God.

If God is everywhere is a priest really necessary?

This brings me to comment on the truly appalling, even horrifying revelations in the 2017 Report by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Catholic Church, while certainly not the only one, has the worst record of any institution mentioned. The Catholic Church, through its Archbishops in Australia, has stated, in answer to recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, that any change to the requirement for priests to be celibate, and changes to the confessional will not be considered.

My questions then are:-

Why is “celibacy” so important to the Catholic hierarchy?

Also, why is the Confessional so “sacrosanct”?

And why is it that “Canon Law” cannot be challenged or altered?

Celibacy:

The Church, as I understand it, considers clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. 

There has never been any doubt, however, that it is an ecclesiastical discipline, as Pope John Paul II said at a public audience on 17 July 1993, that celibacy "does not belong to the essence of priesthood.” He went on to speak, nevertheless, of its aptness for the requirements of sacred orders, asserting that the discipline "enters into the logic of (priestly) consecration."

Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline and not a doctrine, it can, in principle be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, the current Pope, Pope Francis, and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.

Throughout the early centuries of Christianity, let it be known, 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. It was of particular concern that at the death of a clergyman, his wife and children would inherit church property. 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).

So, it can be seen that celibacy has nothing to do with God (at least no more so that any other human activity) but a lot more to do with mercenary and ecclesiastical considerations – the wealth and authority of the Catholic Church.

Confessional:

Again, 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 (adopted as a rule or canon).

So, again, there is nothing “sacred” about the confessional – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner.

Canon Law:

I offer the following (adapted from Wikipedia):- “The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 50 AD) has developed into a highly complex legal system incorporating not just elements of the New Testament, but some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Roman, Visigothic, Saxon and Celtic legal traditions.

It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church and other churches. Canon law wasn't just a body of rules and regulations governing members of the church, but rather an elaborate code of ethics shaping family life and marriage. Due to this, it was able to manipulate the fundamental operations of family life within the areas that it oversaw. The Catholic Church (and other churches), have manipulated the basis and validity of marriage, the ability to end a marriage as well as remarriage abilities, and the norms for sexual behaviour. The way that such church laws are legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely. In all these traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.”

So you see, again, there is nothing really “God like” or sacred in these canons (laws) – at least no more so that in the Common Law of Australia. A canon law cannot, ever, take precedence over the Laws of Australia. Otherwise should we now allow “laws” that apply to Scientology, to Islam, the Hindu or any other faith to also take precedence?

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

So I ask again, where is God? Is God “up there”, here, or everywhere?  

Bank Ethics (and trust).

I feel that I may (repeat may) possibly have had a small influence in the Australian Banks decision to "allow" a Banking Royal Commission - I'm not boasting mind!! Some weeks ago I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association and I offer this contribution for those interested to read:-

The Chief Executive Officer

Australian Bankers' Association
Level 3, 56 Pitt Street,
Sydney. NSW 2000

Dear Ms Bligh,

Re: Bank Ethics (and trust).

I am sure I need not remind you that it is obvious, not just to me, that the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia needs to be addressed. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed and moral shortcomings evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008, (the GFC); we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world-wide for aiding and abetting questionable financial transactions - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators, the public and politicians.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banks have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said before, many times, that without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default, no need for shareholders. Money is not “self-emergent” – it is a human construct.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers (i.e. people), are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world-wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - the “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until all these people conduct themselves with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until there are changes, banks will continue to be mistrusted and reviled.

I will be very interested in any response you may offer.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Campbell-Watt

Catholics priests, Paedophilia and Cardinal Pell’s response.

Something is dramatically wrong when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, the titular head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell can say (in apparent justification) that, and I quote from the Weekend Australian newspaper dated 11-12 November 2012, despite the Catholic Church having received hundreds of complaints of child abuse and notifications of paedophilia in New South Wales and Victoria he believed “it was no worse than any other organisation, and had been unfairly vilified”.

I find this statement astounding, utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of any “organisation” – particularly a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell is obviously looking after his position and is protecting his back. The statement was obviously made to protect the “image” of the Church and to diminish anyone who dares to criticise the activities of the Church and its ministers.

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to recall the words of Jesus (King James - Matthew 18.6):

 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”

As I understand it the whole point of a “Church” is that it espouses spiritual values and is supposed to guide, to nourish, to uplift its members. The whole point of priesthood is the (supposedly) spiritual training priests receive which is (supposedly) designed to make them “better” that the average parishioner so that they (the priests) may better minister to the needs of their “flock”. 

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to also recall the words of Jesus (King James – Matthew 22. v37 - 40):

 “37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.”

How can anyone trust an “organisation” such as the Catholic Church that breaks its own Laws, with children, innocent children; breaks the COMMANDMENTS, no less, of Jesus and then have its leader (Cardinal Pell) say, “We have been unfairly vilified?”

This statement beggars belief. Not only should a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the many hundreds of accusations of paedophilia and abuse but Cardinal Pell should stand aside from his position until this whole messy business is sorted out and the Church “cleansed” of its defilement.

I paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and say to Cardinal Pell and the Church hierarchy, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

(For the record - I am a non-practicing Anglican).