Yes the title has 2 seperate things that should be a million miles apart but they're sadly not.
There is currently a Bill before the WA Parliament. Below is a link to the Upper House Committee Report. It's pretty thorough but not completely exhaustive, there is more to add.
But one of the key points that will end up stirring controversy for some through not being fully informed is the sanctity of the "Seal of Confession" that will allow a priest in confession to keep what details of serious crime they learn of in confession exempt from mandatory reporting. AND an exclusion from criminality should they keep those details secret.
Usually on religious matters whether supporting or opposing a matter I endeavour to argue from a secular point of view. Deliberately. Reason is whilst many laws of the land may trace their roots back to Judaeo Christian origins, the fact is the law of the land in Australia is secular. Many people are secular, or of differing denominations or completely unrelated, different faiths. You can quote chapter & verse with proper in context exegesis but it's pointless if the person you're talking to is either of a different paith, an atheist/agnostic or indeed could be very anti whatever faith you moght be. You cannot change their mind by citing things from a religion they don't follow or possible deeply oppose. Secular reasoning is the only way more often than not.
The second preamble point is the "seperation of Church & State" argument. Probably one of the most misunderstood notions we see even in our free nation. It refers to us not being a theocracy or caliphate.
Our constitution is very clear on this, the government cannot start a religion or faith, cannot enforce observance of a particular religion. Freedom of choice is paramount & immovable.
TO A POINT.
The Waco Massacre, the Jonestown Massacre were all avoidable, had authorities stepped in earlier its debatable what might or might not have happened but one thing is very certain. In Australia there is NO LEGAL PROTECTION for any religion, faith or worldview to allow any seriosu crime to be committed. NONE.
There have throughout history been world views that included human sacrifice & cannibalism to name 2 atrocious vile acts. Neither can be protected, allowed or ignored under "freedom of religion" tenants.
Add into this, there is under Common Law absolutely NO authority given to any religion, no law that delivers legal privelege to the idea of Confession. None.
As a result there is no legal argument allowing confession to be excluded from mandoatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse. The argument that little or no people will come forward on Child Sexual Abuse in confession is irrelevant and a devious distraction. A victim might come forward, a perpetrator might come forward, a 3rd party who is aware of others victim of child sexual abuse might come forward and if they do, it is potentially hidden from the blind justice of natural law because some worldview believes it has the authority to have a safe harbour or blind eye option.
No, priests must not be excluded from mandatory reporting of Child Sexual Abuse or indeed any serious criminal acts.
That's a partial secualr view, now the often avoided faith based view.
Confessional is a cultural mechanism of the Roman Catholic Church & some Orthodox denominations.
There is no Biblical support for the practice at all but I do notice that some selective cherry picking of Scripture does occur.
In the case of some churches the qualifications for the office of church elder, teacher, pastor is quite clear. They must be married, have children, not be a drunkard and there's a longer list. An unmarried celebate preist is not on the list, in fact Scripture is quite clear they need to be head of a married family due to them needing the skills to run a household if theyre to oversee a flock.
A church with unmarried preists is anti Scripture. Using the false statement that "times change and the church evolved" is factually wrong, there are covenants that supercede others WITHIN Scripture and there are some thigns that do not apply due to the destruction of the Temple in Jeruselum around 70AD and many of those things didn't apply before or after that point to Gentiles and Christians.
In any case, if the church were allowed to "evolve" then it means its man made in its aws & canons, subject only to man.
Evolution of the church renders opposition to mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse interllectually bankrupt & corrupted.
Confession is a cultural mechanism, people can partke in that if they choose but it is not, nor should it ever be a legal safe harbour.
Members of whatever church should be allowed to prusue whatever part of their faith or worldview they want unhindered and without penalty, with the exception of where criminal activity occurs. Church followers and the church should be freely allowed to take part in confession but with the knowledge there is no exclusion from mandatory reporting exists. There is no exemption from God, there should be no exclusion from law.
As a result on both a secualr or Scriptural perspective there is no sensible support from Recommendation 17 on Page 60 of the report.. None.
Also be aware of the recommendation of the Royal Commission (7.4) is that:
Confession, the seal of confession are all cultural mechanisms, they're not Scriptural, they're not defendable as safe harbours for criminal acts for anyone.
The Minority recommendation immediately following Recommendation 17 insists that Clause 53 be enacted in full (without any criminal exclusions) and I cannot agree more.
It will as it gets closer to being voted on as a Bill get contentious, but it's not. Its straight forward. There is no secular nor Scriptural defence for excluding preists from criminal or legal responsibility. NONE.
Don't be fooled, it is not over reach of the religious freedom of citizens at all.
