It’s amazing how the government can create a law to protect EMI and IRMA but are suddenly incompetent when they create a law to protect children.

This makes me so mad. If the law doesn’t cover “sacerdotal privilege”, then change the law! No child should be at risk because even one person did not report it. This type of exception is making a mockery of this country and its laws.

And maybe it is time The Church paid tax. remove the charitable status from them and allow then the make a contribution to society instead of protecting child abusers.

Ah… good old Catholic Ireland is alive and well. What a pile of undeserved reverencial bullshit. FFS

What kind of mockery of a country are we? An organisation of self-deluding old men are legally allowed to hide child rapists yet I could be prosecuted for blaspheming their imaginary friend?! Seriously?!

What a pile of dog shit! So once again the priests can hide child abuse and get away with it by law! This makes me sick! If someone abuses a child then they should be punished for it. No one should get away with hiding something like that! The law should protect our future generations, what the hell is wrong with people who don’t see that????

F@&*k sacerdotal privilege!!!! That is an absolute disgrace!!!!!

Is this a Climb down. Which will allow pedophiles to go free so long as they confess in secret. The criminals have won this one if so. More abuse in the catholic church to continue if this is the case.

Oh wonderful. The state allowing clergy to operate outside the law. Another shameful act.

…’the swish of a soutane smothered conscience and humanity and the swing of a thurible ruled the Irish-Catholic world’…
Nothing has changed, nothing at all.

If,to remove sacerdotal privilege proves to be unconstitutional then change the constitution. We have been promised loads of referendums this year so what’s one more.

Poor, poor Ireland…………. and not just economically! Bereft of integrity……. Bereft of common sense……. Bereft of humanity……..

Thank you Slummy Mummy. I have now done likewise!

Either ONE LAW for ALL or no law at all, it is precisely because of the bestial acts of some priests and other members of religious orders that this law is needed in the first place, the behaviour of the catholic church, it’s clerics and it’s bishops especially the primate of all Ireland (Brady) shows that any new law MUST include religious orders and bishops and priests, they cannot be trusted and they have shown this by their actions and inactions, Shatter needs to grow some balls and push through the law that is applicable to ALL people and no exceptions, the time for deference to papal authority has long since passed and it would be nothing short of disgraceful act of cowardice not to to so but, then this is Ireland we are talking about! It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to see them get away it again!

Don’t bring it into force until it applies across the board. Clergy should not be exempt. Disgraceful

Fuming…but instead of commenting here, where, with all respect due, it will be useless, email Minister Shatter your opinion in this issue TODAY! alan.shatter@oireachtas.ie I just have.

Is this what Jesus would want

May not? It should specifically apply to priests!

So if I’m an upstanding Roman Catholic living by the (supposed) moral and ethical teachings of the RC church and I happen to commit a criminal act I can trot down to the priest in my local church who recites a few incantations before absolving me of my deed. I might have to do the rounds of the church muttering repetitious nonsense at pictures hanging on the walls for a bit but it sure beats looking out through bars with my potty in my hand. This nonsense is enshrined into law by virtue of a court ruling in 1945 – smack bang in the middle of the ”period of the great repression”. Even DeVelara and his conservative right wing RC chums didn’t have the nerve to include it in the Constitution!
It really is no coincidence that the most administrable corrupt nations are predominately of a Roman Catholic culture.

Disgraceful. They just do not care. They protect the rich and wealthy at all costs, so what about the ordinary people , there are so many of them there it doesn’t mater if one gets raped and murdered or robbed or defiled. What will it take for people to stand up and join ranks against the power houses of this nation. If we do not do something we may all just lie down and suffer the consequences . Open your eyes people , open your hearts . This law is wrong , very wrong. Change it .

One law for priests and another law for everyone else!! Im constantly amazed at this society’s tolerance for pedophiles. Just because some men dress in black, follow autocratic orders from a foreign state does not give them any constitutional right to cherry pick which laws they’ll follow or not. Some might say that this deliberate and overt act of defiance is one step away from treason to the Irish state.

In other news, new laws on drink driving speeding and parking fines may not apply to motorists…

Typical Canon Law prevails over the safety of children Great Country that protects the abuser yet again. I would hope that IF I ever hear that a relative is abused by a cleric or laity that I would have the sense to call the Gardai first but one never knows what if’s and how to handle such horrific events but I do know the child will always be my first priority and the adult victim… 2012 how are yea have we nit learnt anything from past cover-ups by the confessional

What a load of Horse Shit. Outlaw the catholic church immediately.

Who is thumb downing the comments? Children need protection, it is the adults responsibility to protect, end of conversation. What the hell is wrong with this country that the government still have these medieval notions?

good old FF/G a party you can rely on !! not to do the right thing

Legally problematic statement? offensive? inclusion of profanity? A expression with not enough jeux de vie?

What was it this time Gavin?

Just curious.

This latest news once again exposes the true character of Fine Gael and Labour if as its indeed planned, that they will do nothing in this area of law.

The Roman church of Ireland gets off scot free once again!

Surely the problem here lies with the State? As far as I can see, this is an oversight on the part of the Government, and in particular on the part of Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald. If people are angry, they should be angry at Shatter and Fitzgerald for not closing that loophole. They have the responsibility to avoid legal loopholes and they did not do so in this instance. I’m sure that the loophole will be closed.

In any event, the safeguarding norms in the Church and in the State are very clear – suspicions of abuse must be reported to the authorities, irrespective of the common law provisions of sacerdotal privilege. We can see this even extending to the situation where a priest found to have adult pornography on his computer was reported to the PSNI by his bishop even when there was no crime involved.

Is this true?

The only source seems to be the Daily Mail, which is of dubious reliability. Is there an offical statement from the Government about this?

I’d bet that this was probably overlooked by those drafting the Bill in the Justice Department i.e. human error. After all judgements made almost 70 years ago wouldn’t necessarily be checked by those drafting the Bill. So well done to the individual in the Oireachtas office who prepares briefings for TD’s and who spotted this conflicted with the proposed law. Maybe they should transfer to the drafting team, given their good research skills.

Now that the omission has come to light, either the Minister responsible or some other TD will most likely propose an amendment in the Dáil or the committee stage which will take into consideration that judgement.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of judgements out there, as well as thousands of laws. I am sure that it is not as easy as it sounds in making sure the judgements and laws don’t conflict with one another, particularly when they cover events that happened so long ago.

I think that this whole sacerdotal privilege thing is a red herring an irrelevant to the problem of abuse for the simple reason that abusers are highly unlikely nowadays to confess their crimes to a priest.. But even if they were to do so is there not a simple solution? Priests should be instructed to tell such penitents that forgiveness is contingent on them going to the nearest Garda station and confessing to the crimes they’ve committed.

Sorry, that was in response to #peepingass, not that it makes any difference. Too long to read, if it wasn’t mine I wouldn’t read it, fall asleep first.

And we’ll sit on our holes giving out about this yet we still wont take to the streets.

You are talking about a ruling from 1945. The societal and cultural context upon which this ruling is based is peculiar to it’s time. Constitutional reverence for the RCC was and clearly remains a rather unhealthy commodity with which to burden a state. Gavin Duffy J did to allude to the considerable weight carried by Article 44. Carol was not a constitutional case, however it is clear that Duffy had the constitution on his mind when deciding this case. Almost like he was trying to save the Irish state the hassle and expense of messing around with the top dogs of the time, and lets face it, the Irish State at this time were very busy cleaning toilets at the Vatican. Sadly I think we are for the most part still busy with the bleach and brush, embassy or not. He knew well enough that the RCC would stroll down constitution lane with Carol and in doing so would most likely have taken a wire brush to our constitutional nuts.

Cook v Carrol as you say is a valid and lawful legal decision. However the veracity of a decision when one considers the historical context together with the current social utility of such bears close examination. After all we are now in 2012, and still….article 44 still looms large, it’s like an Ace up the liturgical sleeve, or Ireland’s very own answer to pissing right into the wind. But still.

I thought Geoghegan J had some interesting things to say on the matter. I’m no lawyer, but it appears to me that if one was to discount the weight given to the role of the church in our society in article 44, that sacerdotal privilege may well not have a legal leg to stand on or at least be watered down enough to no longer be the nuisance it clearly is. Catholicism would become just like the church of Scientology or the Order of Green Wizards, Magic Wands and Rug Munchers. I would celebrate, I would have many many many beers and quite a number of spliffs should I live to see such a wondrous development come to pass. Again I’m no lawyer and these chaps are hard to follow, but he is talking (I think) about discovery and The Church of Scientology. I think it bears a mention.

http://www.lermanet2.com/reference/johnston-vs-scietnology.txt
Geoghegan J

I start with sacerdotal privilege. I believe that there are only two decided
Irish cases which can give me any worthwhile guidance in this connection.
They are Cook v Carroll [1945] IR 515 and ER v JR [1981] ILRM 125. A great
deal of what Gavan Duffy J had to say in Cook v Carroll is obiter dicta. The
head-note gives an accurate summary of what the learned judge actually
decided. He held that communications made in confidence to a parish priest,
in a private consultation between him and certain of his parishioners, were
privileged and that such privilege could not be waived by a party thereto
without the consent of the priest. In ER v JR, Carroll J held that
communications made to a minister of religion who was acting as a marriage
counsellor are privileged in that the four conditions set out by Gavan Duffy
J in Cook v Carroll were present. She followed, however, the English case of
Pais v Pais [1970] 3 WLR 830, in holding that the privilege was that of the
spouses and not of the minister for religion and might be waived by mutual
consent of the spouses.

This decision was in one sense an extension of the principle laid down by
Gavan Duffy J in that it went beyond the relationship of parish priest and
parishioner but on the other hand it seems to repudiate the idea that the
priest counsellor himself could have a privilege which he would have to
waive.

I think that the waters were muddied to some extent in Cook v Carroll [1945]
IR 515, with all respect to Gavan Duffy J, by the references to the
confessor penitent relationship in the sacrament of confession and by

[2001] 1 IR 682 at 686
references also to the then existing article in the Constitution referring
to the special position of the Roman Catholic Church. Gavan Duffy J appears
to have been of the view that there were constitutional and legal effects
arising out of the so-called special position of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, in other decided cases the view was expressed that it had no such
legal effect and that it was really nothing more than a statement of fact.
It being a fact, then, as a matter of common sense and justice, it was
reasonable for the courts to revive what Gavan Duffy J says was the
pre-reformation common law protecting the seal of the confessional even
against waiver by the penitent. However, that is merely an opinion I express
because I do not think it arises in this case. I do not accept that the
defendants can rely on an alleged analogy with the seal of confession.
Neither in the affidavits nor in court and even though I requested it, was
any evidence produced by way of theology manuals etc that it was part of the
doctrines of the Church of Scientology that any disclosure of what
transpired in auditing or training sessions led to some kind of eternal
punishment. Furthermore, the whole question as to whether the Church of
Scientology is a religion or not remains controversial throughout the world
and it is not sensible to suggest that it can be determined by sundry
decisions relating to tax. I think that the absolute unwaivable privilege
which probably does attach in Irish common law to the priest penitent
relationship in the confessional is sui generis and is not capable of
development in the manner suggested.

I do accept, as Carroll J accepted, that there can be situations where a
privilege may arise in relation to counselling by a priest or minister but
any such privilege may always be waived by the person being counselled and
to that extent I am not prepared to follow the views expressed by Gavan
Duffy J in relation to counselling by a parish priest of a parishioner.
Indeed it is difficult to see why a relationship between a parish priest and
parishioner is any different than a relationship between a priest or
clergyman of any kind and a person coming from anywhere being counselled by
him. Furthermore, although Carroll J left the question open, I would be
inclined to think that in modern times when all kinds of secular counselling
is available, and in particular marriage counselling, there may well be a
privilege which the courts would uphold in some circumstances, but it would
always be capable of waiver unilaterally by the persons being counselled.

Geoghegan J strikes me as righteous dude who appears to know where the bears shit in the buckwheat.

what would the childrens ombudsman know about it anyway. quite right to ignore her advice. sky pilots and your passengers as you were!

It’s refreshing to know that some things are still sacred in this world.