Of course they go to confession. They can have a good would purge of their guilty conscience and then go out and do it all over again and again and again.

I believe the reason for this measure was that the confessional was abused during the previous scandals. Discussions between abusive priests and their superiors on how to handle the situation were conducted in the context of the confessional so as to, so they thought, make those discussions confidential and inadmissible in any future court case.

This measure is more to do with closing that loophole than your common-or-garden confession (in which cases, anyway, the priest theoretically doesn’t even know how the person on the other side of the screen is).

Meant would purge

@peternolan spot on with your summation there. That’s exactly why Shatter put it in.

Peter: Many religious orders do NOT allow superiors to hear the confession of their priests for this very reason. Similarly, it is not normal for a bishop to hear the confessions of his priests.

Such a practice would certainly be an abuse of Confession on the part of both parties.

Do you have any specific examples of this practice that you are aware of?

@ Marty In the Institutions it would have been likely that children would have been confessing ‘sins’ to actual abusers. Some children in the Institutions did report abuse in confessions – for doing that they were beaten savagely.

The abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual violence, and was punished severely.
A snippet from the Ryan Report:

Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.

The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offence.

21. The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.

The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.

22. When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a lay teacher.
- – - – - – - – - – -

The thread running through it is that the Church is of more importance than the abused child. The Church want’s to maintain that importance at all costs.

Very well said!

what law…. who’s law…..?
Communist, Nazi, Talmud Torah, Bible?
They are all relative…

If a government decides to reduce the age of consent to 4…. It would therefore be legal…. and there would be nothing to confess and no law would broken…..

Personally I prefer the biblical punishment for rapist .nf childmolesters……

you totally misunderstand and misrepresent the seal of confession.
It is not a means by which perpetrators go and “confess” their secrets. It is where they are full of remorse for their sins (in this case; crimes) and seek forgiveness. If the priest hears of abuse outside of the seal then by all means it is mandatory (under Church guidelines) to report. However confession only works if the seal is inviolable. I dont unerstand why someone would even go to confession if he thought the priest would report him. As was said below the priest might not even know who the paedo is (in some places might not even see his face).
Its not an empty ritual for those who avail of it. Its not that it has a higher priority to anything it just wont work if it the priests become agents of the state.
As i said below the priest should withhold absolution until the perpetrator has confessed to the authorities. Thats the best he can do.
I would have thought the same applies to shrinks. Are you really going to confess to someone you think will report you. Confessing a crime like that surely is about trust. A psychologist needs it with his/her patient and likewise with priests

@Ed, I’m not sure what the biblical punishment for childmolesters, but the biblical punishment for rapists is a fine of 50 shekels to be paid to the victims father and marriage to the victim. Unless she is engaged, in which case if the rape happens in a city, both the rapist and the victim are stoned to death, or if it happens in the fields, then only the rapist is stoned. Just saying.

@Frank Maguire.

It does’t matter what the church believes about confession. They are free to believe anything about that they want.

Whether or not confession “works” or not is not anything the state need concern itself with.

What the state should concern itself with is the prevention of harm to others.

If you hear of abuse (as priests and bishops did hear reports of, sometimes through confession) throughout the years of abuse chronicled in the Murphy and Ryan reports, it is clear to anyone with a half decent sense of morality that by reporting it you will prevent ongoing or future abuse.

Thus by not reporting abuse, you are morally (and now legally) responsible for any future abuse that occurs.

The state cannot take into consideration any religious considerations into this. It’s not the position of a government in a republic to legislate for religion. It cannot give special consideration and place certain religious ideas/persons above the law of the land.

And “shrinks” as you put it, already abide by these guidelines, and have done so successfully for several years.

John, First the city reference is to consensual sex (ie in the city they lay down and she did not cry out), so it was adultry not rape and both were put to death, in the field he forced her and she cried out (rape) and only he was put to death. The unengaged woman, 50 sherkels was 10 years wages and was paid to the family as compensation, HE must marry her, HE can never divorce her, she could say no to marriage, but as you are aware in those times a raped unmarried woman would never find a husband, and because of poverty an unmarried woman often turned to prostitiution to survive. So if you put it in context to the times that were in it, the bible made sure that the woman if she chose would have a husband for life and most would prefer that to the other alternative of the times. Obviously today we would not give a woman the option to marry her rapist, but today a man would not refuse marriage to a woman because she was raped and a woman today does not need a husband to survive, so while not relevant today, it was extremely relevant to unengaged woman of the day.

@Marcella, the bible says that “she shall be his wife”, it doesn’t say that she has the option of refusing the marriage. Additionally the bible assumes that if the rape happens in the city, it is because the victim didn’t shout loud enough to stop it, and that therefore it is adultery and she deserves to be stoned to death. Also the reason why it would be so hard for a raped unmarried woman to get married, might be because the punishment for not being a virgin on her wedding night is, again, being stoned to death.

John Horan
Taints of Sharia law !

well said Anita!!!…spot on.

Ok Anita, so you are an atheist and Christian hater (the only religion you refer to), by your arguement, lawyers whose clients have confessed to them that they committed the crime, should be morally and legally obliged to tell the courts and have them sentenced, but thats not going to happen any time soon. By law a lawyer can be barred from courts for disclosing his clients information without clients say so, but then thats ok , after all its legal not religious.
,

Precisely Marcella. Lawyers have a legal status and not a religious status. So to compare priests and lawyers is wholly ridiculous and ignorant. Furthermore, the article refers to Christian priests, the Catholic church, we’re talking about an issue in a predominantly Christian country, and confession is a Christian sacrament. Then Anita talks about Christianity and you immediately throw shit at her for being a “Christian hater”.
Strawman much?

Ok, I abused a child, I tell the priest in confession and he tells no one, he is morally wrong. I tell my lawyer, he goes to court and gets me free , and he is not morally wrong, the legal system is not morally wrong, I mean we are either protecting victims rights or not, explain why it is ok for a lawyer to walk into court knowing what his client did and in a lot of cases free the criminal. How is that ok in your world. And as to your statement regarding Anita, she claimed that being a Christian exempts people from behaving morally, no I have to live under the law the same as everyone else, the article was about Priests, because as you see if someone told me what they had done I would tell, why, because I am a Christian not a Priest, see the difference. And Anita, Why then exempt lawyers from upholding one of the most basic of moral standards – to protect children from abuse.

Most healthcare/social services have been using the Children First guidelines, upon which the legislation is based, for the better part of a decade at least now. It’s been a long time coming that it is finally on a statutory basis, due to lobbying by the catholic church to stop it.

Generally, any psychological services I’ve been involved with would have used these guidelines. People are told at the start of treatment/assessment that while everything is confidential there are limits to confidentiality which if there is risk of person harming themself, person harming others, or a risk of/disclosure of harm towards children.

So unlike the Church, actual ethical healthcare practitioners have been adhering to these guidelines for the past while.

Good to know! Thanks

Basically, this ‘confessional seal’ gives protection to Catholics only, as the sacrament doesn’t apply to other religions. Why should child-abusers (for instance) who are Catholic get a greater protection than those of any other religion or no religion? Yes, yes, I know it only applies to those who seek to salve their conscience though that sacrament. But why should a church protect the guilty like that. Fair enough, if they declare a sinner absolved of his/her sin because they confessed, it does not and should not negate their debt to society. Let the proest absolve the sin for the purposes of access to Heaven but remind them that repentence in this case requires engagement with the law. I think that it’s actually cruel to put the weight of that kind of secrecy on a priest. I know the prevailing attitude is that all priests are guilty/perverts [delete as per your prejudice] but not all are. Many are decent human beings trapped by an utterly stupid canon law that subverts *real* law to protect the Church’s hubristic, arrogant sense of superiority.

This is just more of the same when it comes to the manipulation of the laws of the land by Government to protect the interests of the ‘elites’. The Church in this instance.
A law providing for the prosecution of a person who withheld information regarding serious crime was amended by the Fianna Fail Government in 1997: Ivana Bacik Irish Independent 2002 http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/change-in-the-law-means-there-is-now-no-criminal-offence-for-failure-to-report-crime-29
This amendment ensured that clergy that were made knowledgeable of the sexual abuse of children (whether incantations or mutterings were relevant or not) were protected from the civil law. An example of where state law was amended to reflect the Canon Law of the RC Church, which in this case indemnified clergy from prosecution for cover-up.
You couldn’t be having some busybody after reading the outcome of the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy or Cloyne reports calling to their local nick to insist that the Bishop of their Dioceses have his jewel encrusted collar felt, now could you? And him after going to the bother of blessing the mouths and ears of those that spoke and heard it.

Just to be clear. Before 1997 it was technically an offence for a Roman Catholic clergyman to not report a crime he was told about in confession. Canon Law providing for the seal of the confessional is repugnant to the civil law of many countries where this practice is carried out, and was similarly repugnant to the civil law of this country until 1997. Of course it was then noticed that the outcome of various inquiries might highlight cover up (with or without the seal of confession) and therefore criminalize the clergy who kept their gobs shut.

No one is talking about guns of weatherboarding. Force in this instance is the legal and moral instances of force, that is morally a priest should report all serious crimes including rape and legally you can be forced to give evidence – which is Garda can arrest you bring you to court, if you don’t give evidence then judge can send you to jail until you give evidence

You make a very good point. There’s a big difference between forcing someone and legally obliging someone.

Even if they were legally obliged, the slim chance of someone confessing this type of crime to a priest would become nil when the perpetrator knows that the priest will go straight down to the Garda station.

Priests should morally supply this information!!!!!!!!!

they have the same right to silence as everyone else, this is a tricky issue, i would be behind it 100% if i thought it wasn’t just another stepping stone towards getting rid of the right to silence altogether, i understand judges can already take inference from silence, i would hate to have to face this dilema but would have no hesitation informing on a pedophile

Surely this is a no brainer where child abuse is involved. For the church to suggest otherwise just serves to demonstrate how out of touch they are with right-thinking people.

telling sins isnt good enough for forgiveness. Genuinely feeling sorry for them is the most important thing.

A good priest will talk it out with the sinner. A good priest will also recommend going to the police before being able to grant absolution. And again its not like the priests knows who every single person is who comes in to confess

Just looked at the thing there: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/3212/b3212s.pdf

It says it applies to the laws concerning “a defilement of a child under 15/17 years of age”. Which concerns two intimate 15 year olds.

Bit of an oversight actually.

They are also obliged to obey Canon law. When the two come into conflict they will be forced to decide as their consciences demand.

In the meantime we are also obliged to follow the law of the land. How many of us can say, hand on the bible (or some book by Dawkins), that we have always done the same?

@ Damocles: They are free to take the course of action whether or not to follow canon law or the law of the land.

However if they take the immoral choice of siding with canon law and allowing abuse to continue, they will now be breaking the law of the land and should be punished accordingly for their immoral and illegal act, the same as any other person would be.

Damo, I’ve got parking tickets but that’s not quite the same as raping children or covering it up.

@damocles When playing tiddlywinks people are supposed keep the rules when playing, if they break the rules and are caught their fellow players may not be too happy but it can hardly be classified as a criminal offense. Cannon law is just as important to non catholics as the mentioned as rules of tiddlywinks.

Joe, strictly speaking, tiddlywinks is more important as it refers to reality.

Ruaidhrí, if they break Canon law they are punishable by excommunication. They would have to weigh up in their minds, even now, whether they should report crimes and risk excommunication or stay silent and risk imprisonment. It is up to them to gauge which puts their immortal soul at greater risk.

If you or I fail to report certain crimes, as we are obliged to by law, we risk imprisonment too. Have you failed to report any crimes you should have?

Joe, Canon law may be unimportant to you, but it is important to a priest who might be put in this position. Ultimately the decision will always lie in his heart regardless of the civil law.

Edward as a Catholic hater you have you right to opinions, But lets try a new thing, FACTS, 4% of priests (between accused and actually convicted) have been involved (worldwide). If you consider paedophilia exclusively thats less that 1%. School districts on the other hand have had 10% to 15% of employees (teachers, aides etc) involved in this crime. As for society at large, 20% to 25% of people are involved in this, but these are only the reported cases, as up to one third of cases are not reported, since most of the time it happens within the family or by someone close to the family. By constantly harping on about the priests involved (who should be shot by the way), the rest of the sick perverts can get on with their work unafraid of being caught because nobody is paying attention to them, everybody is looking at the priests.

Marcella do you have any sources for that? I highly doubt that less than 25% of accused priests are accused of paedophilia specifically, and I don’t think that worldwide counts for much, since I doubt any priests in South America or Africa are being accused of much and ther are a lot over there. Nor do I believe that 6-8 of the 40 teachers in my school were involved in child abuse.

@ marcella: I don’t hate any group and I don’t know where you’ve pulled these so called “FACTS” from but I really do wish people like you would stop making up percentages out of thin air and without quoting your source. The reality is, there are no reliable stats available on who the worst offenders are because the information that is available is loosely based on that which is in the courts – which tells us nothing. You can’t compile statistics based on conviction rates because most of these malcontents operate under the radar and that’s well documented. As to how many of them there actually are per head of population nobody has a clue but we do know this much, some of them have enjoyed the protection of the Vatican for far too long.

Brendan, please check out the following, although as I have seen here facts mean nothing when you are determined to condemn.

http://www..thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/mora/
http://blog.archny.org/?p=625
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

These are just a few, but if you are open minded and willing to read they will lead you to many more. I am sorry they are mainly American but I couldnt find unbiased Irish ones, as you will see if you read the reports above, it would be very hard to find unbiased ones. Good luck

it’s an awful pity you can’t be even bothered to read your own research and this is why these so called “facts” of yours need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The only credible source among all of those links is the US government appointed one and yet it states very clearly: Quote: Unfortunately, there are few empirical studies on educator sexual misconduct. As a result, there are insufficient studies to undertake even the simple synthesis method of counting the votes, let alone to merit the more formal and rigorous methods of synthesis such as meta-analysis.” End Quote. Mrs. Gaffney, please, stop trying to defend the indefensible. You’re just making yourself look silly and that’s putting it mildly.

Edward’s already covered most of what I have to say on that but lets say I take your 4% figure, which is in the States, not worldwide. You’re comparing that to these loose figures of 5% of the general population that might be a paedophile, or have thought about it, or think they have had some bad thoughts. Replace that with the amount of people convicted of child abuse in USA, which is .08%. And you’re probably going to try to argue down that 4% because it was accusations not convictions, but even the Church noted that around 80% of those cases were “credible”. And also the method of counting that led to that 4% figure is flawed, it included priests from 1950-2002, but priests ordained in 2001 counted as one priest the same as a priest who served since 1950. Its not a method you would see by any statistician. So you could probably double that 4% to 8%. You can then scale down that 8% to whatever you want by comparing accusation rates to conviction rates, but oit will still be many multiples of .08%.

sorry forgot to give you this:

http://www.adrianliston.eu/blog/2010/9/18/a-true-apology-from-the-pope-would-acknowledge-that-catholic.html

I’m not a fan of the many made up traditions, beliefs etc of the Catholic Church but confession is actually one of the only practices they have that has any biblical basis, Jesus started it and it continued with the apostles.

If you hold the bible sacred and use it as a moral compass that is your choice.
Should we allow a 5,000 year old collection of stories which has been interpreted by different people at different times and which contradicts itself (old & new testament) to form a basis for child protection?
No,we should apply the latest laws as passed by the oireacthas

Jesus advocated *repentence* – confession was introduced centuries later. There is a big difference. Seems confession was a means for the church to keep tabs on what the people were getting up to.

Yes I agree we shouldn’t use the Bible as the basis for child protection, that’s not what I’m saying.

It’s not that difficult to know more about Catholicism than your average Catholic, so do it. To argue the secular side of the argument with false information makes it quite difficult to take the intellectual high ground.

@Chris Confession came in and out of fashion and used to be mandatory, then it wasn’t, then it was etc, but the tradition started when Jesus sent his apostles out to forgive or not forgive at their own discretion.

@ Brendan, What false information? Do tell and I will debate with you.

The false information that confession was made up by men in silly hats and costumes. And the analogy of the clown hearing a secret from an imaginary friend, people that go to confession aren’t imaginary.

popes, cardinals and bishops wear silly hats and costumes.
clowns wear silly silly hats and costumes.
If a priest disobeys the law of the land because it’s not compatible with (their interpretation of) God’s law, they are good Catholics.
If a clown did the same because an imaginary friend had a different set of laws they would be mentally ill.

Ok I see where we’re getting wires crossed. The notion of confessing to a priest/apostle/church advisor did start with Jesus, the idea that it is a secret, a confessional Seal, is an idea created by the Catholic Church.

I agree with you that priests should be forced to break the Seal of Confession, but in a time where we’re finally moving to a more secular and more tolerant state, rantings about how priests and bishops dress and comparing them to clowns with imaginary friends doesn’t help. You could say the same about the get up of our judges and Ceann Comhairle.

Do judges base their legal decisions on a what a Jewish Carpenter does?

By and large yes, the Jesus of the New Testament and the morality he taught does echo in the laws we follow and the morals we have today.

My point in this, if you want to be part of the generation that takes down the Catholic Church, make sure you at least know what you’re fighting against.

Agree with you Lisa, but I don’t think they are being ‘forced’ , just a move forward into today’s society of what should have been the ‘norm’ years ago, to do the right thing and speak the truth to protect other human beings from harm.

I voted no for the simple reason that how are you going to prove it? It’s the priests word against the accused. What do you do, how will you enforce it? Bug the confessional? How do you propose to enforce this law?

What is your answer to that? Oh BTW I’m not a Catholic and I have an interest in the area of child abuse.

The seal of confession is there for a reason. It exists because the priest is not acting on his own authority but is representing Christ. A person approaches the confession in a Catholic Church knowing that he/she can speak freely and in ABSOLUTE confidence. The priest may NEVER disclose what transpired between him and the penitent in question, even under pain of death.

Most people making comments on here have absolutely no idea what the Seal of Confession means.

I voted no because how could the law act on something a priest was told through a screen not even seeing the persons face and plus the fact that no one would tell them anything they’ve done so it makes no sense. There are my balls, now suck em!

We know what the seal means, Michael. However it holds absolutely nothing against the law of the land.
Religions are nothing short of opinions, and mere opinions hold no special status.

Because it’s mostly priests that this law is targeting and they know each other alright!

Actually Edward if you think that it’s only priests that are child abusers then you know very little about child abuse. About 5% of the population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Prevalence_and_child_molestation are child abusers so to keep harping on about priests is only taking away from the rest of the abusers. Yes the Church deserves severe criticism but lets not forget the 5 people out of the 100 that are standing beside you on the LUAS that have abused a child and are not priests. Scary thought isn’t it?

a priest is a citizen of a country and as such should be subject to the same laws and legislation as all other citizens. NO allowances should be made to any citizen not to obey a law…. or be given a “free pass” from any law.

If the criminal wishes to be absolved of such a sin / unlawfulness.. .let him pay his debt to society first before being absolved in the eyes of his god.

True, but the article is not about the clergy as criminals, but the clergy being obliged to pass on information about criminals. It’s obviously a no-brainier when framed around the issue of child abuse, but what about in other situations? Should a priest provide information to the police about a kid who shoplifts for a dare? Should a priest provide information about a person who admits to growing cannabis? What about someone who admits to adultery? It may not be a crime but the information may affect a divorce settlement ( a legal proceeding ). Clear lines would need to be drawn.

I am also very uncomfortable about the idea that the church becomes an information gatherer for the state. The word “forced” implies this is not in the interests of the church, but this could be reframed as a “special relationship”. This may give the church more justification for their supposed authority, and this is what I meant by keeping a clear desperation between church and state.

Lastly, it should be kept in mind that we are speaking about priests, not as normal citizens, but as representatives of the church. It goes without saying that priests, as citizens, are held to the dames laws as standards that any other citizen is.

we are specifically referring to case of sexual abuse crimes here… dragging other crimes into the discussion is moot as they have nothing to do with it.
im sorry, but i have a real problem with your viewing priests as “not normal citizens”…. if not normal citizens then what differentiates them from other citizens? their uniform? the fact they belong to an organised order? sorry, but protection behind ‘the cloth’ has been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities of this country and i certainly do not agree that this protection should be somehow enshrined in legislation !!

@John, the law is the same one that applies to psychologists, who are required to disclose information if there is a risk of harm to the individual or to others. The question is if the clergy deserve to be given a free pass from this legislation.

Also, as far as I know, any information gathered under this legislation is inadmissible in court, because it is little more than hearsay. Rather the authorities that the information is disclosed to are also required to keep the information quite, but can use it to begin an investigation.

>i think you might be exaggerating the amount of times a paedophile was protected by the seal of confession.

Perhaps but this law now closes off the Church from even attempting to use confession as a loophole. Given the record of the Church and their opposition and reluctance to implement child abuse prevention policies in the past few decades, I’d say we are better off not trusting their word and forcing them to comply with legislation.

>the idea of the state obliging people to report every time they hear a serious crime has been committed.

This law pertains to the prevention of child abuse and it has existed as the children first guidelines which a large number of professionals and organizations have abided by for years. Why should an organisation, which by its own admission, by findings in criminal proceedings and by Judicial investigations, has knowingly protected and enabled abusers be allowed to ignore a law which all other citizens of the state abide by? The Church had the opportunity to do the right thing for years, but again and again they protected themselves and exposed children to further risk. They brought this law upon themselves and have the lost the right to any exemptions which may have existed historically.

>Confession is granted an exemption in most western countries throughout the world.

Historically this is true. Due in no part to the strength and power of the Catholic Church in ensuring this law was put into place. However I see no rational reason why such an exemption should remain. An argument from tradition is no argument at all.

Regarding your last point, it doesn’t matter what priests recognise or require as part of the confession process. That’s church law. Church law is meaningless in the laws of the state. We do not legislate based on Sharia Law or the club rules of the GAA or IRFU in this state. It doesn’t matter what group/team/religion/cult you are a member of, all citizens must abide by the legislation of the state.

If someone was abusing children and hiding it, and claiming that some aspect of Sharia Law demanded that they not tell authorities, I can guarantee you that every single person here condemning this law and supporting priests right to protect child rapists would be out for blood and demanding that sharia law not trump the law of the land.

Why then should the canon law of the RCC be treated any differently to sharia law?

Ironically if priests were following the Hippocratic oath they would be doing mandatory reporting.

The Hippocratic Oath states “First, do no harm…”

Not reporting abuse causes further harm by allowing abuse to continue. So by reporting, you do no harm.

Doctors have not taken the Hippocratic Oath in years.

Any body which through its actions or lack thereof condones or hides the abuse of children is evil. Granting absolution to paedophiles is morally wrong – its tantamount to permitting the abuse of children. The auld ‘I was just following orders’ excuse does not hold water: it’s a question of personable responsibility; anyone who knowingly permits a paedophile to walk free and reoffend belongs nowhere but jail.

Priest are bound by the law of the land as citizens of a nation. They choose to abide by the doctrine of the Catholic Church they don’t have to. The doctors Hippocratic oath does not conflict the law of the land in the way the seal of confession could and in cases where patient/doctor confidentiality is conflicted the law of the land out ranks it this is now the same for priests, as it should be.

@Marianne, I’m not sure if the state cares much about whether the church absolves him or not. The issue is when the penitent doesn’t go to the Gardai and the priest knows about, possibly ongoing, abuse and doesn’t report it.

really?? the “slippery slope” rhetoric??? can you just not deal with the issue at hand without seeing a huge conspiracy inherent?? its very simple… should priests be required be law to report cases of sexual abuse?… how can you argue against that?