Archbishop pledges to shield pedophiles

[Ponder This]

As I mentioned earlier, some teachers are priests. Are you saying that mandatory should exempt these teachers?

I'm not convinced mandatory reporting is justified in either case, but I also think that the difference between religious confession and observations from the classroom is clear. So I'm not convinced a conflict really exists. We should examine why teachers have mandatory reporting in the first place.

Does Australia have church-state separation?

They do in principle, if not in practice.

 

[columbus]

I'm not convinced mandatory reporting is justified

Then maybe you should ask someone who is trying to eliminate child abuse.
The people I know who work towards that do seem to think it works, if imperfectly. Lots of false positives, to be sure. But lots of ugly situations are brought out into the light, which didn't use to be. And sometimes they get dealt with.
That is less likely to happen when self described "spokesmen for God" feel above the law.

Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not convinced mandatory reporting is justified in either case, but I also think that the difference between religious confession and observations from the classroom is clear. So I'm not convinced a conflict really exists.

I was talking about the situation where a priest who teaches at a school also hears student confessions in the confessional. A teacher's duty to report abuse doesn't stop when the dismissal bell rings.

We should examine why teachers have mandatory reporting in the first place.

Because they're responsible for the well-being and supervision of children.

They do in principle, if not in practice.

Based on my quick googling, I don't think that's accurate.

The current situation, described as a "principle of state neutrality" rather than "separation of church and state",[2] has been criticised by both secularists and religious groups.

Separation of church and state in Australia - Wikipedia

 

[Ponder This]

I was talking about the situation where a priest who teaches at a school also hears student confessions in the confessional. A teacher's duty to report abuse doesn't stop when the dismissal bell rings.

What's the problem exactly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's the problem exactly?

The problem is that if the archbishop has his way, a teacher-priest would be exempt from a normal responsibility of being a teacher (or, in states where this responsibility applies more broadly, a priest would be exempt from a normal responsibility of being an adult).

 

[columbus]

What's the problem exactly?

Religionists feeling above the law, to the detriment of basic safety for children. That's the problem we are talking about in this thread.
Tom

 

[Ponder This]

The problem is that if the archbishop has his way, a teacher-priest would be exempt from a normal responsibility of being a teacher (or, in states where this responsibility applies more broadly, a priest would be exempt from a normal responsibility of being an adult).

An exception for religion would violate separation of church and state in Australia. Is that what you mean? We talked about this already. How is this problem new?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An exception for religion would violate separation of church and state in Australia. Is that what you mean?

No, it's not what I mean. AFAIK, Australia doesn't have separation of church and state.

We talked about this already. How is this problem new?

It's not new. I was telling you again because your posts suggested that you didn't understand my points the first time I told you.

 

[Ponder This]

No, it's not what I mean. AFAIK, Australia doesn't have separation of church and state.


It's not new. I was telling you again because your posts suggested that you didn't understand my points the first time I told you.

Yeah, I don't understand. Sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I don't understand. Sorry.

I gathered.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The government site I linked to earlier said that the "duty to report" varies from state to state and that in some cases, it applies to all adults.

Also, it's quite possible for a priest to be a teacher or principal at a religious school and end up hearing the confession of a student.

Very true.
Your OP and the info I provided, and my physical location (and majority of teaching experience) are all in Victoria.

But yes, there is variance on this from State to state.
To clarify, a teacher or principal at a religious school is still bound by mandatory reporting laws, as they are tied to registration with the professional body.
The laws aren't restricted by working hours, so a registered teacher is mandated to report abuse, regardless of whether they are working, and even if they wear 'another hat'.

A registered teacher taking confessional is legally obligated to report abuse, although I doubt that's ever been tested.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As I mentioned earlier, some teachers are priests. Are you saying that mandatory should exempt these teachers?


Does Australia have church-state separation?

I'm not that familiar with the Australian constitution, but I'd be surprised if they did, since Britain and the other former British colonies I'm more familiar with (e.g. Canada) don't.

We don't have it in the true sense. Technically our Head of Government is the Queen of England, head of the Church of England.

Practically, we're secular, but that's not quite the same.

From our constitution;
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's what I'm saying. Mandated Reporting targets groups such as teachers. It can't be used to target religious groups without violating religious freedom. It must be applied as a general law.

You realise American law is not Australian law, right? Regardless, as previously stated, there is NO law being directed at the clergy.

A right to privacy is a general right. It's just not recognized in Australia as such (to my knowledge).

This will sound more testy than I mean it to, but only an American would speak like that. The US constitution doesn't guarantee such a thing, and the constraints of the Fourth Amendment aren't alien to us. However, it is fair to say that the legal situation here is more fractured, as there is a range of federal, state and common laws at play.

So the clergy doesn't have a legal grounds to resist an invasion of the confidential nature of confession that a general law would require of them in Australia. Some priests still aren't going to report under a general law, obviously, because they hold to the seal of confession under their religious faith.

Just as doctor-patient privilege had to be established and challenged via the courts, the clergy could challenge this. I think what you are suggesting is that their challenge wouldn't be based on constitutional law. There are federal laws that factor in, though, apart from state and common laws.
Federal regulation of privacy | ALRC

But beyond that there is the general question of when invasions of privacy are justified. IMO, an invasion of privacy needs a justification. Do you deny that it is an invasion of privacy to mandate the reporting of confessions?

It's a separate issue. The society here has decided that mandatory reporting is required by certain professions. Clergy NOT being one. Further, it has decided that people should be reporting instances of child abuse when they become aware of them, REGARDLESS of who they are. This is not the state impinging on the rights of citizens. Again, that appears a very American way of thinking. It is the state balancing the rights of various citizens, as well as doing the normal politician thing and playing to popular opinion.

A clever pointing of the finger. That may be how it seems to be on the surface in cold legalese, but, in reality, the question is much deeper philosophically. Your state determined that all people in the community should report cases of abuse. We have to ask what that means and if it is actually justified. It isn't automatically right because the state said so. The deeper philosophical question is the issue at hand, IMO.

I'm not doing a 'clever' anything. I'm trying to prevent a derail. I'll put it bluntly...should clergy get special exceptions from laws? Why?

Should child abuse confessed privately (in the generic sense) be required by law to be reported?

Sure. Should murder?

Generally speaking, it is not mandatory to report confessions of crimes committed.

State laws vary, but most states have stipulations in this area. For example, in NSW;

If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

So child abuse is already an exception that is being made. So why is child abuse an exception? And why is this exception justified? These are the questions that must be answered. We can't just say you should do it because the state says you are to do it. The state should be justified in requiring you to do it.

Who gets to decide if the state should say we are to do it?
Because you're assuming the decision in this case is not popular or representative, and I see no reason to believe that.
There are also various other exceptions, including domestic violence, and general laws around reporting serious indictable offences, as per my earlier paragraph.

As to the OP, the question is two-fold: Australian law and law in general. Under Australian law, the list of Teachers, Principals, Nurses, etc. should not include Priests.

It doesn't.

You have to make a general reporting law if you want to include them, under which they cannot argue for exemption.

We already do. And yet here we are, with them arguing for exemption.

As to other countries, their laws vary, not all countries have separation of church and state like Australia does. So other countries could legally make an exception for religious confession. Is this the answer the OP wants? Or is the OP actually more interested in what the law should be in a general sense?

I'll leave this one to @9-10ths_Penguin

 

[Ponder This]

I'm not doing a 'clever' anything. I'm trying to prevent a derail. I'll put it bluntly...should clergy get special exceptions from laws? Why?

I'll put it bluntly: no. that's the whole point of what I was saying about laws and the concept of separation of church and state. I'm sorry if Australia feels differently.

Sure. Should murder?

Should it? This is what I've been saying: mandatory reporting itself is the real question.

State laws vary, but most states have stipulations in this area. For example, in NSW;

If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

Exactly, mandatory reporting laws exist in some places, don't exist in others. The real question is: should those laws exist? And the answer is: no, they shouldn't. I don't see how it's a derailment to consider this. I see these questions: should there be exceptions for priests? No. Should mandatory reporting exist in the first place? No. Should people report serious crimes that they are witness to? Yes.

IMO, there needs to be a justification for mandatory reporting. I'm not convinced that it has been justified. I'm not convinced that mandatory reporting even helps the problem! I think it would be helpful to come up with real solutions rather than laws that appear to help, but aren't really effective. And I think we need reason to believe that mandatory reporting is effective to even consider it in the first place!

Basically, what mandatory reporting boils is down to is the desire to punish people who failed to report a crime. It isn't actually effectually preventing crimes or discovering crimes. That's the real problem and I don't consider it a derailment to bring up this important point.

If I report three case of child abuse, but I somehow fail to report a fourth case of it. It doesn't matter that I'm trying to be helpful, I'm liable for failure to report that fourth case. And in terms of confession, if people who are obligated by their religion not to report what is in confession aren't going to report it even if there is a law that calls for them to report it. That's what the article in the OP suggests. So mandatory reporting laws are basically stupid: they aren't effective or just. Do you think otherwise? If so, why? If you can at least explain to me how mandatory reporting is effective and not simply the outcry of enraged citizens on a witch hunt to assign blame and make someone pay even if that person is not responsible for the crime, then I'm willing to reconsider my position.