Page 780 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A victim who comes to confession and reveals abuse probably wants to talk to someone anonymously as well or at least to someone he can trust not to reveal the details. If a victim wanted to tell the authorities, there are other mechanisms for doing so. He could talk to his priest outside of confession. He could ask him to report it. He could ask his priest to accompany him or her in doing this. So this legislation would only apply when the revelation is not only against the priest’s training and belief but potentially against the wishes of the penitent. Again, if the details were no longer protected, some victims would not show up and the opportunity to help them towards healing may be lost.
But the main difficulty is that priests simply will not reveal information from the confession, whatever you do to them. As I said last June, many priests, such as Father Brennan, and bishops have said so publicly. To them, it is literally a sacred trust. It has been tested by regimes with more resources for persuasion than the ACT government. Rather than breaking the seal of confession, priests have suffered death under torture knowing that they would go to heaven as martyrs whereas breaking the seal of confession will only result in excommunication and damnation. It does not matter, Madam Speaker, if those members opposite think this is all superstition. The important thing is that clergy who understand the seal of the confessional believe it, and no priest will be willing to risk his soul on such a matter.
So how will this legislation work? If a priest will not break the seal of the confessional, how would a conviction under this provision be obtained? How would you find out what had been withheld? Are we considering listening devices in confessionals or sting operations, or following suspects to see if they go to confession and staking out churches in case they turn up? What happens then? The priest is asked, “Did you hear a confession from so and so as constable so and so has said?” The priest will say, “I am bound by the seal of the confessional. I cannot tell you anything.” A court might convict a priest of contempt but not of a violation of this act.
Conceivably, a paedophile or a victim might tell the police that they had revealed abuse in detail in confession, but the police would already know about the abuse then; so anything that the priest did say would be redundant and testimony more credible if backed up by hearsay. But in reality, again you would be confronting the priest with a statement, “Did so and so tell you this in confession?” Again, the priest would be bound to say that he could not comment. Again, there would be the possibility of priests being convicted of contempt of court but I cannot—it is the same in my discussions with people who know more about the law than I do—find a circumstance where you could credibly convict a priest under this provision.
This is the problem. This is something where the government says that we must do something. Therefore, we must do this. It is politically advantageous to be seen to be doing something but in this case we are creating circumstances where a very small group of people in a very discriminatory way will be forced to break the law. The minister has not been able to satisfy anyone about how he could possibly obtain a conviction under this law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video