{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012529365700861394, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.144230769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The seal of the confessional and a conflict of duty

Abstract This paper considers some of the theological, legal, canonical and communication issues involved in the relationship between the civil law in Australia and Catholic Church law and practice regarding the seal of the confessional. It does so by comparing two different real life cases and their different outcomes. The different responses to the two scenarios, both politically and in the mass media, were influenced by certain preconceptions, stereotypes and misrepresentations of the Catholic Church's teaching and practice. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse raised the question of what precisely is covered by the seal of confession. It recommended the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to approach the Holy See for clarification. The Royal Commission recommended that the Australian States change the law to remove the seal of confession as an exception to mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. The Holy See response did not accept that proposition. The study concludes with a brief discussion of how the conflict of duty between the demands of the secular civil law on the one hand, and preserving the seal of confession on the other, might be resolved.