THE announcement by Julia Gillard that we are to have a royal commission into child sex abuse is universally welcomed.
However, in some quarters of the media it has unleashed a hysteria of salivating opportunism for vengeful attacks on religion, in particular the Catholic Church.
How unfortunate, as it moves the focus from the primary aim of healing the victims and bringing to trial those accused of abuse.
It is a fair bet that whatever acknowledgement is made and apologies offered to victims of clergy abuse this will never satisfy the anti-religious group as they zero in on the confessional.
The important point in all of this is to keep in mind what was said by Broken Rites, the organisation campaigning for the victims of the clergy's sex abuse: ". . . confession was a non-issue. The real issue is when victims or their families complain about abuse, the church authorities fail to arrange an interview between the victim and police."
An editorial in a newspaper put it nicely: " . . . those conducting the commission and those reporting on it will need to guard against turning this into an inverted Spanish Inquisition -- a chance to desecrate the Catholic Church."
Part of this campaign against the Catholic Church is the loud bellowing that the confessional seal be unsealed and that priests be forced to divulge the contents of a confession should a serious crime be confessed.
The assertion is clear -- that offending priests or other clergy may have confessed their crime and are protected by the priest hearing the confession.
This assertion seems to be a smokescreen to damage the whole church, but it brings us no closer to closing down the act of sexual abuse of children.
The confessional seal is deeply entrenched in the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. It was first imposed in some form in the 5th Century by Pope Leo I.
The confessional seal was specifically adopted in 1215 by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council and imposed an obligation on every priest authorised to hear confessions.
This obligation is written into the Code of Canon Law which governs aspects of clergy life. Canon 983 states: "The Sacramental Seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion".
The principle of the protection of confidential conversation is not restricted to the confessional seal.
The privilege of confidentiality between client and lawyer communication is jealously guarded and protected by law.
The principle is not without good and sound reason in order to ensure a fair trial and to permit the best defence for the accused.
Journalists strenuously defend their right to protect sources of information even in the face of legal sanctions.
A person (priest or otherwise) goes to confession to cleanse their soul of sin before the earthly representative of Christ.
The authority for the assumption of such earthly powers can be found in St Johns Gospel 20:23.
The penitent does not go to confession to share his shame, guilt or crimes with another priest.
The penitent goes to ask forgiveness before Christ's earthly representative and seeks absolution with a pledge to sin no more.
The cleansing of the soul is neither a licence nor an invitation to repeat sins of the past.
The penitent is assured of the confidentiality of the confessional and the priest hearing the confession is bound to that confidentiality.
As early as the 14th Century, the Czech Priest (St) John Mepomuk was put to death for refusing to divulge the secrets of the confessional revealed by the Queen.
The Irish government announced last year that it would change the law to force priests to report details of sexual abuse revealed in the confessional box upon pain of imprisonment should they refuse.
The Vatican spokesman, Archbishop Girotti, is reported as saying: ". . . under no circumstances whatever may a priest reveal what he learns in confession, even if a penitent confesses to criminal activity."
Irish Bishops and priests pledged they would not follow the law and would risk imprisonment.
The confessional seal is not to be taken lightly.
It should be given no less significance than the duty of strict confidentiality in the client-lawyer relationship and the journalist-informant relationship.
To do so would be a disservice to democratic principles.
Perhaps it is not generally known that statute laws protect the confidentiality of professional communications including the confessional.
The Uniform Evidence Act provides protection for confidential communications in the federal area, in NSW and other states.
In other words, not only is the confessional seal inviolable, but it also has the protection of the law.
It needs to be said that preservation of the confessional seal is the public expression of a religious belief.
The right to this expression also enjoys the protection of international human rights law.
The call to alter the law to compel priests to report serious crime when revealed in the confessional is illogical.
Firstly, it would require priests to determine subjectively what a serious crime is and secondly it would simultaneously deter penitents going to confession.
Surely it is not suggested that religion is the problem.
It is important that the process of law and the royal commission be allowed to do their work without the hysteria of anti-religious and anti-Catholic Church campaigners grabbing headlines.