NATION

PASSWORD

Confessional Seal Part 3 - Supreme Court Denies Appeal

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Skappola
Minister
 
Posts: 2063
Founded: May 12, 2013
Ex-Nation

Confessional Seal Part 3 - Supreme Court Denies Appeal

Postby Skappola » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:33 pm

I'm not going to go that far into this post about the case, because I've already done so before. Here's a blatant copy-paste from my last thread:
So back in July, I posted a discussion about a Louisiana Court attempting a Catholic priest to break his the Confessional. In case you don't know what the Confessional Seal is:

the Catholic Confessional Seal essentially says that Catholic priests are not allowed to disclose any information given to them during confession by the confessor. This includes whether he did or did not commit a crime, like murder. As you can imagine, this is to encourage people who have commited "Mortal Sins"- Horrible sins that can send you to hell unless you repent in confession - to come to confession and repent.


Depending on how the Church reacts, breaking said seal can lead to either losing your priestly duties or being excommunicated from the Church. Considering how devout Catholic priests have to be (They have to go through Seminary AND College to get a degree in Theology AND never get married AND become celibate), it's unlikely that many of the priests will ever agree to breaking their confessional seal.

Historically, the US government and most world governments respected the Confessional Seal, lest they incure the wrath of the Church and their faithful. There have been cases involving it, but they almost always come out in favor of the Church. That's why it's so major that this Louisiana Court continues to attempt to force the priest to break the seal despite the controversy. Now the case is being taken to the Supreme Court, which increases the stakes considerably.

I'm Catholic myself, so my own bias likely comes into play here, but here's how I see the consequences of the two possible decisions:

Yes, Courts can force priests break the Confessional Seal:
Many Catholic Priests & Some Bishops will start going to jail for refusing to break their seal. The remainder that do break the seal are stripped of their title by the Church. The Vatican will react very harshly this decision, and I wouldn't be surprised to see mass protests by the 25% of the US population that's Catholic. Criminals will stop confessing to Catholic priests for fear of being prosecuted.

No, Courts can't force priests to break the Confessional Seal:
Some Murderers, Child Molestors, Rapists, etc will continue to go free, possibly commiting more crimes. Some Criminals will continue to repent, and overall the status quo will remain until the next time this is brought to court.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... ase-53807/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... onal-seal/
http://www.tri-parishtimes.com/opinion/ ... f887a.html
http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.as ... leID=26394
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/0 ... se-tangle/
https://time.com/3318814/catholic-confe ... fidential/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thejesuitp ... nviolable/


Caught up? Good, because the Priest appealed to the Supreme Court, and has recently been denied. This is massive, because it means that the US is now breaching Priest-Penitent confidentiality, which has major consequences.

First, this priest now has to chose between breaking his vow or going to jail. He'll probably go to jail due to how serious these vows are.

Second, this sets a standard for future court cases throughout the US. If priests are forced to chose between breaking their vows and jail, a very large proportion of them will chose jail. Until the Vatican updates their catechism or gives passes to these priests (Which is unlikely), the US will be putting Catholic Priests in jail.

Third, due to the break in Priest-penintent confidentiality, many will no longer feel safe confessing to their priests, which is the whole point in the confidentiality. It can be argued that breaking confidentiality won't be overly useful in future cases because criminals will simply stop confessing.

Fourth, Child Molestors and such are now more easily caught... if they make the decision to confess, which is questionable. Regardless, it can be argued that this is better than nothing.

So what do you think about the case? How much will it effect future rulings regarding this issue in the US? Will it have a major impact on prosecuting criminals?

I personally think it is pointlessly breaking the confidentiality for something which won't have much of an effect on crime-fighting, but one could argue that this ruling is right simply on principle of not letting child-molestors go free because of religious confidentiality.
Political Compass: Economic: 1.63 Social: -6.72
Political Ideology: Neoliberal Civil Libertarian
I Enjoy: Blues, Paradox Games and Sci-fi

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:41 pm

This is absolutely disgusting. The confessional seal shouldn't be broken.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Zakuvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Zakuvia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:43 pm

I actually disagree, though I am loathe to say anything near to saying I support letting child-rapists go free. The big bug with this is that the state is attempting to impose itself on religious freedoms by taking advantage of a religious experience. The priest should go to jail for this, if only to become a martyr of sorts. I believe that a priest has an awe-inspiring burden by keeping the rite of confession sacred, and there should never be a 'reasonable' breach of the Seal. Also, people are treating this as if the priest has some obligation to report, which he absolutely does NOT. I think a lot of people forget that.

EDIT: Ninja'ed. I'm disagreeing with the OP, not the above.
Last edited by Zakuvia on Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Balance is important in diets, gymnastics, and governments most of all.
NOW CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF NS!
-1.12, -0.46

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Threlizdun » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:46 pm

Good, religious liberty ends when it enables violent people to continue harming others.
She/they

Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:47 pm

Sorry, but this is a legitimate, compelling state interest. It is a policy that is narrowly tailored, and neither advances nor hinders the cause of any religion. This is a textbook example of when the state can interfere with religious freedom.

As Robin Williams put it, child rape "isn't just a sin, it's a felony. So we have to keep track."
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 112546
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:48 pm

Only the Time Magazine link works, the rest are all broken.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.

User avatar
Toronina
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6660
Founded: Oct 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Toronina » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:52 pm

Zakuvia wrote:I actually disagree, though I am loathe to say anything near to saying I support letting child-rapists go free. The big bug with this is that the state is attempting to impose itself on religious freedoms by taking advantage of a religious experience. The priest should go to jail for this, if only to become a martyr of sorts. I believe that a priest has an awe-inspiring burden by keeping the rite of confession sacred, and there should never be a 'reasonable' breach of the Seal. Also, people are treating this as if the priest has some obligation to report, which he absolutely does NOT. I think a lot of people forget that.

EDIT: Ninja'ed. I'm disagreeing with the OP, not the above.
They abused this right. Who knows how many people could be caught if the priests fess up.
Now I'm back in the ring to take another swing

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:53 pm

Threlizdun wrote:Good, religious liberty ends when it enables violent people to continue harming others.

So it's okay to ruin people's faith in an institution that gives them the tools for personal redemption just so The State can have a few more convictions?
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Toronina
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6660
Founded: Oct 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Toronina » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:56 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Good, religious liberty ends when it enables violent people to continue harming others.

So it's okay to ruin people's faith in an institution that gives them the tools for personal redemption just so The State can have a few more convictions?

So it's okay to let child molesters go free just so the church can have a right they have abused?
Now I'm back in the ring to take another swing

User avatar
The Lotophagi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Nov 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Lotophagi » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:57 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:Good, religious liberty ends when it enables violent people to continue harming others.

So it's okay to ruin people's faith in an institution that gives them the tools for personal redemption just so The State can have a few more convictions?


It's not just a few convictions, though. It's justice for the victims of crimes like child molestation or murder. I'd say that's a fair price to pay.

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:59 pm

Toronina wrote:
Scomagia wrote:So it's okay to ruin people's faith in an institution that gives them the tools for personal redemption just so The State can have a few more convictions?

So it's okay to let child molesters go free just so the church can have a right they have abused?

Yes.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Toronina
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6660
Founded: Oct 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Toronina » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:59 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Toronina wrote:So it's okay to let child molesters go free just so the church can have a right they have abused?

Yes.

That makes no sense to me at all.
Now I'm back in the ring to take another swing

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:01 pm

The Lotophagi wrote:
Scomagia wrote:So it's okay to ruin people's faith in an institution that gives them the tools for personal redemption just so The State can have a few more convictions?


It's not just a few convictions, though. It's justice for the victims of crimes like child molestation or murder. I'd say that's a fair price to pay.

I wouldn't say it's fair to compel people to do something that completely violates the principles they've dedicated their lives to.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:02 pm

Toronina wrote:
Scomagia wrote:Yes.

That makes no sense to me at all.

We likely value individual rights versus justice a bit differently.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Toronina
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6660
Founded: Oct 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Toronina » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:07 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Toronina wrote:That makes no sense to me at all.

We likely value individual rights versus justice a bit differently.

Why let the church keep their rights and give them power to continue to abuse it. If it the seal is not broken, more and more people will confess because they now know they can get away with it.
Now I'm back in the ring to take another swing

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:09 pm

Toronina wrote:
Scomagia wrote:We likely value individual rights versus justice a bit differently.

Why let the church keep their rights and give them power to continue to abuse it. If it the seal is not broken, more and more people will confess because they now know they can get away with it.

The potential for abuse by The State is fairly large unless the clergy can only be compelled to testify under very specific and narrow circumstances.
Last edited by Scomagia on Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
The South Polish Union
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 146
Founded: Feb 16, 2013
Tyranny by Majority

Postby The South Polish Union » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:14 pm

When the us govt releases all of their secret documents to the public, then there won't be any hypocrisy in trying to force priests to break their confessional seal, thus giving some legitimacy to the us's requests/demands.

As it is though, its just proof of the us govt's hypocrisy.

Fuck this.

User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Threlizdun » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:14 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Toronina wrote:So it's okay to let child molesters go free just so the church can have a right they have abused?

Yes.
When the choice is "break an oath" or "let a child rapist go free" the right course of action should be obvious for anyone who holds any value for human life whatsoever.
She/they

Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram

User avatar
Digital Planets
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1977
Founded: Jul 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Digital Planets » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:18 pm

1. Why the fuck would you confess a crime, even to someone who takes an oath of confidentiality? "Yeah, I raped a kid, don't tell anyone, lol." I can understand if you confess that you had sexual contact with someone before you're married and you want to confess, but confessing a crime? Are you fucking serious?

2. The Supreme Court sure as hell have the right to break the confessional seal and make the priest talk. The confessional seal doesn't apply to shit when it comes to the SCOTUS.
So you decide to open it anyway? What the heck, man?

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:20 pm

Threlizdun wrote:
Scomagia wrote:Yes.
When the choice is "break an oath" or "let a child rapist go free" the right course of action should be obvious for anyone who holds any value for human life whatsoever.

You see no issue with The State intruding into people's most intimate and private moments when those people may later turn out to be completely innocent? You see no way for The State to abuse this?
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Digital Planets
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1977
Founded: Jul 27, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Digital Planets » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:21 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:When the choice is "break an oath" or "let a child rapist go free" the right course of action should be obvious for anyone who holds any value for human life whatsoever.

You see no issue with The State intruding into people's most intimate and private moments when those people may later turn out to be completely innocent? You see no way for The State to abuse this?


What do you have to hide?
So you decide to open it anyway? What the heck, man?

User avatar
The Lotophagi
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 385
Founded: Nov 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Lotophagi » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:22 pm

Scomagia wrote:
The Lotophagi wrote:
It's not just a few convictions, though. It's justice for the victims of crimes like child molestation or murder. I'd say that's a fair price to pay.

I wouldn't say it's fair to compel people to do something that completely violates the principles they've dedicated their lives to.


If someone confesses to molesting a child or killing someone to a psychologist, they're obligated to report that to the authorities. Why is this any different?

User avatar
Aggicificicerous
Minister
 
Posts: 2349
Founded: Apr 24, 2007
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Aggicificicerous » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:22 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:When the choice is "break an oath" or "let a child rapist go free" the right course of action should be obvious for anyone who holds any value for human life whatsoever.

You see no issue with The State intruding into people's most intimate and private moments when those people may later turn out to be completely innocent? You see no way for The State to abuse this?


If a court thinks I know key information in regards to a murder case, I will be subpoenaed. It should be no different for anyone else.

User avatar
Scomagia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18703
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Scomagia » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:28 pm

The Lotophagi wrote:
Scomagia wrote:I wouldn't say it's fair to compel people to do something that completely violates the principles they've dedicated their lives to.


If someone confesses to molesting a child or killing someone to a psychologist, they're obligated to report that to the authorities. Why is this any different?

They absolutely do not have to report a murder unless their patient is clearly going to kill someone else in the near future. Molesting a child must be reported.

Really, only immediate threats to the patient or someone else have to be reported. That's the way that it should be.
Insert trite farewell here

User avatar
Tsaraine
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4033
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsaraine » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:32 pm

Scomagia wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:When the choice is "break an oath" or "let a child rapist go free" the right course of action should be obvious for anyone who holds any value for human life whatsoever.

You see no issue with The State intruding into people's most intimate and private moments when those people may later turn out to be completely innocent? You see no way for The State to abuse this?


You have a right to privacy. You don't have a right to impede justice. Nor does a Catholic priest, and nor does his god. One law for all.

As you might guess, I think that this is right and just and proper. The Catholic Church has major problems where the abuse of children is concerned - they like to cover it up from secular authorities. We have not seen any voluntary increase in action or transparency from the Church on these matters, and so we must push matters. It would be better, of course, if Church officials cooperated with secular authorities, but if they're unwilling to cooperate with the pursuit of justice, then yes, they absolutely should be punished for it. I don't care if that makes them "martyrs" when they're culpable in helping childrapers escape justice.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Eahland, Eurocom, Grinning Dragon, Maximum Imperium Rex, Paddy O Fernature, Senkaku, The Vooperian Union, Washington Resistance Army, Welskerland, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads