Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Wisconsin9]

So then why are they dealing with decades worth of accusations, lawsuits, condemnation, criticism, losing interest in the faith, etc? You claim that they have been doing the right thing for decades. So why are so many people highlighting that the offending priests were merely shuffled to other parishes as if nothing ever happened? So why are we in this situation when the Catholic Church is being hammered at by victims of sexual abuse to the point that Australia is considering prying open the seal on the sacrament of confession?

Had the Catholic Church made it her policy to immediately report any and all sex crimes instead of shuffling them to other churches and generally not giving a damn about the kids, we would not be in this situation. There would be no need to break the confessional seal. That is my point, Ab. We shouldn't have to compel the Church to do something that anyone with a heart would do with some law - the Church should've known better from the get go.

The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

Anyone with a sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

More wrong than allowing kids to be driven to suicide?

[Ermarian]

It shouldn't have come to the point that they need to be compelled legally to do a moral thing.

No secular law can compel them to betray the penitent.

The confessional privilege is based in secular law. If it weren't, or were overturned, then the secular law could very much compel testimony on a criminal matter aside from self-incrimination.

Edit: I mean, obviously if someone isn't going to talk, he's not going to talk. But he could be held in contempt.

[Great Nepal]

No, it fucking doesn't.
Supremacy of state is universally accepted among most rational people in this century.

Yes, it "fucking" does.

No one gives a crap. You are wrong.

"A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area". By its definition, state has supreme authority over area and by extent ion its people not some radon ancient dude in desert.

For any faithful believer, the laws of God do trump the laws of man. Morality is not a temporal or relative affair. I understand why the Catholic Church is unwilling to budge on this particular issue, though I do not necessarily agree with the doctrine of individual, private confession as part of someone's salvation.

Nation doesn't and shouldn't give rats ass about "law of god"... because you know, it should be secular state.

Those were never religious practices of the Church.

You mean church didn't practice witch hunting, burning people at stake etc?

[Abatael]

You do not know what the confessors may have or may not have done.

Yes, I am. Thank you for that reminder: I was beginning to forget my stance.

So it's better to protect someone who's knowingly committed one of the worst crimes a human could commit as long as he pretends to feel a bit guilty about it, rather than stop him and protect more people is what you're saying.

Penitent =/= "a bit guilty."

How about you keep up with the doctrine and terminology? If you are not penitent, then the priest cannot betray the penitent by disclosing what you have said, no? Is that making some sense to you?

And, child molestation is not one of the worst crimes a human could commit. And, they are protecting the Seal.

The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

Anyone with a sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

You're not really paying attention to me, are you?

Your argument simply does not convince me, nor will it ever.

[Great Nepal]

It shouldn't have come to the point that they need to be compelled legally to do a moral thing.

No secular law can compel them to betray the penitent.

Good, then we dont have a problem.
Priests who protect child rapists go to prison for violating national law while they maintain seal. Its not like they will look after their self interests.

[Nidaria]

No secular law can compel them to betray the penitent.

Good, then we dont have a problem.
Priests who protect child rapists go to prison for violating national law while they maintain seal. Its not like they will look after their self interests.

That is a clear persecution, and a country that does that cannot be religiously free.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, it does.
Thats generally why we banned honour killings, human sacrifice, witch hunting and many other religious practice.

Those were never religious practices of the Church.

Really? So the Occitian Genocide never happened, then?

[Wisconsin9]

You know, there's a very simple solution to all of this: bug the confessionals, and if something illegal is overheard, give the priest a week to come clean. If he doesn't, lock him and the confessor away. They don't have to break the seal and the public is still protected.

[Seperates]

We wouldn't even be having to worry about that had they done the right thing all these decades instead of moving the perverts to another church. That's my point.

They have been and still are doing the right thing: upholding the inviolable Seal of the Confessional.

Oh. There it is. A natural rights arguement

It's not "inviolable". It's completly able to be violated. It's just a matter of doing it. That being said, the law can't force a priest to turn his fellow priest in. They can, however, prosecute him for withholding evidence. However, they just can't charge him for such a crime. They have to prosecute him after an investigation.

However, I don't really like this law. Not for religious reasons, as I think whatever the secular law is it should be applied to every institution, even the religious.I just feel that it might be a slippery slope for the idea that the state can more or less legally make you give up a compulsory confession... even if that person never commited a crime.

But perhaps I'm just slightly paranoid.

[Nidaria]

They have been and still are doing the right thing: upholding the inviolable Seal of the Confessional.

Oh. There it is. A natural rights arguement

It's not "inviolable". It's completly able to be violated. It's just a matter of doing it. That being said, the law can't force a priest to turn his fellow priest in. They can, however, prosecute him for withholding evidence. However, they just can't charge him for such a crime. They have to prosecute him after an investigation.

However, I don't really like this law. Not for religious reasons, as I think whatever the secular law is it should be applied to every institution, even the religious.I just feel that it might be a slippery slope for the idea that the state can more or less legally make you give up a compulsory confession... even if that person never commited a crime.

But perhaps I'm just slightly paranoid.

You are not paranoid, that suspicion is absolutely true.

[Seperates]

Good, then we dont have a problem.
Priests who protect child rapists go to prison for violating national law while they maintain seal. Its not like they will look after their self interests.

That is a clear persecution, and a country that does that cannot be religiously free.

Alright then. Are you also willing to allow polygamy for Mormons? After-all, it is a part of their religion, and "a country that does that cannot be religiously free."

[The Emerald Dawn]

So it's better to protect someone who's knowingly committed one of the worst crimes a human could commit as long as he pretends to feel a bit guilty about it, rather than stop him and protect more people is what you're saying.

Penitent =/= "a bit guilty."

How about you keep up with the doctrine and terminology? If you are not penitent, then the priest cannot betray the penitent by disclosing what you have said, no? Is that making some sense to you?

And, child molestation is not one of the worst crimes a human could commit. And, they are protecting the Seal.

You're not really paying attention to me, are you?

Your argument simply does not convince me, nor will it ever.

So you are now asserting that child molestation is not one of the worst crimes?

Abatael, I'd really recommend you stop posting. What you're saying is...well, not strongly indicative of a good person.

[Abatael]

The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

Anyone with a sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

More wrong than allowing kids to be driven to suicide?

Read my very first post on this topic again.

No secular law can compel them to betray the penitent.

The confessional privilege is based in secular law. If it weren't, or were overturned, then the secular law could very much compel testimony on a criminal matter aside from self-incrimination.

Edit: I mean, obviously if someone isn't going to talk, he's not going to talk. But he could be held in contempt.

The Seal of the Confessional is based on Canon Law. No secular law can compel the confessor to betray the penitent.

He may be punished, but he will not betray the penitent.

Yes, it "fucking" does.

No one gives a crap. You are wrong.

"A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area". By its definition, state has supreme authority over area and by extent ion its people not some radon ancient dude in desert.

It has supreme, independent authority over the geographic area. And, to be candid, I don't care if the dictionary were to explicitly say, "The State decides upon the Seal of the Confessional, not God," because it would be incorrect.

No secular law can compel them to betray the penitent.

Good, then we dont have a problem.
Priests who protect child rapists go to prison for violating national law while they maintain seal. Its not like they will look after their self interests.

We have no concern of the confessor betraying the penitent. The problem is that they think they can.

[Seperates]

Oh. There it is. A natural rights arguement

It's not "inviolable". It's completly able to be violated. It's just a matter of doing it. That being said, the law can't force a priest to turn his fellow priest in. They can, however, prosecute him for withholding evidence. However, they just can't charge him for such a crime. They have to prosecute him after an investigation.

However, I don't really like this law. Not for religious reasons, as I think whatever the secular law is it should be applied to every institution, even the religious.I just feel that it might be a slippery slope for the idea that the state can more or less legally make you give up a compulsory confession... even if that person never commited a crime.

But perhaps I'm just slightly paranoid.

You are not paranoid, that suspicion is absolutely true.

I just feel that it needs to be universal. Whatever the outcome.

[Great Nepal]

Good, then we dont have a problem.
Priests who protect child rapists go to prison for violating national law while they maintain seal. Its not like they will look after their self interests.

That is a clear persecution, and a country that does that cannot be religiously free.

No, it is not persecution.
Subpoena ad testificandum
If court requires you to appear in court and give evidence: you must do so. Not giving priests special treatment is not persecution.

[Thisbia]

And here I was hoping it would be a story about priests in Australia about to be buggered.

This

[Great Nepal]

It has supreme, independent authority over the geographic area. And, to be candid, I don't care if the dictionary were to explicitly say, "The State decides upon the Seal of the Confessional, not God," because it would be incorrect.

"I dont care what definition says, I will make up my own cos its wrong."

We have no concern of the confessor betraying the penitent. The problem is that they think they can.

They can, if they want to avoid prison and comply with law.

[Ganos Lao]

Your argument simply does not convince me, nor will it ever.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of breaking the seal had all these decades been spent punishing sex crimes within the Church. If the Catholic hierarchy made it their policy to - upon being notified that someone was molesting children report it to the police rather than send them to another parish as if nothing ever happened - then that would've spared them all the lawsuits they have been getting and we would not have to worry about the sacramental seal being broken because there'd be no reason to. There have been many priests throughout time who haven't gone through confession who have ended up embarassing the Church over their disgusting activity. I'm referring to those priests. I'm saying to you that had the Catholic hierarchy dealt with them accordingly and properly instead of shuffling them along to another parish, we'd not be in this situation. Is that making some sense to you? I really don't understand how this is hard for you to understand.

My argument is simple - had the Catholic Church done the right thing all these decades, we'd not be in this situation. You'd not have to worry about your precious little seal. Everyone would be happy knowing that the Catholic Church was rooting out the perverts and helping the authorities take care of them. If you wish to ignore all this further then, by all means, go ahead and do so. Just remember that the Catholic Church is the only one to blame for this whole mess. The State would not have to consider meddling like this had the Catholics dealt with those who were fiddling.

[Wisconsin9]

You know, there's a very simple solution to all of this: bug the confessionals, and if something illegal is overheard, give the priest a week to come clean. If he doesn't, lock him and the confessor away. They don't have to break the seal and the public is still protected.

Abatael, since I'm sure you can think of something, I'd like to hear what's wrong with this idea.

[Abatael]

You know, there's a very simple solution to all of this: bug the confessionals, and if something illegal is overheard, give the priest a week to come clean. If he doesn't, lock him and the confessor away. They don't have to break the seal and the public is still protected.

That is violating the Seal.

They have been and still are doing the right thing: upholding the inviolable Seal of the Confessional.

Oh. There it is. A natural rights arguement

It's not "inviolable". It's completly able to be violated. It's just a matter of doing it. That being said, the law can't force a priest to turn his fellow priest in. They can, however, prosecute him for withholding evidence. However, they just can't charge him for such a crime. They have to prosecute him after an investigation.

However, I don't really like this law. Not for religious reasons, as I think whatever the secular law is it should be applied to every institution, even the religious.I just feel that it might be a slippery slope for the idea that the state can more or less legally make you give up a compulsory confession... even if that person never commited a crime.

But perhaps I'm just slightly paranoid.

It is inviolable. The Seal will not be violated. They may do whatsoever they wish to do to him, but it will be fruitless. They do not have to do that: the State decides upon what the agents of the State must or must not do, not you.

Penitent =/= "a bit guilty."

How about you keep up with the doctrine and terminology? If you are not penitent, then the priest cannot betray the penitent by disclosing what you have said, no? Is that making some sense to you?

And, child molestation is not one of the worst crimes a human could commit. And, they are protecting the Seal.



Your argument simply does not convince me, nor will it ever.

So you are now asserting that child molestation is not one of the worst crimes?

Abatael, I'd really recommend you stop posting. What you're saying is...well, not strongly indicative of a good person.

It isn't, but, of course, "worse" and its superlative is a relative term.

I am not posting to look "good."

[Seperates]

So then why are they dealing with decades worth of accusations, lawsuits, condemnation, criticism, losing interest in the faith, etc? You claim that they have been doing the right thing for decades. So why are so many people highlighting that the offending priests were merely shuffled to other parishes as if nothing ever happened? So why are we in this situation when the Catholic Church is being hammered at by victims of sexual abuse to the point that Australia is considering prying open the seal on the sacrament of confession?

Had the Catholic Church made it her policy to immediately report any and all sex crimes instead of shuffling them to other churches and generally not giving a damn about the kids, we would not be in this situation. There would be no need to break the confessional seal. That is my point, Ab. We shouldn't have to compel the Church to do something that anyone with a heart would do with some law - the Church should've known better from the get go.

The right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

Anyone with a sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

No. Anyone with YOUR sense of morality would know that violating the Seal is nefas.

Just as anyone with a jihaddi sense of morality would know that blasphming the Quaran is punishable by death.

Or anyone of 1960's Ju'/hoasi sense of morality would know that not insulting the meat is bad for the growth of a hunter.

[Wisconsin9]

You know, there's a very simple solution to all of this: bug the confessionals, and if something illegal is overheard, give the priest a week to come clean. If he doesn't, lock him and the confessor away. They don't have to break the seal and the public is still protected.

That is violating the Seal.

Which is immoral, right?

[The Emerald Dawn]

So you are now asserting that child molestation is not one of the worst crimes?

Abatael, I'd really recommend you stop posting. What you're saying is...well, not strongly indicative of a good person.

It isn't, but, of course, "worse" and its superlative is a relative term.

I am not posting to look "good."

You're posting to make yourself look like an asshole? Because that's what you're managing. In what way is it more important to protect the sinner than the child?

[Abatael]

Your argument simply does not convince me, nor will it ever.

You don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm saying that we wouldn't be discussing the possibility of breaking the seal had all these decades been spent punishing sex crimes within the Church. If the Catholic hierarchy made it their policy to - upon being notified that someone was molesting children report it to the police rather than send them to another parish as if nothing ever happened - then that would've spared them all the lawsuits they have been getting and we would not have to worry about the sacramental seal being broken because there'd be no reason to. There have been many priests throughout time who haven't gone through confession who have ended up embarassing the Church over their disgusting activity. I'm referring to those priests. I'm saying to you that had the Catholic hierarchy dealt with them accordingly and properly instead of shuffling them along to another parish, we'd not be in this situation. Is that making some sense to you? I really don't understand how this is hard for you to understand.

My argument is simple - had the Catholic Church done the right thing all these decades, we'd not be in this situation. You'd not have to worry about your precious little seal. Everyone would be happy knowing that the Catholic Church was rooting out the perverts and helping the authorities take care of them. If you wish to ignore all this further then, by all means, go ahead and do so. Just remember that the Catholic Church is the only one to blame for this whole mess. The State would not have to consider meddling like this had the Catholics dealt with those who were fiddling.

The right thing is not violating the Seal of the Confessional. Violating the seal of the confessional, what you call the "right thing," is not right.

It has supreme, independent authority over the geographic area. And, to be candid, I don't care if the dictionary were to explicitly say, "The State decides upon the Seal of the Confessional, not God," because it would be incorrect.

"I dont care what definition says, I will make up my own cos its wrong."

No. I don't care what the dictionary says about it, as I do not need a dictionary to give me the meaning of the inviolability of the Seal of the Confessional.

We have no concern of the confessor betraying the penitent. The problem is that they think they can.

They can, if they want to avoid prison and comply with law.

The State do think they can get the confession from the confessor, but the State cannot extract the betrayal they so dearly want.

[Seperates]

Oh. There it is. A natural rights arguement

It's not "inviolable". It's completly able to be violated. It's just a matter of doing it. That being said, the law can't force a priest to turn his fellow priest in. They can, however, prosecute him for withholding evidence. However, they just can't charge him for such a crime. They have to prosecute him after an investigation.

However, I don't really like this law. Not for religious reasons, as I think whatever the secular law is it should be applied to every institution, even the religious.I just feel that it might be a slippery slope for the idea that the state can more or less legally make you give up a compulsory confession... even if that person never commited a crime.

But perhaps I'm just slightly paranoid.

It is inviolable. The Seal will not be violated. They may do whatsoever they wish to do to him, but it will be fruitless. They do not have to do that: the State decides upon what the agents of the State must or must not do, not you.

Oh, you'd be surprised at what we can do with chemicals nowadays. That being said... you are right about the second part.