Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia

[Abatael]

So you are refusing to tell me if it is incorrect or correct, according to your beliefs?

In 1957 Fitzgerald wrote to the bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire:

"We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum."

I've told you already my beliefs on this issue - this isn't about the seal to me. It's about the Catholic Church stuck in the mess it - and it alone - created, a mess that didn't have to be created. I am pretty certain that most of the cases documented were not heard of by other priests in the confessional, but that public outrage propelled the Catholic Church to deal with the situation. And what did they do? They sent them to other churches, as if nothing ever happened, rather than do the right thing. Now we're in 2012, and we're dealing with Australia considering prying open the seal of the confessional. And I am here saying one thing:

Why?

Why did it have to get to this point in the first place?

Thank you, Ganos Lao, but we are done with that.

[Wisconsin9]

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?

No, I am posting to defend what is right. As I have said before, I do not care what others think of me, when it comes to this.

It seems we're all on the same level, then. We can't possibly change your opinion. You can't possibly change ours. We don't give half a fuck what you think is moral. You don't give half a fuck what we think is moral. This is going to keep spiraling until one side ends up going nuclear on the other and the banhammer gets swung. So let's all just admit that this argument is absolutely fucking futile for all parties and go our separate ways, alright?

I'm going to post this every page until it hits home, by the way.

[Threlizdun]

Being legal doesn't make it right however stopping child rapist and protecting children makes it right.
Not difficult concept, now is it?

It may incarcerate a child rapist, but that benefit is far outweighed, when the Seal is broken.

Protection of a physical being is of greater virtue than defense of a religious doctrine in accordance to Australian law. This is a position I am quite glad they take.

[Abatael]

It may incarcerate a child rapist, but that benefit is far outweighed, when the Seal is broken.

Protection of a physical being is of greater virtue than defense of a religious doctrine in accordance to Australian law. This is a position I am quite glad they take.

No, it is not. The protection of the Seal includes having to die yourself or letting another die.

[Great Nepal]

Being legal doesn't make it right however stopping child rapist and protecting children makes it right.
Not difficult concept, now is it?

It may incarcerate a child rapist, but that benefit is far outweighed, when the Seal is broken.

You have finally managed to wire two concepts. Congratulations.
Now, to your point: no breaking some crap rule set by ancient dude is worth getting child rapist out of the streets.

[Abatael]

It may incarcerate a child rapist, but that benefit is far outweighed, when the Seal is broken.

You have finally managed to wire two concepts. Congratulations.
Now, to your point: no breaking some crap rule set by ancient dude is worth getting child rapist out of the streets.

No, it is not. That is an appalling and contemptuous violation for even the heathen.

[Thisbia]

Protection of a physical being is of greater virtue than defense of a religious doctrine in accordance to Australian law. This is a position I am quite glad they take.

No, it is not. The protection of the Seal includes having to die yourself or letting another die.

Abatael, where can I find info on this seal or penitent you speak so highly of? Please post a link so I can learn more.

[Saint Jade IV]

So Roman Catholic priests, in a rather ironic twist, are claiming that proposed new laws will violate their most sacred and sacrosanct beliefs, by requiring priests to break the confessional seal and engage in the same mandatory reporting that every other profession is bound by.

Basically, if a priest confesses to paedophilia, they are required to report said priest to the authorities.

I'm unsure what the problem is.

The problem is that the confessional seal is sacred, to the extent that the priest divulging the content or someone overhearing the confession can make it invalid.
The law is also unenforceable - there are no logs of who goes to confession where, (Hell ,in a confessional booth it's not even well visible who's in , and the priest won't ask you for a name) and if a priest is questioned about the content of one, he can deny everything (I didn't know the one I was listening to was a priest)
I'm as much against religion as it goes but this is just dumb

Why should the fact that the Holy fathers hold the confessional seal sacred stop victims who may not share their religion from having justice? Or obtaining evidence of guilt?

Furthermore, there are cases in Australia where it was known that priests confessed to other priests, and nothing was done. In some cases the offender was moved to a parish where his contact with children increased. The Church has shown itself manifestly incapable of managing the responsibility of confession, and so should lose it's protection.

[Abatael]

No, it is not. The protection of the Seal includes having to die yourself or letting another die.

Abatael, where can I find info on this seal or penitent you speak so highly of? Please post a link so I can learn more.

viewtopic.php?p=11695791#p11695791

[Threlizdun]

Protection of a physical being is of greater virtue than defense of a religious doctrine in accordance to Australian law. This is a position I am quite glad they take.

No, it is not. The protection of the Seal includes having to die yourself or letting another die.

What do you mean it's not? It obviously is considered of greater value to the Australian legislature because that is what they ruled. If you wish to protect a murderer or rapist because you believe your god wants you to, then you can enjoy your prison sentence.

[Saint Jade IV]

it's interesting how government tells the church to stay out of state affairs but the state refuses to extend the same curtacy to the church.................... intresting anyone else see a contridiction here?

When the protection of children who do not share the religion of the Church, and are in the care of the state has been compromised by a practice, the state does have a responsibility to protect those children. Which supercedes the Church's right to continue a practice which has been shown to endanger children.

[Great Nepal]

You have finally managed to wire two concepts. Congratulations.
Now, to your point: no breaking some crap rule set by ancient dude is worth getting child rapist out of the streets.

No, it is not. That is an appalling and contemptuous violation for even the heathen.

Explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to get child rapist out of streets and give victims justice at expense of child rapist.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm going to post this every page until it hits home, by the way.

No, you're not. If you're here to debate, then debate. If you're here to spam, you're *** Warned for spamming. ***

[Abatael]

No, it is not. The protection of the Seal includes having to die yourself or letting another die.

What do you mean it's not? It obviously is considered of greater value to the Australian legislature because that is what they ruled. If you wish to protect a murderer or rapist because you believe your god wants you to, then you can enjoy your prison sentence.

It is not of a greater virtue. It is a sin, and it will not be committed.

If I were to hear the confession, then I will be sentenced to prison, because I will not, under any circumstance, violate the Seal.

No, it is not. That is an appalling and contemptuous violation for even the heathen.

Explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to get child rapist out of streets and give victims justice at expense of child rapist.

I have said this numerous times; you do not seem to get it through your head: it is an appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal.

Imprisoning a child molester is not a violation, unless if you do it by breaking the Seal.

[Thisbia]

Abatael, where can I find info on this seal or penitent you speak so highly of? Please post a link so I can learn more.

Is there something specific you wanted to know?

I need to know what the Catholic policies are regarding the seal, but from the source, in black and white. I used to be Catholic and I don't remember this. I know it isn't biblical. But, one can hardly discuss this seal, or argue a point of it without proper knowledge of it.
So I need to know if it is in a papal bull, some Vatican City rule, do parish priests have to take a vow and where is that stated?

[Saint Jade IV]

Then they can martyr themselves.

Also, if Catholic priests are allowed to hold steadfast to the sacrament of confession, should it not then follow that those who hold the priesthood within the Fundamentalist Mormon Church be allowed to hold the sacrament of plural spouses? This sacrament of plural marriage is as sacred to them as the sacrament of confession is to Catholic priests, and just as much a part of the fabric of their faith.

Mormonism doesn't mandate plural spouses, it allows them.
In the same way that most faiths allow you to fart in a full public bus, but you might choose not to, those Mormons living in the USA are allowed by their faith to have multiple spouses, just that the law forbids it.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually makes plural marriage an excommunicable offence. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as well as a few other denominations actually does mandate plural marriage, for a variety of reasons fundamental to the faith.

Mormons living in the USA are not allowed to have multiple spouses. Polygamy is illegal in the US. And Canada, and Australia. We have deemed that polygamy, despite being absolutely crucial to the religious practices of these people, is too great a risk to the safety of the women living in it.

On the other hand, confessional secrecy is mandated. This is pretty much the equivalent of banning circumcision for Jews, or mandating the consumption of a beef burger per day to a Hinduist

Plural marriage is mandated by God, according to the FLDS. Preventing them from practicing this is the equivalent of all those above. Why are you so against the free practice of religion?

[Great Nepal]

I have said this numerous times; you do not seem to get it through your head: it is an appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal.
Imprisoning a child molester is not a violation, unless if you do it by breaking the Seal.

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

[Central Slavia]

I have said this numerous times; you do not seem to get it through your head: it is an appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal.
Imprisoning a child molester is not a violation, unless if you do it by breaking the Seal.

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

Because it makes the confession invalid? The one confessing might as well not have bothered.

[Raeyh]

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

Because it makes the confession invalid? The one confessing might as well not have bothered.

Well, it works for a bit until people realize that priests will snitch them out. Then they just stop telling them things that would land them in jail.

[Seriong]

This is ridiculous, even from a pragmatic point of view. Priests would rather be held in contempt of court and thrown in prison than violate the confessional seal.

Good - less priests to aid and abet the violating of children. And in prison, they may yet experience the same violations that the children they are endangering experience. It may make them more compassionate to people in the here and now, rather than the hereafter.

No.

A) Not all priests are rapists

B) Not all pedophiles rape children.

You saw when it said that if they confessed to PEDOPHILIA, the attraction alone, that they had to inform the police, the priest has as of then committed no crime.

(Also, before you say that attraction leads to rape, and thus they shouldn't be allowed near the children, why don't you also condemn allowing non-asexuals to teach college, they very well could rape them.)

[Xarxis]

I have said this numerous times; you do not seem to get it through your head: it is an appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal.
Imprisoning a child molester is not a violation, unless if you do it by breaking the Seal.

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

It can't be explained to a non-Catholic like you. It's like trying to explain evolution to a Protestant, or trying to get an Atheist to accept the existence of God - it just can't be done.

[Thisbia]

Okay, so explain why it is appalling and contemptuous violation to violate the Seal when end result is good.

It can't be explained to a non-Catholic like you. It's like trying to explain evolution to a Protestant, or trying to get an Atheist to accept the existence of God - it just can't be done.

That's a cop-out. Anything can be explained if the explainer truly knows what he is talking about!
Remember what Einstein said about teaching a child.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Remember what Einstein said about teaching a child.

Einstein: "Keep your child away from Father Gregory. I do not believe that that is what "Come all ye faithful" should mean."

[Saint Jade IV]

Good - less priests to aid and abet the violating of children. And in prison, they may yet experience the same violations that the children they are endangering experience. It may make them more compassionate to people in the here and now, rather than the hereafter.

No.

A) Not all priests are rapists

But a priest who does not report the possibility that one of their colleagues has confessed to sinful thoughts or actions is aiding and abetting the violation of children, by not reporting a potential risk.

B) Not all pedophiles rape children.

They are required to report to Child Protective Services, not the police. Is it not possible, that getting these men access to appropriate therapy and preventive treatment, before they actually abuse children, may be of benefit?

[Thisbia]

Remember what Einstein said about teaching a child.

Einstein: "Keep your child away from Father Gregory. I do not believe that that is what "Come all ye faithful" should mean."

I love you Nightkill, but no, this:
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”