Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[Threlizdun]

Also, i like how 3 Catholics voted against their own doctrine, I wonder how they'll feel when they're excommunicated to hell.
It is literally impossible to be a Catholic and go against such a basic doctrine.

Catholics are certainly capable of recognizing that a doctrine that asks to protect child molesters is repulsive.

[Constantinopolis]

It's not a worthwhile tradition if it comforts and protects people who've done awful things, and it's not by any means set in stone.

The accused person is (1) innocent until proven guilty, and (2) DEAD. He's dead, Jim. This case is about the innocence or guilt of A DEAD MAN.

[Jumalariik]

The police thinks that someone else may have confessed a crime to him, and the priest refuses to say what that person confessed.

To make matters even more absurd, the alleged criminal has actually died in the mean time. So the priest may or may not have heard a confession about a crime that may or may not have been committed by a man who is now dead.

If the confession never occurred, then he has no reason not to tell them as much as it would not be violating the seal of confession. If the confession did occur, then he is responsible for a child molester continuing to serve a danger to the population, and such an act should not be tolerated.

Should we just say that all priests have to start liking homosexuality?
Should we just abolish communion because it's aesthetically weird to atheists?
Should we maybe just abolish the Catholic church because 15% of the US's population is atheist?
No, we can't just end the right of Catholics to worship. With your logic, we should ban circumcision, and Judaism as a whole.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

It's not a worthwhile tradition if it comforts and protects people who've done awful things, and it's not by any means set in stone.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty (who not to mention is also dead), and if the case is so weak that it can't hold water in civil court without the priest's testimony I see no reason to force someone to violate the rules of their religion.

And I disagree with you, because I don't respect this tradition above a victim's rights to justice.

Damn, I'm sure that'll throw the legal system for a loop!

So you have no rebuttal.

It's so meaningless as to not need one. Sure, they could've lied in their confession. Humans can always lie. The apparatus of justice makes allowances for people not speaking the truth 100% of the time, surprisingly.

[Jumalariik]

Also, i like how 3 Catholics voted against their own doctrine, I wonder how they'll feel when they're excommunicated to hell.
It is literally impossible to be a Catholic and go against such a basic doctrine.

Catholics are certainly capable of recognizing that a doctrine that asks to protect child molesters is repulsive.

No they're not.
It's like an anarchist who believes in government. You can't be a member of a church in a real sense, a confessing member, if you don't believe in its basic doctrine. They are not Catholics, they aren't even Christians.

[Galloism]

I will point out that both rights are limited.

You do not have a right to remain silent unless it might incriminate you, and if you are given immunity there is no right to remain silent (as you can't be incriminated).

Freedom of religion is not unlimited either, although it is broad.

"You have the right to remain silent……"

The Miranda Code.

Yes, arrested criminals have a right to remain silent and not testify against themselves.

As I said.

Miranda rights aren't read to witnesses.

[Camicon]

How does testifying that, "yes, this little girl did tell me about a parishioner who sexually assaulted her" infringe on a person's religious rights in any way?

And if you are so damned determined to insist that there be absolutely no laws that interfere with how religions wish to operate, does that mean ISIS can come over and start beheading people? After all, the Quran makes several references to holy war, and about killing infidels. Obviously, the First Amendment prevents the US government from denying such reasonable requests.

In Catholicism, revealing what has been said in confession is strictly prohibited, and can result in removal from the church.

Obviously ISIS cannot legally come over and start beheading people legally. Exercising your religion is not the same thing as forcing it on someone else.

You still haven't answered my question

The RCC can go eat a sack of rusty nails. If they want to get rid of priests that do the right thing by helping the judicial system more accurately determine the guilt or innocence of accused parties, then that's their problem. Besides, one need not be a priest in order to be a Catholic.

You said that the First Amendment prevents the US government from enacting any laws that infringe on religious freedom. Well, ISIS believes that their religion gives them the freedom to kill non-believers. If the First Amendment truly prevents the US government from restricting in any way what a religion may or may not do, then by that logic ISIS has every right to come over here and start slaughtering non-Muslims.

What question?

[Apparatchikstan]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you need explained. I thought perhaps you were being deliberately obtuse.

You said that "some atheists misunderstand what a secular society is and strive for an inverted fundamentalism". What kind of "inverted fundamentalism" do you mean? Maybe provide an example?

A fundamentalist society is ruled by an absolute, with all other factors marginalized out of representation. Theist or atheist, it doesn't matter, any society absolutely ruled by one or the other would not be secular.

[WestRedMaple]

The police thinks that someone else may have confessed a crime to him, and the priest refuses to say what that person confessed.

To make matters even more absurd, the alleged criminal has actually died in the mean time. So the priest may or may not have heard a confession about a crime that may or may not have been committed by a man who is now dead.

If the confession never occurred, then he has no reason not to tell them as much as it would not be violating the seal of confession. If the confession did occur, then he is responsible for a child molester continuing to serve a danger to the population, and such an act should not be tolerated.

The alleged molester is dead. Unless there is a zombie uprising, I think we'll all be safe from him

[Jumalariik]

The accused is innocent until proven guilty (who not to mention is also dead), and if the case is so weak that it can't hold water in civil court without the priest's testimony I see no reason to force someone to violate the rules of their religion.

And I disagree with you, because I don't respect this tradition above a victim's rights to justice.

So you have no rebuttal.

It's so meaningless as to not need one. Sure, they could've lied in their confession. Humans can always lie. The apparatus of justice makes allowances for people not speaking the truth 100% of the time, surprisingly.

You don't respect freedom of religion.
You know, we should ban circumsision by your logic. It's a tradition, traditions that aren't of my religion make me uncomfortable, Judaism has no right to traditions that I don't like.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

You don't respect freedom of religion.

I don't respect supremacy of religion.

[Vetalia]

And I disagree with you, because I don't respect this tradition above a victim's rights to justice.

There's no victim right now unless you have some evidence that can convict the accused beyond a preponderance of evidence.

It's so meaningless as to not need one. Sure, they could've lied in their confession. Humans can always lie. The apparatus of justice makes allowances for people not speaking the truth 100% of the time, surprisingly.

And there's a possibility that she lied about it, enough to introduce doubt in a criminal case let alone a civil one.

[Constantinopolis]

Catholics are certainly capable of recognizing that a doctrine that asks to protect child molesters is repulsive.

You know what's funny? The way that most people in NSG disagree with things like torture at Guantanamo or the NSA spying on people to prevent crime, but in this thread the general attitude seems to be "No mercy for criminals! No quarter! No right to privacy if they can use it to hide! Impale them upon a stick!"

[Jumalariik]

You don't respect freedom of religion.

I don't respect supremacy of religion.

You mean its respect to worship?
You know that confession is one of Catholicism and Orthodoxy's qualities that separate them, you realize how oppressive it would wind up being to make confession no longer safe? You know how many people would stop going to confession? Priests could then just tell the parents of a kid that he was masturbating and having gay thoughts and that could lead to a beating, that could easily happen in fact.

[Jumalariik]

Catholics are certainly capable of recognizing that a doctrine that asks to protect child molesters is repulsive.

You know what's funny? The way that most people in NSG disagree with things like torture at Guantanamo or the NSA spying on people to prevent crime, but in this thread the general attitude seems to be "No mercy for criminals! No quarter! No right to privacy if they can use it to hide! Impale them upon a stick!"

Agreed, privacy is not a concept for generalites.

[Farnhamia]

I don't respect supremacy of religion.

You mean its respect to worship?
You know that confession is one of Catholicism and Orthodoxy's qualities that separate them, you realize how oppressive it would wind up being to make confession no longer safe? You know how many people would stop going to confession? Priests could then just tell the parents of a kid that he was masturbating and having gay thoughts and that could lead to a beating, that could easily happen in fact.

That's not the case here. "Gay thoughts" and masturbation by adolescent boys is not illegal so there would be no need for a priest to tell the parents anything, nor do the parents have the ability to compel such testimony. The situation here is one in which your hypothetical teenager confessed to raping children and the police came to the priest wanting confirmation of the crime.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

You mean its respect to worship?

No, I mean the belief that we, as a society, should have patience for voluntary groups getting special privileges we weren't asked whether we approved of, and which are being used to protect people from things we consider reprehensible.

[Jumalariik]

You mean its respect to worship?
You know that confession is one of Catholicism and Orthodoxy's qualities that separate them, you realize how oppressive it would wind up being to make confession no longer safe? You know how many people would stop going to confession? Priests could then just tell the parents of a kid that he was masturbating and having gay thoughts and that could lead to a beating, that could easily happen in fact.

That's not the case here. "Gay thoughts" and masturbation by adolescent boys is not illegal so there would be no need for a priest to tell the parents anything, nor do the parents have the ability to compel such testimony. The situation here is one in which your hypothetical teenager confessed to raping children and the police came to the priest wanting confirmation of the crime.

My point is that if you take away the sanctity of confession, you would then be letting secularists more leeway to take more from the church. Whenever I see people doing this, saying that the church should be destroyed essentially, I just get more socially conservative. I lose any ability to respect people of the atheist/liberal persuasion. Quite honestly, as I've been on NS, I've become more anti atheist, almost to a point of bigotry. Threads like these are the reason to be frank.

[Jumalariik]

You mean its respect to worship?

No, I mean the belief that we, as a society, should have patience for voluntary groups getting special privileges we weren't asked whether we approved of, and which are being used to protect people from things we consider reprehensible.

This has not been a complaint for the 1500 or so years of the Catholic church. The idea is great, it has been a tradition that only the morally corrupt could really oppose, the people who are truly biased against Christianity.

[Camicon]

That's not the case here. "Gay thoughts" and masturbation by adolescent boys is not illegal so there would be no need for a priest to tell the parents anything, nor do the parents have the ability to compel such testimony. The situation here is one in which your hypothetical teenager confessed to raping children and the police came to the priest wanting confirmation of the crime.

My point is that if you take away the sanctity of confession, you would then be letting secularists more leeway to take more from the church. Whenever I see people doing this, saying that the church should be destroyed essentially, I just get more socially conservative. I lose any ability to respect people of the atheist/liberal persuasion. Quite honestly, as I've been on NS, I've become more anti atheist, almost to a point of bigotry. Threads like these are the reason to be frank.

What, you mean threads where people argue that religions shouldn't be able to stonewall the judicial process? Well, if that makes you dislike irreligious people, then I will gladly accept your dislike as a badge of honour.

[Constantinopolis]

You mean its respect to worship?
You know that confession is one of Catholicism and Orthodoxy's qualities that separate them, you realize how oppressive it would wind up being to make confession no longer safe? You know how many people would stop going to confession? Priests could then just tell the parents of a kid that he was masturbating and having gay thoughts and that could lead to a beating, that could easily happen in fact.

That's not the case here. "Gay thoughts" and masturbation by adolescent boys is not illegal so there would be no need for a priest to tell the parents anything, nor do the parents have the ability to compel such testimony. The situation here is one in which your hypothetical teenager confessed to raping children and the police came to the priest wanting confirmation of the crime.

If you were the parent of a teenage son, and your son came to you and confessed that he was a pedophile and raped someone, and cried on your shoulder asking forgiveness and help dealing with his mental illness, should the police have the power to force you to testify against your son so they can put him in jail?

The question is not "would you testify", but "should the police have the power" to force you to testify?

And to make it closer to the case we are discussing here, what if your son actually died in an accident in the mean time, so the police wanted you to testify against your dead son?

[Farnhamia]

That's not the case here. "Gay thoughts" and masturbation by adolescent boys is not illegal so there would be no need for a priest to tell the parents anything, nor do the parents have the ability to compel such testimony. The situation here is one in which your hypothetical teenager confessed to raping children and the police came to the priest wanting confirmation of the crime.

My point is that if you take away the sanctity of confession, you would then be letting secularists more leeway to take more from the church. Whenever I see people doing this, saying that the church should be destroyed essentially, I just get more socially conservative. I lose any ability to respect people of the atheist/liberal persuasion. Quite honestly, as I've been on NS, I've become more anti atheist, almost to a point of bigotry. Threads like these are the reason to be frank.

And it's statements like this why I become less forgiving of the socially conservative. You're perfectly happy turning me into a second-class citizen by restricting my right to marry the person I love, something fully available to you, but any suggestion that perhaps the Church ought to respond more responsibly in extreme situations involving the sexual abuse of small children makes you angry. Right.

[Jumalariik]

My point is that if you take away the sanctity of confession, you would then be letting secularists more leeway to take more from the church. Whenever I see people doing this, saying that the church should be destroyed essentially, I just get more socially conservative. I lose any ability to respect people of the atheist/liberal persuasion. Quite honestly, as I've been on NS, I've become more anti atheist, almost to a point of bigotry. Threads like these are the reason to be frank.

And it's statements like this why I become less forgiving of the socially conservative. You're perfectly happy turning me into a second-class citizen by restricting my right to marry the person I love, something fully available to you, but any suggestion that perhaps the Church ought to respond more responsibly in extreme situations involving the sexual abuse of small children makes you angry. Right.

Woa, you like making assumptions based on nothing. 1. I'm not against gay marriage. 2. I'm not Catholic, I just want to stand for Christian brothers. 3. just because I support a theocracy does not make me either socially conservative nor oppressive in views.

[The New Sea Territory]

This is insane!

Religion is, indeed, lacking of sanity.

No priest should be forced to break the confessional seal.

...he's concealing murders, rapists and people who are fundamentally violent and threats to society.

The confession

Which is literally admitting to a crime.

is between him,

A criminal.

the confessor,

A man who wears silly costumes, converses with spirits and worships an invisible man in the sky and his hippie son.

and God,

A likely nonexistent manifestation of one's ego as a loving entity that can be used to rationalize what one fears, desires who doesn't understand.

not the government.

This is where I agree, but it is the business of the community. I would argue that the state should not intermingle with this process.

[The New Sea Territory]

My point is that if you take away the sanctity of confession, you would then be letting secularists more leeway to take more from the church. Whenever I see people doing this, saying that the church should be destroyed essentially, I just get more socially conservative. I lose any ability to respect people of the atheist/liberal persuasion. Quite honestly, as I've been on NS, I've become more anti atheist, almost to a point of bigotry. Threads like these are the reason to be frank.

You do realize that the Church got that power by using the Roman Empire and various monarchs to force it onto people, then mass indoctrination, then democides and Holy Wars, and now mostly through traditions that aren't questioned by ignorant people. The Church violently got that power. It should be rightfully returned to the people. Secularists, which sounds like a Ken Ham fearmongering term, aren't anti-religion, just anti-religion in government.