Church and state are split over an irreconcilable difference

[rug]

One can certainly share the sense of frustration and, indeed, quite patent anger and irritation of the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, in his recent criticisms of the Vatican. In the face of overwhelming evidence of sexual and physical abuse by clergy, religious and Catholic institutions in Ireland, the Vatican seems reluctant to accept its share of responsibility. It also seems unwilling to co-operate without reservations with the Irish government's proposals to prevent such abuse in future.

The most startling new measure in a system of mandatory reporting is the obligation for priests to violate the sanctity of the "sacramental seal" of Confession when a paedophile reveals that he or she has been involved in such activities. Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a similar measure for Australia.

The sacramental seal binds priests under pain of excommunication and serious sin never to reveal what has been communicated to them by the penitent in Confession, unless the penitent gives explicit permission.

I have no hesitation in stating that priests will guard the sanctity of the seal of Confession with their very lives. They would certainly undergo imprisonment rather than violate it. Even if a penitent confesses that he or she has been involved in a case of rape, murder or serious theft, the priest will do nothing to indicate to anyone that there was a crime confessed or who was the perpetrator.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/church-and-state-are-split-over-an-irreconcilable-difference-20110724-1hv8h.html

[aquart]

1. Like the Democrats and the Republican Cult.

Hey, Mammon's a god.

[laconicsax]

2. How many priests have been excommunicated for being serial child rapists?

Once again, the RCC shows its colors.

Be a young rape victim seeking a potentially life-saving abortion? Get excommunicated.
Perform an aborition on that young rape victim? Get excommunicated.
Report child rape to the police? Get excommunicated.
Be a serial child rapist? Get transferred and protected.

Why anyone would willingly associate with this organization, let alone donate time and money to it, is incomprehensible.

[trotsky]

3. + a billion.

"But my church is different!"

[rug]

4. I see you've trotted out your standard response to anything posted about the Catholic Church.

Do you have anything new to add to the subject at hand? The proposed law strips confidentiality from a whole range of Irish professions.

[laconicsax]

6. Yes, I know you hate being reminded that the RCC harbors serial child rapists.

A fact which, by the way, provided some of the motivation behind this law.

Do you find it interesting how the RCC members in this piece are explicit on how they will not likely abide by the new law, and those who do will be excommunicated? I find it quite interesting how the Church consider alerting the police to the existence of a child rapist to be a serious offense, but readily cover-up and protect serial child rapists in their own ranks.

[rug]

7. Your lather is showing.

You are confusing the confidentiality of confession with any entity's duty to report information obtained in settings otside sacramental confession.

This law was proposed in the immediate aftermath of the scandals in the Diocese of Cloyne. Do you know how the abuse came to light?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0722/1224301126692.html

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

10. You might consider reading your own OP

The most startling new measure in a system of mandatory reporting is the obligation for priests to violate the sanctity of the "sacramental seal" of Confession when a paedophile reveals that he or she has been involved in such activities. Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a similar measure for Australia.

The sacramental seal binds priests under pain of excommunication and serious sin never to reveal what has been communicated to them by the penitent in Confession, unless the penitent gives explicit permission.

I have no hesitation in stating that priests will guard the sanctity of the seal of Confession with their very lives. They would certainly undergo imprisonment rather than violate it. Even if a penitent confesses that he or she has been involved in a case of rape, murder or serious theft, the priest will do nothing to indicate to anyone that there was a crime confessed or who was the perpetrator.

How's that again?

Even if a penitent confesses that he or she has been involved in a case of rape, murder or serious theft, the priest will do nothing to indicate to anyone that there was a crime confessed or who was the perpetrator.

Really? they won't do anything?

the priest will do nothing to indicate to anyone that there was a crime confessed or who was the perpetrator.

[rug]

13. That has been the law in Ireland for 60 years.

Longer in this country.

What you miss is it applies only to statements made during a confession.

I expect you want to eliminate the attorney-client privilege as well as the clergy-penitent privilege.

Perhaps you should send a large font bold face email to the ABA. It should be at least as effective as an all caps email.

[laconicsax]

15. Attorney-client privilege doesn't work that way.

If someone tells an attorney that they committed a crime, let's say serial child rape, the admission is only protected if the rapist has hired the attorney to represent him in that matter or is seeking legal advice related to the serial child rape.

What you miss is that the article is discussing a new law that would require a priest to report serious crimes, and the clergy are saying that they would rather go to jail than tell the authorities about a serial child rapist.

[rug]

16. Lol, absolutely false. Please, state the rule of the jurisdiction of your admission.

[laconicsax]

19. Absolutely true, my dear rug.

Attorney-client privilege doesn't exist unless you're a client or seeking to become a client. If you commit a crime and tell an attorney who doesn't represent you, that communication isn't privileged unless you're seeking legal advice.

This is basic stuff.

[rug]

23. "the admission is only protected if the rapist has hired the attorney"

is your original statement.

Gratifying you backed off it.

[laconicsax]

26. Seriously? You're going to quote-mine my own response back to me?

What does it say immediately after you end that quote?

"...or is seeking legal advice related to that serial child rape."

Is see you have no qualms about bearing false witness; I'm sure Jesus would be proud.

[skepticscott]

28. Did you expect intellectual honesty

from this one? Or from any of the gang of apologists here? Not holding my breath.

[edhopper]

12. So you are fine with a man

going to confession and telling the Priest that he has rapes and killed children, and will probably rape and kill more children and the Priest not do anything to stop it.
Because the God thinks talking in a wooden box is more important than the lives of the children.

[rug]

14. That is the Common Law privilege.

That is also the basis for Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I understand its rationale conflicts with your agenda, but do some research into it before you embarass yourself further.

[edhopper]

17. I am well aware of the law

Mr. Snarky Pants.
I was pointing to a larger ethical issue. But since Church doctrine is more important than ethics or human considerations I wouldn't assume you would get that point.
I don't think i am the one who should be embarrassed right now.

[rug]

18. "Mr. Snarky Pants." Lol.

That showed me.

[edhopper]

20. How else to respond to

such condescension?

[skepticscott]

25. The question that needs to be asked is

why the Catholic Church has been granted an inviolable privilege with no exceptions, when people like doctors and therapists don't have it. The "sanctity" of the confessional relationship is a complete and utter invention.

[rug]

29. The seal of confession existed long before physicians and therapists.

Furthermore, it is usually anonymous.

[Angry Dragon]

31. When did the seal of confession start??

[rug]

32. It's been around since the first century.

It was formally codified by the twelfth century.

"In the "Decretum" of the Gratian who compiled the edicts of previous councils and the principles of Church law which he published about 1151, we find (secunda pars, dist. VI, c. II) the following declaration of the law as to the seal of confession:

"Deponatur sacerdos qui peccata p nitentis publicare præsumit", i.e., "Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed", and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer.

"Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), binding on the whole Church, lays down the obligation of secrecy in the following words: "Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance" (see Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles" at the year 1215; also Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum").

"It is to be noted that neither this canon nor the law of the "Decretum" purports to enact for the first time the secrecy of confession. In a context cited further on the great fifteenth-century English canonist, Lyndwood, speaks of two reasons why a priest is bound to keep secret a confession, the first being on account of the sacrament because it is almost (quasi) of the essence of the sacrament to keep secret the confession. (Cf. also Jos. Mascardus, "De probationibus", Frankfort, 1703, arg. 378.)"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

30. No one forces the guilty to go to confession

they are free to talk to their god with going to the priest
So it is an open confession

In times past the catholic church used confession to gain
leverage against some people ........ would that be okay??

[mysuzuki2]

5. one possible partial solution to this problem

the Catholic hierarchy should immediately issue an edict. They should ordee that the only possible penance for pedofiles is to immediately turn himself over to civil authorities and accept whatever punishment they impose. Otherwise no absolution. That might actually work with some of them.

[struggle4progress]

21. This is silly mean-spirited anti-Catholic noise. The old doctrine is that we should

always hold ourselves to a moral standard that we do not meet, and that therefore we should hone our consciences, by practicing always to be troubled enough by our faults that we continually resolve to become better than we are. Although our own errors will vary according to our personal circumstances and nature, there is always this in common: that we all fall rather short of the ideal mark and must try again

The Catholics have traditionally, from ancient times, recognized an inviolable secrecy for confessional acts, made honestly, with genuine remorse, intent to reform, and explicit hope of absolution -- because the object is to encourage people to face their moral failures squarely, and one cannot possibly begin to amend errors that one refuses to recognize. The process is already difficult enough, without extraneous hurdles

It would seem adequate to me that the state require persons, in positions of trust, to report well-founded suspicions of certain serious crimes, without lifting the veil of the confessional

[laconicsax]

22. You last sentence summarizes the conflict well.

This new law requires persons in positions of trust to report well-founded suspicions of certain serious crimes, and the clergy don't want to because it would 'lift the veil of the confessional.'

[struggle4progress]

24. Mandatory reporting in non-confessional situations would be adequate

[laconicsax]

27. As put forth in the piece in the OP...

Why would someone voluntarily divulge information about crimes they've committed if they know the person they're telling will report it?

Also, isn't failure to report a crime that's been confessed in a non-privileged setting considered obstruction of justice? If a friend tells you that they raped and murdered someone, you are obligated to report it. Passing a new law to reiterate an existing one is superfluous.