What's said in the confession box will no longer stay there - Church outraged

[Pangurban]

The answer to Mike Sheehys question as to whether a Priest should divulge what he hears in the Confessional, is a resounding NO. That plain enough for you Mike

I have no dispute with MGHU when he asserts that atheism does not equate with bad character. I personally know many atheists who exhibit all the virtues that christians shoul be aspiring towards. Its militant atheism and the philosophy which underpins it that i have a problem with

[Mike Sheehy]

The answer to Mike Sheehys question as to whether a Priest should divulge what he hears in the Confessional, is a resounding NO. That plain enough for you MikeI have no dispute with MGHU when he asserts that atheism does not equate with bad character. I personally know many atheists who exhibit all the virtues that christians shoul be aspiring towards. Its militant atheism and the philosophy which underpins it that i have a problem with

Yes, it is plain enough and imho is a truly immoral position to take and it confirms to me that true morality come from within and has nothing to do with religious belief (which, if anything , can undermine true morality).

[Eamonnca1]

I have no dispute with MGHU when he asserts that atheism does not equate with bad character. I personally know many atheists who exhibit all the virtues that christians shoul be aspiring towards. Its militant atheism and the philosophy which underpins it that i have a problem with

"Militant" atheism, eh?  How come catholics who feel strongly about their belief system are described as "devout" but atheists who feel strongly about their lack of belief are described as "militant"?

[theskull1]

Would any of our devout christians care to consider and comment on the role that the confessional and the associated canon laws had on the absolution and protection of serial child abusing priests?

You're happy enough that church law usurped civil law and the protection of chidren?

[Lar Naparka]

Would any of our devout christians care to consider and comment on the role that the confessional and the associated canon laws had on the absolution and protection of serial child abusing priests?

You're happy enough that church law usurped civil law and the protection of chidren?

Well, I wouldn't come within a jackass's roar of being a "devout Christian" but I have a couple of observations to make here.
If the culture of collusion and obstruction of the democratic process had not been so pronounced and so evident in ecclesiastical circles, the numbers who transgressed the laws of the church and the laws of the land would have been considerably reduced. 
In this country and in many others, thousands suffered because the Church in all its pomp and glory turned a blind eye to what was going on.
This policy of tacit approval wasn't confined to the immediate superiors of those who "fell into temptation" but extended right to the very top.
Furthermore it has been going on for many decades and maybe since time immemorial.
It continues to this very day; whatever allowances may be made for what happened in the past under different social and moral standards, it cannot be tolerated today.
Yet, there is plenty of evidence that it is still going on.
It is the duty of all citizens to insist that the civil authorities fulfil their constitutional obligations.
I would suggest that all "devout Christians" should convey their revulsion to those who are chosen to act in their names.

[Banana Man]

reminds me of one of the ballads of the 1798 rebellion where, the bold Irish rebel goes in to confess what he's about to do and the crimson clad yeoman jumps up from the Priests side of the confessional and the bould Paddy is sent to Van Demon's land

Sure the Brits used to bug the confessionals in the North

It was always our Achilles heel

[The Iceman]

Would any of our devout christians care to consider and comment on the role that the confessional and the associated canon laws had on the absolution and protection of serial child abusing priests?

You're happy enough that church law usurped civil law and the protection of children?

I believe this would have played a very very minor role. On other threads many of you have stated (form reliable media sources) that the collusion and cover up went right to the top. It didn't get to the top in the confessional boxes and the Chinese Whispers of the Clergy. So in essence you are contradicting yourself to try to take that stance.

The thread and the argument are pointless. But go ahead and continue to start your "I hate God" threads but have enough respect for yourselves to call them what they are.

[guy crouchback]

the editoiral in todays times

Confessional secrets

A FORMER Catholic priest in Queensland, Australia, went to confession more than 1,500 times to admit sexually abusing boys. He was told to go home and pray. In a 2003 affidavit, then 68-year-old Michael Joseph McArdle, who was jailed for six years in October of that year, claimed to have made confession about his paedophile activities to about 30 priests over a 25-year period.

He noted: "As the children would leave after each respective assault, I would feel an overwhelming sense of sadness for them and remorse, so much so it would almost be physical. I was devastated after the assaults, every one of them. So distressed would I become that I would attend confessionals weekly and on other occasions fortnightly and would confess that I had been sexually assaulting young boys." He said the only assistance or advice he was given was to undertake penance in the form of prayer.

He claimed that after each confession, "it was like a magic wand had been waved over me." McArdle's affidavit would appear to contradict a widespread view in Ireland that child sex abusers are unlikely to admit such abuse to a priest in the confessional. Common sense would suggest that priest abusers particularly, and as above, would be likely to avail of the seal of the confessional as they seek forgiveness for what they have done and maybe even help in controlling their impulses. More is required in such cases of the confessor priest than penance, prayer and sympathy.

In that context it was unfair and disproportionate of the Catholic primate Cardinal Séan Brady last Sunday to portray proposed new child protection legislation, which would make it mandatory in all cases to report child abuse, as an attack on freedom of religion. In Knock, he said "the inviolability of the seal of confession is so fundamental to the very nature of the Sacrament that any proposal that undermines that inviolability is a challenge to the right of every Catholic to freedom of religion and conscience".

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said that new child protection legislation would apply to doctors and priests, even where this information is revealed in the confessional. Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald has said on the matter that "if there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions."

In this newspaper yesterday she said "what is required is a positive piece of legislation which will encourage a culture where child protection is taken seriously" and that such legislation would "require a careful teasing out". It will.

That is what all sides should now be about. Freedom of religion is an important principle in a pluralist society but all should remind themselves that the most important issue here is the protection of children. Other jurisdictions deal with the issue of priest-penitent privilege in various ways. With goodwill, it ought to be possible here to negotiate through conflicting rights and freedoms in the primary interest of children.

[cicfada]

Unfortunately  where some people think that these crimes are only sins  and not crimes, then   paedo priests will keep getting away with it!! The biggest challenge for  authorities is to get the Catholic Church to accept that criminal law is the only law  applicable!! I am not holding my breath though!!

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

the editoiral in todays times

Confessional secrets

A FORMER Catholic priest in Queensland, Australia, went to confession more than 1,500 times to admit sexually abusing boys. He was told to go home and pray. In a 2003 affidavit, then 68-year-old Michael Joseph McArdle, who was jailed for six years in October of that year, claimed to have made confession about his paedophile activities to about 30 priests over a 25-year period.

He noted: "As the children would leave after each respective assault, I would feel an overwhelming sense of sadness for them and remorse, so much so it would almost be physical. I was devastated after the assaults, every one of them. So distressed would I become that I would attend confessionals weekly and on other occasions fortnightly and would confess that I had been sexually assaulting young boys." He said the only assistance or advice he was given was to undertake penance in the form of prayer.

He claimed that after each confession, "it was like a magic wand had been waved over me." McArdle's affidavit would appear to contradict a widespread view in Ireland that child sex abusers are unlikely to admit such abuse to a priest in the confessional. Common sense would suggest that priest abusers particularly, and as above, would be likely to avail of the seal of the confessional as they seek forgiveness for what they have done and maybe even help in controlling their impulses. More is required in such cases of the confessor priest than penance, prayer and sympathy.

In that context it was unfair and disproportionate of the Catholic primate Cardinal Séan Brady last Sunday to portray proposed new child protection legislation, which would make it mandatory in all cases to report child abuse, as an attack on freedom of religion. In Knock, he said "the inviolability of the seal of confession is so fundamental to the very nature of the Sacrament that any proposal that undermines that inviolability is a challenge to the right of every Catholic to freedom of religion and conscience".

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said that new child protection legislation would apply to doctors and priests, even where this information is revealed in the confessional. Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald has said on the matter that "if there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions."

In this newspaper yesterday she said "what is required is a positive piece of legislation which will encourage a culture where child protection is taken seriously" and that such legislation would "require a careful teasing out". It will.

That is what all sides should now be about. Freedom of religion is an important principle in a pluralist society but all should remind themselves that the most important issue here is the protection of children. Other jurisdictions deal with the issue of priest-penitent privilege in various ways. With goodwill, it ought to be possible here to negotiate through conflicting rights and freedoms in the primary interest of children.

The parts I have highlighted just show what is wrong with the Confessional box. Confession is not an outlet to confess and seek forgiveness from "God", it is an outlet for people to absolve themselves of guilt.

[blast05]

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said that new child protection legislation would apply to doctors and priests,

What about client-lawyer confidentiality (not just in the context of child abuse but in the entire legal spectrum) ? ..... i can't see how Shatters proposal can be implemented without dismantling this key part of the legal system ??

[guy crouchback]

as far as i know client confidentiality does not apply if someone admits to committing a crime. if you tell your lawyer you did it, but that your going to plead innocent anyway and make up a defence, he cannot go along with this, he cannot present what you have admitted is a false defence.

[muppet]

[sans pessimism]