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

[Pangurban]

That is an entirely different subject and would lead us into a fruitless debate generating heat and no light, at the end of which i would still be Christian and you Atheist.

[stew]

If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.

Pathetic and incredibly narrow-minded.

Dont forget conceited and arrogant as well.

[whiskeysteve]

If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.

Pathetic and incredibly narrow-minded.

Prove its existence, the burden of proof is with you. I guess I'm narrow minded because I don't believe in Leprechauns, Banshees, Unicorns, Minitors, ghosts, vampires, watersprites or werewolfs. How much more credible is the existence of a God or Gods than any of those?

Leprechauns = midgets with green suits on who work for cash4gold. perfectly plausible
Banshees = women screaming - very high pitched. again perfectly plausible
Unicorns = plenty of animals have evolved with tusks/horns etc. not a bother
Monitors = youre looking at one on your desk now
ghosts = pale folk rattling chains - see hungover banksman out on site all the time
vampires = sean fitzpatrick
watersprite = obviously a total myth
werewolfs = joe mcmahon '05

oh, btw, ever read Michio Kaku or read up on string theory? Parallel dimensions - science or superstition?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.

Pathetic and incredibly narrow-minded.

Dont forget conceited and arrogant as well.

Ya know I'm right lads       

[Eamonnca1]

Your blinkeresd intolerance and bigotry is prevented you from entering into a reasoned debate. It is clear that you have never read one word of Canon Law, have no idea of its function or purpose, and refuse to even try too understand the relationship between it and law of the state. If you are happy in your ignorance,then so be it, but please refrain from pontificating on a subject about which you clearly know nothing, you are embarrassing yourself and misleading others

"Canon Law" is a grandiose title for the church's internal rules. The internal rules of any organisation are trumped by the law of the land. Anyone who says otherwise is mounting a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a democratic state, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

[Pangurban]

As per usual, another response based on total ignorance from our Eamon. Like MGHU he does not know or worse still does not want to know. Any facts that do not fit into their narrow, bigoted,hate filled perception of religion or blandly ignored. Like most trendy liberals, when you scratch them they bleed intolerance

[Eamonnca1]

As per usual, another response based on total ignorance from our Eamon. Like MGHU he does not know or worse still does not want to know. Any facts that do not fit into their narrow, bigoted,hate filled perception of religion or blandly ignored. Like most trendy liberals, when you scratch them they bleed intolerance

Play me the world's smallest violin.  Do you really think the church has the right to ignore the law of the land because it refers to its own internal rules as "cannon law"? 

Come on, Pangurban. Address the issue with specifics - stating "you are ignorant" and backing it up with name-calling is not good enough.

[Lar Naparka]

In theory you could put this Confessional Box secrecy bullshit to the test quite easily.  If, for example, you took to burgling churches/priests houses, vandalising Church property, etc. and then went to the same priest in the same confessional box and admitted these crimes against the church to this one priest on a weekly basis, what do you imagine the outsome would be?  Assuming you were never caught and continued to follow this same routine over a number of years, do you honestly think that this one priest would sit there and tell me to say two Our Father's and five Hail Mary's? Bollocks, the church wheels out this sentimental crap when it suits them. It's about controlling the people and making sure your envelope goes into the basket every Sunday...

Believe it or not, there is every chance that he would or so I am led to believe. Okay, I guess the priest would get pissed off and refuse to give you absolution if you turned up on a regular basis but I doubt that he would divulge what you told him to anyone else.
I can't make head or tail of the official Church position on clerical child abuse but it seems to me that instances of child abuse are to be regarded as sins and not as crimes against the civil authority.
If a clerical child abuser goes to confession; admits his transgressions and claims he is truly remorseful for what he has done; the confessor is obliged to grant him absolution. It's only fair to point out that in the teaching of the church, confession and absolution is a matter between Christ and the sinner. Therefore, if a confessor declares someone to be free of sin, the absolution is dependent on the sinner being genuinely remorseful.
The important point is that the priest in confession is prohibited from revealing what he has heard to anyone else and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, he will feel obliged to grant this conditional absolution to the person in question.
An abuser could go to confession and admit to the sin of falling into temptation and say he is truly sorry for what he has done and will resolve to never do so again.
He may well leave the confessional believing that he has shed his guilt and go on his way with a clean conscience.
Of course, he could succumb to temptation again and again...
All this will seem wacky to sceptics and non-believers but it seems to make sense to church theologians.
For the record, I am not a church theologian and don't intend to become one either but I'm going by what a pair of clerical friends told me over a few drinks one night.
I had asked each how he would react if someone like Brendan Smyth were to approach him in confession at the present time. Both said they would never repeat what they had been told and couldn't see themselves granting absolution to a serial abuser if they felt the person in question was one but, other than that, neither felt he could do anything.
Both also said it was highly unlikely that 'straight' priests would be approached by an abuser—especially if he knew them. They were likely to work on a 'quid pro quo basis,' as one of my companions put it.

[Pangurban]

Which specific issues would you like addressed Eamonnnca1, you and MGHU are all over the place with ill informed bigoted rants against the Church

[Eamonnca1]

Which specific issues would you like addressed Eamonnnca1, you and MGHU are all over the place with ill informed bigoted rants against the Church

How about the point of this thread which seems to be sailing over your poor oppressed head?  Namely the question of which takes precedence, canon law or criminal/civil law? If canon law tells someone to keep quiet about a crime but criminal or civil law tells him to speak up about it, what should he do?

[Bogball XV]

Your blinkeresd intolerance and bigotry is prevented you from entering into a reasoned debate. It is clear that you have never read one word of Canon Law, have no idea of its function or purpose, and refuse to even try too understand the relationship between it and law of the state. If you are happy in your ignorance,then so be it, but please refrain from pontificating on a subject about which you clearly know nothing, you are embarrassing yourself and misleading others

"Canon Law" is a grandiose title for the church's internal rules. The internal rules of any organisation are trumped by the law of the land. Anyone who says otherwise is mounting a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a democratic state, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

So what you're saying is that people cannot disagree with the laws of a state and to do is tantamount to a declaration of war

[Eamonnca1]

Your blinkeresd intolerance and bigotry is prevented you from entering into a reasoned debate. It is clear that you have never read one word of Canon Law, have no idea of its function or purpose, and refuse to even try too understand the relationship between it and law of the state. If you are happy in your ignorance,then so be it, but please refrain from pontificating on a subject about which you clearly know nothing, you are embarrassing yourself and misleading others

"Canon Law" is a grandiose title for the church's internal rules. The internal rules of any organisation are trumped by the law of the land. Anyone who says otherwise is mounting a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a democratic state, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

So what you're saying is that people cannot disagree with the laws of a state and to do is tantamount to a declaration of war

No, I never said anything about declaring war or disagreeing with the rules of the state. Please confine yourself to quoting what I actually did say in any sentence beginning with "So what you're saying is..."

[Bogball XV]

The internal rules of any organisation are trumped by the law of the land. Anyone who says otherwise is mounting a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a democratic state, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

;

there you go, apologies if you feel i misinterpretated your post previously.

[Eamonnca1]

The internal rules of any organisation are trumped by the law of the land. Anyone who says otherwise is mounting a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a democratic state, and that cannot be allowed to stand.

;

there you go, apologies if you feel i misinterpretated your post previously.

Apology accepted, although how you could misread the words "direct challenge" as "declaring war" is beyond me.

[Pangurban]

Perhaps EamonnCA1 you could direct me to the specific article of Canon Law which directs anyone to keep quiet about a crime, then perhaps we would have a rational basis for discussion. Please do not avoid the issue by quoting the silly confessional argument, which is based on a series of myths, half truths and downright lies. The seal of confession is inviolate, end of story, it is a doctrine of faith and duty placed upon all clergy to maintain and uphold. Any state proposal to enforce the breaking of this sacred bond, would be legally unenforcable and morally unjust. Even if the Church were to comply fully with such ridiculous legislation, the legal pitfalls and problems would ensure there would be no impact on the sad sorry problem of child abuse which we all want to see tackled forcefully and effectively. Yes, individual Bishops have abused and misquoted Canon Law to cover up their own misdeeds, and, for that they should be held fully accountable by the state,in a court of law. There is nothing contained within Canon Law which prevents this happening, the only barrier is the weakness, cowardice and ineffectiveness of the state legal system in which you place your trust