QuoteVatican leader slams Irish government's confessional law as absurd
Row intensifies between Church and State after Papal Nuncio's recall
By CATHAL DERVAN, IrishCentral.com Staff Writer
A senior Catholic Church leader has slammed the Irish government's determination to force priests to reveal child sex abuse claims made in confessional boxes as the row between Ireland and the Vatican intensifies.
As Papal Nuncio to Ireland Monsignor Giuseppe Leanza prepares to return to Rome on the orders of the Pope, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny has engaged in another war of words with the Holy See.
Kenny and his Justice Minister Alan Shatter have again pledged to force priests to reveal anything they hear in the confessional box connected with child sex abuse.
Their vow to crack down on the church's attitude to clerical sex abuse allegations comes in the wake of the damning Cloyne Report.
Monsignor Leanza has now been recalled to Rome by the Pope to discuss the report into abuse in the Cork diocese.
And a top Vatican theologian has dismissed the government's confessional proposal as 'absurd'.
Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, of the Vatican's Apostolic Penitentiary, has slammed the suggestion that priests should break the secrets of the confessional box and reveal details of clergy accused of child sex abuse.
"Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti.
"It is absurd to think that priests should be obliged to betray what is said in the confessional box."
Both Prime Minister Kenny and Justice Minister Shatter have vowed to enforce the new laws despite the worsening relationship between Ireland and the Vatican.
"The plan to bring in the new law on withholding information on crimes against children and vulnerable adults will apply regardless of any internal rules of any religious grouping", said Shatter.
"The central focus of the Government is child protection."
The decision to recall the Papal Nuncio, essentially the Vatican's ambassador to Ireland, was made in the wake of scathing and historic criticism from Kenny in the wake of the Cloyne Report.
Leanza has been summonsed back to Rome to brief Pope Benedict XVI and senior church officials on details of the report which accused the Catholic hierarchy of covering up the actions of pedophile priests.
Despite the move, Kenny has told government colleagues that he will not change his stance as he awaits a formal response from the Holy See to the report and his subsequent comments.
"The ball is very much in their court. It's become clear to them (the Vatican), that this administration has a different approach to previous administrations," a government source told the Irish Independent.
Senior government officials believe the Pope and his bishops in Rome are finally taking the Cloyne Report seriously.
Vatican deputy press officer Father Ciro Benedettini said: "The recall of the Nuncio denotes the seriousness of the situation and the Holy See's desire to face it objectively and determinedly.
"Nor does it exclude some degree of surprise and disappointment at certain excessive reactions."
Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore told the Independent that the decision to recall the Papal Nuncio to the Vatican for consultations was a matter for the Holy See.
"The Government is awaiting the response of the Holy See to the recent report into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne and it is to be expected that the Vatican would wish to consult in depth with the Nuncio on its response," said Gilmore.
So the attitude is that they will continue to act as if they are a law onto themselves no matter what the democratically elected government puts on the statute books. When will this institution start to learn a bit of respect for the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law?
the Church serves the laws of God, not of Man, this is a non story brought about a grand standing taoiseach, who as a catholic was well aware he was talking nonsense, The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances
Certainly diverted attention from the FG lies about Roscommon Hospital >:(
FFS, how many pricks were going to confession admitting they abused children or murdered anyone anyway. Stupid and hard law to enforce if you ask me.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 09, 2011, 08:51:00 PM
the Church serves the laws of God, not of Man, this is a non story brought about a grand standing taoiseach, who as a catholic was well aware he was talking nonsense, The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances
Doesn't surprise me. There's about three commandments against covetousness but none against rape. No wonder they defended rapists so much. They're in for a rude awakening if they think the laws of the land don't apply to them.
How will the Civil Law know that anyone has confessed to child abuse???
The priests can't/won't tell so.......
Is this not a bit of a red herring?
It's the priests, Bishops and those in places of trust who when confided in with stories of abuse outside the confessional and either did nothing or moved the dirty hoor about to do more abusing that need to go straight to the local authorities.
Nothing to do with the sanctity of the confessional.
This thread is about what's said in the confession box ... DOH !!
" The church serves the laws of god, not of man"......what kind of planet are you on? so canon law is the only law applicable to them? christ almighty it's no wonder these rapist priests get away with it with fools like you that brainwashed?
Complete non-story, showboating from Enda in an effort to show his balls.
I take it by the way Eamon you're in favour of this ludicrous proposed legislation? How could it possibly be enforced? Will/should it also apply to doctor/patient and lawyer/client privileged conversations?
Will be kind of hard to force priests to reveal confessions as they of course believe that state laws don't apply to them! thank God for that Canon law eh?? But what would you expect from the Catholic Church where every officiating cleric, all the way up has to obey the person above them and that goes all the way to the top..the pope who of course can never be wrong in matters of church as the church has itself decreed! Some power to have all the same!
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 10, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
exactly, it's just typical political populism - bertie ahern eat your heart out - well done inda.
QuotePosted by: Bogball XV
Quote
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on Today at 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
exactly, it's just typical political populism - bertie ahern eat your heart out - well done inda.
That may well be the case, but I think it still worth putting the legislation in place as a matter of principle if nothing else.
Canon Law does not come above the law of the land - that point needs to be very clear in light of what's gone on in this country. There are still people (including posters on this board) who believe 'the Church' is infallible and it's only a few bad eggs who have carried out the wrongdoing.
Quote from: Tubberman on August 10, 2011, 12:30:22 PM
QuotePosted by: Bogball XV
Quote
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on Today at 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
exactly, it's just typical political populism - bertie ahern eat your heart out - well done inda.
That may well be the case, but I think it still worth putting the legislation in place as a matter of principle if nothing else.Canon Law does not come above the law of the land - that point needs to be very clear in light of what's gone on in this country. There are still people (including posters on this board) who believe 'the Church' is infallible and it's only a few bad eggs who have carried out the wrongdoing.
No it isn't, it's just bullshit and it really annoys me.
Imo canon law and civil law are totally separate. We can't dictate which set of laws people adhere too, but we can and should enforce civil law when it has been violated. The seal of confessional is a canon law which secular countries the world over have respected, probably because proposals such as FG are putting forward are utterly unenforceable and meaningless. As I mentioned above, are they going to deny doctor/patient privilege and lawyer/client privileges too? Are they going to specify which crimes need be reported and which don't? Will they specify the actions which should be taken by a priest if someone through their confession also points a finger at another person as being involved? Should the priest start investigating the accusation himself? Maybe the priest should record all confessions to ensure the accuracy of his evidence, feck it, get a stenographer in.
There are two issues at play here, from my perspective anyway.
Firstly, the legislature, in the form of the Government, appears to be pissed off at the attitude of the Church to Civil Law, i.e. that they consider Canon Law to be pre-eminent, from their (the Church's) perspective. That's all well and good, for the Govt., but the absence of a constitutional principle for the separation of Church and State doesn't exist here (yet!).
Secondly, the enactment of unenforceable legislation, on the part of the Legislature, is (in my opinion) an expensive, irresponsible, indefensible and divisive mistake always (and again!).
Total non story.
How would you have it eamonca, special branch detective Costello sitting in the confessional next to the one that Fr O'Briens in hearing confession, with Costello holding onto his wee tape recorder? or maybe the Government could spend millions bugging every confessional box in the country? ::)
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...
Quote from: screenmachine on August 10, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
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...
I'm not sure on the detail Screen as it's been a while since my last confession, but I think the priest doesn't have to administer the sacrament if he doesn't think you're genuinely penitent, by repeating the crime week after week, I'd say he'd probably decide you weren't genuinely penitent. However, he might be glad of the company for that hour that he normally sits there on his own in the box, so he might indulge you for a year or two.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 09, 2011, 09:12:46 PM
FFS, how many pricks were going to confession admitting they abused children or murdered anyone anyway. Stupid and hard law to enforce if you ask me.
You are dead right. Introducing a law that's unenforceable is an unwise move.
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 10, 2011, 02:09:11 PM
Quote from: screenmachine on August 10, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
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...
I'm not sure on the detail Screen as it's been a while since my last confession, but I think the priest doesn't have to administer the sacrament if he doesn't think you're genuinely penitent, by repeating the crime week after week, I'd say he'd probably decide you weren't genuinely penitent. However, he might be glad of the company for that hour that he normally sits there on his own in the box, so he might indulge you for a year or two.
Aye but if he gets some fellow priest landing in every couple of weeks thats been riding the hole of some altar boy he'd be sure to give him a bye ball... ::)
There's no need for a specific law for the confessional. Failure to report a crime is already a crime. There is nothing in the law (as far as I know) that excludes the priest in the confessional from this requirement any more than it excludes me. By the same token, the possibility of convicting a priest is about the same as that of convicting me if someone I don't know and can't identify confesses a crime to me in a dark room with no corroborating evidence and nobody else present - especially if I deny it ever happened.
It would be more in line for Inda to sort out our police force and court system, who are useless in cases of child abuse, very slow, light sentence, etc. In the recent case in Donegal a victim was the one who done must of the surveillance that was after the abuser was let out after a short sentence .The system had already failed.The abuser was not a priest.I was foolish enough to think that our police used to investagate reports of abuse, but recently I realised that they don't, unless the poor victims keep pushing and even then it usually takes years if not decades . This confessional shit is load of crap !Inda sort out the system and find the abusers quicker and put them away for ever and protect the children of ireland. I have being very down on the church of late now I think the police and court system are just as bad
Quote from: Hardy on August 10, 2011, 02:31:16 PM
There's no need for a specific law for the confessional. Failure to report a crime is already a crime. There is nothing in the law (as far as I know) that excludes the priest in the confessional from this requirement any more than it excludes me. By the same token, the possibility of convicting a priest is about the same as that of convicting me if someone I don't know and can't identify confesses a crime to me in a dark room with no corroborating evidence and nobody else present - especially if I deny it ever happened.
I think there is common law which recognises the seal of the confessional.
Probably, now that you mention it.
I think its a load of publicitiy claptrap for Enda. Do you honestly think those who commit henious crimes are really going to go into a confession box and confess it, especially if they know a priest can tout to the cops?
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 10, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
It would certainly be admissible as hearsay evidence in the north sure wasnt it used in the Hazel Stewart case recently. Id be surprised if it were inadmissible in the south
I am all in favour of this law particularly if it protects children and vulnerable people. Yes it will be hard to enforce but that doesnt mean it shouldn't exist. If it brings even so much as one child molester to court and gets them convicted that it has done its job.
Someone mentioned doctors and lawyers and their confidentially with clients earlier but even that is far from unrestricted. If someone confesses to a lawyer that lawyer cant then go into court and represent them and contest the charges on a factual basis.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 09, 2011, 08:51:00 PM
the Church serves the laws of God, not of Man, this is a non story brought about a grand standing taoiseach, who as a catholic was well aware he was talking nonsense, The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances
Not in Ireland. The Vatican has no authority in Ireland.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 10, 2011, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 10, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
It would certainly be admissible as hearsay evidence in the north sure wasnt it used in the Hazel Stewart case recently. Id be surprised if it were inadmissible in the south
Totally ignorant of that, what happened? Who did he/she confess to? How did the information get out?
Re lawyers, they can still represent their client and on hearing the confession they cannot head over to the prosecution and inform them of the new evidence.
And to the crux of your point, why do you think this would have the effect of 'bringing one child molester to court'. As things stand, if such a person confessed to a priest, the priest has exactly the same option he will have in the future, he can go to the authorities with the information or choose not to.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 10, 2011, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 09, 2011, 08:51:00 PM
the Church serves the laws of God, not of Man, this is a non story brought about a grand standing taoiseach, who as a catholic was well aware he was talking nonsense, The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances
Not in Ireland. The Vatican has no authority in Ireland.
No, but at present in Ireland, in common with much of the developed world, there is no obligation to disclose any information gained under the seal of the confessional. The person obtaining that information has always got the choice of whether to disclose it or not, in reality this all comes down to individual conscience and not whether or not priests place greater store by canon law or civil law. as I'd be shocked if civil law was the winner there.
Essentially a priest hearing such information in the confessional has the choice, he can report it and be excommunicated or remain silent and allow the perpetrator to remain free - he has to decide which is the right and moral course to take.
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 10, 2011, 05:17:56 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 10, 2011, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on August 10, 2011, 12:06:49 PM
It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.
It would certainly be admissible as hearsay evidence in the north sure wasnt it used in the Hazel Stewart case recently. Id be surprised if it were inadmissible in the south
Totally ignorant of that, what happened? Who did he/she confess to? How did the information get out?
Re lawyers, they can still represent their client and on hearing the confession they cannot head over to the prosecution and inform them of the new evidence.
And to the crux of your point, why do you think this would have the effect of 'bringing one child molester to court'. As things stand, if such a person confessed to a priest, the priest has exactly the same option he will have in the future, he can go to the authorities with the information or choose not to.
Not exactly the same situation with Hazel Stewart but she confided details of the murders in her minister and that evidence was used at trial. At least thats how bbc were reporting it. In any event if a priest did come forward and said David told me he killed Mary in confession there would be no reason (subject to technicalities) that couldnt be used at trial
As for lawyers if a client confesses to the lawyer and says for example yes I did it but i want to plead not gulity, the lawyer cant represent that client if they plead not guilty (unless its on a technical ground). Correct that a lawyer cant be forced to disclose why they arent appearing for the client but if they have gotten to that stage the PPS have to think they have more than enough evidence for a conviction anyway. The lawyer cant plead a client guilty unless the client tells them they are guilty nor can they represent a client who pleads not guilty after confessing to the lawyer.
Shows you what I know I was always taught if something was said in confession the priest could do nothing about it. In fact the example they used to use teaching us was if someone confessed to the priest they had swapped the table wine for poison the priest would have to drink the poison. I have no doubt your version is more accurate but no matter I am of the belief that if even so much as one priest who wouldnt otherwise have done so is persuaded to disclose information on a crime because either a) they believe they may be breaking the law or b) because they realise they can no longer hide behind cannon law then again I would say this law has done its job.
Laws dont exist so that they can be enforced they exist so that there breach can be prevented.
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 10, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Imo canon law and civil law are totally separate. We can't dictate which set of laws people adhere too, but we can and should enforce civil law when it has been violated.
Bit of a contradiction there, no?
Quoteare they going to deny doctor/patient privilege and lawyer/client privileges too?
I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge client/lawyer privilege is an essential element of the criminal justice system. Doctor/patient privilege does not apply if the patient is a threat to himself or anyone else.
Quote
Are they going to specify which crimes need be reported and which don't? Will they specify the actions which should be taken by a priest if someone through their confession also points a finger at another person as being involved? Should the priest start investigating the accusation himself? Maybe the priest should record all confessions to ensure the accuracy of his evidence, feck it, get a stenographer in.
Nonsensical questions. It all depends on the specifics of the case. All that counts is did a priest know something by way of the confession and fail to report it to the authorities when he should have.
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
Never was so much ill informed clap trap and bullshit contributed to any forum as we are witnessing here on this topic. You are all free to hold whatever nonsensical opinions your prejudices require , but please realise that your opinions are worthless, unless backed by fact,logic,law and reality. When any Court or tribunal requires expert opinion, they do not send for any Joe Soap off the street. Rather they seek someone with proven qualifications and experience to enlighten them. The quasi theologians and barrack room lawyers on this forum would not get a hearing. For pitys sake stop making fools of youselves, and engage your brains before your Keyboard
Quote from: David McKeown on August 10, 2011, 05:37:34 PMShows you what I know I was always taught if something was said in confession the priest could do nothing about it. In fact the example they used to use teaching us was if someone confessed to the priest they had swapped the table wine for poison the priest would have to drink the poison. I have no doubt your version is more accurate but no matter I am of the belief that if even so much as one priest who wouldnt otherwise have done so is persuaded to disclose information on a crime because either a) they believe they may be breaking the law or b) because they realise they can no longer hide behind cannon law then again I would say this law has done its job.
Laws dont exist so that they can be enforced they exist so that there breach can be prevented.
Under canon law a priest can never violate the seal of the confessional, if the priest wants to adhere to canon law then he will not breach the confidence. I'm just pointing out that at present regardless of the proposed legislation the priest is in exactly the same position he will be in afterwards except that he will not be guilty of a criminal offence if he decides to adhere to canon law. I'm probably making this more confusing than it is, but in simple terms every priest has the choice, and whatever bullshit legislation FG bring in will not change that.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 10, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Imo canon law and civil law are totally separate. We can't dictate which set of laws people adhere too, but we can and should enforce civil law when it has been violated.
Bit of a contradiction there, no?
Not that I can see, but do elaborate if you can be bothered.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:43:58 PMAre they going to specify which crimes need be reported and which don't? Will they specify the actions which should be taken by a priest if someone through their confession also points a finger at another person as being involved? Should the priest start investigating the accusation himself? Maybe the priest should record all confessions to ensure the accuracy of his evidence, feck it, get a stenographer in.
Nonsensical questions. It all depends on the specifics of the case. All that counts is did a priest know something by way of the confession and fail to report it to the authorities when he should have.
[/quote]
What parameters should be set? What about white collar crime? A wee bit of fraud which has stopped and the victim is trying to rectify? No TV licence? Prostitution? Using illegal substances? Will we limit it to child sex crimes? What age limit should we set? What about statutory rape, especially mistaken statutory rape? What about the revolutionaries and freedom fighters?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 10, 2011, 08:57:11 PM
Never was so much ill informed clap trap and bullshit contributed to any forum as we are witnessing here on this topic. You are all free to hold whatever nonsensical opinions your prejudices require , but please realise that your opinions are worthless, unless backed by fact,logic,law and reality. When any Court or tribunal requires expert opinion, they do not send for any Joe Soap off the street. Rather they seek someone with proven qualifications and experience to enlighten them. The quasi theologians and barrack room lawyers on this forum would not get a hearing. For pitys sake stop making fools of youselves, and engage your brains before your Keyboard
How so?
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 10, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Criminals are all atheists, eh?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 06:46:20 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 10, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Criminals are all atheists, eh?
You'll blame Atheists for the Spanish Inquisition next ::)
Quote from: David McKeown on August 10, 2011, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 10, 2011, 08:57:11 PM
Never was so much ill informed clap trap and bullshit contributed to any forum as we are witnessing here on this topic. You are all free to hold whatever nonsensical opinions your prejudices require , but please realise that your opinions are worthless, unless backed by fact,logic,law and reality. When any Court or tribunal requires expert opinion, they do not send for any Joe Soap off the street. Rather they seek someone with proven qualifications and experience to enlighten them. The quasi theologians and barrack room lawyers on this forum would not get a hearing. For pitys sake stop making fools of youselves, and engage your brains before your Keyboard
How so?
Because we shouldn't mess with god.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 06:46:20 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 10, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Criminals are all atheists, eh?
No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. ::)
Quote
Re: What's said in the confession box will no longer stay there - Church outraged
« Reply #41 on: Today at 01:07:53 PM »
Reply with quote
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on Today at 06:46:20 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 10, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Criminals are all atheists, eh?
No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. ::.
a lot of this revolves around the fact that all priests have a confessor ie another priest to whom they confess their sins, child abuse and all. as far as i recall eamon casey admitted to discussing his problems with his confessor.
i would say that a lot of the priests who abused kids did admit it and look for forgivness from there confessors who then did nothing about it because they could not mention it under canon law even if they wanted to
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 11, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. ::)
So paedophile priests didn't go to confession?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 05:27:32 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 11, 2011, 01:07:53 PM
No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. ::)
So paedophile priests didn't go to confession?
Ya but which seat were the sitting in?
Quote from: guy crouchback on August 11, 2011, 03:08:05 PM
Quote
Re: What's said in the confession box will no longer stay there - Church outraged
« Reply #41 on: Today at 01:07:53 PM »
Reply with quote
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on Today at 06:46:20 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on August 10, 2011, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 10, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.
All I am saying Eamonn is that people who murdered or raped or abused young children hardly have any faith in God or they wouldn't do such things making this silly law unenforceable. You may point out that priests (who abused young children etc) have faith in God, well if they have any conscience at all they would have cooperated with the law. And the speed limits on country roads are been broken left, right and centre.
Criminals are all atheists, eh?
No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. ::.
a lot of this revolves around the fact that all priests have a confessor ie another priest to whom they confess their sins, child abuse and all. as far as i recall eamon casey admitted to discussing his problems with his confessor.
i would say that a lot of the priests who abused kids did admit it and look for forgivness from there confessors who then did nothing about it because they could not mention it under canon law even if they wanted to
The first post even in the same country as the point.
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 07:21:11 PMThe first post even in the same country as the point.
Explain how this legislation is going to change things? The priest hearing the confession has always had the opportunity of going to the authorities, is the legislation to enable the authorities to throw priests, who they believe may have heard the paedophile priests confess to paedophilia into jail? As I pointed out yesterday, what sort of crimes have to be reported? Is it even possible to frame legislation in such a way that some crimes are mandatorily reportable and some aren't?
It's totally unecessary, unenforceable and irrelevant, therefore the only reason behind it imo is to try and appeal to populist opinion and sure even the bit of controversy means people forget about the ineffectiveness of our leaders in all other matters.
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 11, 2011, 10:59:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 07:21:11 PMThe first post even in the same country as the point.
Explain how this legislation is going to change things? The priest hearing the confession has always had the opportunity of going to the authorities, is the legislation to enable the authorities to throw priests, who they believe may have heard the paedophile priests confess to paedophilia into jail? As I pointed out yesterday, what sort of crimes have to be reported? Is it even possible to frame legislation in such a way that some crimes are mandatorily reportable and some aren't?
It's totally unecessary, unenforceable and irrelevant, therefore the only reason behind it imo is to try and appeal to populist opinion and sure even the bit of controversy means people forget about the ineffectiveness of our leaders in all other matters.
The point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP:
"Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PMThe point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP: "Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
At least you're putting forward an argument, i don't see the point at all tbh, even your argument points to posturing by the govt, but i'm not going to influence their decision from here so it's time to leave it i think.
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PM
The point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP: "Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
Preach it brother!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PM
The point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP: "Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
Preach it brother!
How can people defend the Vatican and its international mafia. This is clear foreign hostility towards our country.
So the Catholics of Ireland who uphold the rigt of the Church to preach and teach its doctrines are displaying hostility to the nation. Engage your Brain man, not your bigotry
I think it was Michael McDowell who pointed out that Canon law holds as much water as the rules of a local golf club in relation to the law of the land. I never agreed too much with the man but that was a well placed retort when this was discussed some years back.
Quote from: stephenite on August 12, 2011, 10:08:12 AM
I think it was Michael McDowell who pointed out that Canon law holds as much water as the rules of a local golf club in relation to the law of the land. I never agreed too much with the man but that was a well placed retort when this was discussed some years back.
precisely, that's the been the point all along.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PM
The point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP: “Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
Preach it brother!
You must have been delighted that someone put forward a valid point Eamonn, you were a long time in this debate without raising anything of relevance.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 11, 2011, 11:38:30 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 11, 2011, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 11, 2011, 11:09:42 PM
The point is not, as is being argued on this thread, that murderers don't go to confession.
Part of the Catholic Church's silence on known pedophilia has been excused by the posit that Canon Law supersedes the Law of the land. Confession is frequently used as an emotive argument to back that up. Even the weakest follower of Catholicism understands the Sanctity of Confessions and understands that it cannot be breached. The reaction from Rome in the OP: "Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities," said Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti.[/i] shows that thinking succinctly.
The timing as in all things political may have been convenient, but the motive is obvious. The point here is to show who exactly is in charge and that the Church in particular are subject to all of our laws.
Preach it brother!
How can people defend the Vatican and its international mafia. This is clear foreign hostility towards our country.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 03:53:25 AM
So the Catholics of Ireland who uphold the rigt of the Church to preach and teach its doctrines are displaying hostility to the nation. Engage your Brain man, not your bigotry
Engage your brain man, this is clearly a hostile declaration from the heart of the foreign Vatican State. If Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews or any other cult wish to hold the laws of Ireland in distain and intend on breaking those laws, they are throwing their lot in with those hostile to the Irish State and the Irish Nation. If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.
Pathetic and incredibly narrow-minded.
Quote from: gallsman on August 12, 2011, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
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?
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
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
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 Club Rules do not matter in the slightest. I do not care about the club rules of Portmarnock golf club or Portlaoise Boy Scouts, and I certainly do not care about the club rules of a dungeons and dragons club of fantasists (look at your bible the similaraties are breathtaking).
Pangurban, why do you believe in God?
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.
Quote from: gallsman on August 12, 2011, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
If you used your brain, you would not believe in God.
Pathetic and incredibly narrow-minded.
Dont forget conceited and arrogant as well.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 03:16:40 PM
Quote from: gallsman on August 12, 2011, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
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?
Quote from: stew on August 12, 2011, 04:25:23 PM
Quote from: gallsman on August 12, 2011, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on August 12, 2011, 12:39:34 PM
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 ;) :D ;D 8)
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 05:46:23 PM
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.
Quote from: screenmachine on August 10, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
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.
Which specific issues would you like addressed Eamonnnca1, you and MGHU are all over the place with ill informed bigoted rants against the Church
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 08:51:32 PM
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?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 12, 2011, 05:34:17 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
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 ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 12, 2011, 11:09:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 12, 2011, 05:34:17 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 12, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
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 ;D ;D ;D
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..."
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 12, 2011, 11:17:37 PMThe 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.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;
there you go, apologies if you feel i misinterpretated your post previously.
Quote from: Bogball XV on August 12, 2011, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 12, 2011, 11:17:37 PMThe 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.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;
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.
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
Quote from: Pangurban on August 13, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
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
You answered your own question.
Pangurban
That is very well put and I agree entirely.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 13, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
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
So it is morally unjust for the state to demand that an individual disclose whatever information that he has about the rape of a child ? what
exactly are you saying here ?
and how would it be "unenforcable" ....? what is it with people like you...don't you get it ? your "inviolate laws" are anything but "inviolate". You will not dictate to this country anymore. You will obey the law of the land and if you don't you will answer to the law of the land. If you wish to live under the pure jurisdiction of canon law then move to the f**king vatican.
The arrogance is unbelieveable...but, then again, hasn't it always been the way with lads like you ::)
Quote from: Pangurban on August 13, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
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
Pangurban I can understand why you might think a law like the one proposed is practically unenforcable but I am curious to know why you think it would be legally unenforcable? Also why would it be morally unjust. I know next to nothing about Cannon law but I was always of the belief that anything that was said in confession had to stay there under cannon law with no exceptions, is that incorrect?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on August 13, 2011, 05:39:43 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 13, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
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
So it is morally unjust for the state to demand that an individual disclose whatever information that he has about the rape of a child ? what exactly are you saying here ?
and how would it be "unenforcable" ....? what is it with people like you...don't you get it ? your "inviolate laws" are anything but "inviolate". You will not dictate to this country anymore. You will obey the law of the land and if you don't you will answer to the law of the land. If you wish to live under the pure jurisdiction of canon law then move to the f**king vatican.
The arrogance is unbelieveable...but, then again, hasn't it always been the way with lads like you ::)
Mike
That is very well put and I agree entirely.
Pangurban
The rules, dogma or doctrines of your church or any other church have no authority in this country.
But for the sake of argument lets pretend God does exist :D He has no authority in Ireland, let him rule heaven or hell or where ever he rules. The laws of the Irish State, Northern Irish Executive, UK law, EU legislation, International law, rules Ireland. Let God have his Kingdom and keeps his hands off our Republic and the NI region.
Same goes for any church this "God" or "Gods" deems his one, two or three true church/churches.
You don't get it P, every doctrine of every religion, faith is below Irish law. It is entirely morally just. If the Roman Catholic Church insists on coming out with statements hostile to Ireland. We can make the confessional box itself illegal. Of course they can go underground, but just like France we need to stand up and be counted. I totally agree with France's Burqua ban.
Its time that the phrase Godless be reclaimed, I can think of no greater compliment. Lets make Ireland Godless, lets make Ireland Great.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 13, 2011, 12:15:56 AM
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
I can agree with you here without any problem.
The state appears to be failing in its duty to protect its citizens. This has been the case for decades past; probably since the foundation of the Free State, but it's inexcusable that it is happening at the present time.
Kenny knew he was on safe ground in his reaction to the Cloyne Report but populist statements are not enough. The next move is up to the state and he and his colleagues know very well what needs to be done.
Proposing to break the seal of the confessional is just not enough; it's an empty gesture that anyone with a titter of sense knows will be unenforceable.
The state has a constitutional obligation to see that all citizens shall "be held equal before the law."
To me, that means all have their legal rights as well as their legal duties. It's time Kenny started doing his duty and the same goes for all those involved in the administration of the law.
Hope this law is brought in. A priest will have the choice of reporting a child raper to the guards or getting excommunicated for violating a medieval law of the church. It's amazing how many think it's morally unacceptable to break the latter. Surely the moral thing is to put the child's wellfare first.
I will say one thing for Mike Sheehy and MGHU they are good for a laugh with their primary school mentalities. As every one knows you can not reason with a delusion, but neither should you humour it. Mike as usual begins his silly tirade by accusing me of having said something i never said, but he was never one for letting truth get in the way of his argument.He then goes on to pose a question, the answer to which is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain the size of a Pea, or anyone who has visited a confessional box. It is highly unlikely that anyone entering a confessional in any large City or Town and confessing to the abuse of a child, would be known by the priest, so identification would clearly be a problem. It is equally unlikely that he would receive absolution unless he agreed to atone and make restitution by surrenering himself to the police. Could the Priest risk violating the seal of confession by leaping from the Box and making a citizens arrest. Only in the deluded world of Mike Sheehy could this happen. The culprit would also probably deny having made such an admission, and any defence solicitor would have no difficulty dealing with hearsay evidence. Also by deterring the abuser from visiting a confessional , if he were so inclined, which is unlikely, the opportunity for intervention and counselling which might prevent further abuse would be lost.
I will not waste time addressing their ludicrous assertions re. the primacy of state law over Canon law as their no dispute or conflict between either of these legal codes outside of their own fevered imaginations.
I can also assure both these gentlemen and any others who share their views, that the religious people of Ireland of whatever denomination, who are still the vast majority within the Country, will not be silenced or driven out of the political or social debate. Mike suggested i might be more comfortable living in the Vatican, blind to the fact that it is he who is uncomfortable and out of step in this society, not I. Perhaps he could relocate to Red China, he has the right mentality for an authoritarian society, though i doubt he will like reality of it.
MGHU from his base in England, wants to make Ireland a godless society. He has been away to long or he would know that large tracts of Irish society already are Godless. We have violence on our streets on an increasing scale, attacks on the elderly who no longer can feel safe in their homes, drugs, racketeering, corruption in politics and business, child abuse and a growing sense of alienation and hopelessness. Do you want more of this. Can you see no link between the decline in true religious values and the decline in our society. The lying propaganda, empty rhetoric and doctrine of despair propounded by you and Mike are a large part of the problem, but the plain people of Ireland can see through it and the death of the false god of the Celtic Tiger along with the rampant immoral consumerist mentality it spawned, will hasten the return of the old values. May God bless you in your confusion
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 03:01:02 AM
He has been away to long or he would know that large tracts of Irish society already are Godless. We have violence on our streets on an increasing scale, attacks on the elderly who no longer can feel safe in their homes, drugs, racketeering, corruption in politics and business, child abuse and a growing sense of alienation and hopelessness. Do you want more of this. Can you see no link between the decline in true religious values and the decline in our society.
I think that's a contemptible statement and anyone who agrees with it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It wasn't today's open atheists who raped and tortured a generation of Irish children who were placed in their care on the mistaken assumption that there was a correlation between religiosity and integrity.
I see where you are coming from Eamon, and to some extent i can agree. But if you read my quote that you used, you will see that i specifically referred to TRUE religious values, not the obscene distorted values that led to the abuse of children , the Industrial Homes and the Magdalen Laundries. Nor did i imply that atheism had any responsibilities for these crimes. I was and am referring to the declining standars in personal and public morality, the loss of a proper sense of what is right or wrong, the fact that there is now no concept of sin, and my belief that the weakening of moral force for good exercised by all the religious denominations, despite their many faults, is one of the main contributory factors for our present malaise.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 03:01:02 AM
I will say one thing for Mike Sheehy and MGHU they are good for a laugh with their primary school mentalities. As every one knows you can not reason with a delusion, but neither should you humour it. Mike as usual begins his silly tirade by accusing me of having said something i never said, but he was never one for letting truth get in the way of his argument.He then goes on to pose a question, the answer to which is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain the size of a Pea, or anyone who has visited a confessional box. It is highly unlikely that anyone entering a confessional in any large City or Town and confessing to the abuse of a child, would be known by the priest, so identification would clearly be a problem. It is equally unlikely that he would receive absolution unless he agreed to atone and make restitution by surrenering himself to the police. Could the Priest risk violating the seal of confession by leaping from the Box and making a citizens arrest. Only in the deluded world of Mike Sheehy could this happen. The culprit would also probably deny having made such an admission, and any defence solicitor would have no difficulty dealing with hearsay evidence. Also by deterring the abuser from visiting a confessional , if he were so inclined, which is unlikely, the opportunity for intervention and counselling which might prevent further abuse would be lost.
I will not waste time addressing their ludicrous assertions re. the primacy of state law over Canon law as their no dispute or conflict between either of these legal codes outside of their own fevered imaginations.
I can also assure both these gentlemen and any others who share their views, that the religious people of Ireland of whatever denomination, who are still the vast majority within the Country, will not be silenced or driven out of the political or social debate. Mike suggested i might be more comfortable living in the Vatican, blind to the fact that it is he who is uncomfortable and out of step in this society, not I. Perhaps he could relocate to Red China, he has the right mentality for an authoritarian society, though i doubt he will like reality of it.
MGHU from his base in England, wants to make Ireland a godless society. He has been away to long or he would know that large tracts of Irish society already are Godless. We have violence on our streets on an increasing scale, attacks on the elderly who no longer can feel safe in their homes, drugs, racketeering, corruption in politics and business, child abuse and a growing sense of alienation and hopelessness. Do you want more of this. Can you see no link between the decline in true religious values and the decline in our society. The lying propaganda, empty rhetoric and doctrine of despair propounded by you and Mike are a large part of the problem, but the plain people of Ireland can see through it and the death of the false god of the Celtic Tiger along with the rampant immoral consumerist mentality it spawned, will hasten the return of the old values. May God bless you in your confusion
enough of your weasel words. If the police suspect that a priest has knowledge of a crime should the priest divulge everything he has been told in the confessional...yes or no ?
All that other shite you came out with is irrelevant.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 03:01:02 AM
I will say one thing for Mike Sheehy and MGHU they are good for a laugh with their primary school mentalities. As every one knows you can not reason with a delusion, but neither should you humour it.
This is as far as I read, before I started to laugh. That is all I read. Pangurban to quote your good self, "As every one knows you can not reason with a delusion, but neither should you have to humour it" is what I have being saying about you the entire time. You believe in God and call us deluded, you really are a complete idiot aren't you.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 14, 2011, 05:17:47 AM
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 03:01:02 AM
He has been away to long or he would know that large tracts of Irish society already are Godless. We have violence on our streets on an increasing scale, attacks on the elderly who no longer can feel safe in their homes, drugs, racketeering, corruption in politics and business, child abuse and a growing sense of alienation and hopelessness. Do you want more of this. Can you see no link between the decline in true religious values and the decline in our society.
I think that's a contemptible statement and anyone who agrees with it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It wasn't today's open atheists who raped and tortured a generation of Irish children who were placed in their care on the mistaken assumption that there was a correlation between religiosity and integrity.
Well said, Pang is in one flew over the cuckoos nest territory with his delusions. The evils of the world have seen their best days under the banners of the various Gods of the world. What a complete muppet Pang is, if he believes Atheism = Consumerism, care to visit Knock or Medjugorje, clown.
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 06:12:05 AM
I see where you are coming from Eamon, and to some extent i can agree. But if you read my quote that you used, you will see that i specifically referred to TRUE religious values, not the obscene distorted values that led to the abuse of children , the Industrial Homes and the Magdalen Laundries. Nor did i imply that atheism had any responsibilities for these crimes. I was and am referring to the declining standars in personal and public morality, the loss of a proper sense of what is right or wrong, the fact that there is now no concept of sin, and my belief that the weakening of moral force for good exercised by all the religious denominations, despite their many faults, is one of the main contributory factors for our present malaise.
Atheists don't need your warped values, a good person no matter what their beliefs or lack of beliefs is a good person, a bad person is a bad one. I don't need God to explain to me right from wrong. I don't need a carrot and a stick to keep my on the good path.
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
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 07:59:13 PM
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).
Quote from: Pangurban on August 14, 2011, 07:59:13 PM
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"?
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?
Quote from: theskull1 on August 15, 2011, 09:58:33 AM
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.
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
Quote from: theskull1 on August 15, 2011, 09:58:33 AM
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.
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.
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!!
Quote from: guy crouchback on September 01, 2011, 09:42:49 AM
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.
QuoteMinister 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 ??
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.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297848_2522711552264_1387594083_32984536_1056042286_n.jpg)
Quote from: muppet on October 05, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297848_2522711552264_1387594083_32984536_1056042286_n.jpg)
;D