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

[David McKeown]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

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?

are 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.

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.

[Eamonnca1]

So it's difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't bother, eh? Scrap all speed limits on country roads then.

[Pangurban]

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

[Bogball XV]

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.

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.

[Bogball XV]

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.

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.
[/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?

[Farrandeelin]

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.

[David McKeown]

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?

[Eamonnca1]

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?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

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 

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

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.

[Farrandeelin]

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. 

[guy crouchback]

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

[Eamonnca1]

No, but they'd hardly go to f**king confessions is all I'm saying. 

So paedophile priests didn't go to confession?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

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?