Catholic Church claims it is above the law

admiralofthefleet · 15-07-2011 03:09PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The church is riddled with corruption, covering up of child abuse, child abusing priests and lies about contraception and medical science.

i wouldnt even call it a 'church' Keith

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 03:09PM

philologos wrote: »

As far as I can see it as a non-Catholic I see zero benefit in removing the confessional seal. The amount of cases where people will confess to child sexual abuse are miniscule. I was listening to RTÉ1 in the car and this discussion has dominated it all morning.

How is this law enforceable? It essentially is making something a thought crime. As was mentioned on the radio as well, how can it be ensured that people know everything they need to know to make a report from a confession given that many confessional boxes obscure the view between the priest and the penitent.

Looking to other political situations, in 2003 and 2006 it was threatened to remove the confessional seal in respect to child abuse. It never happened as the chamber ruled that it was too impractical and not really all that beneficial. Other cases have arisen in Kentucky, Florida, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut, all of these were ultimately rejected.

Many people who were contributing on the radio also said that the law of the State is above the law of private clubs and churches. This is true, but they miss the fundamental point that people discuss laws rationally before they are passed. This isn't happening. All one would have heard on RTÉ1 is hysteria.

What's the practical solution to this problem? Considering that most of the coverup happened in private meetings between the clergy and the victims it seems that the confessional doesn't come into it. Rather the dealings that clergy had come into it.

The law itself has nothing to do with confessional boxes. It simply states that anyone aware of child abuse occurring must report it to the relevant authorities.

The issue is that confessional boxes, or priests, are not being exempt from the law and rightly so. If a child abuser does not confess to a priest then there is no issue, no other practicing Catholic will be affected by the law. If they do confess then the priest will be legally obligated to break the confessional seal, if he refuses he will be prosecuted for prioritizing Canon Law above the law of the land. I see no problems with this, even the bible tells us to obey the law of the land (Romans 13).

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:10PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's no-more unenforcable than the laws involving pschologists and psychiatrists, it would be at the discretion of those involved to come forward and say so and so admitted to whatever. It should have been required by law long before any of the scandals were exposed, it shouldn't even be a controversial issue to make this a law imho.

I'm confused as to where you would say it would be "at the discretion of those involved to come forward". This isn't something at discretion, it is mandatory under law. It bears so little consequence for confession and getting to the bottom of abuse in the RCC.

The logical option is gone. That is to have all the abusers brought through the courts. That's what should have been done then and it's what should be done now.

Seachmall: The law has implications for confession. That's why it has been so widely discussed. You're missing the fundamental point, it isn't about being above the law at all. It's about the law that is currently being drafted. That law needs to be reasoned through to determine what results it will bring. It's as far as I see it wholly impractical.

Mickeroo · 15-07-2011 03:12PM

Min wrote: »

I have no problem with it but alll this hullabaloo over the confessional was not an issue in the Cloyne report, and does one think an abuser would even admit it in confession given they seem to think they are doing nothing wrong?

A lot of abusers probably wouldn't but some might if they think it's going to absolve them of their sins. Besides abusers are human like everyone else and some of them will feel extremely guilty about some of the ****ty things they do and want to let it out, some of them are well aware it's wrong, I'm sure there's a few psychopathic ones who don't too of course.

aidan24326 · 15-07-2011 03:13PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

His proposals for seizing assets/taxing are indeed highly unrealistic and undeliverable.

Not really. Remove constitutional protection and assets could be seized to pay the compensation bill. Or just force the church to pay way more than they are, thus forcing them into asset sell-offs. There is precedent for this kind of thing, with the Christian Brothers in Canada who were forced to pay milions in compensation to abuse victims and had no choice but to sell off assets to foot the bill.

As for the church, I wouldn't be too surprised either,its a shame this sullies the excellent work many genuine priests do in communities across the country.

No-one denies that they're are good priests who have done and are doing good work and have never been involved in any abuse. For them it is indeed a shame.

But the Catholic Church as an organistion is rotten to the core and always has been. It isn't just the recent abuse scandals that are evidence of that. Anyone who claims to be a card-carrying member of an organisation that has perpetrated such evils and done so with such staggering hypocrisy is guilty by association in my book.

15-07-2011 03:13PM

Min wrote: »

I have no problem with it but alll this hullabaloo over the confessional was not an issue in the Cloyne report, and does one think an abuser would even admit it in confession given they seem to think they are doing nothing wrong?

The hullabaloo seems to be originating entirely from the RCC.

The state announces plans for a law making it mandatory to disclose details of child abuse, no matter how that information was obtained. The church says that the confessional seal is above that. The state says no it's not

The church is the one arguing for special exemptions, not the state

Mickeroo · 15-07-2011 03:14PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm confused as to where you would say it would be "at the discretion of those involved to come forward". This isn't something at discretion, it is mandatory under law. It bears so little consequence for confession and getting to the bottom of abuse in the RCC.

The logical option is gone. That is to have all the abusers brought through the courts. That's what should have been done then and it's what should be done now.

Isn't this law saying a priest would have to notify authorities if someone admitted to child abuse or other serious crimes in confession? Or have I got my wires crossed completely?

Ghost Buster · 15-07-2011 03:14PM

COYW wrote: »

Of course it does. Surely you can't be suggesting that we banish all forms of Christianity because of the actions of a section, the hierarchy for the most part, of the Catholic church. Any actual Christian would be utterly disgusted by the actions of these people.

Surely I am not!!!! How do you get that conclusion from anything I have said.? All Im saying is the law is the law and Star signs, pish rogues, beliefs, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, UFO's, Unicorns etc etc etc are not exempt. Neither are chats between a religious person and their imaginary friend via a magic man in a holy box. And no it matters not a jot if 1 or 10000000000000 hold this belief. Nonsense is nonsense.

Min · 15-07-2011 03:15PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The church is riddled with corruption, covering up of child abuse, child abusing priests and lies about contraception and medical science.

Your post is riddled with generalisations and non facts, I don't suppose you can tell me in what society has condoms caused a major reduction in HIV among the general population?
Medical science?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-07-2011 03:16PM

Dunno if this has been asked yet, but what if a guy confessed to his doctor and said he needed help? Does this fall outside the hypocratic (sp?) oath?

dvpower · 15-07-2011 03:16PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

I disagree in part. The taxpayer (ie the state) was, and is, only too happy to accept the help and charity the church offered in terms of education, food, housing and pastrol care over the years. Now thus has backfired, the tax payer is at least 50% responsible for the fallout.

If only the church would pay up 50% of the damages. It would be more than anyone could hope for.

Ghost Buster · 15-07-2011 03:16PM

Scarlette Gorgeous Ware wrote: »

Why are people so happy to blame an entire organisation for the wrong doing of a a very few when it comes to the catholic church.

If I were to come in here and say everyone from (enter foreign country) is a thief and a criminal and they should be thrown out of the country. Id probably be banned and my post deleted. Generalizations are ok in some situations it appears.

Jesus H Tap Dancing Christ this annoys me. These findings are less about individual priests than The Institution of The RCC.
This is about the entity that is The RCC. DO YOU GET IT????????

Delirium · 15-07-2011 03:16PM

Min wrote: »

I have no problem with it but alll this hullabaloo over the confessional was not an issue in the Cloyne report, and does one think an abuser would even admit it in confession given they seem to think they are doing nothing wrong?

yes.

On the primetime special a priest retold a story of a priest that was meeting with the bishop about accusations of child abused.

The priest was asked was there any truth to the story. The priest then asked to speak to the bishop in private.

The moved to a separate room and then the priest asked for the sacrament of confession. He then admitted that the story was true.

And the bishop does not nothing while the priest continued to abuse children. Thats one example of where the law would compel the bishop to report that to the police.

Liam Byrne · 15-07-2011 03:17PM

Scarlette Gorgeous Ware wrote: »

Why are people so happy to blame an entire organisation for the wrong doing of a a very few when it comes to the catholic church.

Because the top-level wrote out letters telling them to keep mum about it and not one of the "entire organisation" objected or did the right thing.

suicide_circus · 15-07-2011 03:18PM

28064212 wrote: »

Oh good, more total avoidance of the question

Ok then, youre right, I'll withdrawn my objection. Lets pass all ineffectual, hyped up, hysteria driven laws regardless of their ability to tackle the issue, it'll make for a nice headline on your favorite redtop.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 03:18PM

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: The law has implications for confession. That's why it has been so widely discussed. You're missing the fundamental point, it isn't about being above the law at all. It's about the law that is currently being drafted. That law needs to be reasoned through to determine what results it will bring. It's as far as I see it wholly impractical.

The law will not make an exception for priests even during confession, that is the issue. I see no problem with this, confidentiality between priest and parishioner is a privilege we give the church, not one that is mandatory under any international convention. There is no exception needed as far as I see it and if the law is not practically enforceable to confessional boxes then there will be no difference for those who confess their acts to a priest regardless if the law is brought in or not.

Why should confessional boxes and priests be exempt from this law when religion has no special position in the State's eyes? To argue they should be exempt is to argue the Church should have a special position, as a secularist I highly disagree with this and can see no reasonable argument for it.

Venom · 15-07-2011 03:18PM

Min wrote: »

I have no problem with it but alll this hullabaloo over the confessional was not an issue in the Cloyne report, and does one think an abuser would even admit it in confession given they seem to think they are doing nothing wrong?

I think its more to do with covering any possible loopholes the Catholic church may try and use in the future when if tries to protect some child abuser in its ranks rather than following the law of the land never mind its own guidelines.

The Catholic church has proven beyond a shadow of doubt in recent years it just can't be trusted to do the right or decent thing when it relates to the protection of children.

Mickeroo · 15-07-2011 03:19PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Dunno if this has been asked yet, but what if a guy confessed to his doctor and said he needed help? Does this fall outside the hypocratic (sp?) oath?

It's already a law that doctors,psychiatrists, psychologists etc have to come forward with that kind of information AFAIK.

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:19PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Isn't this law saying a priest would have to notify authorities if someone admitted to child abuse or other serious crimes in confession? Or have I got my wires crossed completely?

Yes, it's mandatory, it's not at their discretion.

There are problems with this:
1) Who says that priests will always know the person who will confess to them?
2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?
3) Who will confess to serious sexual abuse in confession if they know that the priest will pass on such information to the authorities? Isn't it better if the priest can manage to urge the person to turn themselves in or to claim that a confession wouldn't be valid otherwise?
4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

The logical conclusion is this. If someone claims that they have informed someone of something they should be called to give evidence in a court of law as a witness. That would be a much better solution than threatening jail time.

The most logical conclusion to this would be to prosecute the abusers. Yet this hasn't happened and I hate to say it probably never will at this point.

Mickeroo: As far as I know, it isn't currently law not to report a crime.

15-07-2011 03:20PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok then, youre right, I'll withdrawn my objection. Lets pass all ineffectual, hyped up, hysteria driven laws regardless of their ability to tackle the issue, it'll make for a nice headline on your favorite redtop.

It's a very simple question that you seem totally unable to answer:
Do you think a law making it mandatory to pass on details of suspected child sexual abuse to authorities is not a good idea?

Magic Beans · 15-07-2011 03:20PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Isn't this law saying a priest would have to notify authorities if someone admitted to child abuse or other serious crimes in confession? Or have I got my wires crossed completely?

It would cut out a lot of messing if the priest who molested the child just gave himself in in the first place or was uncovered by active police work and then the so called sanctity of the confessional would not be at risk.

KeithAFC · 15-07-2011 03:21PM

Min wrote: »

Your post is riddled with generalisations and non facts, I don't suppose you can tell me in what society has condoms caused a major reduction in HIV among the general population?
Medical science?

The pope went on about condoms not actually working and just urged them not to have sex. Sounds like a person who really knows what he is talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

Min · 15-07-2011 03:22PM

28064212 wrote: »

The hullabaloo seems to be originating entirely from the RCC.

The state announces plans for a law making it mandatory to disclose details of child abuse, no matter how that information was obtained. The church says that the confessional seal is above that. The state says no it's not

The church is the one arguing for special exemptions, not the state

It comes from the government who are the ones who want to change something that had nothing to do with the abuse scandals.

I don't think the government would win a case in the ECHR as they can't say the Cloyne report or anyother report shows that a citizen was endangered due to the confidentiality of the confessional.

I am surprised people put so much trust in the state when the commission criticised the state and said the church had high standards which offer proper protection for children if fully implemented unlike the state's which were less precise and harder to implement.

So let's trust the state you say when it has it's own child protection problems, with a report on how the state let 200 chiildren in it's care die coming out later this year.

Dyr · 15-07-2011 03:25PM

philologos wrote: »

Yes, it's mandatory, it's not at their discretion.

There are problems with this:
1) Who says that priests will always know the person who will confess to them?
2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?
3) Who will confess to serious sexual abuse in confession if they know that the priest will pass on such information to the authorities? Isn't it better if the priest can manage to urge the person to turn themselves in or to claim that a confession wouldn't be valid otherwise?
4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

The logical conclusion is this. If someone claims that they have informed someone of something they should be called to give evidence in a court of law as a witness. That would be a much better solution than threatening jail time.

The most logical conclusion to this would be to prosecute the abusers. Yet this hasn't happened and I hate to say it probably never will at this point.

Mickeroo: As far as I know, it isn't currently law not to report a crime.

1) so what? If see someone being assaulted I'm not going to hang back on reporting it because I didn't get a good look at the guy.

2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?

I'm sure the courts might have come across this dilemma before. Like every single working day

3) Who will confess to serious sexual abuse in confession if they know that the priest will pass on such information to the authorities? Isn't it better if the priest can manage to urge the person to turn themselves in or to claim that a confession wouldn't be valid otherwise?

And we worry about this becuase the sky pilots have a great batting average for getting kiddy fiddlers to hand themselves in

4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

legislation is not retroactive.

suicide_circus · 15-07-2011 03:25PM

28064212 wrote: »

It's a very simple question that you seem totally unable to answer:
Do you think a law making it mandatory to pass on details of suspected child sexual abuse to authorities is not a good idea?

As I said, I've withdrawn my objection. Its a good idea in principle. However, the law we are discussing will ultimately not be effective in protecting children but will make for a good headline.

Seachmall · 15-07-2011 03:25PM

philologos wrote: »

1) Who says that priests will always know the person who will confess to them?

They can report that they're aware of abuse going on in their parish, any information to prevent such crimes is good information.

2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?

Any documentation (e.g. letters to other priests), or the perpetrator may confess or may have told others he knew

3) Who will confess to serious sexual abuse in confession if they know that the priest will pass on such information to the authorities? Isn't it better if the priest can manage to urge the person to turn themselves in or to claim that a confession wouldn't be valid otherwise?

Relying on the conscience of a child molester is not a good idea when it comes to justice.

4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

The law isn't retrospective.

The logical conclusion is this. If someone claims that they have informed someone of something they should be called to give evidence in a court of law as a witness. That would be a much better solution than threatening jail time.

Prosecution could easily reduce, or remove, the charges if they agree to testify.

15-07-2011 03:26PM

Min wrote: »

It comes from the government who are the ones who want to change something that had nothing to do with the abuse scandals.

I don't think the government would win a case in the ECHR as they can't say the Cloyne report or anyother report shows that a citizen was endangered due to the confidentiality of the confessional.

How on earth would there be an ECHR case? The potential laws will have zero mention of the sacrament of confession. The law will state that it is mandatory to pass on details of suspected child sexual abuse to authorities. That's it

Mickeroo · 15-07-2011 03:26PM

philologos wrote: »

Yes, it's mandatory, it's not at their discretion.

There are problems with this:
1) Who says that priests will always know the person who will confess to them?
2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?
3) Who will confess to serious sexual abuse in confession if they know that the priest will pass on such information to the authorities? Isn't it better if the priest can manage to urge the person to turn themselves in or to claim that a confession wouldn't be valid otherwise?
4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

The logical conclusion is this. If someone claims that they have informed someone of something they should be called to give evidence in a court of law as a witness. That would be a much better solution than threatening jail time.

The most logical conclusion to this would be to prosecute the abusers. Yet this hasn't happened and I hate to say it probably never will at this point.

Mickeroo: As far as I know, it isn't currently law not to report a crime.

Yea I agree with your points there. Confessions is supposed to anonymous, so it could be a pointless law in that regard.

I know it would be mandatory by law, technically, but it would still be at the priest's discretion to come forward with the information, if he didn't come forward no-one would ever know he received it so it wouldn't matter. Same for a psychologist or doctor, if they never come out and tell someone then no-one will ever know.

Min · 15-07-2011 03:26PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

The pope went on about condoms not actually working and just urged them not to have sex. Sounds like a person who really knows what he is talking about. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

Edward Greene a professor and HIV/AIDS expert from Harvard

Edward Green: What the Pope said was the distribution and marketing of condoms would not solve the problem of African Aids and that it might even exacerbate the problem. And I think it was that second comment that really set the critics off, really upset a lot of people. I can understand that, because I have worked in Aids prevention for a long time. In fact, I worked as a condom and contraceptive social marketer at the beginning of the pandemic--I was working in family planning. I am part of a group of researchers that have been looking for the behavioural antecedents to HIV prevalence decline in Africa. We now see HIV going down in about 8 or 9 countries in Africa and in every case we see a decrease in the proportion of men and women who report having more than one sex partner in the past year. So when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that's exactly what we found empirically.

Condoms not bringing the level down, behavioural change brings the level down.

philologos · 15-07-2011 03:27PM

Seachmall: You've missed the point in my previous post to you. It isn't about being above the law, it's about discussing the content of that law to see if it is rational, reasonable, and functional in respect to child abuse. At present, I don't think it is and I'm willing to be convinced. It is a given that churches are subject to the law, what isn't a given is whether or not the law that Alan Shatter is presenting is reasonable, and I will be looking to see the debate in the Dáil when it arises later this year.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments