Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…1011131516…48

Comments

  • #362
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    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.
    Priests not speaking up - not having something to do with the abuse? Huh? :confused:
    Min wrote: »
    ...I am surprised people put so much trust in the state...
    ...And equally I'm surprised that so many still have trust in the church when its been repeatedly, consistently shown that they cannot be trusted!


  • #363
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,667 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Magic Beans wrote: »
    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.

    But the law is not specifically targeting priests though? It's targeting people who confess to priests?!?


  • #364
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    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.

    ^^^ nonsense.
    Where did the CC get the money to do all this??? '
    Pass the basket to the left hand side!'


  • #365
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    ^^^ nonsense.
    Where did the CC get the money to do all this??? '
    Pass the basket to the left hand side!'
    For the willing donations of parishioners.


  • #366
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    philologos wrote: »
    How is this law enforceable? It essentially is making something a thought crime.
    A thought crime? It is supposed to compel people who suspect serious abuse to report the abuse, hopefully saving someone from further abuse.
    philologos wrote: »
    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.
    These days many confessions are done in the open. One way to get around this is to introduce anonymity between the priest and penitent.
    But a better way would be for the RCC to make it clear to its flock that there is a mandatory requirement to report certain offences (and that if they aren't willing to be reported then they aren't really penitent at all.)

    philologos wrote: »
    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 Cloynes report demonstrated that the RCC authorities were willing to ignore their own guidelines and not report. It demonstrates that they cannot be trusted. If the confessional is excluded, I wouldn't at all be surprised if in the future we see them extending the blanket of the confessional over other private meetings.
    Mandatory reporting legislation will make it very clear what the requirement is.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    28064212 wrote: »
    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

    Then why was Enda saying yes to confession being an issue in all of this?

    One could bring a case if it leaves it open to that interpretation, that religious rights for no good reason were being violated.


  • #368
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Min wrote: »
    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.
    We are the state and I think we can say with some certainty that at the very least the state won't be making these mistakes again and is making changes to see to it.

    The same can't be said for the church, it's obvious we have no say in what the church thinks or decides and that the church is more interested in protecting it's own interests than facing up to this problem and making changes to ensure it never happens again.


  • #369
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bambi wrote: »
    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.

    My point is as I said as a non-Catholic who is looking at this impartially would be that this law may ruin opportunities for a priest to encourage an individual to turn themselves in to the police. In the other scenario nobody will dare confess to child abuse. In one case there is the possibility for changing that persons perspective, in the other case the abuser will remain hidden. Which is better?
    Bambi wrote: »
    I'm sure the courts might have come across this dilemma before. Like every single working day

    This isn't an answer. That's just fobbing off the question.
    Bambi wrote: »
    And we worry about this becuase the sky pilots have a great batting average for getting kiddy fiddlers to hand themselves in :confused:

    Nonsense. At least having someone to talk to in depth about it without fear might allow someone to get through to them. In the other scenario there is no such chance at all.
    Bambi wrote: »
    4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?

    Legislation must be future proof. This means that 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now it must work effectively. This means that if say 50 years from now someone claimed that someone else knew about something which happened 10 years from now and the person who allegedly knew about this forgot what are the legal implications then?


  • #370
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,089 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    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?
    1. If they don't know, how could they be prosecuted?
    2. The same way as every crime ever has been proven: beyond reasonable doubt
    3. No. Just no
    4. They would be prosecuted for not reporting it at the time they received the information

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #371
    mackg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I choose to think Jesus was on to something.

    You don't like it? I'll substitute "go f*ck yourself" with whatever equivalent the mods will accept that conveys the same depth of feeling.

    I think "I really have no regard for what you think about my decision about my life, and any attempt to force me to change from my decision wil be resisted with equivalent force." covers it.

    What is this about? I wouldn't even call this an overreaction, i genuinely don't think you understand what I meant. You say your religeous because you believe in Jesus teachings, I believe in them too I just don't consider them to be Jesus teachings. I believe them to be common sense. Just because I am not a card carrying member of a faith does not mean I do not have love for my fellow man or am not willing to help my neighbour. Again I assume you picked up what I posted wrong because if disagree with my statement it is very odd indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    28064212 wrote: »
    If they don't know, how could they be prosecuted?

    They know that someone has confessed to them about child abuse, but they don't know who the person was.
    28064212 wrote: »
    The same way as every crime ever has been proven: beyond reasonable doubt

    Like the other poster you are fobbing off the question. How can you prove that someone knew something?
    28064212 wrote: »
    No. Just no

    Again, fobbing off the point without any form of engagement.
    28064212 wrote: »
    They would be prosecuted for not reporting it at the time they received the information

    If they forgot, how could you prove that they knew? That's the problem and you're still not addressing it.


  • #373
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    28064212 wrote:
    [*]They would be prosecuted for not reporting it at the time they received the information
    [/LIST]
    Eh...no.


  • #374
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Min wrote: »
    that religious rights for no good reason were being violated.
    The mind boggles. What was being violated were young children, and if that's not a good enough reason to strip religious "rights" as well as assets I don't know what is.

    Seriously people. We aren't talking about a few parking tickets being waived. We're talking about little boys and girls waking up in the night sobbing.

    There have been ample reasons given for the removal of any legal protection gained through confession in this thread. It makes me feel physically ill to think that anyone would continue to speak up for this institution.


  • #375
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    philologos wrote: »
    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.

    I think even if it fails to prevent cases of child abuse it will at least bring those who were aware of it and failed to report it to justice. In my eyes allowing such a crime to go on is one of the most disgusting things that can be done without actually committing the crime yourself.

    Dozens of people were aware of the abuse going on in this country and did absolutely nothing to prevent it, those people should be punished for turning a blind eye.


  • #376
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Min wrote: »
    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.

    That is true on a general population level. But lets face it, the pope said that to dissaude his audience from using condoms for roman reasons primarily. If his words stopped even one person from using a condom which then led to them catching HIV, then Keith's point is completely valid.

    I accept monogamy and fidelity are far better tools to prevent HIV transmission, but there's no reason why they cannot be combined for a better effect. Like the Uganda ABC program

    Abstinence
    Be Faithful
    Condoms


  • #377
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,408 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Isn't the whole point of confession to be given absolution? Lay people can be excommunicated for activities that do not even begin to be crimes, so why has the church not instructed that anyone admitting to crimes such as murder, rape and child molestation cannot be given absolution until they have confessed their crime to civil authorities?

    'Render unto Caesar' etc


  • #378
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    Priests not speaking up - not having something to do with the abuse? Huh? :confused:


    ...And equally I'm surprised that so many still have trust in the church when its been repeatedly, consistently shown that they cannot be trusted!

    It was not in confession though where the problem lay.

    There are plenty of good priests who can be trusted and the people are the church not the priests who are the adminstrators.
    If one noticed all the abuse cases are in the past, with some people you would think nothing changed.


  • #379
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    For the willing donations of parishioners.

    So, enough of the 'Charity of the Church' nonsense.
    When has the Vatican ever sold off one of it's many many many artworks to feed children or to help the destitute? Never.


  • #380
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    looksee wrote: »
    Isn't the whole point of confession to be given absolution? Lay people can be excommunicated for activities that do not even begin to be crimes, so why has the church not instructed that anyone admitting to crimes such as murder, rape and child molestation cannot be given absolution until they have confessed their crime to civil authorities?

    'Render unto Caesar' etc

    That seems very logical in comparison to the legislation that's currently being presented. As for the RCC never instructing this, I don't know if that is true.


  • #381
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    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?
    It would be a best effort thing. If the best they can give is a rough description of the rapist then that's enough.
    philologos wrote: »
    2) How will one prove in a court of law as to whether someone had or hadn't knowledge of a particular event?
    Same standard as applied to the rest of us, proving beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to show that the priest had knowledge then he won't be punished for withholding it.
    philologos wrote: »
    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?
    I doubt their ability to convince somebody to turn themselves in.
    philologos wrote: »
    4) Will one be prosecuted if someone told them something X years ago and they have since forgotten?
    Would the law be applied retroactively?
    philologos wrote: »
    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.
    We would still need a law which didn't exempt confessionals from being inadmissible in court. (Which I'm presuming they are now)


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    What happens in a confessional is unproveable. Its really not the kind of evidence that will stand up in court.


  • #383
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    The mind boggles. What was being violated were young children, and if that's not a good enough reason to strip religious "rights" as well as assets I don't know what is.

    Seriously people. We aren't talking about a few parking tickets being waived. We're talking about little boys and girls waking up in the night sobbing.

    There have been ample reasons given for the removal of any legal protection gained through confession in this thread. It makes me feel physically ill to think that anyone would continue to speak up for this institution.


    But again no reports says the secrecy of confession was a problem area.


  • #384
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Min wrote: »
    If one noticed all the abuse cases are in the past, with some people you would think nothing changed.
    The last batch was in 2009. Have you reason to believe that it's not going on right now?


  • #385
    Deedo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10 ✭Deedo


    Guys, the key question for me is this: Why don't all those good and decent priests out there stand up for what they believe is right and openly challenge the hierarchy about the appalling way they are handling this whole sad and sorry episode. Why are they blindly standing by? The Church (in its widest sense) is being destroyed by the current strategy of hiding behind the Vatican - they should demand change from within - they are only the ones can actually change the current direction. It's a real "Martin Luther" moment for the Church as far as I am concerned.

    This talk about confessions and whether they should or shouldn't reveal information is missing the point and diverting attention from the real issues.


  • #386
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    What happens in a confessional is unproveable. Its really not the kind of evidence that will stand up in court.
    First person testimony? :confused:


  • #387
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Min wrote: »
    But again no reports says the secrecy of confession was a problem area.
    Utter nonsense.


  • #388
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,142 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    What happens in a confessional is unproveable. Its really not the kind of evidence that will stand up in court.

    No, but it would be enough to begin an investigation into the person who confessed to abusing a child.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #389
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I think even if it fails to prevent cases of child abuse it will at least bring those who were aware of it and failed to report it to justice. In my eyes allowing such a crime to go on is one of the most disgusting things that can be done without actually committing the crime yourself.

    So you want a series of people who didn't perpetrate any abuse to be arrested and a series of people who did commit abuses to get off scot-free?

    You can't really be serious. The logical conclusion is to bring the abusers to court and force those who have information to be there to give testimony.


  • #390
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    The mind boggles. What was being violated were young children, and if that's not a good enough reason to strip religious "rights" as well as assets I don't know what is.

    Seriously people. We aren't talking about a few parking tickets being waived. We're talking about little boys and girls waking up in the night sobbing.

    There have been ample reasons given for the removal of any legal protection gained through confession in this thread. It makes me feel physically ill to think that anyone would continue to speak up for this institution.
    The Roman Catholic church is bigger than a "church" and its influence is far and wide. If this was any other organisation or something without a religious belief which took part in this abuse, it would be closed down by now and a world wide boycott would take place.

    But such is the power of Rome and its influence on the world, it will carry on, sweep sweep and carry on as normal. The pope is immune from justice.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    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.

    The few who did wrong were protected by the many who were under instructions from the top.

    In another thread (or maybe earlier on in this one, who knows), I pointed out that an edict was sent to ALL bishops from non other than the holiest Joe of them all in which they were instructed not to refer allegations of molestation to the civil authorities. The intention was to protect the image of the church at the expense of the victims.

    This was an official policy of the organisation itself. Not just a few rogue priests who couldn't keep their depraved hands to themselves. This is why people (including lots of believers) want rid of the organisation. It's rotten to the core. It has been since it's inception and it will never change.


Advertisement