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…2425272930…48

Comments

  • #782
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,671 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    TROLL!!!!!!!
    or stupid....
    I chose TROLL.

    Your faith in the intelligence of the human race is admirable.


  • #783
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    crucamim wrote: »
    Anyone who hurts or tries to hurt Catholics or who approves of others doing so.

    So basically the pope, the bishops, the clergy and the religious orders?


  • #784
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Bambi wrote: »
    So basically the pope, the bishops, the clergy and the religious orders?

    Crucamin.
    Please answer this post quoted above.. Not with one of your hysterical mass produced posts but in a proper fashion.
    You think people who want to hurt catholic children shouldn't run schools. yes?
    It has been proven that The Pope, Bishops and Clergy hurt catholic children


    and.........????


  • #785
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Your faith in the intelligence of the human race is admirable.
    I see what you did there. Very good. Carry on! :D


  • #786
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Tayla wrote: »
    Well what about Jehovahs witnesses, if an adult needs a blood transfusion and refuses then the state will let them die....if a child needs one then the state will step in and overrule them.

    This is about protecting children, who cares how the religion operates?

    It is not about protecting children unless you believe the UK, the US and other western countries are failing to protect children as some by law and others by custom and practice allow the seal of the confessional to remain secret.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    It is not about protecting children unless you believe the UK, the US and other western countries are failing to protect children as some by law and others by custom and practice allow the seal of the confessional to remain secret.

    Well. Ireland is being proactive and forward thinking. We did it with the smoking ban and the plastic bag levy which has been adopted all over the world. Who knows we may do it again if this law is brought in.


  • #788
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    It is not about protecting children unless you believe the UK, the US and other western countries are failing to protect children as some by law and others by custom and practice allow the seal of the confessional to remain secret.

    Hang about. From Wikipedia
    25 states of The USA do not clearly identify this privilage
    The UK has no such privilage
    Ditto in canada which follows UK law.

    Is telling big fat porky pies recognised in catholicism as a sin?


  • #789
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Surely the seal of the confessional has no actual legal standing? My understanding is that it's sort of seen as an exception, due to tradition, but that's not actually a written rule? Anyone witholding information due to the seal of the confessional should be accused of obstructing the course of justice, or held in contempt of court. Simple as.


  • #790
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Well. Ireland is being proactive and forward thinking. We did it with the smoking ban and the plastic bag levy which has been adopted all over the world. Who knows we may do it again if this law is brought in.

    Ireland being pro-active?

    It doesn't even have the social services available to deal with all the cases involving children, and the state thinks it can have access to confession, are they going to bug the confessional?

    Please, don't make me laugh, this is a serious subject, the government are treating it like a joke with the confessional, a priest cannot reveal what they are told in confession, it comes with automatic excommunication.

    The state would be better looking for the money so it can provide the care that children deserve, the thing with the confessional offers nothing in child protection.
    Wouldn't it better putting in the resources so a mother doesn't abuse her 8 children for 9 years after the HSE first became aware of the abuse?
    This is what we are dealing with in this country when it comes to child protection, how can the state make an issue out of a non issue, it was not in the confessional that information was withheld, so the confesional is a diversion tactic from the real issues - the state wants social workers to get more work when they are unable to deal with their current workload and there is nothing coming from the government that suggests they intend to address this problem.
    Social workers are dreading mandatory reporting coming in, so the government is being lazy, they won't be the ones dealing with the cases, they won't take pay cuts or give up their expenses to pay for social workers.
    The organisation for social workers have said what the government are proposing with mandatory reporting will do more 'harm than good' and that is their words.
    It has failed elsewhere and as the Irish Times reported, in Australia, social workers want mandatory reporting reversed.
    The social workers are the experts in this area.


  • #791
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Undergod wrote: »
    Surely the seal of the confessional has no actual legal standing? My understanding is that it's sort of seen as an exception, due to tradition, but that's not actually a written rule? Anyone witholding information due to the seal of the confessional should be accused of obstructing the course of justice, or held in contempt of court. Simple as.

    Yup. Thats it in a nut shell. And seeing as The RCC will flaunt any loophole to protect its self the loop holes are being closed off.
    Canon law has as much bearing on Irish law as the rules of a golf club and the confessional seal has as much bearing as crossing your fingers behind your back when telling lies.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Hang about. From Wikipedia
    25 states of The USA do not clearly identify this privilage
    The UK has no such privilage
    Ditto in canada which follows UK law.

    Is telling big fat porky pies recognised in catholicism as a sin?

    Please apologise.
    THE SEAL of the confessional is generally respected in most western jurisdictions, whether constitutionally or by custom and practice.
    To date, in the Republic, Northern Ireland and Britain it is respected under custom and practice, while in the US it is protected under two constitutional amendments.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0716/1224300820712.html


  • #793
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    Ireland being pro-active?

    It doesn't even have the social services available to deal with all the cases involving children, and the state thinks it can have access to confession, are they going to bug the confessional?

    Please, don't make me laugh, this is a serious subject, the government are treating it like a joke with the confessional, a priest cannot reveal what they are told in confession, it comes with automatic excommunication.

    The state would be better looking for the money so it can provide the care that children deserve, the thing with the confessional offers nothing in child protection.
    Wouldn't it better putting in the resources so a mother doesn't abuse her 8 children for 9 years after the HSE first became aware of the abuse?
    This is what we are dealing with in this country when it comes to child protection, how can the state make an issue out of a non issue, it was not in the confessional that information was withheld, so the confesional is a diversion tactic from the real issues - the state wants social workers to get more work when they are unable to deal with their current workload and there is nothing coming from the government that suggests they intend to address this problem.
    Social workers are dreading mandatory reporting coming in, so the government is being lazy, they won't be the ones dealing with the cases, they won't take pay cuts or give up their expenses to pay for social workers.
    The organisation for social workers have said what the government are proposing with mandatory reporting will do more 'harm than good' and that is their words.
    It has failed elsewhere and as the Irish Times reported, in Australia, social workers want mandatory reporting reversed.
    The social workers are the experts in this area.

    Seeing as the legistlation has not yet been written up this is hyperbole.
    Tell me why you keep trotting out this mantra against the state and then resort to standing in a corner and pissin'g your pants every time they take action?


  • #794
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    Please apologise.



    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0716/1224300820712.html

    You missed this bit at the end:
    But it was also the case that neither guarantee nor right were absolute.

    “It may be necessary to show, inter alia, that the legislative interference with the seal of the confessional is necessary in order to prevent the concealment of child abuse and that the proposed interference impairs the right of free practice of religion as little as possible,” he said.

    He was “far from suggesting that such legislation would be unconstitutional” but the matter was more complicated than ensuring the applicability of State law to members of a private club.

    Respecting something out of custom might change when it comes to light that this custom protects child abusers dont you think.
    I apologise for nothing :rolleyes:

    You could apologise for championing a corrupt institution thus giving passive support to child abuse.


  • #795
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Seeing as the legistlation has not yet been written up this is hyperbole.
    Tell me why you keep trotting out this mantra against the state and then resort to standing in a corner and pissin'g your pants every time they take action?

    What action have the state taken? Talked about mandatory reporting which social workers don't want as they can't even deal with a lot of the current cases and they have said will do more harm than good.
    Should one just take action for the sake of being seeing to take action even if the experts in the field say don't do it?


  • #796
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    You missed this bit at the end:
    But it was also the case that neither guarantee nor right were absolute.

    “It may be necessary to show, inter alia, that the legislative interference with the seal of the confessional is necessary in order to prevent the concealment of child abuse and that the proposed interference impairs the right of free practice of religion as little as possible,” he said.

    He was “far from suggesting that such legislation would be unconstitutional” but the matter was more complicated than ensuring the applicability of State law to members of a private club.

    Respecting something out of custom might change when it comes to light that this custom protects child abusers dont you think.
    I apologise for nothing :rolleyes:

    You could apologise for championing a corrupt institution thus giving passive support to child abuse.

    Please apologise, you called me a liar.


  • #797
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,671 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Min wrote: »
    What action have the state taken? Talked about mandatory reporting which social workers don't want as they can't even deal with a lot of the current cases and they have said will do more harm than good.
    Should one just take action for the sake of being seeing to take action even if the experts in the field say don't do it?

    Why don't the social workers want it? just out of interest


  • #798
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    What action have the state taken? Talked about mandatory reporting which social workers don't want as they can't even deal with a lot of the current cases and they have said will do more harm than good.
    Should one just take action for the sake of being seeing to take action even if the experts in the field say don't do it?

    THis is as much about reporting to the Guards as to social worker and besides this is not unanimous amongst all social workers.
    And yet again the legistlaltion is not yet in place and so remains hyperbole.


  • #799
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Why don't the social workers want it? just out of interest

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0716/1224300822722.html
    SOCIAL WORKERS have expressed alarm that plans to introduce mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse could push over-stretched services towards breaking point.


  • #800
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    Please apologise, you called me a liar.

    I didnt. I asked if telling porky pies is a sin.
    Do you think you told lies about the legal status of the seal of the confessional in the Western World?
    Custom is not a legal recognition.


  • #801
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ghost Buster: This is from the Irish Times over the weekend, it may be of interest to you:
    In Dublin yesterday Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald said child protection was a non-negotiable issue and the sacrament of confession could not be used as a defence to claim exemption from the new rules.

    “If there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions,” she said. “I’m not concerned, neither is the Government, about the internal laws or rules governing any body.

    However, Dr Gerard Whyte, associate professor of law at Trinity College Dublin, said “the seal of the confessional enjoys some legal protection in civil law as well as under canon law and so it is more accurate to characterise the issue here as one of securing a balance between conflicting civil rights”. It was “well settled in Irish common law that a member of the clergy of any denomination may not be compelled in law to disclose the content of any conversation between him/her and a parishioner unless the parishioner agrees to such disclosure”, he said.

    In the US the seal of the confessional is protected by the guarantee of religious freedom in the first amendment and by a guarantee to a priest’s right to privacy under the fourth amendment to the US constitution, he said.

    “It is therefore at least arguable that, under our Constitution, the seal of the confessional is protected by the guarantee of freedom of religious practice in article 44.2.1 and by the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed by article 40.3,” he said.

    But it was also the case that neither guarantee nor right were absolute.
    Link here.

    This law may be challenged on constitutional grounds, so it might take a good deal longer to implement than intended, that is if people think it is actually workable. In the US the seal of confession is apparently secured under the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Arguably if it reached the judiciary here they could rule similar.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0716/1224300822722.html

    Fire men have expressed alarm that the fitting of fire alarms may over stretch services to breaking point


  • #803
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,671 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Min wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0716/1224300822722.html

    Right thanks for that. Doesn't really wash though, if the amount of genuine cases reported were to increase that much then that would only mean the law was working.
    Surely they can't think its better for cases not to be reported in the first place?


  • #804
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    I didnt. I asked if telling porky pies is a sin.
    Do you think you told lies about the legal status of the seal of the confessional in the Western World?
    Custom is not a legal recognition.

    You implied I was telling porkies, which meant I was telling lies.

    You have been disrepectful earlier in this thread, I did not tell lies and I am not going to continue debating with you if you don't apologise, as i did not tell lies.
    Even the bit you highlighted said it was 'more complicated than ensuring the applicability of State law to members of a private club'.

    Priests cannot break the seal of confession, this is why law in some places respect it, custom and practice elsewhere, a priest would lose their job if they break it and the association of priests had a memeber who said priests would go to jail rather than being thrown out of the Catholic faith, so whatever the government wants to do it is not going to work if they think they can make priest break the seal of the confessional. They simply cannot do it.

    Now apologise, this will be my last post with you if you don't as I did not tell porkies, lies or however you want to dress up what you implied.
    I'm showing you respect and it is a two way thing.


  • #805
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Yup. Thats it in a nut shell. And seeing as The RCC will flaunt any loophole to protect its self the loop holes are being closed off.
    Canon law has as much bearing on Irish law as the rules of a golf club and the confessional seal has as much bearing as crossing your fingers behind your back when telling lies.

    Right. So why is this even an issue? If you withold information, then you're commiting an offence. Problem solved.

    Of course this will cause problems for priests that refuse to cooperate with police or the courts- but that's their problem, not the State's.


  • #806
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Right thanks for that. Doesn't really wash though, if the amount of genuine cases reported were to increase that much then that would only mean the law was working.
    Surely they can't think its better for cases not to be reported in the first place?

    I could see you with a child who has a lot of bruises and report you for child abuse as it would be required of me by the law if I believed you were abusing the child.

    This is what mandatory reporting is, if one believes there is abuse then they have to report, it doesn't mean there is abuse, the child might simply bruise easily or had an accident while playing.

    How would the law be working if as the previous government who looked into it fouund that it would "divert scarce child protection resources, causing an extensive administrative burden”,
    In other words the child who needs protection is worse off.
    I don't think anyone wants this.


  • #807
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,671 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Min wrote: »
    I could see you with a child who has a lot of bruises and report you for child abuse as it would be required of me by the law if I believed you were abusing the child.

    This is what mandatory reporting is, if one believes there is abuse then they have to report, it doesn't mean there is abuse, the child might simply bruise easily or had an accident while playing.

    How would the law be working if as the previous government who looked into it fouund that it would "divert scarce child protection resources, causing an extensive administrative burden”,
    In other words the child who needs protection is worse off.
    I don't think anyone wants this.

    I see what you're saying but I'm pretty sure you'd have to have a good reason for thinking the child was being abused anyway? In my line of work (outdoor education) we're already expected to report that kind of thing if we feel it's warranted.


  • #808
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,395 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    People should just confess their sins to god in private. Don't bother with the priest. End of problem with the confessional.


  • #809
    Tayla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Min wrote: »
    It is not about protecting children unless you believe the UK, the US and other western countries are failing to protect children as some by law and others by custom and practice allow the seal of the confessional to remain secret.

    Well of course I believe that the UK, US and other western countries are failing to protect children if they are saying that it is ok for priests to not alert authorities to paedophiles, how would anyone not believe that??


  • #810
    crucamim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    Tayla wrote: »


    If the church doesn't want to follow the law of the land, the laws decided by the people then I propose we take their vote away.

    So you want to deprive Catholics of the right to vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Tayla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    crucamim wrote: »
    So you want to deprive Catholics of the right to vote.

    No, I want to take away priests votes. If they are not going to uphold the law then why should they have a say in the running and laws of the country?


Advertisement