It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Priests confess to Government Authorities

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
If they are aware of a crime, yes they should report it.

Religion is not above the law.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Not the news story I was talking about, but related. Sorry for the large cut and paste job.



PRIESTS would be forced to report confessions of child sex abuse under controversial draft laws introduced in Parliament yesterday.
The Bill by No Pokies MLC Nick Xenophon requires priests, church workers and all volunteers who work with children to notify authorities of child abuse concerns - including priests receiving confessions.
"It's important that this be across the board; that there be no exceptions to this; that we indicate as a society that culturally it's entirely unacceptable -that there be any form of child abuse," he said.
However, the Opposition said it would not support the part of the Bill relating to church confessions because the "sanctity of the confessional" had been in place for centuries and should not be broken.
The Bill prompted a mixed response from churches, with Anglican Child protection advocate Reverend Don Owers saying "the safety of children over-rides the- seal or confession".
But Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson and Anglican Archbishop lan George said the privilege of confession was an area of "utmost sanctity" for the church.
"We don't want to step away from carrying out our responsibilities for the protection of children, but at the same time in the Catholic Church there is an absolute ban on priests saying anything that they have heard in confession," Archbishop Wllson said.
Archbishop George said his diocese supported mandatory reporting by the clergy and had acted on that for the past two years - but did not support extending that to the confessional. Both men said any person who confessed a crime to a priesf would be "strenuously encouraged" to give themselves up to police and to receive appropriate treatment.
Mr Xenophon said it was "time to have this debate given the terrible things that have happened within church institutions and other organisations in recent years".
He said the amendment applied to child protection laws only and would not examine whether confessions to other serious offences such as murder should be automatically reported to authorities. However, Opposition Justice spokesman Rob Lawson said requiring priests to report sexual offences would be "the thin edge of the wedge".
"To require priests to report what is given to them in a spiritual sense would be inappropriate," he said.
Mandatory reporting of child abuse by the clergy is one of the recommendations of Robyn Layton's Child Protection Review released earlier this year.
Social Justice Minister Stephanie Key said heads of churches working group was developing a response to the Layton report - including mandatory reporting by the clergy. The Government intended to introduce its own laws in several months.
She did not have a "personal view" on Mr Xenophon's Bill, but was annoyed he did not speak to her about it before its introduction.
Freda Briggs, who was involved In the Hollingworth inquiry into child sex abuse allegations in the Brisbane Anglican diocese, said the requirement should come as a relief to the church.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Another article. Still can't find the news story I am after


www.worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
What is the point of priests reporting their confessions? If they did, the criminals who do what they do, would just not confess. Then you'll have the (perhaps small) amount of criminals who repent after confessing (and not repeating their crimes) not repent at all. And the priest probably didn't just "stand by and do nothing", he probably tried (in his own religious way) to convince the criminal not to do it again.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
Is it necessary for these criminals to get this information off their chest to someone? Does it make them feel better? Why do they go through a priest and not directly to God? If they tell someone, surely it is ther hearers duty to act on this information!!

So, what are your thoughts on this?


You want my thoughts? My thought is that you don't understand
the Catholic faith and you don't understand the sacrament of Confession.
It is absolutely imparative that the priest NOT disclose what he is told
in confession. Absolutely. It violates the confessional which is much much
more important than outting the criminal.

If priests started turning in everyone who confessed sins, there would
be no more people going to confession. No more people trying to amend
their lives through confession. No more people trying to come closer to
God through the sacrament.

Anyone who calls for the violation of the confessional just doesn't get it.

You asked 'why can't they just go straight to God'. Are you anti-Catholic
or is that a sincere question? Many fundamentalists try to nail Catholics
with this. I just have to ask what your intention in the question was.

Sure, people can go straight to God. But Catholics have the SACRAMENT
of confession. They have the priest there (much like a psychologist) who
helps them get to the root of why they are acting like they do. The priest
is supposed to offer suggestions and helpful insight into the behavior and
sins. There is sacramental grace from God involved in going to God's
representative on earth .. (remember in the OT David went to God's
annointed and confessed his sin of murder to get a man's wife whom
he saw bathing on the rooftop?) Confession has to do with biblical
tradition as well as sacred tradition. Google it up or go to
Catholic Answers for correct information about what confession is.

www.catholic.com...




[edit on 1/27/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
They are supposed to be believers in the Bible. Where in the bible are you told that you need to confess to a preist...and better yet, where does it tell preists that they are not permitted to tell?

STOP USING JESUS CHRIST FOR AN EXCUSE TO BE A NARROW MINDED #^%$&%$*&


Ahhhhhhhhhhhh ... I see what the problem here is. You are an
anti-Catholic bigot. Sola scriptura fundamentalist, are we???

Hey buddy ... sola scriptura is NOT biblical and is NOT practiced by
a majority of Christians. So, to throw your ignorance right back at
ya ....

STOP USING SOLA SCRIPTURA FOR AN EXCUSE TO BE
A NARROW MINDED #^%$&%$*&

www.catholic.com...

[edit on 1/27/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I'd be interested in hearing from a member who knows, what the
operating code of ethics is for a priest in the position of hearing about a
crime. My guess is they can't tell, but would encourage the individual to
turn themselves in.


You are 100% correct. A priest is NEVER allowed to break the
confessional. NEVER. The whole point is that it is for the sinner
to take steps of repentence and to get some guidance. It's a
RELIGIOUS thing, not a secular thing. Priests are to give spiritual
guidance and if they feel it is needed, they will guide the person
to turn themselves in as part of the repentance process.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It violates the confessional which is much much
more important than outting the criminal.

More important to protect crims than to protect their future victims is it?


If priests started turning in everyone who confessed sins, there would be no more people going to confession. No more people trying to amend their lives through confession.

Well.. I guess without a priest saying 'you're forgiven- now go say some hail Mary's' and giving them that moral out.. they might actually have to deal with their own conscience.

No more people trying to come closer to
God through the sacrament.

I think protecting children is a worthy trade off for god.

Sure, people can go straight to God. But Catholics have the SACRAMENT
of confession. They have the priest there (much like a psychologist) who
helps them get to the root of why they are acting like they do.

And in the meantime they can keep hurting others till they find the root cause? How long would that take?

The priest is supposed to offer suggestions and helpful insight into the behavior and sins.

Yes.. they would say "PRAY".. very constructive.. they won't say 'turn yourself in', 'see a councelor' or 'go see a shrink and get medicated' would they? The confession is just for THEM.. not for their victims. I see no reason why they should be indulged.. besides which I have no doubt that most rapists/molesters etc. would only confess because they have to gloat about it to someone.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by riley]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I see no reason why they should be indulged..


Obviously.

You don't understand the sacrament or sacramental grace.
I doubt you've read what the Catholic church says about why Confession
is there, what happens in it (such as the counciling that I mentioned), and
the spiritual need for it. It's much easier to point the finger, without
hearing both sides of the story, isn't it. Whatever. Believe as you wish.
It doesn't change the truth of the sacrament or what happens when a
person goes to confession in good faith and conscience.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
You don't understand the sacrament or sacramental grace.

In fact I do.. but children's lives shouldn't be seen as expendable for it.

I doubt you've read what the Catholic church says about why Confession is there, what happens in it (such as the counciling that I mentioned), and the spiritual need for it. It's much easier to point the finger, without hearing both sides of the story, isn't it.

I was raised Catholic actually.. what were you saying about pointing the finger?


It doesn't change the truth of the sacrament or what happens when a person goes to confession in good faith and conscience.

Well when it puts the safety of kids at risk.. maybe it should be changed.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I doubt you've read what the Catholic church says about why Confession is there, what happens in it .

I was raised Catholic actually..


That doesn't mean that you understand the spirituality of Confession.
Most Catholics I know don't understand their faith at all. However,
you think you have the facts and you think you have made a good
choice.... like I said .... whatever. Confession should (and will)
stay as it is. That is the correct thing for it. For any government
to force a break in the sanctity of the confessional would be an
extreme violation of people's rights to gain sacramental grace and
(free) counciling to help them not to sin anymore. BOTH of which
are more important than turning in someone who has done a
crime. It's more important that they are moved to turn themselves
in AND that they receive sacramental grace and repentance at the
same time.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I haven't read all the responses nor will I...I'll just state my opinion here..
yes they most certainly should! Just because they are of a religion doesn't mean they should protect murders and pedophiles! Now...that being said...if they could inform the authorities, those committing crimes wouldn't be confessing to them to begin with.....so I guess the whole question is moot!



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
not that l/o is the end all be all...............but normally the plots i believe are pretty correct along the lines of law and issues.

the priest could not confide in law enforcement. to do so is breaking his vows.

the priest was faced with this and ultimately he was faced with a horrible decision...........in this scenario...........the priest told the officers and was defrocked for breaking his vows.


the vows are solid............they won't break them............they take them very very seriously..........whether those of us outside the church understand the thinking of this or not.

angie



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
That doesn't mean that you understand the spirituality of Confession.
Most Catholics I know don't understand their faith at all. However,
you think you have the facts and you think you have made a good
choice.... like I said .... whatever.

I'm no longer Catholic.. besides the scientific side of things.. it was the immorality of the institution that turned me off the most [but thats another thread].

Confession should (and will) stay as it is. That is the correct thing for it. For any government to force a break in the sanctity of the confessional would be an extreme violation of people's rights

What about the childrens rights? Are you fine with potential victims being violated to protect your right to confession? Sounds kind of selfish to me.

It's more important that they are moved to turn themselves
in AND that they receive sacramental grace and repentance at the
same time.

You would rather cross your fingers and hope the priest can talk him into turning himself in and risk him reoffending? Thats sick.. and it wouldn't work. Now.. if the priest REALLY does not want to break the confessional.. he should give up the priesthood.. then turn him in. Just 'ignoring' child abuse and hoping for the best would make the priest immoral anyway.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I am finding it hard to belive that the Catholic Church allows confession of sins without repentance.

Lets take the Hypothetical example of Murder in the first degree. A member of the church comes to the confessional and confesses his murder, and says he won't do it again and asks to be forgiven. But also doesn't want to get in trouble for it. How can it be true repentance unless the person who confesses also confesses to the authorities and pleads for Mercy?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
To those who are defending this situation. And to that person who insulted me by saying I am anti catholic (really, you need to pay more attention). Calling me anti anything is a defense of this criminal activity that allowed an innocent child to get raped...repeatedly. You defenders are horrible and sick in your minds.

But since you defend religion, I have a thought experiment to show you just how stupid you really are.

Definition:
A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. That definition is straight from Merriam Webster.

I am creating a new set of beliefs. I want to worship a god by sacrificing peoples house pets. According to your sick and dimented point of view....if I declare its a religion...then it is ok...

Let me murder someone and claim it is my religious beliefs. HOW INSANE ARE PEOPLE WHO DEFEND THIS LINE OF CRAP????

That preist should go to jail. Stop trying to defend his criminal actions. Think about the innocent child. Where was god protecting that kid while the sick pig was raping him? God listened to the man say he was sorry....and allowed it to go on. So did the preist. Sick.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
I am creating a new set of beliefs. I want to worship a god by sacrificing peoples house pets. According to your sick and dimented point of view....if I declare its a religion...then it is ok...
No, not exactly. I think people are arguing that if you knew someone who sacrificied someones house pet, and said nothing for whatever reasons (friendship, religion) and then this man went out and did it again, then you shouldnt be held accountable for his actions.

Let me murder someone and claim it is my religious beliefs. HOW INSANE ARE PEOPLE WHO DEFEND THIS LINE OF CRAP????
Pretty insane, good thing we have laws here in America that allow this not to happen. Also, note how nobody said this was okay.


That preist should go to jail. Stop trying to defend his criminal actions. Think about the innocent child. Where was god protecting that kid while the sick pig was raping him? God listened to the man say he was sorry....and allowed it to go on. So did the preist. Sick.
It's not such a black and white issue. The priest is not all-knowing, he may have thought that the man would truly repent of his sins. He did take a bit of a gamble, but im not so sure I would have done differently in his situation. I would most likely have gone home and looked at statistics of repeat pedofile offenders and weighed in the probability that he would do this again, and then come to my conclusion (whatever it may be), but I cant blame the priest for his actions or think he is sick and demented, he is a person like us, after all.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Religion is not above the law.


In the US it is. Many religions are given exceptions to the law because part of their practices are deemed illegal by the law. Yet, the religions are allowed to do it.

Now, as far as the Catholic thing goes, though, Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Obey the law, as long as it doesn't violate Christ's. Does Catholic doctrine constitute something that would be equated to Christ's law?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
... And to that person who insulted me by saying I am anti catholic (really, you need to pay more attention).

But since you defend religion, I have a thought experiment to show you just how stupid you really are.


Just because I like to point out hypocracy (and please, if I ever do the same thing, point it out! I don't want to be a hypocrite, but know there are times I am), I wanted to respond to this. I don't think FlyersFan was paying enough attention, seapeople. You are anti any religion, and these brief sentances I quoted point that out. Someone defends religion. You're kind enough to point out that, since they defend religion, they must be stupid. Catholics have been around a few years longer than the US has been. Their doctrine was well in place before the founding of the US. The US was founded with freedom of religion. They couldn't just say, everyone is free to practice their religion except Catholics, who have to remove a fundamental aspect of their faith. Your "thought" experiment is totally unrelated in that you are creating a "faith" to break the law, and the US government has protocols for this. The indian tribe I described earlier that took peyotee for vision quests had to show that they'd been practicing it well before the law was made making the substance illegal. There have been many cults formed with the intention of allowing their practicioners to use illegal drugs legally, and every one of them has been shot down by the courts.

The priest did not do the crime, the priest simply knew that the person had committed a crime in the past. Yeah, the criminal should go to jail for what he did. The priest, though, did not commit the crime, and didn't know the criminal was going to commit the crime again. The priest is not at fault here, the sick criminal who committed this henous crime is. Yet, no one's been saying how horrible he is, just the priest. When will we be able to hold criminals accountable for their actions instead of blaming everyone else?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I guess I will clear something up now that I think about it. The child molester told authorities that he had confided his sins to a priest in the past. So saying that, the priest didn't break his oath but doing so, could have saved some innocent child from being molested.

So I have to ask this question. Is an oath to church and God, more binding that doing what is right? So, how do we determine what is right? Say we apply the simple rule, 'do unto others as they would do to you'

Using this logic, if you were in the shoes of the child, would you want someone who had the power to stop a sicko abusing you, to exercise that power or sit and do nothing. At the end of the day, when you take all the oath crap out of the picture, that is what is happening. But wait, it is even worse than that. It is a person that is suppose to be an upright citizen sitting and doing nothing.

I'm not anti catholic, however, I am anti evil and I think that both of these actions are evil. Molesting a kid and doing nothing to stop it.

Firstly, people do not need to confide their sins in a man and then be told it is ok if you do x,y,z. Do the crime, pay the time. If you want spiritual forgiveness, ask Christ.

Secondly, A priest is hardly qualified to counsel child molesters (some might remark that they are overly qualified) being serious, they can not offer sound advice to these people. The need to talk to people with the appropiate skill levels.

It is because these religious organisations are not maintaining a biblical stance on issues, state has to intervein for the benefit for society. How ironic that it is this way around.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join