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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
If they are in confession then they are sorry for their sins and want to repent. If they are truely sorry then they wont do it again.

Being sorry? Funny.. commit the sin.. get confessed.. get forgiven.. commit the sin.. get confessed.. get forgiven.. commit the sin.. get confessed.. get forgiven..

OBVIOUSLY THIS PERSON DID IT AGAIN so your argument has already been proven wrong.
You did not even attempt to answer my points.. you just avoided them. Seems you consider a small room more important than a child's safety.. am I wrong?

Same question for you:
What if your child became a victim because a priest didn't speak up?




posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Thats not how confession works.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Thats not how confession works.

That is how most treat it.. and for the last time

I KNOW HOW CONFESSION WORKS. I WAS RAISED CATHOLIC.

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
What if it were your child were raped because a priest didn't speak up?



[edit on 28-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Well I dont have any children and dont plan on having any for a while. It is the priests duty to keep ones confession confidental. He would just be doing his job right. I would take my anger out on the guy(or lady) who did this not the priest. You guys make the priest sound like he's worse the the pedaphile.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Well I dont have any children and dont plan on having any for a while. It is the priests duty to keep ones confession confidental. He would just be doing his job right.

Right?
If he were truly a moral man he would do something to protect the children.. even if that meant giving up his job.

I would take my anger out on the guy(or lady) who did this not the priest.

I'm sure you would be angry at both of them.. especially if it could have been prevented. It's human nature and it would be devestating. I suspect you are saying you would not be angry at the priest for the sake of argment and may not have answered the question honestly. Please think about it.. finding out on top of this abuse of your child.. that it could have been prevented.
If you really wouldn't mind a priest not protecting your child from being violated just to protect 'the rules'.. I would question your fitness as a parent and say your priorites are really f# up. Sorry if I sound harsh but I don't think you are being realistic.
I for one do not want to live in a society where the rights of pedos come before children. That is disgusting.

You guys make the priest sound like he's worse the the pedaphile.

Many are pedaphiles.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
That is a gross overstatement.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Its your religion not mine.


What kind of person am I dealing with here? It is not my religion? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None, what-so-ever, and I am sure that is aparent to everyone you come in contact with every day. Your lack of interpretation skills likely spill inot your common sense to such an extent that you don't know which side of the road you are to drive on.

By the way, you still havent answered the question, because you know the only answer contradicts the insane defense you are providing for a child rapist. What kind of person do you have to be to have the thought processes you posess? I can guarantee I would never associate with a person such as yourself in my personal life. You defend rape, you defend child rape. Sickning.

Answer the question....what if I make up my own religion, and I commit a crime in its name. Can I do that? Should I be allowed? ANSWER IT CROAT! Be a man, stand up for what you believe in (chiled molestation).



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Like I said its your madeup religion. I do not defend rapists ever. I am defending the sanctity of confession.

Im more of a man then you are. I stand up for my beliefs and try to explain it while people like you twist up my words and make it sound like I defend rape.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by Croat56]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
That is a gross overstatement.

1. Please do not bother replying if you are going to be so vague.
If you are reffering to the number of clergy guilty of abuse.. I'd be happy to provide proof.
2. Do not bother conversing with me if you are going to ignore my points.
You KNOW you would not like a priest allowing your child to be raped.. but the thing is.. you don't have children so it doesn't matter because it doesn't effect you does it? It's only OTHER people's children copping it sweet so you can continue having the luxury of confessing your sins or CRIMES without risk of being punnished for them. If you are confessing just sins- fine. If you are confessing sine which are crimes you shouldn't be protected from the law.
We both know that you do not HAVE to go to a priest to confess anyway.. you can speak directly to god so this 'sacred' thing you are protecting is religion and tradition and that is all. I just happen to think that children are more sacred.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Of course I am protecting religion it is my religion after all



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Of course I am protecting religion it is my religion after all

A religion that has to sacrifice children to protect itself is tainted by their blood so does not deserve to exist.

BTW. Again you failed to answer my points. I do not know if it is cowardess or laziness on your part but you are just wasting my time. Unless you actually answer my points this will be my last reply to you.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Theres no point in explaining religion to someone who just doesnt want to listen. So I am done here and I will never open this thread again because Ill just keep repeating myself and youll just keep repeating yourself. Just a waste of ats space.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
He ran away from the thread, never answering the easy question. Why didn't he answer it? He was afraid to. Why was he afraid? Because answering it was impossible to him, because the only answer he could really give contradicted his backwards way of thinking.

I asked him 4 times to answer a question. Every time he ran away from the question...ending up saying he was more of a man than me. While he ran from logic and his own foot that was trying to insert itself in his big mouth.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Ooh, he is less of a man, I am more of a man


I think your missing the point. How was the priest to know (or Croat if he was put in that position) that the crime would be commited again? The priest might have thought he had repented.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Defending this priest is an incorrigible act sanctioning the violation of others in the name of God. Priests are men who have taken it upon themselves to call themselves blessed with the divine spirit to act on behalf of Jesus, and see themselves above the rest of the herd. They take for themselves the sole right to administer to the sacrament of penance as per the book of John, purposely placing a barrier between the laity and God himself, which cannot be understood as anything other than the common man denied the right to pray directly to Jesus and or God. And they institute this practice in ignorance of and an overruling of Jesus directing every man, woman and child to pray to God directly.

I doubt very much that any of you who protect the church’s doctrine in this regard would take the same stand were you to learn that the man you sit beside in church every week has been preying on your child, or relative, and the man at the pulpit knows about it. The proof is in the pudding, for so too must priests confess, and without a doubt they have confessed the very same crimes, and there was not a parent who cared one wit to forgive the church for hiding behind this doctrine when it came to protecting their own, the hundreds of millions in reparation paid out worldwide by the church proves that.

This man did not wish to be helped, and he used the protection of the church to absolve himself of this despicable sin week after week. Jesus said nothing about it being necessary to confess to a priest, and he could have made the same confession to the police or the parents of his victims. He chose not to because he cared not for the penance of a jail cell.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
There has been a case recently in Australia where a paedophile confessed his sins to a priest. After the paedophile repeatedly offended again, it was made known that the priest knew about his problem and the situation could have been prevented.

Now this obviously raises some issues. I am pretty sure these priests make an oath to the church and possibly God that they will not pass this information on and hold it in the strictest confidence.

On the other hand, they have information that could potentially stop evil crimes from occurring.

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?

Edit typos and bad english


Comment: The confessional is as basic to Christianity as any other doctrine. If people cannot assume confidentiality then they will not right themselves before God. For that matter one could assume as a priest that the person is lying, and that the duty of the priest is to forgive sins. I think you may remember the drama where Alfred Hitchcock displayed the story of a priest who was charged with murder, and did not reveal the real murderer who confessed to the priest.

For that matter why not include Rabbis, and Mullahs with this category? Well the specific attack is on the catholic church, which seems too fashionable within a too well controlled press. The public atmosphere is against Christianity, while the politicians engage in doublethink to gain the Christian vote.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Well the specific attack is on the catholic church

Oh the 'we are being persecuted' card!
I didn't expect that.
The issue at hand is whether the Catholic church is acting above the law- if a priest is allowed to conceal the crimes of an offender.. it clearly is.
If it is permitted to do that.. then there is no freedom of religion or protection from it.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Ooh, he is less of a man, I am more of a man


I think your missing the point. How was the priest to know (or Croat if he was put in that position) that the crime would be commited again? The priest might have thought he had repented.


If a friend of mine told me that he killed someone, and I kept it a secret from authorities, I would be an accomplice by federal law. I would more than like be charged and punished, and if not, the possibility would still be there. It doesn't matter if I knew for a fact that this was a one time occurance or not.

Now back to the subject, this is a kid. Bab, do you have any idea of the psychological effects molestation causes to children? The struggles that child will have in the future? Your thought process is also disturbing. Religion is no excuse for criminal activity.

You answer the question since you are a defender of this outrageous point of view. Religion is defined as I stated above. If I invented my own belief system today, that would be my religion. I decide to harm children repeatedly as a part of my religious practices. According to you, I have freedom to be above the law just as the priest if I say its my faith.

So your turn: Should I be punished for harming children??? Answer babloy... go ahead. Croat, you can answer whenever you would like too...I know youre still following this.

[edit on 1/28/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
What if it were your child were raped because a priest didn't speak up?


Then I'd prosecute the rapist and thank God that the priest
was doing his job correctly and that he wasn't violating the
sanctity of the confessional.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
O lord another one:

Flyers fan...I extend my question out to you since you defend this sick practice.

With religion being defined by merriam webster as a set of beliefs or faith, and your claim that religions should be free...freedom of religion, I pose to you, croat, and bab:

What if I started my own religion today, and part of my faith dictated that I should commit serious crimes? Should I be allowed to do so without prosecution? Answer the question. You don't have the guts too either. Your logic is sick just like the others.

ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU COWARDS AND HIPOCRITS!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join