It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by riley

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

Many are pedaphiles.

Oh brother ... this explains a lot.

Less than 1% of priest have been involved in the 'scandel'.
That's too many, but hardly 'many' and the number of
protestant ministers who engage in inappropriate sexual
contact with their flocks is higher. I'll dig up the stats
and post here (as time permits).

Less than 1% in 40 years is hardly 'many'.
The percentage of children abused in
public school is much higher. The percentage of children
abused in UN refugee camps is around 40%.

The fact remains that Priests (and ministers) are the people who
may have private religious conversations with people and
can RIGHTLY be assured protection of such. To take
away this right would just mean that criminals wouldn't
go to get help with priests (and ministers) and that is a
lost chance to get them to turn themselves in or to stop
their crimes. To make religious leaders turn people in,
would just mean that no one would go to them and those
would be lost opportunities.

This conversation is going no where. Common sense isn't
sinking in and the discussion is now just a waste of time.
I'll pray for those of you who don't get it and who think
the criminal's soul is unimportant and those who want to
shut down religious confessions by requiring religious
leaders to tell the law about people who come to them
in Confession. (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see
that by doing so, you kill ANY chance of getting these
people to turn themselves in or to stop the crimes, DUH!)
I feel sorry for those of you who feel the way you do.
Like I said, I'll be praying for you.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Croat56
Wait I thought a priest isnt supposed to see the person confessing.

Sometimes people cover their faces, usually that is not the case. In either case, the preist was probably guilty of the same thing as the confessor, judging by the last few years of catholic priest indictments. The preist should have immediatly went to the authorities. Obviously the child had not come forward...and so the only hope for the child was that preist. The good christian preist...who let the young, and innocent boy down in favor of a child molesting freek. You people disgust me.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:21 PM
Flyer, do you have the courage to answer my question or not? I can't wait to hear from you.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by riley
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.

Oh brother (again)... just another ex-Catholic who doesn't
believe in Confession. Yes it is SACRED. You lost your
Catholic faith. Too bad for you. But it is SACRED, like it
or not. Which obviously you don't like.

Any conversation with a disgruntled ex Catholic about Confession,
the Eucharist, or any other of the Sacred Traditions and
Divine Truths is a waste of time. Useless. I'm finished wasting
my time. Buh-Bye now

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:24 PM
It gets worse everytime these people talk.

Not only did those freek preists molest children (im sorry, less than 1%), but the jerk bishops and diocese leaders of that sick church knowingly covered them up. Yes, thats right.....COVERED IT UP. I am seeing a pattern develop here. People like flyers fan are supporting this sick practice too. Those sick church leaders are just as guilty as the offenders...and the combined number of church leaders that knew of these actions was clearly more than 1%. The offenders may have been less, but the guilty were far greater. Stop defedning this sickness.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
In either case, the preist was probably guilty of the same thing as the confessor, judging by the last few years of catholic priest indictments.

(one last thing)
Pure stupidity. This is so stupid ...
on so many levels ... it is just amazing.
Senseless anti-Catholicism is alive and well.
Bet you have a Jack Chick tract addition

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:25 PM
I have a question, does anyone in here notice that noone will answer my question? Can they even see me? Something must be wrong.

Answer the question, should all religions be defended? Or just the one that molests children? ANSWER IT YOU COWARD!

[edit on 1/28/2005 by Seapeople]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:29 PM

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.

No it is not basic Chritian doctrine, but a type of sacrement the Catholic church has created to facilitate and muddy confessions. Also It has muddied basic vocabulary to the point no one can understand catholics and vis-versa except catholics.

Confess : to disclose one's faults; specifically : to unburden one's sins or the state of one's conscience to God or to a priest

Repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life

forgiveness of sins: God freely forgives our sins because Christ has paid for them. Our faith is not the cause of our forgiveness, but simply the means by which the gift of God is delivered to us. It is by grace through faith.

Some sins are docturnal in nature, and only need repentance. Other sins are to disobey law which God has given the governemnt. For those sins you need to seek both spiritual forgiveness, and government forgiveness... which usualy means fines or jail.

To say you go to a confessional and secretly confess your sins to just "clean your name" is extermely arrogent for anyone to admit

And the argument that no one will want to go to the confessional if the priest discloses the information to authorities is jsut another way to cover things up. if a person is truely repentant he would not care about those things and would just want to right himself with God and take anyother punishment as people would see fit to do.

Hebrews 10:26-26 "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:30 PM
Riley, do you think they will continually ignore the obvious flaw in their logic? Or do you think one of them will step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is by answering the question.

By the way, where is it in the bible, stating that we are to confess to a priest? I must have missed that part. Weird judging by how important it is.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
jerk bishops
People like flyers fan are supporting this sick practice too.

The bishops that covered up over the years aren't 'jerks'.
They are wolves in sheeps clothing.

And as far as your freak-wad comment that I am supporting
the less than 1% of priests who were involved ... FU to hell.
You are uneducated and immature, AND an anti-Catholic
bigoted jerk. FU. I don't care if I get a warning for saying
that. FU again. Go educate yourself ... and grow up.

I'm outta' here. You idiots can wallow in your
anti-Catholic pigheadedness. Your severe lack of
common sense is mindblowing and your uneducated
bigotry is nausiating.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
where is it in the bible, stating that we are to confess to a priest?
I must have missed that part.

You have already been told that Sola scriptura IS NOT biblical.
Go back and reread the thread. You are just blathering to
yourself now... (anti-Catholic fundamentalist blathering)

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:38 PM
Calm down yall.

take a deep breath and chill.

no more insults after this point

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Amuk
no more insults after this point

I was actually just PMing ya' about
this garbage when I got notified. UGH!
I'm won't be back on this thread. Freak'n
waste of time.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:50 PM
Disclaimer: I'm not catholic so I can neither defend or explain their practices in great detail.

In the confession booth (which is where I'm thinking this took place), does the sinner state their name? If they do, does the priest know his address, phone number, etc.? Just kicking out the illogical arguments first. Secondly, if said criminal wanted talk to somone, do you think he would've gone to the police if there were no priest? The fact is, said criminal went to someone he trusts and believes can help. It is a heavy responsibility, as a priest/friend/relative/whoever, to do everything in their power to help this person repent and change their ways (which is what the goal of a confession is) as well as convince them that it is the right thing to do to accept the punishment due to them. If that person turns themselves in, then ultimately that is the greatest learning experience since, by their will, they've proven they want this change. I never said this process is easy. The right way is not the easy way.

Consider the alternative. They get jailed, hate the priest and God, get out on good behaviour after 2 years, go out and then do it again. All the priest has done in that case is delay the process.

Originally posted by shmick25
Is it necessary for these criminals to get this information off their chest to someone?


Originally posted by shmick25
Does it make them feel better?

Only that person could answer.

Originally posted by shmick25
Why do they go through a priest and not directly to God?

Maybe they are afraid, I don't know. If they had a working relationship with God, then absolutely I agree they should.

Originally posted by shmick25
If they tell someone, surely it is ther hearers duty to act on this information!!

I think the priests believe they are acting on it.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that no-one will asnwer my question. Why is it so hard. Should I be allowed to commit a crime in the name of my made up religion? Yes, or No.

You see, it is this sick defense of religion that bothers me the most. People are so steadfast in believing their religion is true, that they defend it hypocritically and illogically. They don''t even allow themselves to think, because they are aware of what their conclusions will be. So they ignore them.

Not one of the people who were arguing with me even acknowledged that I asked a question, let alone tried to answer it. Why? Because they would be contradicting themselves if they did, and they would look foolish.

Just another example of the logic of organized religious groups. Note how I was called unintellegent. Because I thought it all the way through. They call someone who thinks freely and for themselves.....unintelligent. Yet they feel that a child molestors "soul" is more important than an innocent childs. "doesnt anyone think about the confessors soul?" Don't you flyar, think about the childs soul, who has no help or hope? Or do you hold the rapist's soul on a higher level.....

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 03:13 PM

Not usually does the confessor state his/her name. Most of the time, the confessor is a member of the congregation and is known by the priest, in this instance I doubt that was the case.....but due to the fact that the preist didnt say anything, he might have known him.

In any case, at the very least, the preist could have went to the authorities and said "a man confessed a terrible crime to me today" The police could have then started searching for not only the offender, but THE VICTIM. Going to schools and encouraging children to come forward with things like this. They could have also narrowed down a time and place that the perpetrator definitely was at. It is a good start to any investigation, and that is worst case scenerio.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
Has anyone noticed that no-one will asnwer my question. Why is it so hard. Should I be allowed to commit a crime in the name of my made up religion? Yes, or No.

I'll answer it. It was not answered probly beacuse it isn't a simple question and cannot be answered by a just yes or no

By commiting a crime I assume you mean breaking the law according to the government as opposed to a religions crime. And no the government would not allow you to commit a crime no matter what religion you follow or didn't follow. So therefore, no one should allow you to do it.

But there is points where the answer isn't clear when the a law of government restricts someones faith. (school prayer) Or imposing one countries law on another. And it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis along with the intend and purpose of the law.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:10 PM
You do know it is a crime to hide the fact that a rapist has confessed to you correct? You didn't forget that, right? It is a crime to hold information from authorities of that nature. It is in some cases punishable as if the person were a accomplice. I assure you, that if I hid the fact that person confided in me a rape of a child, and I was later found out, I would be punished.

Oh, by the way, your case by case basis argument is disturbing. If it is a crime for me, it is a crime for you. Period. Crimes hurt people, thats why they are punishable. If you commit a crime, you are responsible. Case by case basis means you will favor certain religions. So, someone who believes in satanism would not be allowed to practice illegal rituals under your interpretation because you fail to see why it would be biased. That is not the true "equality" that people often preach. If you want freedom of religion to include any crime at all, then all crimes should be punished. None of this case by case silly nonsense.

Satan worshippers should be able to slaughter cows if this jerk preist can keep this secret. Further more I would have more respect for the satanists because they at the very least are upfront with their evil ways. They do not try to pretend to be "on higher moral ground" because they are christian.

[edit on 1/28/2005 by Seapeople]

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:46 PM
My Point of view is this. If the person that did the crime is seious about wanting to deal with his actions, he will go directly to the police. From there, he will have access to a priest where he can get his councelling. There are many instances of criminals turning themselves into the police.

I am not anti catholic, it is just unfortunately, when you see a fault in their organisation, you get shot down as one. I just tell it as I see it. The institution as a whole, has a bad history of covering up their sins. Unfortunately this doctorine is in place to protect their organisation. This policy however, is wrong, and just because it is a religion does not make it right. Similarly, the policy of the mormons not to accept blood for a dying child that needs a transfusion is also wrong.

Interesting to read your comments.

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:52 PM
That is a good point. If the person was truly sorry, they would go to the police and turn themselves in.

If they don't, than they are scared, not sorry.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in