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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
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.


Your preaching to the Chior


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.


If you read my post careful enough you would know that I was using case by cases basis to explain laws or even interpitation of laws that affect religious people. (ex. Witch burning, school in prayer, 10 commandments displayed in public place, crosses in hospitals, crosses on public land, holy wars). If somehow a law was created a law that banned public prayer, almost every major religion would be affected and limited by that law. In that situation, I would gladly break the law, just like blacks broke segregation laws to earn their freedom. But that also does not allow me to freely break any law the state creates


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.


What illegal rituals? Most of the probelms with satanic rituals i know of are from mutilations of cattle that people did not own, and loud Noise (or screaming) which is covered under many disorderly conduct legislation and disturning the peace.


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.


It has to be case by case because there are situations we don't know of that might come up. Because there is laws preventing prayer in school I am now suppose to stop praying? becasue the 10 commandemtn are barred from being displayedi n class rooms I have now can no longer carry a bible into a court room? To some that is how it can be interpeted, that is why you need a case by case basis for such laws


Satan worshippers should be able to slaughter cows if this jerk preist can keep this secret.


(that is a bad example)
actaully anyone can, including satan worshippers, in fact I could get started slaughtering a cow in 15 minutes if i get permission from a nearby farmer. want to join me? meat will be real fresh. maybe can can bring some of my Jewish freinds to come over and slaughter a year old lamb without blemish for a passover supper (even tho it isn't passover) Better yet, lets go over to the near by med school and perform operations (slaughter) on dead cats and dogs.

we were not in the cofessional, nor are we omnisiant. As it has been said before 4 times (at least) in this thread If he was truely willing to confess and repent, he would also turn himself in.




posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Alright, what you are saying is that we need a system that recognizes religion and its rights, and that system should judge every instance occuring on a case by case basis. You do understand that will open up room for religion based bias I assume. So then as a result, I also assume that you do not care. Which in turn brings me to the conclusion that you practice not only religion, but one of the more popular ones.

I may be wrong, but thats what it seems like.

Case by case basis:

What should happen to this priest. Don't forget that the child had not come forward yet, and the offender confessed more than once. Which means that each time the priest held his mouth shut, he allowed a chgild to be raped again. WHat happens jos, in this case. Where exactly do you stand?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Alright, what you are saying is that we need a system that recognizes religion and its rights, and that system should judge every instance occuring on a case by case basis. You do understand that will open up room for religion based bias I assume.

There has been relgious bias ever since there was more then one religion in the world. It is just now easier and more religious freedoms are allowed, when a governement does not impose legislation restricting or promoting specific religions.

So then as a result, I also assume that you do not care.
care about what? Actaully I do care about certain things, But I am not sure what the subject you are refering to here.

Which in turn brings me to the conclusion that you practice not only religion, but one of the more popular ones.
if you concider christianity popular then yes I do practice and belive in that

What should happen to this priest. Don't forget that the child had not come forward yet, and the offender confessed more than once. Which means that each time the priest held his mouth shut, he allowed a chgild to be raped again. WHat happens jos, in this case. Where exactly do you stand?
First of all if this is a catholic confessional it is very likely that the Priest did not know who the pedofile was. But we need to ask also:

1. Was the penetant really repenting of his sins?
2. Did the priest encourage the penetant to turn himself in?

If the offender did not turn himself in, then he is not truely repentant, and the priest should bar him from the church as an unrepentant sinner, and contact the authorities. By not doing so the preist allowed the offensive acts to continue, and in a way was responsible and also should be judged by both the state and chruch.

regardless of the confidentiality oath being broken, no one should allow another to keep on sinning, nor breaking the law, because of that oath. To think that people wouldn't confess anymore becasue of the oath being broken only implies ignorance as to why somes times it needs to be broken



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.

Okay.. I'm skeptical only because most parents have strong protective instincts- to switch them off in favour of religion does not make sense to me and would be nearly impossible to do when their child has been violated. Obviously the answer was going to be biased no matter what- so I'll rephrase it so you can better understand it from a non chistian point of view.
What if it were a priest, in the same situation but he belonged to a Moslem, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist etc church? It would be sacred to those followers.. what if one of those followers were molesting your child and their priest knew about it?

[edit on 30-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Flyersflin,
I forgot to ask earlier but could you provide source on this 1% priest abusers? Were these ones formally charged? The only thing that concured with you were obviously christian sites.

however according to this:

"No one knows how many more there may be, since Church officials deny keeping any centralized records. But bishops in dioceses where one or two priest molesters have been sued or prosecuted speak openly about the three, four, or five or six other cases they have handled in private. And they themselves know that they are unaware of the many -- probably the majority -- which are never reported."

www.healthyplace.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Jos,

You said that if it was a catholic preist, he likely did not know who the defendent was. I was raised catholic. I have seen the inside of confession booths. My church did not have barriers between the preist and the confessor. Many these days do not, though some do. Whether or not there was one is irrelevant. If the preist knew him, he should have turned him in. If the preist did not know him, but could see him, he should have allerted authorities for the reasons I described above about investigations. If the preist couldn't even see him, he still should have notified authorities.

You see, the sick thing about this situation, is something you have yet to seperate yourself from. In all of your posts, you keep referring to whether or not that sick freek child molestor was truly sorry or not. Who freeking cares!!!! How arrogant and incompasionate could you possibly be?!?!? You truly care about that mans situation more than the childs, or you would have been addressing the childs first and foremost, and you are not. It is unbelievable. You must not have children.

You see, that child did nothing wrong. He was ruined from the start. Let me guess that your opinion is : "the damage is done so lets get this molestor saved now, and worry about the young innocent child when he too is old enough to accept jesus, but until then, the molestor". That is the only logic I can see you having. Your lack of compasion towards this child is uttelry astonishing.

If that preist had a christian bone in his sorry and pathetic excuse for a human body, then he would have thought of that innocent young child first. The guy molested him...... He freeking raped a child!!! That child is scared, too scared to even come forward. Very likely he will end up destroyed in his emotional life. Now, what did he do to deserve this?? It was all part of Gods plan right? That is sick. Christians don't ever think this far into anything. I suppose I am foolish for trying to get you too. I think they don't because they just don't have the mental capacity or something.

Honestly, and I know I am going to get in trouble for this, but all you people who defend the preist's actions, are in turn defending the sick freeks rights too. Thats one thing which may even be acceptable unless you consider the whole story (which you don't). The other thing you are doing, which makes this worse, is considering those rights BEFORE you consider that childs. You are so caught up in silly religious and christian rights that you forgot that poor child along the way. You forget a lot of things. You are sick. Truly sick.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Having been raised with Jesus' teachings.. I'm surprised that Christians [christlike] would jump up and down about tradition demanding their religion be exused from following the law and treat it as if it is worth more than a child's innocence. As a kid.. despite having doubts about god.. [which became atheism] I actually apreciated Jesus' way of doing things.. and now I'm cringing as I think about the next thing I'm going to write
...:

What would Jesus have done in the same situation?

Going by the man he was suppose to have been.. he would have taken the predator to the authorities himself.
Could someone please show me an example where he would agree with failing to protect a child when needed?

[edit on 31-1-2005 by riley]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I agree riley. I am truly sickened and astonished that not one of these people wrote about the safety and protection of the child fisrt and the molestors second. I can't understand why they don't see that as a problem.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
I can't understand why they don't see that as a problem.

Maybe some intend to or have confessed illegal activities and don't want their past biting them on the arse? I doubt many Christians would have a problem with a priest doing the 'right thing' and turning him in.. it's one thing for someone to commit a sin- but if they commit a crime and HAVE to confess it they should do it at a police station.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join