Catholic

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, sorry, I didn't read the entire thread, discussion of this seems ongoing.

Very interesting how some defend attorney-client privilege and yet feel that priests should turn over those who confess. Clearly, this is just a disrespect for the concept of confession simply because it's a religious concept.

Dilemma of the Confessional

Suppose you had a dear friend who was soon to be hanged for a murder he was innocent of, convicted upon perjured and circumstantial evidence. Then suppose the murderer came to you and confessed his guilt. Would you not immediately notify the police so that your innocent friend would not need to die? Of course you would! But if you were a Roman Catholic priest, and this man had confessed to you, you would have to stand helplessly by as your dear friend died for a murder he did not commit. Fantastic? Not according to Catholic theologians.

Thus the Catholic Herald, London, England, May 9, 1952, in its question column published the following: “Can the seal of confession be broken by a priest in the interests of justice, e.g., in such a grave matter as murder? No. Nothing whatever, except the consent of the penitent (which he can never be obliged to give), can release a priest from the seal. . . . even if the circumstances were such that the priest thought it the criminal’s duty to give himself up—even to save an innocent life—the priest himself could never make use of knowledge which does not belong to him at all, but only to God.”

Two actual incidents illustrate the foregoing: “Returns Bank Loot, Won’t Bare Thief. Priest’s Lips Sealed. . . . part of the money taken by a repentant bank robber has been returned by a Denver priest to whom he confessed, but authorities still don’t know his identity. The Roman Catholic priest, with a ‘sacred obligation’ to reveal nothing heard in the confessional, yesterday returned to authorities $6,850 in bills he said was part of $7,780 taken in a daylight robbery here Feb. 17. . . . The United States attorney said the priest promised to relay a message that partial return of the money would not absolve the robber of ‘criminal responsibility.’ ‘I hope now that he will decide to clear his conscience entirely by coming to the proper authorities,’ said [attorney] Kelley.”—Los Angeles Herald & Express, April 13, 1955.

The second incident was reported by The Inland Register, a Spokane, Washington, Roman Catholic weekly, August 14, 1953. It told of an item that appeared in the London Times regarding a priest to whom a certain convict, thinking he was dying, confessed as having committed the crime for which another man was serving a sentence. The convict recovered, but upon his death, a year later, the priest revealed his confession, causing the innocent man to be set free. It was pointed out that even death does not free a priest from his seal, and that if true, this was perhaps the first time in history in which a priest broke his seal and revealed what had been told him in a confession.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
If you were a cop and you thought the priest knew something about someone
you were after how would you deal with that situation??

They talk of mandatory reporting but it does not happen.

Surely the law of the land should overrule canon law.

I would like to see a separation of church and state.

The Catholic religion has falling numbers i ...[text shortened]... ospital because of the Catholic church's
ethics. The doctors hands were tied by their ethics.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
If you were a cop and you thought the priest knew something about someone
you were after how would you deal with that situation??

They talk of mandatory reporting but it does not happen.

Surely the law of the land should overrule canon law.

I would like to see a separation of church and state.

The Catholic religion has falling numbers i ...[text shortened]... ospital because of the Catholic church's
ethics. The doctors hands were tied by their ethics.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Trying to enforce the seperation of church and state is the worst thing the goverment of the USA has done. 😏

P.S. Our government was meant to be a government by the people and for the people and not a divided government with separate rules for each religious group.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
All you need is your constitution.

You don't need religion to run a country.
You know the values that you need to hold true.

If you needed religion to run the country the USA would end up like Iran.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Irish priests say they will disobey new confession box law on child abuse

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-priests-say-they-














will-disobey-new-confession-box-law-on-child-abuse-149029005.html

You raise some interesting points, in effect, should secular law over rule canonical law. Yes it should unless that law ...[text shortened]... Biblically I cannot say, but otherwise a Christian is under duress to obey the laws of the land.

Originally posted by JS357
So canonical law rules whenever there is a conflict. If a canonical law States Gods law. Right? In what sense then does secular law rule? In the sense of laws like right on red after stop?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As Romans 13 states the Christians obligation to secular governments is relative. Its a
relative subjection, for they stand (the governments) in their relative positions, by God.
Anything which attempts to superseded Gods law is therefore and attempt to subvert
this relativity. Yes so while Christians are under obligation to pay taxes, stop at ...[text shortened]... frain from carrying out the
preaching and teaching of Gods Kingdom, itself a command from God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jehovah's Witnesses should not be allowed to make the laws because no lives would ever be saved by blood transfusions. True Christians allow blood transfusions and make better laws. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we don't make any laws, we are politically neutral, praise da lord, hallelujah, holy holy holy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends entirely where you are, If you live in Texas you are duty bound to report it
but not in Virginia, if you live in the Republic of Ireland you must report it, but not in
the UK,

Britain has no law requiring schools or other institutions responsible for the care of
children to report allegations or incidents of child sex abuse. A he ...[text shortened]...
no legal obligation to report anything to anybody.

http://scepticalthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

Originally posted by sumydid
Typical Humanism at work, with such profoundly important issues.

Is one morally obligated to stop a child molester from continuing his efforts? Well, it depends on what that person's home address is.

Well done. Round of applause.

Originally posted by sumydid
Typical Humanism at work, with such profoundly important issues.

Is one morally obligated to stop a child molester from continuing his efforts? Well, it depends on what that person's home address is.

Well done. Round of applause.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You are confusing morality with legality. While one may be morally obligated to stop a
child molester from continuing his efforts due the the exercise of the faculty of
conscience, there may be no legal obligation to do so, after all, if there are no laws
governing the matter there can be no legal obligation, can there?