K
KrazyKat
Guest
All that you mentioned is not in the same arena as child abuse/rape of the innocent. Children have no sin. There is definitely something wrong with any organization or person that does not protect the innocent.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
What about the mans innocent partners? What about the husband who’s wife is cheating on him and could give him an STD? Who decides when the Priest MUST break the seal. The Govt? The APA?
K
KrazyKat
Guest
Maybe that is a good reason for the confessionals to be built in such a way that the priest cannot see who is confessing. Having to carry around all this knowledge must play on his conscience. Surprises me that there is not more suicide in the priesthood.
Not posting anymore on this subject. Hurts my heart to dwell on a man of God harming children either by commission or omission .
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually most people go to confession sitting across from the Priest with no screen. The Priest is harming no one. He is carrying out Christs command"Whos sins you forgive are forgiven"
S
sealoch
Guest
Is 2000 years of history in the 200,000 years of human history that relevent? Which has been held to be wrong longer aiding child abuse or preventing it??
E
estesbob
Guest
And what other sins is the Priest required to reveal?
S
sealoch
Guest
Child abuse is however on a slightly different level would you agree?
That being said this is still wrong by the willfully harming others. The priest himself must decide why should it take a court order to determine what is right?
S
sealoch
Guest
Murder would probably be a good start.
S
sealoch
Guest
But I would hope this is not as common as some make it seem
S
SamH
Guest
What history book are you reading?
S
sealoch
Guest
nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/modern-human-evolution/when/index.htmlWhat history book are you reading?
My mistake i went with the liberal end of the band of modern humans 150k or if you’d like i will go ultra conservative and take half 100k
E
estesbob
Guest
So the Priest now becomes an arm of law enforcement? Its not going to happen, Regardless of what you mat say or the govt may say it nor going to happen. Priests have been tortured , murdered as exiled for not breaking the seal. The Priest purpose is to forgive sins, not deal out vengeance or betray those who confessed.
S
sealoch
Guest
It does not matter for this I will use ultimatums either you are or are not aiding the abuser. Hide behind what ever veils you would like it makes it no less terrible.
E
estesbob
Guest
So now the sacred Sacrament of confession is reduced to “hiding behind veils” and “abiding evil”. ?
A
adrift
Guest
Confession is for sins already committed in order to be forgiven the penitent must have a sincere promise not to do it again. It is unethical to reveal the sins of someone who has confessed. All mortal sin separates us from God. It is an error to say some sins are worst than others. A priest who violates his vows commits a serious sin. Who are you to judge if the penitent is sincere?
S
sealoch
Guest
Yes when used that way it is
A
adrift
Guest
What do you mean by used that way?
S
sealoch
Guest
To permit continued abuses against children, elderly, etc
A
adrift
Guest
How?
M
manualman
Guest
The regulation and disciplinary procedures for priests can’t be constructed with blinders on. We 21st century Americans tend to be naïve ignoramuses when it comes to the place of the church in regards to other cultures, other nations and other eras. We assume that since America today has a pretty robust legal system with fairly good protections for accused peoples that this is the norm. Globally and historically speaking, that’s just ignorant wishful thinking!
For most of church history, civil government has been FAR more likely to be corrupt and downright evil than church bureaucracies. One needn’t even look far back in time to see it, either. John Paul II, for example, lived most of his life in an environment when priests were routinely arrested and disappeared on absurdly trumped up charges by the governments of the people they served. No wonder he wasn’t too keen on the idea that any unproven accusation ought to be enough to toss a priest out on his ear! Don’t kid yourself that that’s all in the past, either. It happens TODAY in China and many other nations still. This sort of thing MUST be planned for when establishing global canon law principles for the handling of complaints against priests.
Americans’ perceptions of the relative levels of corruption and wrongdoing in the church hierarchy are still warped by remnants of our bigoted WASP forefathers that shaped the culture of our country, including the spreading of the Black Legend about Catholicism (especially Spanish versions). Serious historians (secular ones, even) have come to realize that throughout history, the church leadership was generally more just and LESS corrupt than the civil states they coexisted within. Pick nearly any point in history before the 20th century and give the people there the choice to be tried before a church tribunal or a civil court and they’d pick the church one any day of the week. Even in the “Inquisition” eras! That’s how bad the state courts were.
On topic, it’s easy to ascribe nefarious motives to Catholicism’s unwillingness to place itself at the absolute mercy of the state for purposes of criminal justice. Viewed in the lens of history, recent self-protective scandals pale in comparison to the sorts of horrors nation states have imposed in the name of “justice systems” and warrant a canon law approach that prefers to keep discipline for sins and crimes in-house when warranted by circumstances. The challenge is to develop principles by which the state can be invited in as a check and balance when they’re shown worthy of that privilege, but not to allow that gesture to be exploited by those who despise the very nature of Catholicism (and boy are they out there!).
For most of church history, civil government has been FAR more likely to be corrupt and downright evil than church bureaucracies. One needn’t even look far back in time to see it, either. John Paul II, for example, lived most of his life in an environment when priests were routinely arrested and disappeared on absurdly trumped up charges by the governments of the people they served. No wonder he wasn’t too keen on the idea that any unproven accusation ought to be enough to toss a priest out on his ear! Don’t kid yourself that that’s all in the past, either. It happens TODAY in China and many other nations still. This sort of thing MUST be planned for when establishing global canon law principles for the handling of complaints against priests.
Americans’ perceptions of the relative levels of corruption and wrongdoing in the church hierarchy are still warped by remnants of our bigoted WASP forefathers that shaped the culture of our country, including the spreading of the Black Legend about Catholicism (especially Spanish versions). Serious historians (secular ones, even) have come to realize that throughout history, the church leadership was generally more just and LESS corrupt than the civil states they coexisted within. Pick nearly any point in history before the 20th century and give the people there the choice to be tried before a church tribunal or a civil court and they’d pick the church one any day of the week. Even in the “Inquisition” eras! That’s how bad the state courts were.
On topic, it’s easy to ascribe nefarious motives to Catholicism’s unwillingness to place itself at the absolute mercy of the state for purposes of criminal justice. Viewed in the lens of history, recent self-protective scandals pale in comparison to the sorts of horrors nation states have imposed in the name of “justice systems” and warrant a canon law approach that prefers to keep discipline for sins and crimes in-house when warranted by circumstances. The challenge is to develop principles by which the state can be invited in as a check and balance when they’re shown worthy of that privilege, but not to allow that gesture to be exploited by those who despise the very nature of Catholicism (and boy are they out there!).
- Status