R
Rosalinda
Guest
What do you think? Would this not be a disturbing violation of religious rights?
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48522
- Status
D
Della
Guest
Even if this bill did pass it would be struck down by the courts. The confessional and indeed all communications between one’s spiritual director/confessor (of any religion) is strictly confidential and cannot be forced from anyone.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Well that may be the current law but after the atheists finish with the pledge I think they’ll go after this one. I’m not sure a “strict constructionist” could find private confessionals a right in the constitution especially if the right to privacy is curtailed. Atheists would find this right as a violation of the separation of church and state.
D
Della
Guest
By the “right to privacy” being curtailed do you mean the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, which truly did overstep the bounds of the right to privacy? I truly doubt the atheists or anyone else is going to convince the USSC that Church cannot claim confidentiality for the confessional when it has always been a part of our law since the founding of the country. After all, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly cover all situations, which it can’t possibly do. I would think that common sense would prevail in this case, especially with the court we now have.
T
Timidity
Guest
This law already exists/existed in Texas, for several years. I have not heard of any charges brought under it.
The answer is, in my mind, simple. Go back to the confession screen.
The answer is, in my mind, simple. Go back to the confession screen.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I always have and always will use a confession screen. Not for my benefit, but rather for the priest’s. The only benefit of face-to-face confessions is if you have a dedicated confessor who is helping you overcome a certain passion.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It doesn’t matter what the law says, Catholic Priests answer to a higher law. They cannot violate the sanctity of the confessional, even if they are imprisoned for it.
“In the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” – Tertullian.
“In the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” – Tertullian.
N
Nohome
Guest
vern humphrey:
Nohome
They can choose not to grant forgiveness or make it conditional (pending the offender turning themselves in). Yes, a priest answers to a higher law and with it, higher expectations.
Nohome
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I have been assured by a deacon (who may not know as much as he thinks he knows) that a priest cannot require a penetent to turn himself in.
In any case, he cannot violate the seal of the confessional.
T
TPJCatholic
Guest
The best thing to do is to go back to confessional boxes in every Church. Priests are better served to not know who they are absolving.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Priests answer to a higher authority and do not have to answer to this. This means some priests will go to jail for contempt of court, but it will how the vendictiveness of the secular left.
PF
PF
F
fkpl
Guest
A state or federal statute requiring disclosure by a priest of evidence of crime (i.e., admissions) disclosed in the confessional would clearly be found an unconstitutional abridgement of the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Any priest who obliged the state in such circumstances would be guilty of the gravest of sin and could face excommunication for it.
Any priest who obliged the state in such circumstances would be guilty of the gravest of sin and could face excommunication for it.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Actually, I believe it is automatic excommunication.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Excommunication latae sententae – by the act itself.
Of course, he could run for Congress, and then no one would refuse him communion.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif
O
Ortho
Guest
Many states have laws requiring someone who is normally covered by confidentiality privilege to report a person if that person indicates an intention to do serious harm to another.
So, let’s take a hypothetical.
A man confesses to a priest that he has been raping his 7-year-old daughter. Every week the man confesses the same thing. The situation is such that the priest cannot help the girl without telling authorities what he learned in confession. What is the responsible thing to do?
So, let’s take a hypothetical.
A man confesses to a priest that he has been raping his 7-year-old daughter. Every week the man confesses the same thing. The situation is such that the priest cannot help the girl without telling authorities what he learned in confession. What is the responsible thing to do?
O
otm
Guest
Shoot the penitent?
Sorry, your hypothetical doesn’t require anything in particualr in terms of reporting, as nothing is said in the hypothetical that would indicate that the abuser is going to abuse again. Common sense may indicate there is a great likelyhood, but that is different from the penitent indicating he is going to rape her again.
O
Ortho
Guest
OK. What is the responsible thing to do as the case is written?
Suppose we then alter the case and the man says he doesn’t think he can stop?
O
otm
Guest
you all are missing a major point or two here.
b) the abuser doesn’t tell - there is nothing to be gained by telling that he or she confessed it to the priest. It is not going to work in terms of plea bargaining down the crime; the state has to try to convict a priest, who will not testify and cannot be compelled to testify, based on rules against self incrimination, and the abuser if they are going to testify will be a convicted criminal, and any even moderately intelligent defense attorney could have a field day with the abuser on the stand.
c) no one else knows.
So how is the state going to enforce this? The issues that could come up concerning a tap in the confessional are way too risky in terms of any other tap that could be placed on the abuser.
Basicaly it is a non issue.
- the requirement that the priest tell of any prior abuse is the same as for doctors, teachers, etc. and that is to prevent future abuse.
- How is the state going to ever know that this specific priest ever heard the confession of the abuser?
b) the abuser doesn’t tell - there is nothing to be gained by telling that he or she confessed it to the priest. It is not going to work in terms of plea bargaining down the crime; the state has to try to convict a priest, who will not testify and cannot be compelled to testify, based on rules against self incrimination, and the abuser if they are going to testify will be a convicted criminal, and any even moderately intelligent defense attorney could have a field day with the abuser on the stand.
c) no one else knows.
So how is the state going to enforce this? The issues that could come up concerning a tap in the confessional are way too risky in terms of any other tap that could be placed on the abuser.
Basicaly it is a non issue.
O
otm
Guest
Shoot the penitent?
It really doesn’t make any difference. The priest cannot tell what he has heard in a penitential setting. That is the seal of the confessional. I would not say that it has never been broken, only that I have never heard of it, and don’t know anyone else who has.
O
Ortho
Guest
Non-issue? I disagree. A 7-year-old is repeatedly being raped. What is the responsible thing for the priest to do?
- Status