Ireland stepped up its battle with the Roman Catholic Church over child abuse Sunday, with Justice Minister Alan Shatter vowing to pass a law requiring priests to report suspicions of child abuse, even if they learn about them in confession.
The Catholic Church regards information learned in confession as completely confidential. But under the law proposed by Shatter, priests could be prosecuted for failing to tell the police about crimes disclosed in the confession box.
Shatter said in a statement through a spokesman last week that priests’ failure to report what they learn in confession “has led sexual predators into believing that they have impunity and facilitated pedophiles preying on children and destroying their lives.”
The minister’s comment to a local radio station Sunday comes after the Vatican rejected Irish accusations that church leaders sought to cover up extensive abuse of young people by priests in Ireland…
Released July 13, the 421-page report into the handling of abuses in the diocese of Cloyne demolished claims by the Catholic Church in Ireland that policies it put in place in 1996 had enabled it to get a handle on the problem.
It also accused Bishop John Magee, who was responsible for policing abuse in his diocese, of not backing the policies himself and failing to take action against abusers.
Overdue.
#31 Doctors at least don’t. The whole doctor/patient confidentiality thing is all well and good but they are REQUIRED to go to the relevant authorities should (for example) you make a threat against another person or let slip that you’ve been kiddie-fiddling.
The church should be NO DIFFERENT.
In the great 1994 movie Priest, not the current piece of schlock with the same name, the question is put what if, as a priest, you are told in confession that someone has poisoned the sacramental wine; what would you do?
The same movie also deals with exactly the topic we’re now discussing, what if a priest is told in the confessional that the confessor is raping young kids including his daughter. Its well worth a look.
Brilliant plan!
But we could save ourselves some money here.
Remove the priests from the confession box entirely and replace them with the police, skip the middleman…
But then, why cant the child molesters just as well go straight to the police and confess. That would make it simpler for everyone. Can someone tell them please?
Ha, ha. He actually posted something other than someone else is a sheeple. He’s added the charge of being a Moron. You know he is “ultra serious” because he spelled it correctly. My goodness. something doesn’t fit here though. Is the implacation that not all sheeple are morons? I would have thought that was the case.
Well, let’s see what Pedro’s got:
What a moron! Overdue? Then why don’t we go after psychiatrists & (or all physicians for that matter) and put them in jail for not disclosing what transpires on their sessions? /// Well, for psychiatrists, we do. There are specific situations mostly having to do with committing future crimes that Psych Docs have to report to the authorities. Interesting that in that the job/service/professionalism of a Psych Doc is very much the same as a less educated, more likely crazy himself, Priest. Yet the doc has had to report as required for decades now. Say Pedro==how is the same requirement for Priest not overdue?
Let’s do the seame with defense attorneys. /// Thats what I recommend too–so be careful when you call me a sheeple moron. I hate being called something redundant. The confidentiality argument is based on other factors than the Priest/Psych Doc but I think societies interest is about the same. Probably==lawyers give more money to politicians too. I’d never discount that. Imagine: money grubbing moronic sheeples. A triple play!!! Most frustrating.
Moron! /// Yes. Calling for consistency in the law is very moronic. don’t you support god McCullough? You are going to smoke a turd in hell for that one.
I know a few things that are overdue here, but I’ll keep them to myself for now. /// I don’t think you have to limit by further adjective the few things that you know. In your world Pedro, can one be a sheeple and not moronic? Whats the key difference in your assessment on that point? Does Alfie ride either one? Why don’t you take the 3 minutes it would take and tell us everything you know?
Unless a moron like you forces me to tell what I have in my mind. Actually, I wouldn’t mind saying it: Moron! /// You alread said that twice. Makes me think the only other thing you haven’t told us yet is that he is a sheeple.
Hahahaha. Pedro. Its a push between you and your donkey as to which is more amusing. You know, when he gets all four feet onto that Mexican Hat, that always just cracks me up.
whenever I think the world is a rotten place, I think of you and your donkey and that Mexican Hat. Always makes me smile.
I’d say to keep the good stuff coming Pedro, but I don’t want to empty your mind out completely. Who know, you might have more than 3 things.
Dallas–what does this mean? Pedo was ejected from the Catholic Church? Or his donkey wasn’t given confirmation? Something terrible certainly happened since McCullough’s fine reporting that this change in our law is overdue.
I for one am all for it.
ALL CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
#29
“well your rephrase is a TOTALLY different question”
Not so much, you just picked up on it once I put it into cop show language.
Thanks for the insults. I was just asking a question and not trying to make a point. Well, since you didn’t ask I will give you my best effort for specific case of the thread topic:
The Church, likely for reasons of sexual repression, seems to be disturbingly connected to abuse against children. It’s like the South and messing with black people. Confidentiality ought to be breached in extremely limited cases because of the potential to prevent FUTURE abuse and NOT because the state needs to punish every last criminal.
In more general terms I think confidential relationships should be strong, and extended to reporters(or similar). It goes back to why we give people lawyers in the first place. If you don’t know how to exercise your rights you effectively don’t have them.
I don’t like any/all formulations. If you think that equates to not having an opinion that’s up to you.
We need to do the same in the US and prevent the church from continuing to harbor criminals, sex offenders and terrorists.
This tax exempt pyramid scam needs to be shut down or treated like any other service industry – taxed and regulated.
The Church is not a legal entity and should not follow some attorney-client privilege. Instead, they should be taxed or shut down or both.
Chris==you will be the reason I separate my responses to different people in the future, or at least be sure to use a number when I switch addressees.
Oh No, aka Ah Yea, was the target of my objective assessment as where you. He got a negative hit because his analysis lacked merit whereas yours is admirable.
different words do mean different things. I still don’t note any cop talk. Learn to be less defensive. Its just words, and between strangers, what possible difference could they make even with intent? Cull out the worthy. Let Pedro do the mindless personality calls.
You are right about the basis for lawyer client privilege. Why does society have any interest in allowing giving comfort to criminals by way of having a priest give them absolution? Is the proper balance against this interest really catching all criminals–or just criminals who have committed crimes sufficient to get cops on their trail at the local church.
How about a voluntary system? Sign up at the local City Hall and let them know if its ok with you if any criminal who has damaged you is ok to confess at the local church and you don’t want him caught. I’ll go to the same City Hall and let them know just the opposite. Then the cops can compare release lists with the local parish and we can all get what we think is right. Cops and Church can share the lists with the community as well so that criminals will know who they can victimize without fear of the law as well.
See–we bring our minds together and come up with solutions where everyone is happy.
The future is so bright, I can’t even see Pedro.
During a visit to Ireland awhile back, I had a very interesting conversation with someone in law enforcement.
He said that so many kids disappeared without a trace in that country that it would fill up a phone book. He accused the church of facilitating this tragedy and that things were looking up but they still had a long way to go. I asked why this wasn’t known more in the press. His answer, “The church is powerful in Ireland.”
Interesting tidbit (and no bearing on my above conversation that I can see) — 48% of the people in Ireland are under the age of 26.
LL–so what you’re saying is the cops rather than checking the confessional box for clues, they should be checking the dorm rooms at the Monasteries for imprisoned youngsters==lost forever into the Priesthood?
Sounds about right to me.
On my own visit to Ireland I was awestruck (sic!) by the various shades of green you could see in any landscape. Right after a rain with those shafts of light around the clouds–it was breathtaking. I could feel the poet being coaxed out of me.
Who’d a thunk there would be a connection between weather and literary creativity?
Yes, everything is connected to everything else.
Of course if anyone feels the need to confess and be forgiven by God then they can… without any need for a priest.
And it’s completely confidential!
#43, Heretic! 🙂
The simpler solution is for people to STAY AWAY FROM THE “CHURCH” IN DROVES !!!
But I predict that the “Church” will come out for the elimination of “age of consent” laws, making it open season on kids still in the “Church” !!!
And shielding them from future lawsuits that DRAIN MONEY FROM THE “CHURCH” THAT SEEMS TO ONLY BE ABOUT MONEY !!!
Caveat Emptor and YMMV !!!
#43 great point. The problem all started when the middlemen got involved.
#40 “Let Pedro do the mindless personality calls.”
You’re not too far behind. I’m not delicate, just like more signal and less noise.
#39 I would let them keep charitable status, but only on income used for actual charity. Non-religious groups need a ton of backup for 501(c)(3) status. Don’t see why we look the other way if the dude is wearing dress and claims to be an afterlife travel agent.
Alt if you’re still here, are you saying people routinely go to another church to give confession?
How many people are covered by a single priest? I would think he would know who is in the confessional most of the time, at least in small towns like we might see in Ireland.
I’ve been thinking about the tax exempt status of churches and here’s what I’ve concluded. It isn’t that churches are getting special treatment. They are getting NO treatment.
Here’s something I posted in another thread. I think it still applies.
As soon as you start taxing churches, you are automatically favoring some over others. The tax system in the US is designed around social engineering (buy a house, get married, have kids, buy this car, donate to this charity, employer-provided health insurance, sin taxes, etc.).
Do you really want the government using the churches in this country to further its own agenda (abortion and anti-abortion, gay and anti-gay)? This may sound appealing if your party of choice is in power, but what happens when your party is NOT in power?
I shudder at the thought of the government funneling billions of dollars to a church to brainwash its followers into thinking “the right way.”
Pretty soon, all the small-town country churches are out of business because the bigger churches sent lobbyists to DC to get the regulations written in their favor and now we only have three or four big churches all preaching for us to pray for our Dear Leader who is working too hard.
You may not like churches but as soon as you start regulating them, they will be in your bed every Friday and Saturday night.
bobbo, really?
“There is no such thing as forced self-incrimination.”
and
“I CHALLENGE YOU to name any legal circumstance comprising involuntary testimony against one’s self.”
1) Extraordinary Rendition. Secret prisons. Guantanamo. “Enhanced interrogation.” Waterboarding.
2) The popular practice, especially in the Southern states, of interrogating people too ignorant to invoke their right to representation, for 15 to 20 hours or more without a break.
3) Strictly speaking, even the widely accepted practice of forcing people to be fingerprinted could be called involuntary self-incrimination.
#49 oh lord. Where does thou begin.
Church gets no treatment ? No government money? Really ?
#50–Uncle Patso==congrats. A fair reply. I could accept it as written, but let’s see what some contrarian person might parse:
“I CHALLENGE YOU to name any legal circumstance comprising involuntary testimony against one’s self.”
1) Extraordinary Rendition. /// Is that “legal?” Is it fair to say we are subjected to this when who knows how many/few have been and most of those are not US citizens? When is an aboration fairly said to be part of our system?
Secret prisons. Guantanamo. “Enhanced interrogation.” Waterboarding. /// Same response as above. All have troubling aspects though. I don’t worry about any of these when I get stopped by cops though. Am I being naive?
2) The popular practice, especially in the Southern states, of interrogating people too ignorant to invoke their right to representation, for 15 to 20 hours or more without a break. /// Statistics?==I doubt this is true. More urban myth. Jack Bower TV mentality???? Such interrogations are illegal–still need money to have “all” your rights defended though. Money and justice==always an issue.
3) Strictly speaking, even the widely accepted practice of forcing people to be fingerprinted could be called involuntary self-incrimination. //// Strictly speaking–absolutely not. there is no “testimony” and such evidence is called “objective” evidence. Can’t lie about it, can’t be coerced into having different dna and such.
Well done and right you are===depending on what is meant.
#52, Church gets no treatment ? No government money? Really ?
Really. They might get recognition, but they do not get any government money through tax breaks, tax incentives, stimulus funds, or grants. Bush tried the latter, under the guise of self-help, but it didn’t work out too well.
#52, Religious orgs are happy to try and influence government policy, so I think turnabout is fair play.
Chuckle. There is that word again, “fair.”
Who determines fair?
You are playing with fire if you are serious about that. We’ve been through one reformation. I would really hate to go through another.
Your point about mega-churches […]
And your point is? Join one if you want their services. But that isn’t an excuse to give them favorable or non-favorable tax treatment.
#55–Lucidity Loser==I think you lost something in not wanting to exactly repeat what you previously said. You were mostly wrong the first time, totally wrong this time.
What else is an income tax exempt organization except one that is getting a tax “break?” Not paying taxes is the very definition of a break.
I assume you simply lost track of your previous argument in your dogma induced haze???
HAW, HAW!!!!
I think the separation of church and state has gone way too far. Nothing at all in Church Dogma prohibits it from paying taxes. They should preach social and political values recommending to their sheep openly who the better political candidate is and pay taxes like everyone else. Why not?
As far as interfering with their internal operations: thats just what society should demand of them==just as they do with everyone else. This here thread just another example of the type of interference that should be had and isn’t.
Religion: a good example of how stupidity like a stone hits the pond of civilization and generates disruptive ripples out as far as its mania will allow.
Yea, verily.
#55
“but they do not get any government money through tax breaks, tax incentives…”
They are tax exempt, which is a decent sized break.
“… stimulus funds, or grants”
Many charities that receive government assistance are religious. Look here: http://www.hhs.gov/partnerships/
“Who determines fair?”
Notice the presence of ‘I think’ in the sentence you quote. No way are my opinions the objective standard of truth, but I like having/sharing them anyway. I’m not tax exempt though.
Big money religion is probably the most adept at working the intricacies of campaign finance law, and greatest violators of the spirit of those laws.
“And your point is? Join one if you want their services”
The point is that they get the status because they are a charitable organization, or at least that’s how the law is written. Other non-religious charities also appear to be playing dirty.
If a non-religious 501c org is spending a majority of it’s receipts on executive pay or fundraising, and some spend a LARGE majority on those things, I don’t think they should get tax exemption either.
There are good works, and then there are abusive tax shelters. A quick look at the head office will give you a good indication…
#58, They are exempt because by using social engineering (i.e., the US Tax Code), the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” clause would be violated.
It’s that simple.
If we didn’t have the totally useless tax code we have now, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I can see a tax code interpretation that said, “churches that encourage their members to buy Ford Expeditions will get a 15% tax deduction” or “churches that don’t pray for our fallen troops twice during a service don’t get the Patriot Tax Break.”
Worse yet, I see deals between candidates and churches — “Hey, you preach my virtues in service and I’ll see you get a grant for a new Sunday School Wing.” And then the church names the wing after said politician.
Don’t laugh. It would happen.
And I see your point on the hhs site, but the majority of charities are religion based because religion is where you find the majority of givers. As long as the charity isn’t funneling money to the church, I don’t have a problem with it.
Point taken on “fair”.
Regarding Church vs State, the Bill of Rights states that government shall make no laws regarding religion. Government does, however, make laws regarding religion indirectly, such as how the IRS deals with churches.
The Constitution says nothing about “separation of church and state” (that’s a Liberal/Leftist Fiction), only that laws can not be made (directly) regarding religion. That restriction is expressly one way, government towards religion.
It says nothing about religion influencing the government the same as any other special interest can (and does). Tax exemption for churches is a function of tax code which includes places of worship under general non-profit rules without actually mentioning religion. And that still does nothing regarding individual parishioners who have the same rights as any other special interest group’s individuals.
I was not too happy about Bush’s Faith Based Initiative programs which gave government money to religious groups. While church charities can and often are models of cost effectiveness in rendering aid to those in dire need, most of them cannot scale up rapidly (read “sudden influx of government money”) and still retain that cost effectiveness unless they’ve already got a pretty big membership (read “volunteer”). I can easily imagine Obama’s old church saying, “God Damn the Honkies/Crackers/Amerikkka/the Middle Class/Republicans/The Rich, Amen.” whenever they handed out government funded aid via Bush’s program.
#60, Your first paragraph isn’t quite right.
“Making no laws respecting an establishment of religion”
That means not favoring one over another. By not taxing them, the government is treating them as equals.
Too bad we can’t do that with individuals.
Don’t know about Ireland, but here in Canada the only conversation privileged in law is between lawyer and client. Priests can be legally compelled to testify, but they won’t so they could go to jail for contempt. Except, that looks so bad it will never happen. The trouble occurs when there is the question of whether the penitent told the priest as part of the ‘Sacrament of Confession’ or whether it was in a conversation outside of that religious rite
Well when you think about it, the argument can be made quite simple. If some religion receives any special privilege status in the country it’s in. Like tax exemptions or protection, or whatever. Then it shouldn’t enjoy any loophole that allow it followers to flaunt the laws of the land, they get absolution or whatever, from said religion. If some religion wants to “go it alone” and not receive any special status from the State. Then it can do whatever it pleases. But otherwise, it has an obligation as being part of, and benefiting from, its connection with the State. To uphold its laws, and provide all assistance in legal matters.
That said, I wager that the crime said State(s) are most concerned about are those of sedition and conspiracy. Not so much murder and child abuse. Especially in Ireland.
I hope this site has now changed its mind about special privileges for journalists who don’t reveal crimes.
Sinéad O’Connor was right all along!
On 20.07.11, O’Connor called this “The Most Important Speech In Irish History”
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny on Vatican dishonesty in the wake of The Cloyne Report
http://bit.ly/qhPzAw
From the speech: “…Today, that Church needs to be a penitent Church.
A church, truly and deeply penitent for the horrors it perpetrated, hid and denied.
In the name of God. But for the good of the institution….”
The bottom line is this. All religion is a form of mental illness, and that goes doubly so for the Catholics.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with paedophilia.
Start taxing the shit out of all religions, deficit problem solved.
Keep religion out of kid’s pants and classrooms.