|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Enlighten me, leo
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What if you were in their place?
The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I never would be. And it has nothing to do with "but for the grace of God..." etc., because it has nothing to do with God's grace and everything to do with possessing the minimum basic requirements of a human being.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
But what is not up for discussion is the Seal of the Confessional. That is inviolate (except in the case that by not revealing the confession the priest himself might be convicted of a crime and put to death), inviolate, inviolate.
Excuse me? A priest can reveal a confession if his life is in danger, but not if it's some worthless little brat? Are you fucking serious?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But I really do shudder at the thought that clergy would assume it is their responsibility to be handing those who come to see them over to the police on any matter whatsoever.
Why? I'd think it would be the responsibility of any good citizen to pass on information which may prevent a serious crime to the relevant authorities. I'd certainly hope that if a priest came across such information outside the confessional that he'd act accordingly.
Posts: 3690 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
But what is not up for discussion is the Seal of the Confessional. That is inviolate (except in the case that by not revealing the confession the priest himself might be convicted of a crime and put to death), inviolate, inviolate.
Excuse me? A priest can reveal a confession if his life is in danger, but not if it's some worthless little brat? Are you fucking serious?
It's not so much me being serious as the Canon Law of the Church of England. The 1603 Canons had a section concerning confession which has deliberately never been repealed and, as such, is still legally binding on the ordained clergy. That section is this:
"Provided always that if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not in any way bind the said minister by this our constitution, but we do straightly charge and admonish him that he do not at any time reveal and make know to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy, (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same) under pain of irregularity."
In other words, the Canon Law of the Church of England (my 1983 Canon Law of Rome is downstairs but I daresay it says much the same thing) states that if a priest hears a confession in which any crime or offence is confessed then he not permitted to reveal it.
That's why I say again and stress that the hearing of confessions is a delicate process. It should not be regarded as a simple conveyorbelt mechanism meaning every priest in Englnd is walking around with the confession of hundreds of child abusers inside him and unable to do anything about it.
By the way, the Diocese of London website makes it clear that Nightlamp's view that confidences are there to be broken lays him open to charges under the Clergy Discipline for Conduct Unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders.
Cosmo
[ 02. May 2006, 11:51: Message edited by: Cosmo ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
By the way, the Diocese of London website makes it clear that Nightlamp's view that confidences are there to be broken lays him open to charges under the Clergy Discipline for Conduct Unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders.
RuthW may have said I was a Priest but that doesn't make me one so I don't feel particularly bound by CofE Clergy discipline.
Anyway from the same web site it says
quote:
In the case of a request for a reference for someone about whom a minister has information concerning accusations of child abuse, or who is about to be appointed to, or is actually in, a post which gives access to children, bearing in mind Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights disclosure should only be made if there is a 'pressing need', taking into account such matters as
the minister's own view as to the truth of what is alleged,
the interest of the third party in obtaining the information (much greater if, for example, X is seeking employment in a children's hostel, than if he or she is seeking to work in an old people's home), and
the degree of risk likely to arise if the disclosure is not made, which will involve consideration of such matters as the length of time that has elapsed since the behaviour the minister is aware of took place, the age of the children to which X will have access, and which of the above categories applies
Which would suggest of all crimes abuse of children should be given to people in authority.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
So the arguments so far are that child abuse is one of the most horrible things there is, therefore it’s worth breaking the ‘seal’ of confession. Versus the idea that the seal of confession is inviolable and any exception renders the whole idea suspect and breaks the original vow of confidentiality.
This debate reflects a number of underlying theological assumptions:
- The high value associated with confession, confidentiality and priesthood.
- The high level of moral outrage associated with child abuse compared to other ‘sins’ such as selling state secrets.
While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse. Wouldn’t ones position on child abuse be separate to one’s position on the confidentiality of confession?
The other interesting question brought up by this thread is what is the eternal (or ‘spiritual’ ) significance of keeping or breaking confidentiality in relation to child abuse?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.
If someone killed someone and killed them and third party saw it did nothing at all and the person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it and did nothing at all and didn't help the police and the person then killed someone else Would the third party be in the wrong?
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
If you heard a confession that a fellow Priest was molesting a young boy named Jimmy from your parish and you know Jimmy and his family...how on earth could you face that child or his family knowing that there was abuse? His parent's are unaware, this child is being destroyed and you say, "good moring, nice to see you in church today?" His parents mention how nice it is that the priest in question is taking some kids fishing (story from the Boston abuse scandal) and you say..."have a nice time?"
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
If I knew who Nightlamp was I would never tell him anything even vaguely confidential about myself or anybody else either under the Seal or outside. How on earth can I trust him (or any other priest who admits to breaking confidences, big or small) to keep anything quiet?
Cosmo
Exactly what I was thinking. I know it's a 'confidence' but I tend to think of someone's sacramental confession as something more than that - 'a confidence' puts it on the same level as Grandma's surprise party for her 90th birthday.
Thurible
Well, out of all of you so far the only one I'd consider having as my priest is Nightlamp (whether he actually turns out to be one or not) - because I could not, in any good conscience, entrust my spiritual development to someone who, given the choice of maintaining their good standing within church heirarchy or stopping the rape or brutality of an innocent child, felt their loyalty lay with the former.
Different perspectives on what we're looking for out of a priest, I guess.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Thank you Cosmo for a very useful post. Your post restored my respect for and confidence in the Anglican clergy!
Hey! What about me? What's he got that I haven't got?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Amos, that opens up all sorts of possibilities for an answer ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But it was just that Cosmo had posted after I had already acknolwedged you here after being told by RuthW you were of the ordained variety.
You see, I do care - sometimes ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
BTW, in Roman Catholic law a priest is not dispensed from keeping the seal if his life is in danger. St John Nepomucen, the "martyr of the confessional" is an example of one who refused to violate the seal. All over eastern Europe his statue abounds, with a finger to his lips to show he kept silence rather than save his life.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What if you were in their place?
The rest of your post is irrelevant, because I never would be.
Why? Aren't they people like you? Or do you think they are not people like you, but belong to a different category?
I'm not saying that you will actually do such crimes. But what if you were in their place, having the upbringing they had, experiencing the things they experienced, being alienated from God to the degree they were?
Do you really think that you are not prone to such sins?
I think that you remind me of Peter. "I will never deny you, Master". I -and excuse me for speaking frankly- find it perverse to believe that someone who repents and understands the poverty of his life is not worthy of our love and care and mercy.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
Well, out of all of you so far the only one I'd consider having as my priest is Nightlamp (whether he actually turns out to be one or not) - because I could not, in any good conscience, entrust my spiritual development to someone who, given the choice of maintaining their good standing within church heirarchy or stopping the rape or brutality of an innocent child, felt their loyalty lay with the former.
First, where has anybody here said that? The seal of the confessional has nothing to do with keeping in with the heirarchy and everything to do with respecting the privacy and trust of the penitent. Do you seriously think that TT or me would prefer to keep in with our respective bishops rather than try to prevent the rape of a child? That's a pretty serious accusation.
Second, you are yet another example of somebody who will never hear a sacramental confession but thinks they know exactly how it works and what happens in every case. Read what TT and I have written. It is not a conveyor belt process.
Third, you don't have a choice as to whether or not I or anybody else is 'your' priest. That's called Donatism and is one of the oldest heresies. I am a priest of God. You can choose not to go to my church if you like but you can't choose if I am or am not a priest for you.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
In other words, the Canon Law of the Church of England (my 1983 Canon Law of Rome is downstairs but I daresay it says much the same thing) states that if a priest hears a confession in which any crime or offence is confessed then he not permitted to reveal it.
Rather, the RC Canon Law from 1983 says in Canon 938.1: "The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion." Of course, I wouldn't necessarily bet that all RC priests will die rather than break the seal (and be excommunicated, Can. 1388). But your escape clause is as far as I can see not in Roman law...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I'm going to wear that and apologise. It was a stupid thing to say, and I regret it. As you indicated, it was a presumptious thing to say based on your post.
Apology accepted and appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.
Yeah, that's more or less my point. I don't in the least mind someone else holding a different opinion about confidentiality to me (I mean, by definition, I think different opinions to mine are wrong, but I don't get annoyed about it) but it is completely out of order for someone to suppose that because I disagree with them I somehow condone child abuse. I don't. It's evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?
How about - if there was a clinical program whereby people tempted to murder could talk about it in confidence with a view to working through their issues and turning away from violence, and some pompous, unfeeling official decided she could give herself a big, self-satisfied pat on the back at her ‘zero-tolerence' attitude if she put a stop to the offer of confidentiality? And someone who would have sought help under the old rules then didn't, and went on to kill?
Anyone can play this game, and it would be just as unfair for me to criticise your position on the basis that you are putting your conscience above genuine attempts to help abusers to stop abusing as it is for you to suggest that confidentiality equals complicity. It's a silly rhetorical trick that gets in the way of the real issue.
I'm not asking you to agree with me about when it is right or wrong to keep a confidence, just to accept that people would think confessions are inviolate think that because they believe that the secrecy of the confessional is effective in avoiding sin. And in this particular case, we believe that some children will be abused less often if some abusers have access to sacramental confession, than if they do not. You might think we are wrong about that, but if you dare to suggest that we think child abuse is anything other than an evil that absolutely must be stopped, then you are either a fool or a liar.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The film Priest, written by Jimmy McGovern and released in 1995 dealt with this dilemma in a very intelligent way.
The film had many detractors, but I found it a superb depiction of so many tensions that inhere in the life and ministry of priests.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
Ricardus:
quote:
then the sort of child molester who wasn't willing to give themselves up just wouldn't confess
Doesn't that go back to my original point that going to confession to someone who can't do anything about it is really just an empty gesture?
Triple Tiara
quote:
Zorro, you seem to think everything a Catholic does is out of fear or the threat of excommunication
I don't, and I can only apologise if you think that I do, what I was saying was that a large part of a priest not breaking the seal (other than the seal's unbreakability) is the fear of excommunication. I think that it's wrong to have such practices in place which prevent child abuse being reported.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Thanks for your clarification Zorro. I will simply restate that I keep the seal not because I am afraid of excommunication, but I believe it is a sacred trust to which I feel bound. I think almost all priests would say the same. The bit about excommunication is simply there as a censure should a violation happen. I assure you, it is very low down in my reasons for preserving the seal. It is often mentioned as an assurance to those making their confessions. But it is not the great motivating factor for priests in preserving the seal.
I hope that clarifies it a bit.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
RuthW may have said I was a Priest but that doesn't make me one
I was under the impression that you were, but if I'm wrong it certainly isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for any confusion I've created.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by ed the big crazy bear:
My suggestion would be is to assure the confessor, before you start that you cannot keep anything illegal confidential.
Sex between members of the same gender was illegal a few years ago. So did adultery and fornication. If these things become again illegal one day, should priests turn homosexuals over to the police? Should priests turn unmarried people that have sex over to the police? Should priests turn adulterers over to the police?
At the risk of starting a tangent, the confessional (in anglo-catholic churches) was often a place of help and assurance to homosexuals when their behaviour was illegal - somebody has written a book on it but I cannot currently get to my shelves because I have builders turning my home inside out. The gist of it was that the seal of the confessional enabled many to explore their spirituality and their sexuality e.g. perhaps not to feel guilty about a stable relationship but avoid promiscuity (the former often led to the latter).
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Ricardus:
quote:
then the sort of child molester who wasn't willing to give themselves up just wouldn't confess
Doesn't that go back to my original point that going to confession to someone who can't do anything about it is really just an empty gesture?
Yes - but we seem to be drawing opposite conclusions from it ...
[ 02. May 2006, 20:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
Cosmo it's all very nice sounding stuff but at the end day of the day if someone confesses to you* that they are molesting my child and you do not do everything you can lay your hands on to stop that from occuring one moment longer, then you are simply not my priest in the sense that I believe your actions render your priesthood null and void in any true sense of the word. I don't give a toss what your organisation chart or piece of paper tells me you are. I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on church organisation though, but that's okay. The kingdom's big enough.
*you not being literally "you, cosmo" but "you" hypothetically.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Devil's advocate, as it were]
But if the penitent's unsupported word was not enough to convict, and all that happened was that the abuser moved elsewhere - or said the priest was making a malicious accusation cos it was the priest what done it / they'd being having an affair and he was afraid of it coming out >insert random slander here<
Versus
Priest's counselling and withholding of absolution causes abuser to actually confront their denial and they then turn themselves in ?
Because we can't actually know what would happen. But it would be difficult to get a conviction on just a confession, in the same way that someone can't sectioned because they told the Samaritan's they were suicidal - unless they start repeating that account to other people.
[/Devil's advocate, as it were]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
But if the penitent's unsupported word was not enough to convict, and all that happened was that the abuser moved elsewhere - or said the priest was making a malicious accusation cos it was the priest what done it
Naturally it isn't enough to convict but it might be enough for someone to investigate the accusation.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you really think that you are not prone to such sins?
Do I really think that I am not prone to fucking or beating children? Yeah, I really think that. Anyone who doesn't think that should go ahead and remove him/herself from the human race at the next available opportunity.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
One has to be careful in assuming that a child who is exhibiting hypersexual behavior is necessarily being abused. Hypersexual behavior is a common symptom of early-onset bipolar disorder. It is an extremely distressing symptom of an extremely serious psychiatric disorder.
If the child is exhibiting hypersexual behavior, the parents are generally very much aware that, in seeking help for their child, they are risking being accused of abuse, with all that entails. It's a terrible position for a parent to be in.
Sorry. I had no idea that was the case. Not a mistake I shall be making again.
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
I apologize for having a little trouble keeping up, but as we all know there's been a lot of excitement around here recently. I do however have a couple of questions:
1) Has it been decided yet which sins are under the seal of the confessional and which aren't, or is it just everybody's own opinion?
2) Has Nightlamp ever heard a confession, sacramentally speaking, or does he just occasionally hear things "in confidence" (Well, at least one party thinks they're "in confidence".)
Thank-you.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
hehehehe, exactly
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Has Nightlamp ever heard a confession, sacramentally speaking,
Now doing that would probably get me into trouble unless ex-caretakers of churches have suddenly got authority I ain't heard of yet. Mind you it might be a new tradition and who says (ex)-caretakers can't hear confession?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zorro:
Leo, there's sinning, then there's child abuse.
I swore at someone the other day, that's a sin.
Someone's been sexually assaulting kids for the last 20 years, which is worse?
...Anyone who harms children in this way should be immediately reported to the authorities, and put away for a long, long time.....Also, regarding the bit you mentioned about the Gospel telling us that people can always repent, I found this in the bible
quote:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Now I know it doesn't mention child abuse outright, but it's certainly clear that leading children astray is a serious offence.
There are those diehard catholics who would say that ANY sin unrepented would send one to Hell. I don't accept that but I DO believe that child-abusers cannot help it, which puts them, for me, into the category of 'sick' more than evil. Putting them in prison means they will get beaten up, unable to get a job when they come out so have more times on their hands to hang around children and so on.
I am not saying that abuse is NOT a serious offence; however I object to two posts earlier in this thread which referred to them as 'shitbags' and such like. They are, like the rest of us, children of God. He loves them and we are called to do the same. The real issue is: how is that love best demonstrated?
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.
Spare me this child of God crap. If you're heart really bleeds for paedophiles, go pontificate to them.
While I appreciate TT's post about how he/she would deal with a confession of abuse, I am getting pretty tired of reading from Cosmo and TT how the rest of us just don't get how hard this is because we have never heard a confession as a priest before. IngoB alluded to the fact that I am an abuse survivor. He is correct. I and thousands of other abuse survivors would much rather be priests hearing nasty confessions than have abuse in our pasts. Every day and twice on Sunday.
Andreas - I can't be bothered to say anything about your posts than that you are an insensitive, brainless moron who really should have been deprived of the ability to type so you couldn't subject us all to your sanctimonious drivel.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If you're a priest who knows one of my children is being targetted for abuse, but remain silent due to the sanctity of the confessional, and the abuse does take place, God save your soul, because I will do my best to kill you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Awkwardly, if I promise to do something, such as not repeat something, I will in fact try to do that regardless of the consequences. It's one of the reasons I don't promise things very often.
However, should a situation arise such that I've promised not to reveal something, and that something turned out to be a confession of something like child abuse, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find some technicality. For example, I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't have promised not to cripple the confessor, and sterilize them with a red hot butter knife. Which might be just too damn bad.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
However, should a situation arise such that I've promised not to reveal something, and that something turned out to be a confession of something like child abuse, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find some technicality. For example, I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't have promised not to cripple the confessor, and sterilize them with a red hot butter knife. Which might be just too damn bad.
Cute plan. Whether your incompetent attempts at doing physical damage will result in more than hilarity, who knows? But when the child abuser calls the cops on you, you can't reveal your reason for the assault - hence you end up being the new Canadian toy boy in prison. Which might be just too damn bad?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
What's the problem Ingo? Getting tired of the tedious displays of erudition in Purg? No longer satisfied with the diminishing ego boost from the same old crowd of sycophants? Looking to expand your intellectual prowess into more Hellish domains?
Surely, you have something more useful to do? Like polish a mirror or change a diaper? Better, yet... go work on your lame-ass astrology thread.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While my mind is not fully made up it does seem a dodgy arguing tactic to imply those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse.
If someone killed someone and killed them and third party saw it did nothing at all and the person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it and did nothing at all and didn't help the police and the person then killed someone else Would the third party be in the wrong?
If someone killed someone and a third party heard about it from the killer in confidence and did nothing at all and didn't help the police. The person then killed someone else would the third party be in the wrong?
Fair line of arguing, I admit you can be a bystander and have a certain amount of complicity in a situation.
However your example doesn’t take into account three questions or assumptions about this topic. - You seem to imply child abuse is as bad or worse then ‘killing.’
- Secondly what degree of child abuse is worthy of breaking the confession?
- Thirdly is ‘confession’ something special, something inviolate or is it just a plain every day confidence that can be broken in certain contexts?
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse. It would be like saying those who think the confession should be broken are anti-Catholic!
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.
God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.
Spare me this child of God crap.
If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.
I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.
Spare me this child of God crap.
If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.
Funny thing, leo - if I read your posts out loud, I start channeling Micky Mouse, and my voice sounds all high pitched, squeaky and extremely irritating. Does any of that resonate?
quote:
I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!
You've done well ignoring the thrust of my disagreement with you, which was about your idiotic statement that paedophiles cannot help themselves. My point is, if they can't help themselves than the only thing we can do with them is kill them. Or restrain them for the term of thier natural lives, I suppose. Which is a waste of oxygen, and other resources.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.
God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it?
A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.
Fair criticism. If it turns out only to be a strawman then I'm happy.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
What's the problem Ingo?
Gort, in the not too distant past you were slowly getting to me with your personal vendetta. Then, luckily, I stumbled on a picture of you in an All Saints shipmeet thread. I laughed out loud at myself and have not been bothered by any of it since. Most people get a bit mulish and atrabilious with old age, and if constantly yapping at me is one of the few remaining pleasures in your rapidly diminishing life, so be it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Maybe this is too purgatorial but it still seems a dubious tactic to imply that those who think the confession is inviolate are pro-child abuse.
God knows that has been said time and time again, hasn't it?
A suggestion: perhaps find an example where somebody on this thread has said this, or something like it, and your statement might have half a fingernail's worth of credibility.
‘Pro-child abuse'? No, no one has said that. What has been strongly implied (mostly by you, as it happens) is that your opponents are untroubled by, or accepting of, abuse. Which is not quite as insulting or absurd as suggesting that they are positively in favour of it, but it is still a fairly nasty thing to imply.
Example: quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Its sad that you find this [limiting confessional secrecy] disturbing. Some of us find sexual abuse of children disturbing.
which carries the very strong inference that your correspondent does NOT appear to find child abuse disturbing.
Similarly your comment (to me) that:
quote:
What you seem unable to understand, dickhead, is that child abuse is a much more gross and inexcusable betrayal.
If I, apparently, do not find child abuse ‘inexcuseable', then presumably you mean to suggest that I am willing to excuse it.
A number of Nightlamp's comments appear to me to suggest a similar attitude (though not quite as strongly as yours):
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp...I think the greater betrayal would be to the victims of abuse and in my opinion a Priest that didn't tell the police should be prosecuted.
[...]
I believe that a priest's loyalty to God and humanity should be above that of some kind of church tradition.
suggest that keeping the seal of the confessional is disloyalty to God and humanity, and his rhetorical questions in answer to Luke's post in the form:
quote:
If someone killed someone [various circumstances] Would the third party be in the wrong?
suggest to me an implied answer of "Yes" to Luke's proposition that "those who support total confidentiality are therefore indirect supporters of child abuse".
There are plenty of posts on this thread (on both sides) which take no such cheap shots at people of contrary opinions. I haven't argued with those.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
We all agree that sins like that alienate the sinner from God even further than other sins. But can't someone repent and change his or her way of life?
I have been taught to believe that when we sin we are not in communion with light. Therefore, I find quite shocking things like what Luther wrote to the effect that even if one commits murder or rape many times a day his/her faith is enough to save him/her. However, I have also been taught that there is one kind of humantity, that there are no sub-humans. This means that if something (ontologically speaking) is possible for someone else, it is possible for me as well.
I see myself in others, because I could have been them. I am able to "pray for those that oppress me and bless those that curse me" because I understand how sad their life is; being away from God is sad in itself.
This makes it easier for me to forgive (not easy, but easier). After all, the word "forgive" in Greek means to put myself in the same place with him whom I forgive.
I have also been taught that all good things are gifts from above. Isn't repentance a good thing? I think that it is something God gives. Who am I to deny something that God gives?
This does not mean that when one repents things are all right. I have been taught that there is a hard way we are to walk in order to fight the passions and the sins of this world. In practical terms, this means that priests involved in sexual immorality are to be deposed and spend their life in a monastery repenting, and lay people must get excommunicated for years and pray for God's forgiveness and grace. Perhaps jail is a step in the right direction. I am not arguing against jail.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I called you here because you said something dumb, and now you have said something dumber.
If child abusers can't help it, then the confessional isn't going to help them. Or anyone else. If they can't help it, then we should exectute them. Waste of oxygen. Which, frankly, isn't the worst idea. They can help it, its not a sickness its pure, simple evil.
Spare me this child of God crap.
If you deny that anyone is a child of God, you deny the gospel, you deny that Christ has (ultimately) conquered sin and death - so let's cancel Eastetide.
Funny thing, leo - if I read your posts out loud, I start channeling Micky Mouse, and my voice sounds all high pitched, squeaky and extremely irritating. Does any of that resonate?
quote:
I see, also, that we are getting into capital punishment!
You've done well ignoring the thrust of my disagreement with you, which was about your idiotic statement that paedophiles cannot help themselves. My point is, if they can't help themselves than the only thing we can do with them is kill them. Or restrain them for the term of thier natural lives, I suppose. Which is a waste of oxygen, and other resources.
When I said they 'can't help themselves' I meant that the propensity seems incurable - so it's not nthat can't stop doing it but that they can't stop WANTING to do it.
BTW Someone above said that child abuse was worse than murder. I don't quite agree with that but I can see that many of those who have been abused may live very stunted lives - so imposing the suffering of a lifetime on to someone is greater pain than killing someone.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I have been taught to believe that when we sin we are not in communion with light. Therefore, I find quite shocking things like what Luther wrote to the effect that even if one commits murder or rape many times a day his/her faith is enough to save him/her.
Why is it shocking?
I think what this is describing is the condition in which one has faith in Christ and sincerely tries to follow his commandments, yet fails. I admit to some experience with such a state of being although my acts of murder and rape have been nonexistent. But then I haven't ever felt tempted to murder or rape.
This is different from someone who acknowledges a belief in Christ as Lord but then goes on to live a life in which this belief makes no difference whatsoever. To my mind this is either dead faith a la St James or no faith at all.
I think you could argue that a strong faith will result in repentance and contrition and therefore by God's mercy a quick return to a state of grace even for one who commits grave sins frequently, whereas a less blatant sinner who lacks faith will not go down this path.
[fixed typo]
[ 03. May 2006, 11:36: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
andreas1984
quote:
We all agree that sins like that alienate the sinner from God even further than other sins. But can't someone repent and change his or her way of life?
I'm sure it is, but I still think that "confessing" to someone you know can't do anything is really just trying to soften your conscience. If you really were repentent, surely you'd be up for going to the police and being punished?
To say that it's all right for someone who has ruined the lives of children to go and "confess," but still not want to accept the consequences of what they did is at best an empty-gesture.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Bloody hell, Zorro - how many more times does some poor long-suffering bastard have to attempt to punch this one home?: if there were no sign of accepting responsibility for the crime there would be no absolution. I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
Once more for the insufferably stupid: no repentance and taking responsibilty, no absolution. Got it now?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
Just to play (ahem) devil's advocate, what about the molester going to a monastery for life?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I don't know how this plays out in the case of child abuse, but I do know how it works in the case of spouse abuse. A priest can intervene effectively without breaking the seal of the confessional, by what he requires of the person making the confession. This is true whether he learns of the abuse from the abuser or from the person being abused.
As others here have said, maintaining the seal of the confessional is not at all the same as dismissing the sin as inconsequential. Not reporting the sin to the police is not the same as doing nothing about it.
People being abused often feel guilty about some of the abuse, or their reactions to it, and they are unwilling to tell anyone about the abuse or their feelings about it. The fact that the confessional is sealed gives them a safe place to tell someone what is going on, perhaps the only truly safe place they have. If the victim of abuse thought there was the faintest chance that the priest would intervene openly, it's unlikely that the victim would speak of the abuse to the priest at all.
Lifting the seal might seem like "the right thing to do," but I think the consequences would be far less beneficial than some people imagine.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zorro
Shipmate
# 9156
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc
quote:
I cannot think of a situation in which taking legal responsibilty for the crimes would not effectively be a condition for receiving absolution.
I never said that it wouldn't be. I said that going to confession on its own isn't worth much. Of course if someone hands themselves in and accepts the consequences that's all right, no problems there.
--------------------
It is so hard to believe, because it is so hard to obey. Soren Kierkegaard
Well, churches really should be like sluts; take everyone no matter who they are or whether they can pay. Spiffy da wondersheep
Posts: 2568 | From: Baja California (actually the UK but that's where my fans know me from) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
