|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BBC2 programme on paedophile priests
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I don't have time to write a long post - but I quickly checked this and it is not clear cut
Some states do require mandatory reporting despite attorney client privilege and others don't
quote:
A few state statutes require a particular and exclusive class of persons to report suspected cases of child abuse that do include attorneys (Mississippi and Nevada). More commonly, some state statutes require any person to report suspected cases of child abuse, including attorneys, either explicitly or implicitly by not providing for an exception based on attorney-client privilege (Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah). Finally, some state statutes require any person to report suspected cases of child abuse, but which then specifically excludes attorneys from reporting by preserving the attorney-client privilege (Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming).
The author of the piece come to an interesting conclusion
quote:
In that worst of the worse circumstance, I would believe that my ... obligations would not make mandatory reporting the first choice. Rather, in line with modern risk management principles, I would first attempt to manage that risk by consulting with his attorney and seeking an alliance with the client to voluntarily enter a more restrictive environment, for example a hospital, or take other... steps... [to] dramatically lower risk of a “future” crime. If the defendant refused to acknowledge his level of risk, to both himself and to others, I would consult with that attorney and seek any other resolution that might be possible ... For example,[using bail conditions] Yes, that potentially would involve some degree of piercing of the attorney-client privilege, but a lot less than mandatory reporting. If all else failed, having never been in that level of extremis, I do not know what I would do..., I would, in consultation with my own attorney, probably inform the judge..., in hopes of finding a judicial solution to the matter.
The point of the scenario described above is that I would explore every avenue possible rather than resort to personally deciding to violate a defendant’s privilege. If all of that failed, I would still try to bring the problem to the attention of the system, rather than attempting to solve the problem on my own, since it is, in the last analysis, a systems problem at the interface of ethics, law, social policy and the like.
[snipping as much as poss for copyright reasons]
The author is very reluctant to violate the privilege but is nonetheless very willing to exercise himself to do what ever he could to prevent the worst case.
It's a difficult issue but it's not helped by using dogwhistle phrases like 'in the interest of victims rights of course' when what you're talking about is doing what one can to prevent children being raped.
This is not an abstract issue of 'somebody being wrong on the internet' for those of us who have been raped or molested as children. If people want certain privileges to be sacred even if it means children are going to be raped or molested as a result, then they need to say how far they would be willing to go in such a situation to prevent this happening. I'll be honest with you I'm not comfortable with the answer being 'do nothing'.
I can quite see how someone could refuse in good conscience to report an act the state defined as treason, even if the law claimed it should be subject to mandatory reporting, but how anyone could in good conscience sit there and let a child molester go back to having access to children and do nothing...
It brings up shades of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas for me. I can't think of any theological rule or system which would make me feel it was worth doing nothing to stop someone going back home to get on with raping more children.
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
IngoB, it's not that simple.
It sure is. One can fight about some minor details, but basically the situation is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
With regard to double-effect and abortion there is no absolute uninamity of teaching in the Catholic Church.
There sure is unanimity where it counts, namely in the official teaching of the Church. One can generally find some theologian asserting any random teaching as "Catholicism". But that means little other than that future judgment on this profession will be none too kind.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Ultimately the decision is left to the conscience of the woman concerned.
Certainly not in the sense that her conscience somehow determines what is actually morally good in this situation. It may well be true that in the actual situation the decision is entirely left to her, in which case the woman should indeed follow her conscience. Doing so may remove wholly or partially her culpability if she choses to abort the foetus directly. But that does not make the act itself any less evil, it merely means that she cannot be held to account morally for making a bad decision in good faith and to the best of her ability and knowledge.
(Obviously, aside from such purely rational consideration one would also have to consider her emotional state etc. This discussion is seriously lacking any pastoral or simply human concern for her so far. But that is so because we are actually having a discussion about moral principle which merely uses such a case in the abstract as touchstone. That is however valuable precisely because if we actually face such a case, we are likely to be overwhelmed by emotion and the desire to help. Better to think clearly if somewhat coldly now, so that we know the framework we are operating in when things really go wrong...)
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
This article discusses mainly the case of ectopic pregnancy and makes these points:
The article entirely confirms the main points I have made concerning the Catholic moral analysis of the situation (though it goes into more depth). The point it is trying to make about conscience is precisely the opposite of the one you seem to intend here. The article is not at all saying that the woman's conscience somehow becomes the moral measure here. The article is saying that in order for her conscience to guide her actions properly, the woman must first inform it properly - for example by virtue of reading that article, which as mentioned makes the same points that I have made.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
This article discusses a case involving a dangerously ill pregnant woman at a Catholic hospital in Arizona. In order to save the woman's life her pregnancy was ended. It was not an ectopic pregnancy nor was the womb cancerous. The hospital referred to two ethical directives which are not compatible and explained why the second directive applied to this case.
Once more, also this article you link points out that the situation was apparently perfectly clear. The Catholic hospital and a Catholic religious advising them acted clearly against Catholic moral teaching, as well as explicit hospital regulations inspired by them, and were correctly taken to task for it by the bishop in charge there. There is no confusion here whatsoever, and at least as explained in the article, it is perfectly clear that double effect did not apply. It was a case of doing evil to achieve good, hence an evil act no matter how much one may cheer its outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
As to the relevance of confession, again it isn't so simple. Information about danger to a child may not always come directly from the perpetrator. It may be revealed indirectly and the perpetrator may not regard their conduct as wrong. It may be disclosed by the victim. It may be revealed through the confessions of a number of people, none of whom know the full situation. The first recourse may be for the priest to seek permission from those who have revealed information. However, if there is imminent danger, or if permission is denied and the danger persists then it becomes a matter of priorities.
The priest is in general not obliged to keep secret what was not confessed to him. One can certainly construct situations where difficult judgment calls must be made. However, that precisely concerns not a "matter of priorities" as far as breaking the seal of confession itself is concerned. It is inviolable. End of discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I expect Brendan Smyth was regularly confessing.
I have no idea whether that is the case, and if so, what he may have confessed. But the only thing that likely could require some discussion there is whether he was ever unduly absolved by some priest.
It so happens that the particular "moral absolute" of the confessional seal can be defended on secular grounds. But I do think that this point to a more general lack of comprehension of modern people for a moral system that deals in absolutes. But for better or worse, the Catholic religion posits plenty of them. One cannot pretend to be Catholic and believe that everything has an if and a but somewhere. For Catholics, some things just don't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Certainly in Scotland a lawyer would not be able to make the case of innocence of a charge if the client had already confessed to the lawyer that he ,the client, was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. A lawyer might think personally that the client was guilty and that would be only his personal opinion.The lawyer's job is to put forward in the best way possible the viewpoint of his client.
I suppose you might get a case where the accused has already said he was guilty but it might be considered that the accused was confused and wrong.
One has to remember that the lawyer defending the accused is not personally and necessarily convinced that the alleged victim is wrong,but he is concerned with representing in the best light his client.
That is the lawyer's professional job just as it is the job of the priest in the confessional to listen to the story of a penitent,judging on the seriousness or otherwise of the penitent's sins and imparting,if appropriate, God's pardon to the penitent
In the confessional a confessor is concerned with the supposed sins of the penitent.Other imperfections of the world are not part of the encounter in the confessional.
If we say that a truly penitent person cnnot be forgiven certain sins then,as Christians, we are limiting God's mercy to his creatures. The fact that we may be forgiven our sins does not mean that we do not have to face the consequences of them.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I t was on the news today that many of the priests themselves are revolting against the Church hierarchy in Ireland, not just the lay people.
I'm not surprised, all empires fall eventually.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
If people want certain privileges to be sacred even if it means children are going to be raped or molested as a result, then they need to say how far they would be willing to go in such a situation to prevent this happening. I'll be honest with you I'm not comfortable with the answer being 'do nothing'.
This is simply the wrong way of thinking about it. No children are going to be raped or molested as a result. Children are (potentially) being raped or molested already, and confession alone (potentially) is not able to put a stop to that. It may however do just that.
The Catholic reason for not being able to break the seal is of course not utilitarian. But in this case a utilitarian analysis actually agrees. If the seal of confession can be broken, then telling a priest about child abuse will just as readily lead to imprisonment as telling anyone else. There may still be a slightly larger likelihood that an offender hands himself in via a priest (for psychological reasons), but the effect on the total detection rate of abuse will surely be marginal. Whereas if the seal of confession cannot be broken, then there is a considerably greater likelihood that an offender may confess (it is "safe" for them). And then the offender will be talking about his crimes with someone who has interest in stopping the crimes and above average experience with influencing people. This means that there is at least some chance that the offender will be convinced to give himself up (in particular, as others have pointed out, because going to confession already indicates a measure of understanding that one is doing something wrong). The chance of all this happening may be low, but it surely beats the chance of offenders handing themselves via a confession that will be passed on to the police directly. In particular because that of course can still happen (the offender can still ask the priest to hand him in). So the net result of allowing secrecy in the confessional is less abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I can quite see how someone could refuse in good conscience to report an act the state defined as treason, even if the law claimed it should be subject to mandatory reporting, but how anyone could in good conscience sit there and let a child molester go back to having access to children and do nothing...
The problem here is roughly the same as in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. Something good is achieved by declaring an absolute and sticking to it, it cannot be achieved if one removes the absolute even if that otherwise would make perfect sense in the case at hand. (I'm not saying here that MAD was good, just that it is a well-known case where absolutes were used to shape behaviour.)
From an utilitarian point of view, it may help the particular abused child if the priest reports to the police. However, that will necessarily remove the possibility for other abused children whose situation may have been helped if the seal still was in place. You get to destroy the seal only once, after that it is gone. A utilitarian analysis would say that the good done for many children outweighs the lack of good done for that one child.
The Catholic (more deontological) point of view simply says that if you have solemnly promised secrecy no matter what, then you cannot break that promise without doing evil. And you may not do evil to achieve good. The action you may wish to take now is simply not morally available to you anymore, because you have removed it unconditionally in advance. And of course you had good reason to make these promises, namely so that any sinner may still be brought in contact with the grace of God. It is not as if you somehow set out to protect child abusers.
At any rate, one is rendered here powerless to help in the "obvious" manner. That surely is devastating. But to say here "no, you are not powerless, for you can simply go to the police," misses the point. Yes, that is true. But moral laws that only guide our behaviour if we are emotionally satisfied with them are merely dressing up lawless behaviour. Moral laws that bind us can, on hopefully rare occasion, bind us to go where we really, really do not want to go. If we foresee that we cannot follow them to do something, then we should think through the consequences of that now and adjust these moral laws.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
I saw the program and it sickened me.
Some of the responses on here do the same. It's all about the destruction of children's lives for goodness' sake - why are some more concerned about the "Holy Mother Church's" reputation and processes?
Nope, confessions were not mentioned as such but the statements taken by the children amount to the same thing: power and authority, event and reflection, evidence and secrecy. How can it not be seen as the same?
Quite apart from the above, the line of questioning is, in itself abusive, even by the standards of the 1970's. There's a case to answer on this alone - which is the undisputed and undisputable hard evidence in the program.
I'm with Forthview here: sin can be forgiven but the consequences of that sin have to be considered esp where there are others involved.
If an abuser reveals that fact to you that he is abusing/has abused, then can you (as confessor) take the risk that he/she won't do it again, that he/she isn't actively involved at the moment? If one simply accepts what is said at face value, without active recourse to changed behaviour then one puts others at risk of being abused under the guise of the "protection" of confession.
FWIW, although we baptists don't "do" confession, many of us serving as ministers have sensitive and personal conversations that cover many of the same issues. (Please let's not get into an argument about a "baptists" ability to "hear" confessions for the moment).
Our guidelines are simple: if it involves child abuse you cannot give any assurance of confidentiality. In fact, we are considered to have a duty of care and protection to a vulnerable person to report it as "disclosure." No if's or buts - a duty and a responsibility to the abused person and to others (abusers often are repeat offenders).
If we fail to do that, then we could be condemning other children/adults to abuse. Is then, the catholic adherence to the sanctity of the confessional so strong that a priest is prepared to overlook the possibility (probability for many) of repeat offenses? Would you go to your grave with that hanging over you?
Which of these scenarios is worse in God's eyes: failure to protect a "little one" or failing to protect an abuser (by keeping the confessional secret on the specific issue of child abuse)?
We all must get our house in order and I'm sure that there are issues in all denominations groupings, fundamentalists included.
Deal with it soon Ireland or you'll drag us all into the abyss with you: open the files, remove the culprits, stop giving immunity -- before someone does it for/to you. That will be far far worse.
Get with it before someone gets you/us - and this time, mean it and deliver, don't fudge and waffle.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Double post ..... on a couple of occasions I have suspected (during a conversation) that a child related offence was abou to be disclosed. In both cases I issued due warning about the effect of this on confidentiality.
In both cases disclosure happened: in both cases I reported the matter to social services. I have no regrets and would do the same now, if the same parameters applied.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
This article discusses a case involving a dangerously ill pregnant woman at a Catholic hospital in Arizona. In order to save the woman's life her pregnancy was ended. It was not an ectopic pregnancy nor was the womb cancerous. The hospital referred to two ethical directives which are not compatible and explained why the second directive applied to this case.
Once more, also this article you link points out that the situation was apparently perfectly clear. The Catholic hospital and a Catholic religious advising them acted clearly against Catholic moral teaching, as well as explicit hospital regulations inspired by them, and were correctly taken to task for it by the bishop in charge there. There is no confusion here whatsoever, and at least as explained in the article, it is perfectly clear that double effect did not apply. It was a case of doing evil to achieve good, hence an evil act no matter how much one may cheer its outcome.
IngoB - I find it hard to follow your reasoning, not hard to understand, just hard to follow it to the place where it ends. The place where a woman whose life could be saved is told to die. Many Catholics now refuse to go to this place including those medical staff who operated to prevent a needless death.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Did you actually watch the programme justlooking? Did you hear the things that Mgr Charles Scicluna, the man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responsible for dealing with this most grotesque of issues, had to say about Rome's attitude to the culture of secrecy? What was it in what he said that makes you make the assessment, via a rhetorical question: "Isn't this the way Rome wants it still?"
Yes I did hear what Mgr Charles Scicluna said, I just don't accept it at face value. I think the cummulative evidence, of which this latest programme is a part, shows a Church in denial about the culture which produced its policies of secrecy and silencing. The Church now has new policies, but I think it has yet to develop the kind of culture which will support them.
A 2006 documentary Sex Crimes and the Vatican revealed the existence of Crimen Sollicitationis (pdf doc) a procedure to be followed for cases in which priests were alleged to be using the confessional as an opportunity for sexual propositioning. The document stipulates that such cases are covered by "secret of the Holy Office" which means excommunication for anyone breaking the vow of secrecy.
This was the procedure followed in the case of Brendan Smyth and it seems to have been the procedure for all allegations of sexual abuse by priests whether or not the confessional was involved. There is no indication of any other procedure prior to 2002 and no reference to involving the police.
[ 07. May 2012, 14:59: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Indeed - and should the Samaritans also break their confidentiality rules and become police informers rather than suicide preventors?
Someone posted, earlier, that only those who heard confessions or who availed themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation are able to comment knowledgeably on the seal, on absolution withheld or conditional, of the need for amendment of life, and on the likelihood of a paedophile availing him/herself of it.
From the child prevention courses i have been on, paedophiles cannot even admit the truth to themselves let alone to anyone else.
[ 07. May 2012, 15:24: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
IngoB - I find it hard to follow your reasoning, not hard to understand, just hard to follow it to the place where it ends. The place where a woman whose life could be saved is told to die. Many Catholics now refuse to go to this place including those medical staff who operated to prevent a needless death.
Well, I guess all that hinges on two questions: Firstly, whether you really believe that the foetus is a human being. Secondly, whether you believe that one may never murder an innocent human being even if they will soon die anyway and their death would save someone else. This is not about not wanting to help, this is about not being able to.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The Church now has new policies, but I think it has yet to develop the kind of culture which will support them.
And other than your assiduous watching of television programmes, your experience of that culture derives from what, exactly?
quote:
A 2006 documentary Sex Crimes and the Vatican revealed the existence of Crimen Sollicitationis (pdf doc) a procedure to be followed for cases in which priests were alleged to be using the confessional as an opportunity for sexual propositioning. The document stipulates that such cases are covered by "secret of the Holy Office" which means excommunication for anyone breaking the vow of secrecy.
It wasn't the BBC that revealed the existence of Crimen Sollicitationes, it was in the public domain four years before Panorama got hold of it. If you want to understand what the document was seeking to achieve, you might look at this article .
quote:
This was the procedure followed in the case of Brendan Smyth and it seems to have been the procedure for all allegations of sexual abuse by priests whether or not the confessional was involved. There is no indication of any other procedure prior to 2002 and no reference to involving the police.
There is no evidence at all that the procedure in CS was followed in the Smyth case. There was never any trial as required by CS. Had there been, then Brady might have had a leg to stand on now.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
IngoB, clearly the hospital was able to help. As to whether an 11 week foetus is a human being I'd say a qualified yes - a human life not yet born, not capable of existing independently of the mother and not having equal rights with her. In this case if there had been no intervention both would have died. It was not a case of murder to remove from a dangerously ill woman the foetus which was killing her. It would have been murder of the woman if the Church had prevented the operation.
[ 07. May 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
There is no evidence at all that the procedure in CS was followed in the Smyth case. There was never any trial as required by CS. Had there been, then Brady might have had a leg to stand on now. [/QUOTE]
The evidence is in the statements the victims made about how they were interviewed and sworn to secrecy. Sean Brady's role as 'notary' appears to have followed the procedure laid out in the document. Everyone involved in such a process is under 'pontifical secrecy' and this would serve to prevent them reporting the matter to the police. The document was apparently sent to all bishops by Joseph Ratzinger with orders to keep it locked away, so unless an allegation was made a bishop would have no cause to use the document. The fact that no trial took place doesn't mean that the procedure wasn't followed as far as initial investigation. Has the Church explained what it did with the statements taken in the Brendan Smyth case?
I take it the new procedure is not secret. Do you have a link to it?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
The procedure of taking evidence under a promise of secrecy was, as the John Allen article to which I linked my earlier post notes, designed to ensure that every party to a criminal trial is protected: witnesses from intimidation, the accused from prejudice to his reputation ahead of conviction. Such confidentiality is common in canonical processes for these reasons and these alone.
CS is concerned with accusations not of child abuse, per se, but of the crime of soliciting (hence the name) sexual favours in the confessional. Smyth is not accused of that. CS says that it's procedures are to be followed in cases of pederasty, bestiality and homosexuality and it says that the Holy See is to be informed once an accusation is received. That did not happen. CS says that there must be a canonical trial. That did not happen. Both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law say that the civil law of the place is to be followed. In the Smyth case that did not happen. The evidence suggests that CS wasn't being followed. If it had been, Smyth would have tried in the canonical forum. He was not. It seems entirely likely that neither the dioceses in which Brady was operating, nor his own superior in the Norbertine Order even knew about CS, let alone followed its prescriptions. That doesn't suggest to me a Church anxious to preserve its own rules, so much as an organisation out of control, operating in a lawless manner. Brady didn't follow the Church's rules any more than he followed those of the state - although judging by the files concerning pederasty in the 1970s that I've read, he'd have been bloody lucky to find a police officer in the UK or Ireland who would have been prepared to investigate. It's all just one more reason why Cardinal Brady would do everyone a favour if he fell on his sword. Lord Carrington, anyone?
CS was issued first in 1922 and again in 1962. I have just checked the archive in my own diocese. The letter containing the 1922 motu proprio came from Cardinal Merry del Val and that containing the 1962 from Cardinal Ottaviani.
The new procedures are here . They have been in force since 2001.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
There's an update on the Cardinal's response here.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Would the cs process have been supposed to take place before or alongside reporting to a civil authority?
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Would the cs process have been supposed to take place before or alongside reporting to a civil authority?
Originally instead of: it goes back to the medieval notion that clerics should be tried by the Church courts - an arrangement that subsisted under a number of Concordats until the mid-twentieth century. Latterly, the canonical process may not begin until the civil process is complete.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The procedure of taking evidence under a promise of secrecy was, as the John Allen article to which I linked my earlier post notes, designed to ensure that every party to a criminal trial is protected: witnesses from intimidation, the accused from prejudice to his reputation ahead of conviction. Such confidentiality is common in canonical processes for these reasons and these alone.
This was more than a promise of secrecy it was a sworn oath under the 'secret of the Holy Office' with excommunication a penalty for breaking the oath: quote:
"All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin [sub gravi]"....
"...nor [will I ever], directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause [even]for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret."
The form for the oath is appended to the document. The fact that the Holy See was not informed doesn't mean that the procedure was not followed up to the point of the bishop receiving the documents. At that point the bishop can decide the allegation is false and can destroy the statements, or he can decide the evidence is inadequate but keep the documents in case further allegations are made, or he can decide there is a case to formally accuse the priest and can proceed to a form of trial.
There is evidence of the oath of secrecy with Sean (then John) Brady's signature. Sean Brady has confirmed his part in the process and that the documents were sent to the bishop.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - and should the Samaritans also break their confidentiality rules and become police informers rather than suicide preventors?
The Samaritans don't keep total confidentiality - I was one for years and there were circumstances when we would be expected to break confidentiality. For example calling an ambulance if someone was in danger. Samaritans also have to obey court orders requiring them to divulge information.
[ 07. May 2012, 18:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Would the cs process have been supposed to take place before or alongside reporting to a civil authority?
Originally instead of: it goes back to the medieval notion that clerics should be tried by the Church courts - an arrangement that subsisted under a number of Concordats until the mid-twentieth century. Latterly, the canonical process may not begin until the civil process is complete.
The oath of secrecy would ensure that no complaint could be made to civil authorities.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I can't be bothered to look up the thread, I GREATLY sympathise with Edith from the top and would encourage her to stay in her fellowship and identify with her and am not ashamed to call myself Catholic, though not Roman, my grandmother fellowship. In my cell group we are nearly half Roman. What a privilege. I'm not ashamed to belong to the Body of Christ that includes Romans who have to exclude me.
I could be prouder.
Why I can't be bothered to look up the thread is because the usual suspects will somehow justify a gutless criminal conspiracy as Christian, as 'sacred' in some ineffable way superior to common, human (you know, like Jesus) decency.
How AWESOME it would be if my Roman brothers and sisters who deny me kinship would take responsibility, would publically confess. How powerful. What a witness. How humble. How wonderful.
Shame on Brady until he does.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugbyplayingpriest
Shipmate
# 9809
|
Posted
My penneth worth for what it is worth:
http://www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com/blog/?p=2830
Basically I think there are all sorts of things coming to a head in all of this.
We have a disgusting crime that was badly dealt with.
A man who will not resign when many think he should and with good reason
A media that is not even handed and which would delight in using such cases to hurt the church it does not love. Note how the BBC front pages these accounts but so far has refused to use the word peadophile in any story concerning Roman Polanski
and then there is more besides.
What a mess
Posts: 130 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
A media that is not even handed and which would delight in using such cases to hurt the church it does not love.
What would being "even handed" look like in cases like this? Equal time being given to pro-child-rape advocates as is given to those who condemn the practice? If anything, I'd say the modern media is too eager to play the "shape of the earth, opinions differ" game.
As for whether or not the media "loves" a particular church, that's not it's job! The press is supposed to comfort the afflicted (like raped children) and afflict the comfortable (like their attackers and those who cover up for them, especially if they live in gilded palaces). Why should the press love your church more than reporting corruption in high places?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
which have bought the Anglican Church to its knees!
I hadn't noticed, in fact things seemed a bit better recently.
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I can't be bothered to look up the thread, I GREATLY sympathise with Edith from the top and would encourage her to stay in her fellowship and identify with her and am not ashamed to call myself Catholic, though not Roman, my grandmother fellowship. In my cell group we are nearly half Roman. What a privilege. I'm not ashamed to belong to the Body of Christ that includes Romans who have to exclude me.
I could be prouder.
Why I can't be bothered to look up the thread is because the usual suspects will somehow justify a gutless criminal conspiracy as Christian, as 'sacred' in some ineffable way superior to common, human (you know, like Jesus) decency.
How AWESOME it would be if my Roman brothers and sisters who deny me kinship would take responsibility, would publically confess. How powerful. What a witness. How humble. How wonderful.
Shame on Brady until he does.
If you are going to throw stones, you'd do best to overcome your reluctance and read the rest of the thread. The usual suspects, as you menacingly call people, have not been in any way slow to condemn Brady.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't think so mate. You've just made my point AGAIN. I live in the SAME glass house you refuse to see me in.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Enda Kenny's ferocious attack on the Catholic Church hierarchy was apparently prompted by the Vatican's refusal to endorse a safeguarding policy which requires allegations to be reported to the police.
UK law requires every church to have a safeguarding policy which includes mandatory reporting of allegations to the police. It seems a similar policy has been prepared by the Catholic Church in Ireland but the Vatican has refused to endorse it.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
That's what he said, but there is a comprehensive response from the Holy See if you would be interested to read it.
Specifically on that issue: quote:
The Irish Bishops never sought the recognitio of the Holy See for the Framework Document, which, in accordance with canon 455 of the Code of Canon Law, would have been required only if they intended it to be a general decree of the Conference binding on all its members. However, the lack of recognitio itself did not preclude the application of the document’s guidelines, since individual Bishops could adopt them without having to refer to the Holy See. This is, in fact, what generally happened in Ireland.
The tragedy in so much of all this is the medieval and labyrinthine government of the Catholic Church. People like to see us as a monolithic top down hierarchical institution with easily followable lines of authority and command. That is true in a limited sense. However, it is far more complex with lots of separate authorities in operation. One example is that an individual bishop in a diocese does not have to follow the policy of a national episcopal conference. Hence the mess in the Diocese of Ferns where Bishop Comiskey decided rather to do his own thing. Neither do religious orders. The religious orders, in fact, have been the most damaging in their method of handling child abusers, choosing to ignore bishops and do their own thing. That has been the stark reality in England where the bishops have a stringent policy, but some communities have done their own thing, with disastrous consequences: cue Ealing Abbey and the Rosminians. When the shit hits the fan, however, it's the bishops and Rome who get the blame. It's shocking and it's wrong that after so much exposure now to this sickening crime, some still decide they know better and can handle it better themselves.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I'm not impressed with the Vatican response. This for example: quote:
- Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church in no way precluded cooperation with the civil authorities. The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but it did not forbid the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law. In this regard, the then Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998 unequivocally stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.”
The Vatican is not in favour of mandatory reporting and appears to be advising that a report to the civil authorities "initiated by those who have such rights" should not delay canonical investigation. This is contrary to advise from police that such investigation could prejudice any judicial process. From what I've read canonical investigation is still conducted under conditions of sworn secrecy.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well, you are reading statements and jumping to your own conclusions without checking the facts. As Cardinal Brady himself has said: "Today, Church policy in Ireland is to report allegations of abuse to the civil authorities. It recognises the Gardai and HSE as those with responsibility for investigating such allegations and that any Church investigation should not take place until the investigation by the civil authorities has been completed. I have fully supported this policy and have worked with my fellow Bishops and the leaders of Religious Congregations to put this policy in place"
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Does that include the twattery of the confession ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
IngoB, clearly the hospital was able to help.
I was not putting in question their technical / medical ability to help, but their moral one. Obviously. If they had had no practical means, the whole moral problem would not arise.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
As to whether an 11 week foetus is a human being I'd say a qualified yes - a human life not yet born, not capable of existing independently of the mother and not having equal rights with her.
That's where we part ways then, since the category of "lesser human beings" does not feature in my moral world view. Exactly this attitude of yours was by the way pointed to by the bishop in his critique of the "preference for the life of the mother". The writers of your article misunderstood this point of principle for a mistake concerning the practicalities.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
In this case if there had been no intervention both would have died. It was not a case of murder to remove from a dangerously ill woman the foetus which was killing her. It would have been murder of the woman if the Church had prevented the operation.
I hope we can agree that there was no good choice here. We rather disagree on whether the least bad choice was made. And I think I'll leave the tangent there.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm not ashamed to belong to the Body of Christ that includes Romans who have to exclude me.
This is getting so bloody old. Seriously, pull a new one.
--------------------
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
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
IngoB,
Everyone is entitled to their own moral world views and points of principle. The relevance here is to a Church requiring a woman to die in order to support the moral views and principles of its male clerical hierarchy.
It was a good choice to save the woman's life. There was no chance at all of the foetus developing and being born alive since the mother would be dead. The choice was between doing nothing and letting the pregnancy kill her or ending the pregnancy so that she could live.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, you are reading statements and jumping to your own conclusions without checking the facts. As Cardinal Brady himself has said: "Today, Church policy in Ireland is to report allegations of abuse to the civil authorities. It recognises the Gardai and HSE as those with responsibility for investigating such allegations and that any Church investigation should not take place until the investigation by the civil authorities has been completed. I have fully supported this policy and have worked with my fellow Bishops and the leaders of Religious Congregations to put this policy in place"
Yes, the Catholic Church in Ireland now has a shiny new policy. A policy which is not fully supported by the Vatican and which, as the case of bishop John Magee demonstrated, can be ignored.
Safeguarding policies which require mandatory reporting and no private investigations which could compromise police enquiries have come about through the actions of the state. Churches have been required to produce such policies. Without state action I think it highly unlikely that institutions such as the Catholic Church and the CofE would have produced effective policies. In the CofE there have been instances of police investigations being compromised to the point where the Church could be said to be interfering with the course of justice.
Does the Catholic Church's canonical procedure still require a child to swear an oath of secrecy?
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well, you are reading statements and jumping to your own conclusions without checking the facts. As Cardinal Brady himself has said: "Today, Church policy in Ireland is to report allegations of abuse to the civil authorities. It recognises the Gardai and HSE as those with responsibility for investigating such allegations and that any Church investigation should not take place until the investigation by the civil authorities has been completed. I have fully supported this policy and have worked with my fellow Bishops and the leaders of Religious Congregations to put this policy in place"
That's fine providing they actually do it.
Of course, we have no way of knowing whether full disclosure occurs unless and until cover ups are revealed. Based on past history and people still in post, I don't hold out much hope that everything disclosed is brought into the light.
When will soem people grasp what's happened? It's not about the confession, the priest or anything else - it's about abused children whose lives are messed up by the very people in whom they were supposed to trust. The incidence of abuse indicates the structural, not the individual, nature of the problem.
The solution? Don't just let "Sean" resign: sack him - not as a martyr nor a scapegoat but as weaselly time server who knew better but did nothing. Allow - and encourage - the children he abused (through his interviewing [shocking even for the time] and lack of disclosure), to sue him. Only when it hits the RCC in the till will this get sorted.
Until it does, your prevarication and dissemination is affecting the witness of us all in every denomination. We are tarred by the same brush. If you want to go down with this stain on you, far be it: don't include the rest of us (who for years have followed what we see to be the will of God in the broader picture of child protection) in your rush to oblivion on the road to hell.
[ 08. May 2012, 05:19: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Everyone is entitled to their own moral world views and points of principle.
Nope, not at all so. But in practice we have to deal pragmatically with the fact that a lot of people hold very wrong moral views very dearly.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The relevance here is to a Church requiring a woman to die in order to support the moral views and principles of its male clerical hierarchy.
This seems to insinuate that the woman would have been sacrificed because of her gender. That's a deeply insulting accusation, which certainly has nothing to do with the points I have made.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
It was a good choice to save the woman's life. There was no chance at all of the foetus developing and being born alive since the mother would be dead. The choice was between doing nothing and letting the pregnancy kill her or ending the pregnancy so that she could live.
You are merely reiterating your opinion, which I reject as morally false. My reasoning can be found above.
--------------------
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
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
IngoB
1. I get it now - the Catholic Church's moral views and principles, as understood by you, are right, all other views and principles are wrong and no-one is entitled to hold any but the 'right' views and principles.
2. Pregnancy is a gender-specific condition. Requiring a pregnant woman to die because your principles do not support the operation to save her is a gender-specific sacrifice. Your principles in this matter are those formed by a male hierarchy which will never have to face the risks inherent in pregnancy. I note the way you put it "she would have been sacrificed", rather than she would have sacrificed herself.
3. Your reasoning stinks. Your morality is corrupt. Such reasoning and morality is what has led to the subject of this thread.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Everyone is entitled to their own moral world views and points of principle.
Nope, not at all so. But in practice we have to deal pragmatically with the fact that a lot of people hold very wrong moral views very dearly.
Presumably that's evryone who doesn't hold the same views as you and/or the RCC?
It's this kind of breathtaking arrogance that has put the RCC in the mess it is in now.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IngoB me old wankfester, it is timeless. I do not want to distance myself from my Roman brethren in their shame despite your refusal of kinship.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Keep it up Martin. They are getting better.
Vatican II proves it.
Why - us protestants are even recognized as Christian! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
(Which is more than I can say for some protestants. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) )
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
My penneth worth for what it is worth:
http://www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com/blog/?p=2830
Basically I think there are all sorts of things coming to a head in all of this.
We have a disgusting crime that was badly dealt with.
A man who will not resign when many think he should and with good reason
A media that is not even handed and which would delight in using such cases to hurt the church it does not love. Note how the BBC front pages these accounts but so far has refused to use the word peadophile in any story concerning Roman Polanski
and then there is more besides.
What a mess
Yes, part of the 'more besides' is the effect all this must have on priests. To know for sure that someone is abusing children, but that you'd lose your job if you reported them.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That is just terrible - a warped sense of morality.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
1. I get it now - the Catholic Church's moral views and principles, as understood by you, are right, all other views and principles are wrong and no-one is entitled to hold any but the 'right' views and principles.
It seems to me you are mixing up three issues there: a) Is there a moral right and wrong, or is it all "opinion"? b) How right is RC morality? c) How well does IngoB interpret RC morality?
I would answer "the former" to a) with philosophical certainty, and "very" to b) by virtue of my faith. As far as c) is concerned, I'm trying my best.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
2. Pregnancy is a gender-specific condition. Requiring a pregnant woman to die because your principles do not support the operation to save her is a gender-specific sacrifice. Your principles in this matter are those formed by a male hierarchy which will never have to face the risks inherent in pregnancy. I note the way you put it "she would have been sacrificed", rather than she would have sacrificed herself.
We were discussing the moral decisions of the medical staff, not of the woman herself. To stick to one's moral principles in the face of imminent death requires heroism and/or sanctity, and I would praise these greatly precisely because I do not expect them of anyone.
Moral reasoning concerning issues of procreation often affect women much more than men. But as long as that simply reflects the biology it does not mean that the reasoning is "gender-biased". Of the principles used two are clearly gender-neutral ("evil must not be done to achieve good", "an innocent human being must not be killed"). Whether a foetus counts as "innocent human being" is notoriously contended, but it is rather facile to claim that that entire discussion simply boils down to a male hierarchy not caring about female risks.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
3. Your reasoning stinks. Your morality is corrupt. Such reasoning and morality is what has led to the subject of this thread.
And suddenly you have rediscovered your own ability to firmly judge moral right from wrong, and you seem rather convinced of the validity of your judgements here. Yet if I claim such ability for myself, while admitting that one has to deal pragmatically with people who do not agree, it is a big problem. Why, precisely? Did I not project sufficient moral outrage, or something?
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Presumably that's evryone who doesn't hold the same views as you and/or the RCC? It's this kind of breathtaking arrogance that has put the RCC in the mess it is in now.
The RCC is in a serious mess because at several levels it failed to live up to its own moral standards and its Divine mission. And I do not think that "arrogance" was the main systemic problem, but rather classical group-think leading to the shepherds absurdly closing ranks against the sheep supposedly in their care.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IngoB me old wankfester, it is timeless. I do not want to distance myself from my Roman brethren in their shame despite your refusal of kinship.
Yes, us Roman brethren know that you do not want to distance yourself. But what I'm trying to tell you here is that we Roman brethren really would like you to distance yourself. Try Pluto, though UDFy-38135539 would be better. Because frankly, your passive-aggressive embrace is sickening, and we are starting to run out of barf bags here...
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We were discussing the moral decisions of the medical staff, not of the woman herself. To stick to one's moral principles in the face of imminent death requires heroism and/or sanctity, and I would praise these greatly precisely because I do not expect them of anyone.
Well, sticking to one's moral principles in the face of one's own death may require heroism. Expecting other people to die for your morals requires something else entirely.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Moral reasoning concerning issues of procreation often affect women much more than men. But as long as that simply reflects the biology it does not mean that the reasoning is "gender-biased".
Or to paraphrase, "moral reasoning, in its majestic equality, is just as willing to let men die from the complications of pregnancy as women".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - and should the Samaritans also break their confidentiality rules and become police informers rather than suicide preventors?
The Samaritans don't keep total confidentiality - I was one for years and there were circumstances when we would be expected to break confidentiality. For example calling an ambulance if someone was in danger. Samaritans also have to obey court orders requiring them to divulge information.
Thank you. I didn't know that.
I think, however, that things have changed.
I used to go out with a Samaritan but that was 40 years ago.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks IngoB, luckily I've met some really lovely cradle Catholics, my best friend (of over 20 years) and man being one at my Proddy wedding on 23/12/11.
My cell group has at least four at a time. I'm their most ardent apologist ESPECIALLY in the face of abuse scandal. My vicar feels the same way. As did C.S. Lewis of course.
I love them and they love me. I'd like to love you unconditionally mate ... in fact I'm mandated to ...
The nicest people bar none on Premier Christian are Roman Catholics. The Prods are OK to barking.
There is one Roman Catholic git and he's a proselyte.
Funny that.
Liverpool Roman Catholic Cathedral made me poignantly welcome.
I'll be going to a Latin mass soon. But won't take communion obviously as it could offend.
Not me of course.
Happy to hold my hands on the rail.
So who's 'we' ? The plural of majesty ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - and should the Samaritans also break their confidentiality rules and become police informers rather than suicide preventors?
The Samaritans don't keep total confidentiality - I was one for years and there were circumstances when we would be expected to break confidentiality. For example calling an ambulance if someone was in danger. Samaritans also have to obey court orders requiring them to divulge information.
Thank you. I didn't know that.
I think, however, that things have changed.
I used to go out with a Samaritan but that was 40 years ago.
Here is the relevant page.
And the relevant information on that page -
"All information relating to a caller is confidential to Samaritans unless:
We have informed consent from the caller to pass on information
We call an ambulance because a caller appears to be incapable of making rational decisions for him or herself
We receive a court order requiring us to divulge information
We are passed information about acts of terrorism or bomb warnings
A caller attacks or threatens volunteers
A caller deliberately prevents the service from being delivered to other callers"
Interestingly it doesn't mention child abuse. But, I imagine, the fact that confidentiality isn't sacrosanct for them is enough to report such abuse.
Which is part of my point. It would be abuse of Samaritans to expect them to keep such terrible knowledge secret.
As it is with RC priests imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Everyone is entitled to their own moral world views and points of principle.
Nope, not at all so. But in practice we have to deal pragmatically with the fact that a lot of people hold very wrong moral views very dearly.
Presumably that's evryone who doesn't hold the same views as you and/or the RCC?
It's this kind of breathtaking arrogance that has put the RCC in the mess it is in now.
A website devoted to Catholic Arrogance has a short musical summary of 'Hierarchy Complicitus'.
It's an extensive website covering the major issues, including what IngoB seems to think are irrefutable and timeless moral truths.
[ 08. May 2012, 19:38: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
