Priests must report child abuse confessions or face jail.

Run_to_da_hills

user098 wrote: »

FYP. Lots of other peope in Ireland put themselves up on pedestals and call themselves things they are not.

But they don't go around molesting kids then at the same time putting on this "Holier than thou" image to the rest of the community at large as if nothing had ever happened. It made me nearly vomit a few years ago when Mr Ratsinger (who incidentally is a free Mason) made the audacious claim that the Catholic Church was the true church.

user098

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

But they don't go around molesting kids then at the same time putting on this "Holier than thou" image to the rest of the community at large as if nothing had ever happened.

Don't kid yourself or the children of Ireland. Thats exactly what all padophiles do, including all those 'respectable' Irish parents, uncles, grandparents that are at tonight it as we speak.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It made me nearly vomit a few years ago when Mr Ratsinger (who incidentally is a free Mason)

Freemason ? never heard that yarn before, and I thought I heard them all, whats next, he's really an alien from mars. lol :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

made the audacious claim that the Catholic Church was the true church.

Newsflash, that's what all religious leaders say about their own church. When's the last time you heard any leader of anything say 'we're not the true . . . .'

user098

humbert wrote: »

A priest(a catholic priest, that is) is just a sexually perverted, possible delusional, but otherwise normal man.

lol @ Ironic post of the week.
And a person that posts such prejudiced sweeping comments is . . . .

humbert

user098 wrote: »

lol @ Ironic post of the week.
And a person that posts such prejudiced sweeping comments is . . . .

Why? I said possibly delusional...

mylastparadigm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A priest convicted of Child abuse is far more guilty than anyone else in society that was caught for the same crime.

These people have put themselves high up on moral pedestals, even having the audacity to call themselves "Christians" while at the same time were knowingly harboring their vial abominations.

Matthew 23:27 could not be more clearer: .

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

i got a laugh out of that. maybe you can read from genesis too for a few factual quotes. you cant have it every way.

Chuck Stone

user098 wrote: »

But hey, lets not talk about that, it does not suit the agenda

user098 wrote: »

they don't sell papers or fit the agenda.

What agenda?

Skuxx

What worries me is the amount of people who are giving out that the confssion is sacred and this goes against it and what not!!Have they something to hide?
I mean surely 99.999% of people in the country who go to confession have nothing to worry about, they can still tell the priest what ever it is they want to and the priest can do his bit as he always does and they all go on their merry way home, nothing unusual!!
Its only the sick ****ing peodphiles that this new law is going to effect, so why the big defensive against it??

eyescreamcone

There have been cases where the law of the land has superseded jehohah witness' desire to prevent blood transfusions for their children. This was right and proper in order to protect children.

This priest/confessional story is exactly the same issue.

Anybody who believes we should stand idly by, and agree with the jehovah witness' parents, and not give the endangered child a blood transfusion is a nutter.

The same can be said about anybody who thinks that there should be exemptions to the law regarding reporting of child abuse.

There is no grey area here.
You are either with the children or you are not.
Confessional secrecy = anti-children!!!

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Its only the sick ****ing peodphiles that this new law is going to effect, so why the big defensive against it??

If a paedophile tells his barrister that he is actually guilty what do you think should happen?

mikemac1

alan1990 wrote: »

Its only the sick ****ing peodphiles that this new law is going to effect, so why the big defensive against it??

The thread title is throwing people off

Yes it affects confession but the real story was ten years in prison for not reporting

If Mr Murphy is abusing the children [and most abuse is in the family home] and Mrs Murphy waits five years before doing anything then it'll be asked why did you wait
Maybe she was frightened or maybe she will claim she was intimidated but that's for the court to decide, charge her now and bring her court

Ash.J.Williams

woodoo wrote: »

10 years in jail for the priests withholding the info. The abuser would hardly get 10 years.

By not reporting abuse you are encouraging it, therefore are an abuser yourself.

Ash.J.Williams

mikemac1 wrote: »

The thread title is throwing people off

Yes it affects confession but the real story was ten years in prison for not reporting

If Mr Murphy is abusing the children [and most abuse is in the family home] and Mrs Murphy waits five years before doing anything then it'll be asked why did you wait
Maybe she was frightened or maybe she will claim she was intimidated but that's for the court to decide, charge her now and bring her court

If missus murphy waited 5 years then Mrs Murphy is a child abuser, and should be dealt with by the law.

Fenian Army

I think priests would rather go to jail then break the confessional seal.

The absolution of sin etc is a major part of the religion, in order to seek forgiveness people need to be confident that the priest won't blab. Priests wont be able to allow any leeway with regards to that as it would shatter confidence (they think) if they said "except if you admit child abuse" despite the fact that child abusers probably never confess.

Run_to_da_hills

Fenian Army wrote: »

I think priests would rather go to jail then break the confessional seal.

The absolution of sin etc is a major part of the religion, in order to seek forgiveness people need to be confident that the priest won't blab. Priests wont be able to allow any leeway with regards to that as it would shatter confidence (they think) if they said "except if you admit child abuse" despite the fact that child abusers probably never confess.

No priest can forgive anyone's sins. He can't even forgive his own sins!

Come to think of it who does forgive the priests vial sins? Does he go to confession too? If the priest goes directly to God, then why can't anyone else?

Even the corrupt religious leaders of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, “.who can forgive sins but God only?” (Mark 2:7).

When for are telling our sins to a priest in a confession box all ou are doing is just talking to an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume.

prinz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Does he go to confession too?

In a word, yes.

Run_to_da_hills

prinz wrote: »

In a word, yes.

So basically its a pyramid structure with the pope at the top.

prinz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So basically its a pyramid structure with the pope at the top.

That would only be in any way applicable if every priest was confessing to a superior which isn't the case. So it's more like a circle tbh.

eyescreamcone

Let the catholics dress up and play their silly games.
I've no problem with that - whatever floats your boat!!!

However, I've a big problem with ANYONE looking for special exemptions or thinking that they are above the law that applies to everybody else.

I DO NOT CARE if their religion (any religion) told them to do something.
If it's illegal for everyone else: "lock them up".

NO EXEMPTIONS FOR ANY RELIGION!!!

If the Rcc get away with this bullsh!t then what is to stop anyone making up a religion (as the catholics did anyway!) and getting away with stuff.

prinz

Actually I wonder how the following would de dealt with..

Say Person A confides in Person B that they were abused as a child. Maybe it happens in a confession scenario maybe it doesn't. Person B can encourage Person A to report the abuse to the relevant authorities, but if Person A begs Person B not to report it, does Person B now have a legal duty to report it anyway or face prison time should it come out later?

Or is it only if it is the abuser who confesses and not the abused who tells? Could we see a situation where the victims of abuse are afraid to confide in anyone, further compounding the damage the abuse has done. Not everyone has the courage to report it.

eyescreamcone

Or could we not just say a Mass for all the abused???
That would sort it all out.
:mad:

Run_to_da_hills

prinz wrote: »

That would only be in any way applicable if every priest was confessing to a superior which isn't the case. So it's more like a circle tbh.

A Vicious circle at that if crimes cannot be reported to the authorities.

prinz

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Or could we not just say a Mass for all the abused???That would sort it all out.
:mad:

That's it exactly. Congrats.

Ghost Buster

A good question asked in the Atheism forum. (paraphrased by myself)
If a priest taking confession is told by the confessor that he has planted a bomb in the church which will go off in 30 sec' is the priest compelled to sit there and say nothing or at the most get the hell out of there quick, saving his own ass, after giving the bomber a few hail marys to say first:cool:

prinz

Thread has quickly become an example of how media reporting and unfounded hype is detrimental to actual child protection measures and abuse victims.

Skuxx

prinz wrote: »

If a paedophile tells his barrister that he is actually guilty what do you think should happen?

Obviously the barrister then has to take that evidence to the guards! A solicitor or barrister is legally not allowed to represent their client if they have any doubt that the client may not be innocent!

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Obviously the barrister then has to take that evidence to the guards! A solicitor or barrister is legally not allowed to represent their client if they have any doubt that the client may not be innocent!

You couldn't be more wrong. Solicitors and barristers are getting up in court every day representing people they doubt.

If the client has confessed to the barrister to the crime of which he or she is accused, or admitted an incriminating fact, but still wishes to fight the case instead of pleading guilty, the barrister, if the client so instructs, can still defend the case by making the State prove the client committed the crime. But the barrister cannot call evidence or make submissions to the judge or jury that the client did not commit the crime. The barrister can cross-examine the prosecution witnesses with a view to showing that the State has failed to prove his or her client committed the crime and should therefore be acquitted.
People ask why a barrister should try to get a client acquitted if the barrister knows he is guilty. The reason is that in a free democratic society, nobody should lose their liberty unless the State proves through proper admissible evidence and due process of law that the accused is guilty.

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/aboutus/generalinfo.htm&m=3

Skuxx

prinz wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong. Solicitors and barristers are getting up in court every day representing people they doubt.



http://www.lawlibrary.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/aboutus/generalinfo.htm&m=3[/QUOTE]

Do you mind me asking, are you infavour or against this new law??

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Do you mind me asking, are you infavour or against this new law??

In theory very much in favour. I'd be delighted to see penalties imposed on people who neglect to inform the authorities of abuse, in the meantime I'd be even more delighted if reporting and reaction to the new law accurately reflected what it is all about.. and it's not all about priests in confession.. but rather about pointing out that inaction will be punished no matter who the person is, priest, neighbour, parent, whatever.

Skuxx

prinz wrote: »

In theory very much in favour. I'd be delighted to see penalties imposed on people who neglect to inform the authorities of abuse, in the meantime I'd be even more delighted if reporting and reaction to the new law accurately reflected what it is all about.. and it's not all about priests in confession.. but rather about pointing out that inaction will be punished no matter who the person is, priest, neighbour, parent, whatever.

Yes, and nobody disagrees with you there, but priests are the ones getting a hard time because they are the one saying that they are against it, its against their beliefs and you have Fr. Sean McDonagh, the spokes person for the association of catholic priests activley encouraging priests to ignore this new law!!!
Complete bollicks!! In my opinion if religion and state law cant work together, then there is only one option for it!!

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Complete bollicks!! In my opinion if religion and state law cant work together, then there is only one option for it!!

If it's proven that a priest knew of abuse and did nothing then yeah, prosecute and imprison. The problem with confession is proving it by its very nature it is supposed to be anonymous or as close to anonymous as possible in most churches. Then you have issues with freedom to practice religion, and interfering with the right to earn a living tbh which could see it removed or amended before long.

Outside of that not long ago mandatory reporting was being criticised as leading to too many false reports which police and authorities where chasing wasting time and resources for no good reason.

It's a tough one. Sounds good and looks good, but difficult to use effectively I'd imagine. Unfortunately a bad law in this area is probably better than no law.

Skuxx

I know it will be hard to police, but I think if they did something to catch people out, send people in making false confession, much like sending a 17 year old into an off license, and see if it's reported!!

billybudd

user098 wrote: »

And now in practice. They have not had a single new child abuse case in the last 10 years. So at least they can learn from their mistakes. So do you find that fact encouraging or disappointing ? Personally I find it encouraging.

Yet 37 children have died in state care since 2000. But hey, lets not talk about that, it does not suit the agenda

I think the number is far higher that 37, anyway progress is always good and as i have stated many times before some priests do exceptional work for the poor and needy, as for no abuse cases? i dont know ask me in 10 years as it seems to take that amount of time in Ireland for things to rise above the surface, there is no-one as blind as those who choose not to see.

eyescreamcone

It's nice to hear the priests come out though and say they will not obey the law of the land.

How much respect would we give to any other group who came out and said that they will not obey our country's laws!!!

If a golf club came out with this type of rubbish how would we treat them???
After all, the internal rules of any golf club are akin to the internal rules of the rcc!!!

Ash.J.Williams

eyescreamcone wrote: »

It's nice to hear the priests come out though and say they will not obey the law of the land.

How much respect would we give to any other group who came out and said that they will not obey our country's laws!!!

If a golf club came out with this type of rubbish how would we treat them???
After all, the internal rules of any golf club are akin to the internal rules of the rcc!!!

I don't recall golf clubs systematically hiding the crimes of paedophiles and encouraging paedophillia

rn

This law is a serious fudge in MHO. How exactly do you prove conclusively that someone knew, what is essentially, a secret before such time that it actually comes to the attention of the authorities. Any priest that is asked a question on it will simply refuse to confirm or deny any details that are put to him. That just tells you nothing - of course many people will jump to the conclusion that he must be hiding something, but this is incorrect. Can you reliably base a conviction on simply the word of some one who isn't a direct witness?

Regardless there is something constitutionally flawed in this law - that if it ever was tested and a conviction secured, could mean it would fail on appeal. As the right to practice religion is recognised and protected and confession is part of the practice of the Catholicism

Skuxx

rn wrote: »

This law is a serious fudge in MHO. How exactly do you prove conclusively that someone knew, what is essentially, a secret before such time that it actually comes to the attention of the authorities. Any priest that is asked a question on it will simply refuse to confirm or deny any details that are put to him. That just tells you nothing - of course many people will jump to the conclusion that he must be hiding something, but this is incorrect. Can you reliably base a conviction on simply the word of some one who isn't a direct witness?

Regardless there is something constitutionally flawed in this law - that if it ever was tested and a conviction secured, could mean it would fail on appeal. As the right to practice religion is recognised and protected and confession is part of the practice of the Catholicism

Well then we need a referendum ASAP and get the constitution changed!!
We don't allow female genital mutilitation, which is practised under some aspects of the muslim religion, we don't allow stoning in the street etc. there are certain aspects of each religion out there that we simply can't allow to happen in a modern, civilised society, and certain parts of the confession are also starting to fall into this!!

If I go out tomorrow and start up my own religion, which I'm perfectly entitled to do, can I encourage my followers to murder red heads because I think they're evil (simple just an example, I've nothing against red heads!!) but then get away with it, stating its a religious belief and protected by the constitution??

We should not need a law for this, its basic ****ing common sense!!
Priests should welcome this, they have ****ed the lives of children for long enough in this country, its about time they gave something back!!

eyescreamcone

rn wrote: »

As the right to practice religion is recognised and protected and confession is part of the practice of the Catholicism

No problem dress up, put on the funny hats and tell the fairy stories.
But no group should be allowed to claim exemption from any laws of the country.

Otherwise we might have female circumcision next week.
Or no blood transfusion for jehovah witness' children after that.

Or any other made up bullsh!t the week after.

Take religion out of it.
We have laws that EVERYBODY must obey.
If you don't obey the laws get in the clink, because you're a criminal!!!
No excuses!!!

Dudess

alan1990 wrote: »

Its only the sick ****ing peodphiles that this new law is going to effect

No it isn't. It would affect people who aren't paedophiles at all.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

By not reporting abuse you are encouraging it, therefore are an abuser yourself.

No you're not. To be an abuser you have to abuse.

In an ideal, uncomplicated world, every known case of abuse would be reported, and fast - unfortunately things don't always work that way.

Ultimately the only person responsible though is the abuser ****.

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Well then we need a referendum ASAP and get the constitution changed!! We don't allow female genital mutilitation, which is practised under some aspects of the muslim religion, we don't allow stoning in the street etc....

The only problem being neither FGM or stonings are actually central tenets of Islam. The Sacrament of Penance is. Also there are exemptions to FGM contained in the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act.. for instance if the female in question is over 18 there is no offence. So not quite as clear cut.

You'd have more of a point comparing it to say circumcision on males, which is legal in Ireland and offered in various hospitals.

Skuxx

Dudess wrote: »

No it isn't. It would affect people who aren't paedophiles at all.

No you're not. To be an abuser you have to abuse.

In an ideal, uncomplicated world, every known case of abuse would be reported, and fast - unfortunately things don't always work that way.

Ultimately the only person responsible though is the abuser ****.

Ok murders aswell then, the point I was making was that, (hopefully) 99.999% of the population have nothing to worry about here!!

prinz

alan1990 wrote: »

Ok murders aswell then, the point I was making was that, (hopefully) 99.999% of the population have nothing to worry about here!!

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of child abuse occurring in this country, unfortunately.

In Ireland research has shown that one in four children (27%) will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18. Despite well publicized scandals and reports, many Irish people remain unable to respond to this problem and the long term damage it creates individually and at societal level. Our determined aim is to change this.

http://www.oneinfour.ie/about/

If you think only 99.999% know about it....... nearly half of the people One in Four work with have been abused in the family setting. Somebody has to know it's happening.

Skuxx

prinz wrote: »

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of child abuse occurring in this country, unfortunately.



http://www.oneinfour.ie/about/

If you think only 99.999% know about it.......

We're talking about priests and confession here (see thread title)
Of course the number of people who are aware of such a thing happening is going to be greater, but the onus is on them people to go straight to the guards! I'm talking about the amount of people who are commiting such crimes and then confessing to the priests, and yes, maybe the number is also greater, but that just goes to show the need to do something about it!!!

Dudess

alan1990 wrote: »

Ok murders aswell then

Huh? This recommendation would affect people who have never abused. Not reporting it is a bad thing obviously, but it's not abusing. People who say it's the same thing just get off on blaming easy targets.

Skuxx

Dudess wrote: »

Huh? This recommendation would affect people who have never abused. Not reporting it is a bad thing obviously, but it's not abusing. People who say it's the same thing just get off on blaming easy targets.

Your right, its not abusing, but it is putting the life of a child in danger, and therefore deserves punishment, in my opinion atleast!!
But the point of this thread is about priests reporting what they hear in confession (see thread title), not the actualy law itself, and it is only for people like pedos and murders who confess to the priest that this is going to effect! Everyone else can still tell the priest about their sins and he can forgive them, as before!!

user098

alan1990 wrote: »

I know it will be hard to police, but I think if they did something to catch people out, send people in making false confession, much like sending a 17 year old into an off license, and see if it's reported!!

Off you go, no one is stopping you. Put your money where your mouth is.

user098

alan1990 wrote: »

But the point of this thread is about priests reporting what they hear in confession (see thread title), not the actualy law itself, and it is only for people like pedos and murders who confess to the priest that this is going to effect! Everyone else can still tell the priest about their sins and he can forgive them, as before!!

What about other crimes, such as rape etc. why should they not be reported ?

Run_to_da_hills

Saw this cartoon in A&A on same subject.

It sums up Catholic Church confessional quite well. .

http://i47.tinypic.com/9zv86v.jpg