BS: Ireland v the Pope

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 04:09 PM

"I thought the priest wasn't supposed to know who was on the other side of the grille. So Technically he doesn't know who is confessing the sin."

The standard confessional "booth" is indeed set up to provide anonymity, or at least the illusion of same. For a regular churchgoer making confession at his home parish, of course, it is fairly likely that the priest will recognize the person's voice and perhaps even his/her predelictions (sins).

When I was in Catholic elementary school at St, Mary's, Plainfield, NJ, I remember once going to confession, finishing, saying the Act of Contrition while the priest recited the Latin words of absolution, and then having Fr. Moran ask me, "So Tommy: are you the last one or is there anyone still waiting on line?"

More recently, there has been general discussion that people are encouraged to meet with priests "face-to-face" for confession, making a better setting for personal counseling (I suppose). The standard "blind" confessional booths are still available at regualrly-scheduled hours, nonetheless. Longtime "sinners" who become penitents after years away from The Church always have the option of going to a church where no one knows them and confessing in the darkness and from behind a screen.

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 04:26 PM

I cannot find the actual text of the proposed new law, Joe, but I did find this analysis by Gerry Whyte who is an associate professor at the Trinity College Dublin law school, a fellow of Trinity College and dean of students. Quite interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 04:43 PM

Hi, Frank -

Of, course I could argue the converse. It isn't just that the Catholic Church has affected a profound change ('takeover') on Ireland - Ireland has also had an unbelievably strong influence on the Catholic Church. This sacrament of private confession that we're talking about, was an Irish innovation.

But back to the law and the church-state conflict. A parallel situation has existed in the United States over the past many years, with regards to immigration laws. Since the early 19th century, many Catholics have immigrated to the United States illegally, and the Catholic Church has given them what protection it can - sometimes legally, and sometimes illegally. A few years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would require churches to report illegal aliens who came to the churches for assistance. By an overwhelming majority (it may even have been unanimous), the American Catholic bishops agreed to issue a statement that they would defy such a law if it were enacted. The legislation didn't make it through the Senate, to the issue was moot. So, there's a recent precedent. I think that the Irish Catholic bishops will also agree to defy this law that attempts to negate the seal of confession. I can't see how they could do otherwise.

In recent years, various government entities in the United States have enacted laws that require medical and mental health practitioners to report suspicions of child abuse or molestation to legal authorities. This legislation is certainly well-intended, but I wonder what counselors and social workers think about this violation of the secrecy of their client-healer relationship. Is it effective, or has it compromised the confidentiality that is so important to mental health treatment? I know that some social workers feel relieved that they now have a law that supports them when they see a need to report child abuse.

But let's say I'm a father, having trouble dealing with my children. I've gotten angry at them, and I've done and said things to them that I shouldn't have. I don't really know if what I've done is illegal, but I know I need help to get out of this cycle of anger. I know I need help, but I now have to fear that if I say the wrong thing, my counselor will be obliged to report me to the police. What can I do?

It's a thorny question, and there are no easy answers.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 05:02 PM

"Since the early 19th century, many Catholics have immigrated to the United States illegally, and the Catholic Church has given them what protection it can - sometimes legally, and sometimes illegally. A few years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would require churches to report illegal aliens who came to the churches for assistance."

Interesting. Do members of any other group of immigrants possess such a powerful advocate body in the US?

I presume the Catholic Church mainly deals with native members of the American continent, crossing colonised borders. But what about 'alien' Muslims emigrating from entirely other parts of the world for example?

How does it work over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: PoppaGator
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 05:20 PM

In the US, impoverished immigrants in need of social services and likely to be illegal are almost exclusively Hispanic. Immigrants who can afford transoceanic travel tend to be more-or-less middle-class, or at least have personal connections to established US citizens.

I realize that in European countries, much closer to the Middle East, the cheap-immigrant-labor pool includes plenty of Muslims, but this is not so in the Western Hemisphere. Our illegal Muslim immigrants generally arrive legally (typically with student visas), and become illegal only after overstaying their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 05:22 PM

Hi, Livelylass-

I'm associated with two social service agencies that have Catholic roots and are headed by Catholic nuns, but they are nondenominational. We provide services to anyone who comes to the door, and the majority of our clients are not Catholic. And no, we won't report illegal aliens, no matter what their religious beliefs. There are other charities that are more tightly affiliated with the Catholic Church. They, also, serve anyone who comes to the door, regardless of religious affiliation - and they won't report illegal aliens.

It seems to me that Muslims in the U.S. tend to seek assistance from people of their own faith and ethnicity, but not always.

But maybe we ought to get back to the original topic of discussion. I don't have any particular affection for the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession). I go about once or twice a year, but more-or-less just for the hell of it. Sometimes I like it, and sometimes I don't - but I don't consider it to be essential to my spirituality. Many Catholics value it much more highly, however.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 11 - 05:44 PM

The idea of challenging the secrecy of confession is a (cardinal) red herring here. At heart it seems the secular equivalent of the "angels on the head of a pin" debate i.e. indulged in for a perverse sense of belonging.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 11 - 06:23 AM

It is difficult and I actually sympathise with many of the situations Joe says can come about.

But there has to be a start. That start is to recognise that the law is the law. it may be wrong, it may be needing review, it may oppress and it may be immoral.

But Ireland, the UK and The USA (the three countries from which the vast majority of contributors to this thread come from ) are democracies. So there should be, in theory, no reason to break the law as there are other ways to express your view and influence on the lawmaking.

It is perfectly simple. If the law states, not unreasonably, that withholding evidence is wrong, then nobody, no matter how pointy their hat is, no matter celibate they are, no matter how much they have been told they are a guardian of communities by those who taught them, no matter how much they try to obey a foreign country's dictat, nobody sits above the law.

They have to decide whether their actions make them criminals or not. A bit of a harsh way of putting it, yes. But being involved in health and social care regulation I do get involved in vetting of people who work with vulnerable people, and no safeguarding principles I know of would allow people who openly break the law be put in a position of influence towards vulnerable people, let alone vulnerable children, as has been the sad awful case here for so long. And why did it perpetuate? Possibly because they thought themselves above the law.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jul 11 - 07:51 AM

no matter how pointy their hat is, no matter celibate they are...

?????? What is your real issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 11 - 10:38 PM

Well, Ian,

I grew up in the United States of the 1960s, a country just coming out of an age of legalized bigotry and entering an unjust war in Southeast Asia. I can't say I'll ever share your respect for the law. I view it all with a grain of salt - church law, civil law, and anybody who tries to tell me what to do or what to think. For me, "authority" is something to be regarded with suspicion. I think my own thoughts.

But I respect your post of view.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 11 - 05:32 AM

I too have reservations with the law when it just suits politicians interests. Got the T shirt myself. Th*tcher called me and my kind the enemy within, purely on the basis that I was a miner and she was the Prime Minister. The photo of me shaking hands with Tony Blair at No.10 is no longer on display in my study as I am not sure I want the kudos of association with a war monger.

However, withholding evidence isn't about suiting politicians, it is about protecting victims. Hence I am happy to be told that if you know about such awful crime, you have a moral even if you can't stomach the term legal duty to help bring the perpetrators to justice.

Just saying you distrust politicians isn't the answer really. And as I said in an earlier post, I appreciate both your view and dilemma but this goes further than voluntary membership of a religious organisation.

Guest Jon. - I have huge issues. Pointy hats and celibacy aren't my issues, but they describe facets of people, some of whom think they have to interpret rather than abide by society's rules. I suggest they are the issues of those who see reporting crime as a dilemma. I used the terms in order to accentuate the fact that if you aren't a catholic, the trappings of catholic management are irrelevant to you.

But living in rather than out of society is relevant, regardless of how you spend your Sundays. If I have a beef it is that clergy of all faiths are asserting their rights to be above laws and at the same time are making themselves more marginalised and more irrelevant, even to those who profess faith. And that is bad because many people get comfort from their faith and the last thing they need is to see their leaders make arses of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Jul 11 - 12:27 PM

Hi Joe,

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

Although as you say the sacrament was an Irish innovation, Ireland at the time of this innovation was quite taken over by the RC. The earlier Spalpeens might have had a problem with this.

As to the client-healer relationship, there is a question as to what that means, what healing is intended and whether it works or not. Legally, it makes sense but in a religious sense, that is ambiguous. As to client-healer privilege, I would take the position that in a case of treating a serial killer, the needs of society trump the client-healer relationship. As to immigration, the determination as to what an immigrant is becomes questionable in that we are all immigrants to the U.S.

Mental health treatment is an open question, what treatment and what health?
I think in practical terms that incarceration of a child abuser or serial killer should be accompanied by a forced treatment program rather than a capital punishment solution.
Maybe a "Clockwork Orange" idea.

The notion of secrecy in revealing abberant behavior in religious institutions is well-known from the polygamy farms of off-shoot Mormon compounds to child-abusing clergy.

The trouble with the analogy of the strict father is that this psychopathy is just now being addressed with the issue of clergy child abuse. The ethical situation has to be weighed in terms of the individual case, one size doesn't fit all, but when society is harmed by this confidentiality, it brings into question as to whom is being healed here.

I think when someone who is going to do something that harms society, there is a duty to report it. I agree that there are no easy answers, so much is dependent on definitions, but collusion and subterfuge serve neither the perpetrator or the enabling defender. Being a priest doesn't exempt a man from child abuse by standing behind his religion.