|
25 Jul 11 - 06:58 AM (#3194813) Subject: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Peter K (Fionn) How to get a standing ovation in Ireland: Vatican recalls ambassador. At last the Irish are rising like lions after slumber. If only it could have happened in the days of Archbishop McQuaid and his ilk, how many lives would have been spared church-inflicted misery? Just to be clear, the John Magee excoriated in the Cloyne report is the same John Magee who was at the very heart of the Vatican for decades as personal secretary to three popes. No wonder he never got his red hat. And no wonder Ratzinger has bottled out of next year's visit to Ireland. One silver lining: Ireland is making it a criminal offence, punishable by five years imprisonment, to withhold evidence of child abuse gleaned in the confessional. A long overdue nail in the coffin perhaps for an archaic sacrament conceived to consolidate the hierarchy's grip on the laity. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:17 AM (#3194900) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass "Ireland is making it a criminal offence, punishable by five years imprisonment, to withhold evidence of child abuse gleaned in the confessional. A long overdue nail in the coffin" Slowly, slowly.. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:18 AM (#3194903) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Rapparee How many child abusers, sexual or otherwise, go to Confession? Ireland is "lost to the Church" now anyway. From the Magdalene Laundries to the Bishop of Galway's son to the Industrial Schools to pedophilia, the Irish have had enough. They've put up with alcoholic priests, lusty priests...but they have had it. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:21 AM (#3194907) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass How many child abusers go to confession? Well ALL clerical child abusers do. So that's a start, eh? |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:27 AM (#3194911) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jack the Sailor "How many child abusers go to confession?" I think nearly all who are priests do. What they the confess is another matter. This law is likely to do little more than supress confession. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:27 AM (#3194913) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Rapparee Yes, but do they consider it something to confess? |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:32 AM (#3194915) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass The point is though, it's right and it's a start. For far too long the Church has been allowed to treat clerical abuse as an "internal matter" and that's why there's been such a lot of bullshit and cover-ups and shuffling of paedo priests around. This law might not be a cure-all but it sends the right message to the Church, it's criminal priests are no longer untouchable by secular authorities. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:34 AM (#3194921) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Rapparee Child abuse is child abuse, whether it's done by peasant or Pope. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:51 AM (#3194938) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: John MacKenzie On that basis, why not confessions of murder too, or wife beating, or................................. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 10:55 AM (#3194943) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jack the Sailor Any crime really. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 01:32 PM (#3195074) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Ballad Singer Sadly, the 'Church' that Ireland (and lots of other places) is "lost to" is a sham, a facade. It's a hollow and spiritually and morally powerless institution that has usurped and pretended to be the Church that once both assimilated and nurtured Irish culture and her pagan traditions. The stories that are the most popular, of course, are the ones about the Church (supposedly) smothering, destroying and eliminating the paganism from Ireland, but an honest view of history shows that Celtic ideas, philosophies, theological notions and devotional practices all enhanced the Church's ability to turn the hearts of people toward the Divine. No, this iniquitous monster that parades in finery while leaving millions of its parishioners in poverty, sexual and political repression and painful scandal has no right calling itself the Church, and it is high time that the 'Vatican', so-called, gets its filthy hands off Ireland. The bastard that calls himself an ambassador of the church would probably enjoy having the door hit him in the ass on his way out, but I'm glad he's leaving all the same. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 01:44 PM (#3195084) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: gnu Good point, John. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 01:50 PM (#3195090) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Mick BBS, you sort of have it right with regard to the Church adopting pagan customs, goddesses, stories, etc., but not entirely. The early missionary church led by Patrick and others, in fact did incorporate/appropriate those practices and festivals which they felt they could within the boundaries of their religious doctrines. At some point in the history of the Catholic Church in Ireland, the Irish rites were different enough that the Roman Church ensconced in the Vatican sent emissaries and threatened them with excommunication if they didn't abandon their erring ways. Once upon a time, Morgan Llywelyn sent me a brief explanation of the differences and a reading list on the differences and various studies of the Irish Catholic Church prior to this time. Unfortunately I had a crash and lost the list. As this shame has spread I cannot help but wonder what would have been different had the Irish Catholic Church, with it's more Celtic view of life, survived. All the best, Mick |
|
25 Jul 11 - 02:45 PM (#3195130) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Peter K (Fionn) Yes, John, it would be ludicrous to apply that law to child abuse and yet exclude murder and the rest. Rapparee, there is always the possibility that victims might confess to non-abusing priests. (There are a few.) It was invariably drilled into such children that the sin was theirs, so they might be glad to get it off their chests at last. Until very recent times of course the victims rarely dared confide in anyone, for fear of the venom they would bring down on themselves. Meanwhile the Vatican has said that its decision to recall the nuncio (whom many in Dublin wanted expelled anyway) was motivated in part by "surprise and disappointment at certain excessive reactions." So, too mealy-mouthed to say that it was the Irish PM who ruffled their feathers. But I think we can assume that his accusation of hierarchical "narcissism" in particular was not well received. |
|
25 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM (#3195139) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: olddude No church of any type should have any influence in any government. Historically all that happens when it does - bad. Religious beliefs are private and should remain so. Good that the Irish are taking action now ... so much pain and hurt for so many years. I am not bashing Catholics, I am a Catholic, it is a disgrace what went on for so long without any consequences for such terrible deeds. Bad people exist in all walks of life, even in a church. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 05:49 AM (#3195602) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) I think Enda Kenny's proposal is more significant for the fact that a Taoiseach is prepared to make it than for any effect it is likely to have with regard to convictions. It's my own view that any Irish man who trained and was ordained as a priest would almost certainly have come into possession of information regarding abuse by other priests at some point during their careers even if they were not engaged in abuse themselves. This could be in the confessional, through observation in schools or parishes or simply through their own suspicions. The church, even in Ireland, is a fairly small world and at some point secrets would have gotten out, if only to other priests. If those priests had such information and did nothing about it then they were accessories after the fact. However, even if they did go to the authorities, the police, politicians and councillors and social services were themselves so subservient to the church that nothing would have been done. What this means is that without wanting to let the church off the hook for a moment, there also needs to be considered the complicity of the Irish state and those elements of Irish society (media, politicians, professional people) who allowed this to continue. The power of the church was not and is not upheld only by priests. 'Laypeople' who ran institutions in accordance with the interests and teaching of the church are equally to blame. On a much less serious level, I'm reminded of my Jesuit grammar school in South London which I started going to in 1968. Although the head teacher was a priest and there were always a few about, most of the teaching was done by 'laymen' (and later a few women) who were if anything even more demonstrably 'Catholic' than most of the priests and who were even more defensive of the ideology and interests of the church. I think the word is 'Hegemony', and it is that hegemony that the church seems to be losing in Ireland. It still holds that hegemony to a much greater extent among the Irish diaspora, however, and I can't help wondering whether we are going to hear in the near future of similar instances of abuse within those institutions that have grown up concurrently with the Irish state and which themselves have traditionally had close ties to the church as well as the state. I suppose the difference is that with regard to cultural and sporting organisations it is easier for children and families to walk away. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 06:07 AM (#3195612) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Musket The Irish stance is all the stronger given their past subservience to the Vatican. Taking any particular religion out of it, this is about something other than the horrific abuse. it is about supremacy of government over religion. There are many, and increasingly in the British Anglican movement for that matter, who feel their allegiance to their church is stronger than their allegiance to government. Granted, we all think we can run the country better and hold individual politicians to ridicule, but this manifests in thinking the word of a religious leader takes precedence over laws. (Church of England vs The Equality Act, saying they are being victimised for discriminating against women and gays, a catholic adoption agency who won't place children with a same sex couple, the B&B owners who judge guests on their sexuality etc.) The law is the law. Religious belief is easily accommodated within western world laws, but withholding criminal evidence is against the law, and the sanctity of the confession must be on the understanding you do not compromise the priest, who is put in an awkward position of either breaking his vows or breaking the law. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 06:08 AM (#3195615) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass This probably isn't the right place for comedy, but even the comedic premise underpinning "Father Ted" was based on the commonplace knowledge that the Catholic Church in Ireland routinely farmed out it's crooked and perverted Priests to remote rural communities. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 06:23 AM (#3195631) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) I don't know about you, but I don't find 'Father Ted' nearly as funny as I used to. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 06:28 AM (#3195633) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Peter Laban I remember a newspaper columnist writing on the subject of Father Ted that to people in many countries it was surreal absurd comedy whereas to people in Ireland it was documentary. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM (#3195640) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: banjoman I was taught by the (un) Christian Brothers (another Irish Order)back in the 1950's and early 60's and could certainly expound on their treatment of little boys as something to be beaten or abused at their behest. Although I am still a practicing catholic, I feel that over the years I have lost faith in what I call the Bricks and Mortar or Church Temporal. To me it seems to have lost the message of goodwill to all men preached by its founder. The church now is little more that a Pharisee based organisation who are only interested in "Keeping to the rules2 and continually trying to supress the increasing voice of the laity. I thank God that my faith is not in them but in the one who preached that original message which still has relevance today if heeded |
|
26 Jul 11 - 10:01 AM (#3195780) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Rapparee I was taught, in the early Sixties, by the FSC, the Christian Brothersk, the ones founded by Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, who are NOT the Irish Christian Brothers. We were hit (never with the hand!), yes, but we were never degraded and the punishments were handed out equally and without rancor. After the first year it was rare, more along the lines of slapping the teacher's desk with a meter stick to awaken the class than physical punishment. To kneel upon a triangular piece of wood or to duckwalk around the school perimeter would have been totally unacceptable. If any teacher had tried anything sexual with a student, well, the parents would have stepped in quite forcefully. We always got a kick out of the rules, which forbade us from bringing dirks, poinards, swords, rapiers, firearms, or any other weapon to school -- a reflection of the state of French education in the 1600s, I guess. I received a good education, made some friends I'm still in contact with, and I don't allow a Church to interfere with my Religion (such as it is). |
|
26 Jul 11 - 11:44 AM (#3195842) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Stringsinger Reading books on Early Ireland, I see the roots in Spain, Scotia and Melitus, Scandinavia, The Firbolgs and the perhaps mythical DeDanaan, showing that the Catholic Church in ireland was comparatively recent history. Religion has co-opted many a national identity, a way of proselytizing by a "syncretism" over early pagan gods and goddesses. I think there has always been a Pagan strain in Irish culture that pre-dates Saint Pat, and that is now becoming more acknowledged. Maybe we're seeing the revolutionary rise of the Spalpeen who is taking his rightful role in the "Tradition". The blanket of Magisterium can only go so far in smothering the culture without a reaction by the victims. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM (#3195912) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Al Whittle The whole point of the confessional is that the priest doen't tell anyone. If there are crimes being committed , then that's the priest's burden. I can't see how the government can enforce this law. I'm not a catholic - but I can see that its a set of beliefs which mean a lot to a lot of people. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 01:09 PM (#3195915) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jack the Sailor "The whole point of the confessional is that the priest doen't tell anyone. If there are crimes being committed , then that's the priest's burden." I do not think that should be allowed anymore. The Catholic Church has betrayed that trust and abandoned the moral high ground. |
|
26 Jul 11 - 01:49 PM (#3195953) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: gnu Yer missin somethin here. The priest can always tell someone who can then keep an eye on the perp. To compel a priest to then provide witness in court fucks up the whole system. Ya know why priests are taught to box... so they can beat the shit out of thugs, bullies, wife-beaters... oh, wait, they can't do that anymore. It's against the law. |
|
27 Jul 11 - 07:05 AM (#3196458) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Stringsinger raises an interesting point. Ireland is a society and a nation that predates the Catholic Church and its presence in Ireland. In the early years of catholicism in Ireland, it developed very much in isolation from Rome and indeed from the rest of Europe. After the first Norman incursions into Ireland in the 12th century, Ireland came increasingly under the domination of the English crown although this was a much more gradual process than merely stating the fact would suggest. By the time of the reformation, the church and the state in most European countries were closely linked. Bishops and the Pope held considerable power over the crowned heads of Europe and of course in countries like Spain, France, the Italian states and the countries of what was the Holy Roman Empire (later the Hapsburg Empire) that continued to be the case. Ireland was different. By the time English domination in Ireland was firmly established (I suppose sometime between the time of Elizabeth the First and the death of Cromwell) the church was a vehicle by which Irish people expressed not only religious faith but also national identity. One of the reasons for this was that through most of Ireland, the church's contact with the people (especially in the countryside) was through monks and priests with links to monasteries. Indeed, from the time of St Patrick and later St Columba the power of the church and its evangelising mission would have been based largely around the monasteries which would have operated at some remove from the control of the Pope and had a very close connection with (especially) the rural population (Richard English's book 'Irish Freedom' has some interesting points about this although I think it's a very imperfect book otherwise). What this means is that the church in Ireland developed a distinctly Irish character as a result of conditions specific to Ireland. This matters because much of the discussion on modern-day abuses by the church focuses on the abuse of power by the church in opposition to the population who were subjected to those abuses. My view is slightly different. The church in Ireland developed the way it did because of the specific relationship between the church and the population. This means that the church was not an alien, outside force from the Irish people but rather that it sprang from among those people and its power was accrued not only by coercion but also by consent of the population, who regarded it not only as their spiritual guide but also as the custodian of their national, cultural and communal identity. I think the importance of the church among the Irish diaspora is evidence of this. I also think there is some echo of this in the tendency of Irish communities to establish community and cultural organisations almost as soon as they arrive in a foreign society in any numbers, along with the tendency of those organisations to be hierarchical and to be dominated by small numbers of individuals for years on end. In other words, there is a strong tendency towards hierarchy in Irish society and institutions and that tendency has shaped the development of the church in Ireland at least to the same extent as Irish society has been shaped itself by the hierarchical nature of the church. |
|
27 Jul 11 - 07:58 AM (#3196483) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jack Campin Indeed, from the time of St Patrick and later St Columba the power of the church and its evangelising mission would have been based largely around the monasteries which would have operated at some remove from the control of the Pope The Pope ran the whole show after the Synod of Whitby. The Celtic Chuch had been gone, finished, abolished, an ex-church, for centuries before anybody, anywhere had the idea that any such thing as "national identity" might be a good idea. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 04:02 AM (#3197103) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer The idea of private "confession" developed in the Catholic Church in Ireland - I think about the 11th century. Before that, the only practice was public repentance and penance for public sinners who repented. To a great extent, the private sacrament has worked quite well, giving people an opportunity to take responsibility for what they've done that's wrong, and then being encouraged to go on and "sin no more." Part of the deal is that the penitent is supposed to have "true contrition," that he's truly sorry for what he's done and wants to make amends. If it's a criminal offense, the priest is supposed to encourage the penitent to face civil authorities and accept the punishment for the crime. If the penitent fails to do this, there is no forgiveness. So, in theory, the sacrament should help legal authorities, since the penitent is required to submit to civil authority. In practice, if a person isn't ready to admit his crime to civil authority, he's not going to admit it to church authority, either. I would doubt that priests will follow this law, and how is government going to determine if priest hear about crimes and don't report them - by bugging confessionals? Breaking the "seal of confession" is something that priests just wouldn't even think of doing, no matter what the law says - and most likely, such a law would not be very productive, anyhow. I doubt that many priest-molesters confess to the sin of child molestation - for the most part, they don't see it as wrong. -Joe- |
|
28 Jul 11 - 05:23 AM (#3197143) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Al Whittle I think belief is a funny thing. Its not so much whats in the bible or the koran - its what people believe is in it. I think the confidentiality of the confessional is pretty well rooted in peoples minds as a sacrament. You can't just pass a law and tell people what to believe. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 07:21 AM (#3197179) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) I think Joe is, sadly, probably right. Priests won't report what's told them in the confessional and in any case a lot of priests who have been abusing won't confess it in any case - probably because they don't think it's a sin. I still think, though, that every priest in Ireland must have had some idea that this was going on and chose not to say or do anything about it. Not that it's stopped me being a catholic but if we got a new parish priest who was a middle-aged Irish man I wouldn't be happy about it. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 04:17 PM (#3197481) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jim Carroll "Breaking the "seal of confession" is something that priests just wouldn't even think of doing, no matter what the law says" Presumably a serial killer could go into the confessional, confess his crimes and claim that he cannot control his behaviour and will contiue killing - leaving the priest to believe himself under no obligation to report the matter to the authorities. Can you clarify if that is the situation regarding the sanctity of the confessional Joe? This is one of the big debates here in Ireland following Enda Kenny's unprecedented criticism of the church's handling of the abuse - the public response has been overwhelmingly in support of Kenny's condemnation. Jim Carroll |
|
28 Jul 11 - 04:47 PM (#3197489) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Al Whittle I believe theres some sort of dispensation when it comes to serial killers. EF Benson wrote a cracking short ghost story on the subject called The Hanging of Alfred Wadham. The murderer confesses to a priest who has to officiate at the hanging of a wrongfully convicted man. The priest keeps his silence. Thereafter the priest is haunted by terrifying images of the innocent, but dead man. Benson wrote the Mapp and Lucia stories, but that piece has a wonderful 1890's feel to it. Very decadent and florid - Wildean, like Dorian Gray. I believe when he was younger, Benson was on the edges of Reggie Turner/Wilde gay set. later in life he was the mayor of somewhere on on the south coast - Ryde, or somewhere like that. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 06:19 PM (#3197535) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer The "seal of confession" is covered in paragraph 1467 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
|
|
28 Jul 11 - 07:38 PM (#3197573) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jack Campin Seems to me confession is a red herring. Anybody in the Catholic hierarchy who actually *wanted* to see what was going on could find out easily by other methods - in particular, by listening to the victims. There will be very few instances where confession provides the only evidence of wrongdoing. There are secular versions of confession where there is a pretty clear benefit from a para.1467-type policy. The one I have experience of is in Re-Evaluation Counselling (the whole organizational structure of which is modelled on the Catholic Church) and they may have got it from Freudian psychoanalysis. Telling somebody with illegal impulses that they can't seek counselling without dobbing themselves in is a recipe for bottling stuff up to a point where something murderous happens. Sadly, counsellors are now obligated to act as detective sergeants under UK law. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 08:55 PM (#3197619) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Peter K (Fionn) The new law in Ireland will mean that any priest hearing from a child in the confessional that the child has been (say) molested by another priest will be under legal obligation to report it. That Ireland, of all nations, should challenge the Catholic catechism so directly is quite a big development. If you think, Joe, that any decent priest hearing such a confession would put paragraph 1467 ahead of the criminal law, you have not understood the sea change in attitudes in Ireland. You would get a hint of that change from the terms in which voices within the Irish hierarchy openly demanding that Magee and his ilk be jailed. Chris B, it is a serious mistake to assume that this is a problem confined to Ireland. Ireland has been trenchant in tackling it, but abuse by Catholics is a worldwide problem. Australia, France, Austria, Poland, the UK and the US are among those countries where the default response has hitherto been to cover it up. Neither is child abuse an indulgence confined to the middle-aged. |
|
28 Jul 11 - 09:02 PM (#3197624) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer I think, Peter, that decent priests hearing of in a crime in confession, will do what they do now - do their best to persuade the penitent that the information must be revealed to government authorities, but respect the penitent's wishes in the end. In most cases, the outcome would be the same, with or without the law - but if push comes to shove, priests will honor the seal of confession. Jack, I appreciate your insights. As some of you may know, I worked as a U.S. government investigator for 25 years, doing background investigations on applicants for government security clearances. If we came across information that the applicant had received counseling or psychiatric treatment, we had to interview the counselor and obtain treatment records. We had to first obtain a release form signed by the applicant, but most applicants signed the form without hesistation because they wanted the job they were being investigated for. But personally, I felt this was an undue violation of the sacredness of the counselor-client relationship. I hated this task but I did was I was supposed to do, although I tried do do it with as much respect for the applicant's privacy as I could muster. -Joe- |
|
28 Jul 11 - 11:36 PM (#3197669) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: katlaughing I've been fascinated by Peter Tremayne's book about the fictional character, Sister Fidelma, in 7th century Ireland. Tremayne is the pseudonym of Peter Beresford Ellis, a noted authority on Celtic history and culture. Here is what he has to say about Ireland in those days: Sister Fidelma's World. Quite a bit different than later after the Catholic Church really got its hooks in. Peter, thank you for posting this thread. It is good to hear of the uprising against the long oppression of such crimes. kat |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:00 AM (#3197743) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Peter K, you're quite right to say that this isn't a problem unique to Ireland or catholicism. I've made the same point myself elsewhere. My point is that the relationship between the church and the wider society in Ireland is affected by circumstances and history that are particular to that country, as it is in other countries. Fair play to Kenny for raising the point but at the risk of sounding cynical, I wonder if there is an element of 'playing to the gallery' in all of this. Kenny must know how unlikely it is that any priest would actually comply with this proposed new law. Jack Campin, I agree. The church is a small enough world for priests to know about abuse without hearing about it in the confessional. In any case, wouldn't such evidence be hearsay? |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:14 AM (#3197749) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Musket Joe, I respect you and have always found your contribution in any debate to be the voice of reason. However, quoting religious text such as the catechism is unhelpful. It is not on the legal statute book of either of our countries, and neither is it on the Irish statute book. Regardless of our views of law, we either comply or live outside of society in one way or another. Witholding evidence of a crime, accessory after the fact or whatever the local wording may be is in itself a crime. If a job contract, taking a priest for example, forces the employee to break the law, well at the risk of sounding officious, then the employer is guilty of a crime before the first confessional has begun! And for going along with it, the priest can't claim he was forced to either. That defence was tried at Nuremburg.... That said, in a pragmatic way, if the confessional can, and I am sure it has many times, convinced a penitent to face up to their transgressions and turn themselves in, then I would agree the system has been helpful to society. However, I wouldn't base a system on the possibility of it working. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 06:54 AM (#3197809) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer Well, Ian, I can't say I understand you. What could be wrong with my quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I'm not trying to proselytize - I'm just stating the rules the Catholic Church imposes on priests. The Catechism quotation illustrates the conflict between church and civil law, and that there are no exceptions to the church law. Seems pertinent to the discussion, especially since some thought there were exceptions to the church law. I would suppose that we all have loyalties that supersede our loyalty to our country - family loyalties, religious beliefs, employment. Civil law will do what it will - but my bet is that priests won't budge on this one. The seal of confession is too old and too sacred a tradition. A violation of this new law would be almost impossible to prove - unless, I suppose, government installed bugs in confessionals. That being the case, I think this unenforceable law will be a non-issue. It is a symbolic demonstration that Ireland is rightly appalled by the failure of the Catholic Church to deal properly with the crime of child molestation. I personally think the law is ill-advised, but I certainly sympathize with the outrage felt by the Irish people. I am a very active Catholic and a lay leader and teacher, but I have no sympathy for the Catholic bishops and the mess they've get themselves into. -Joe- |
|
29 Jul 11 - 09:24 AM (#3197871) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Musket I can't answer for USA, nor indeed Ireland (the gist of this thread) but the law I am used to, UK law, is sovereign. In other words, there can be no conflict between church law and civil law, as civil and criminal law is the only law on the statute book. Sure, there examples of church influence still pervading, such as Sunday shop opening times over here, but church law can be described as rules for members. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the duty of citizens to report crime. I would possibly argue that in promoting the confessional, the Catholic church is actively seeking to have its staff compromised unless you make it absolutely clear that knowledge of crime cannot be concealed. If church imposes something on a priest that is contrary to law, you just end up with the mess of both sides liable to prosecution. Here in The UK, I go about my business supposedly assured that nobody is above the law. Naive? Maybe. But that doesn't mean you ignore a law because it is difficult to prove. Saying it is wrong to withhold evidence should be enough for decent people to abide by the law. Of course it is hard to police, but there again so are many other laws. Doesn't make them any less necessary to protect society. Sorry Joe, we are talking real law here, and confusing it with church rules, called law by its members, means we are talking two different things. There is no such thing as church law, only rules for members and staff to abide by, by choice, and never in contravention of criminal law. If priests refuse to budge on this due to a tradition being old and sacred, each society will have to decide whether refusal to obey the law makes them fit and proper to have positions of trust in communities. And you know, it wouldn't be the irreligious heathens such as me who are making church irrelevant, it is increasingly churches themselves. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 11:31 AM (#3197937) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Al Whittle 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. End of the concealing evidence threat. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 11:50 AM (#3197943) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Jim Carroll This is a simple matter of the Church's interests and influence being put above the law of the land and the well-being of the people. Up to the present day a killer whose crimes are known by the the priest can continue killing unless that priest breaks the sanctity of the confessional. We know that priests who were known by their fellow clerics to have sexually abused children were allowed to continue that abuse because the interests of the church were placed above the well-being of children in their care; the abuse often being facilitated by superiors moving them on to parishes where their crimes were not known, and refusing to pass on the information to the authorities. Whatever way this is viewed, it is direct complicity in serious - life-ruining, and occasionally lethal crimes. I wonder what would happen if, say Muslim clerics attempted to shelter behind the sanctity of their office by refusing to divulge serious crimes, would they be granted the same immunity, or would it be a case of "Guantanamo - here I come"? One of the few good things to arise from the abuse scandals is that, at long last the grip of the church has been loosened to the extent that it can never again be re-applied, and not before time. Jim Carroll |
|
29 Jul 11 - 01:58 PM (#3198012) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: gnu Almost all of the posts to this thread have been some of the most enlightening and well written "discussions" I have ever read at Mudcat. Thank you all. Sorry for taking up your time but I thought it was worth recognizing. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 02:18 PM (#3198022) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Big Al Whittle 'This is a simple matter of the Church's interests and influence being put above the law of the land and the well-being of the people' I've not much experience of how things are and were in Ireland, but part of my family were RC's and lived and married in Irish communities in England. I wouldn't describe the relationship of the RC church and the Christian teaching brothers to my family as a simple one. Abusive maybe - overlaid with centuries of reverence and tradition. But nevertheless one that was highly valued. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 02:18 PM (#3198023) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Peter K (Fionn) I think you've got to take Ian Mather's argument on board, Joe. Surely when this becomes law, the catholic church will have to decide how priests should respond. With contempt, or as responsible citizens. Given the mood in Ireland now, north and south, and the public statements put out lately by the Irish archbishops, I think the line would be to respect the law if the decision rested with the Irish hierarchy. If it's a matter for the Vatican, then of course the response will be to buck the law. But the Holy See would thereby expose itself to approbrium anew, and it might be that prospect that has wound up the Vatican to the extraordinary point of recalling the nuncio from what was once its most supine satellite. In any event the fact that the matter is up for discussion at all is bringing the confession sacrament itself into question, and this will surely encourage more thinking catholics to abandon the dwindling, gullible, few who still see any value in this mediaeval ritual. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 03:39 PM (#3198075) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass Mmm, agree with Ian Mather: there is the Law of the Land to which ALL are subject and then there are rules of optional clubs/groups/organisations to which those who choose to belong may subscribe. Arguably, it's not only religious clubs who have had and still have there own self-serving rules and agendas which may contravene the Law, and whose members may conspire together in order to do so. Perhaps organisations such as the Masons for example. All cult like organisations where there are closed doors, need to bee challenged to have a rethink. Indeed any organisation with closed doors whose members may close ranks against non-members. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM (#3198092) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer This is a simple matter of the Church's interests and influence being put above the law of the land and the well-being of the people. Well, Jim, I think I'd put it this way:
It reminds me of an argument I had every morning during the 15 years I shared an office with my old friend Charlie. Charlie, a perennial night school law student, saw the law as supreme, sacrosanct, and infallible. He could see no higher authority than The Law - or, at least, his interpretation of the law. I disagreed. Law is the product of a political process that may or may not represent the will and well-being of The People, and that rarely represents the will of all the people. Nonetheless, the law is the law, and those who transgress it suffer the penalties set forth by the law. But the law reigns supreme only within its own sphere, and we humans exist in many interconnecting spheres. But Charlie didn't understand this. He particularly had problems with the laws of physics and logic, especially when they didn't agree with what he knew from civil law to be true. There are those who try to put moral strictures on civil law and to say that violation of civil law is "wrong." But law doesn't govern right and wrong - it simply determines what it legal and what is illegal. Now, there are times when moral principles and civil law coincide; and in those times (like murder and child molestation), violation of the law can be "wrong." But the law, in and of itself, is amoral. Church law operates within its own sphere, and it is valid within that sphere. Again, it does not govern right and wrong, although there are times when church law coincides with moral principle. Despite what might have been the case in medieval times or currently in Islamic nations, church law is neither inferior or superior to civil law. They operate in different spheres, and sometimes those spheres intersect. And in those intersections where there is a conflict between the two systems of law, neither system invalidates the other. Civil law continues to have its penalties, and so does church law. In that situation, and individual has to choose which penalty to accept. In the laws of nature, actions have logical consequences, and those consequences are immutable and infallible. In church and civil law, the consequences are arbitrary and therefore mutable. OK, let's look at this law that requires priests to reveal information about crimes that they hear in confession. If somebody can find the actual text of the law, that would be very helpful; but I think we more-or-less have the idea of it. I think we generally agree that in actuality the law doesn't make a lot of difference because it would be rare that information furnished in confession would be primary and essential evidence in the prosecution of a crime; and it seems unlikely that it would happen very often that child molesters and their victims would reveal this information only in the sacrament of confession. Most times, priests aren't going to hear of a crime in confession until after a person has been arrested. It might, however, limit the freedom of a person to confess his sin after he has been arrested but before the trial. But basically, this law has another purpose: it's a kick in the groin of the Catholic Church, intended to show the church that it is not above the law. And let me state very clearly that this kick is well-deserved. The Catholic bishops of Ireland and the world have violated both civil law and moral principle time and time again in their mishandling of incidents of sexual abuse of children. The bishops are NOT above the law, and it's high time that they learned that. But this law is hitting below the belt, and I think it may backfire. The law attempts to countermand something that is almost universally sacred to Catholics: the secrecy of the confessional. When you start messing with what people hold sacred, you get into dangerous territory. While the Catholic Church has lost a lot of members in Ireland in recent years, I would guess that there are still many Catholic Irish voters who still consider the seal of confession to be very important - and they will be appalled by this attempt of government use legislation to repeal the seal of confession. The vast majority of Catholics are never going to report a crime in confession, but they nonetheless take comfort in the absolute assurance that what they say in the confessional will be kept secret, without exception. It's ironic, in a way. The "seal of confession" is not actually a very important doctrine in the Catholic Church. It wasn't practiced for the first millennium of the history of the church - only public confession was practiced during the first thousand years after Christ. But for Catholic people, the seal of confession is something that is very important, and violating or attempting to negate that seal, is something they will take very seriously. So, although I sympathize with the intent of the legislation, I think it's a bad call and that it may backfire. It will be largely unproductive in obtaining evidence of crime, but yet it is an unnecessary attack on something that Catholic people hold most sacred. So, that's my take on the matter. -Joe- P.S. Please note that I do not consider either church or civil law to be supreme, sacrosanct, and infallible. I ascribe those characteristics only to the laws of physics, nature, and logic. I also fit the Golden Rule in there somewhere - "do unto others and you would have them do unto you." That one is sacrosanct to me, too. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:04 PM (#3198094) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Stringsinger I still maintain that there is a prehistory before the RC takeover in Ireland. I don't agree that every Irishman is beholden to the RC religion. I think this may be one reason that James Joyce had to depart. I also wonder about W.B. Yeats. One of the clues is in the music. There is a dynamic early form of Irish music that sounds nothing like the liturgical musical elements of the RC, a wild passionate folk like sound predicated on the dance, a freewheeling, not staid, but abandoned cascade of tunes and notes that undoubtably was co-opted by the religious, but retains its roots in the Celtic culture which was peripatetic and assimilated the music of other cultures such as from Galicia, Spain. Every culture has a bent toward hierarchy but one of the things that defines certain elements of Irish culture is its unwillingness to conform. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:09 PM (#3198098) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: PoppaGator "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. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:26 PM (#3198106) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: katlaughing 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. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 04:43 PM (#3198114) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
29 Jul 11 - 05:02 PM (#3198124) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,livelylass "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? |
|
29 Jul 11 - 05:20 PM (#3198136) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: PoppaGator 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. |
|
29 Jul 11 - 05:22 PM (#3198137) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
29 Jul 11 - 05:44 PM (#3198149) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: MartinRyan 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 |
|
30 Jul 11 - 06:23 AM (#3198391) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Musket 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 |
|
30 Jul 11 - 07:51 AM (#3198409) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: GUEST,Jon no matter how pointy their hat is, no matter celibate they are... ?????? What is your real issue? |
|
30 Jul 11 - 10:38 PM (#3198877) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
31 Jul 11 - 05:32 AM (#3198967) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Musket 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. |
|
31 Jul 11 - 12:27 PM (#3199145) Subject: RE: BS: Ireland v the Pope From: Stringsinger 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. |