All right, I will be the guinea pig and get this ball rolling with a question. Let's discuss the issue of confidentiality in confession. If a priest hears a confession which concerns an illegal matter, which is more important: should he be true to his vows to the church (forgive the sinner, deal out penance and remain silent about the matter), or should he break the vows and report the illegal activity to the proper authorities?
Posts: 4378 | Location: Rochester, NY, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Initially, firing from the hip, I say that the clergy should not say anything, but rather than just deal out penance, he should pursue continued counseling to get the individual(dependent on the nature of the illegal activity)to either stop, or turn themselves in to authorities. Then I read this article: Confidentiality and Mandatory Reporting: a Clergy Dilemma? And now have changed my mind. If a member of the clergy hears of illegal activity, they should not keep it confidential. ++++++++++++++++++++= 06-04-02, 09:28 AM It depends on the crime, of course. Adultery is illegal in some states. I'm sure that there's a pretty good amount of confessions that involve adultery. If someone confesses to murder, then of course it's the priest's responsibility to report it. But there has to be a limit. If someone confesses to a lessor crime, than let the church sort it out. But serious crimes need to be dealt with my the proper authorities. The church isn't a corrections facility. Like any citizen, priests have obligations to report serious crimes.
06-04-02, 10:02 AM JoMS If a close family member, or a friend, confessed to me that they had committed a serious crime, I'd be faced with a dilemma. I'd try a lot of things before even considering turning them in. In the end, I suppose I'd have to if I thought they'd do it again. A one-off, I'm not sure. A priest is supposed to be a father figure. If he's doing his job, he has to think like a parent.
06-04-02, 10:21 AM Sarai When I was in college, I volunteered at a battered womens' shelter. One of the first things we were taught is that confidentiality is extremely important - you can't help anyone who doesn't trust you. However, we were required to inform the women that we would report anything they said that would indicate that the life or well-being of a child was in danger (i.e. "My husband hits my son"), the life of the woman was in danger (i.e. "He says he's going to kill me, but I don't want to get him in any trouble"), any violent thoughts or intentions of the woman's (i.e. "If I don't get this restraining order, I'll have to kill him"), and any indication that the woman was considering suicide. Child abuse, threats of violence, and suicide were three things that we were required to report, but we also had to make it clear to the women that we would report things of that nature before meeting with them. I think priests should be required to report these same things, and they should be required to inform confessors before any confession what they are obligated to tell.
06-04-02, 10:54 AM aminator2002 I think that the whole confession system is a bit weird. There must be some clause in their that says "If you confess to something really horrible and thereby put the priest in a very uncomfortable and compromised position then your request for forgiveness may be heard by God, but you will burn in hell if you do not confess to civil authorities." To me, if someone tells someone else that they have done, will do again something illegal (affecting other people) then that person has an obligation to report it. Sorry but Catholicism is just too silly for its own good sometimes.
06-04-02, 02:36 PM I agree with the post billmasters submitted. I think there need to be some things that should be able to remain confidential but as far as serious crimes I feel the priest needs to report it, if he can talk the person into turning himself/herself in and accompanying them while they do it that would be nice. If he can't then I feel he needs to contact the authorities. frown
06-04-02, 06:44 PM Strider0 As a practicing Catholic, this is a fascinating question to me. It falls squarely into the field of ethics, which I admit I'm not schooled in.
I think it's rather easy to say that a Priest who becomes aware of a seriously illegal matter should report it to civil authorities, but that oversimplifies the matter. After all, why not make attorneys do the same thing? I hope that at a minimum, US citizens in this forum would think to themselves that a violation of attorney-client privilege would jeopardize the client's right to fair justice which is afforded them as a guarantee of their individual rights by the US Constitution.
In a similar vein, who can be so bold as to say they want to violate an individual's right to the forgiveness of God? Yes, this seemingly silly practice may be a Catholic belief, but again the US Constitution guarantees the individual's freedom to practice their religion (both the Priest's right and the confessee of the hypothetically illegal crime).
If Catholic Priests were forced to divulge the confidentiality of the confessional, what kind of precedent would be set for the government to invade other individual rights? Not only their right to practice their religion, but how about the constitutional guarantee of client-attorney privilege? How about doctor-patient confidentiality, should we violate that too? Where would it stop?!
Forcing Catholic Priests to break what they call the "seal of the confessional" in such matters would cause those Catholics seeking forgiveness to avoid the confessional...and therefore their own salvation as they believe it. Is that something we want US civil law to enforce through law? Yikes!!!!!!
Let's turn the question around just a bit. Imagine that I've committed murder, but I'm deeply sorry for my act and sincerely want to make amends? I can't go to my Priest, because now I know he is likely to turn me in...so where do I go? Do I give up completely, because there is nowhere for me to turn? Not even to God's forgiveness through the Catholic confesional which I believe in? Shall I just condemn myself as a person that is going to Hell anyways...and therefore justify to myself that I might as well commit more murder and other egregious illegal acts of selfishness? Readers might find this short article by Father William Saunders, a Catholic Priest, to be of interest if you are interested in the practice of confession: The Seal of Confession.
I haven't seen the Alfred Hitchcock movie "I Confess," but it DOES sound rather interesting.
My two cents. Cheers!
[This message was edited by Strider0 on 06-04-02 at 06:59 PM.]
06-04-02, 10:27 PM QwertyMac I was brought up Catholic, and when I was six years old I wanted to become a priest. But ever since I was young I wondered about the role of the priest, and why one had to confess to a mere mortal the sins that could only be forgiven by the Lord. Failing to obtain a logical answer to this question, this was one of the mysteries that eventually led me away from Catholicism.
In Christianity, all of it's versions as far as I know, one is encouraged to speak with the Lord directly through prayer, and this includes asking for forgiveness. So to me, even in the context of Christianity, the confessional is not just weird, it verges on a transgression of the Lord's teachings, adding a layer of separation and/or intercession between man and God that was created by, of course, man. Specifically Catholic man.
Now this is or course from the Christian perspective as interpreted by myself. But I believe in the Lord as much as I believe in the Tooth Fairy, and I despise the Catholic church and the role it played, and continues to play, in obtaining the subservience of the ignorant and needy, in other words, in the most desperate folk out there, for the service of capital.
But I also believe in the right to worship as you please, and as Voltaire said, I'll defend to the death your right to do so. So my opinion on the question at hand is that attorney-client privilege must extend to the confessional, no matter how serious the crime. In fact, I would defend a priest who would keep mum about knowledge say, a murder committed by some particularly odious fascist like Le Pen, whom I would otherwise like to see roast in an open fire like his idol, Joan of Arc.
06-05-02, 12:27 PM MrSensitive The purpose of the priest is to present the confessor with the humility and humbleness as they confess. It's one thing to say, "God, i am a child molestor. forgive me" and a completely different effect when one has to confess in the presence of a tangible being.
Should a priest report a crime? The church deals in God's laws, not man's. The church is a sanctuary from secularity. I believe that a priest is under no obligation to report a crime. And, in fact would be a major breach of trust and spiritual connectivity if the priest DID report the crime.
The priest has a tough job. Hearing confessions is one of the most difficult to deal with. But that's the path that has chosen them. They need to deal with the issue within the structure of the rite of confession. They need to encourage help, counsel, and anything else, but they are not to betray man's trust in God or His church. God's law. Not man's.
That's what Jesus would do.
Mr(unoriginal sin)Sensitive
06-05-02, 12:33 PM aminator2002 When someone's religion and right to worship come in direct conflict with another person's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness I think it is trumped.
Your freedom ends where mine begins.
I'm all for freedom of religion, but I know about 100 Catholics or more very well and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has gone to confession any time in the past year... unless they were forced to in order to get married in the church.
A Priest is a man like any other to me and I don't see any reason why common law should not apply.
06-05-02, 04:20 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by aminator2002: When someone's religion and right to worship come in direct conflict with another person's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness I think it is trumped.
Your freedom ends where mine begins...
So how do you feel about attorney-client privilege, Animator? What distinction do you make from that, if any, than that of the seal of the confessional?
06-06-02, 03:04 AM QwertyMac Aminator, can you please explain how attorney-client privilige (which in essence is really what we're talking about here) come into conflict with another's right to life? Because the question really is about whether the bond of trust between a person and his/her representative (in this case a religious representative) ought to be broken by reporting illegal activity to "proper authorities"
First, as we're dealing with a man of the cloth in this particular example, lets look at what his obligations are, who he responds to. The answer is clear, he responds to "a higher authority". Not man's law, but God's law. Thus, this being a "Christian" nation (as an atheist, I'm ready to puke by now), how can we ask the priest to pass judgement by man's law? in other words, we're asking him to interpret man's law and make the decision that what is being confessed is or is not legal.
Gimme a break. The priest is not an attorney, he's not a judge, and by the fact that he's very separated from "normal" day to day activities and interactions that common folk are exposed to by virtue of his vows he's not in the least bit fit to make any such decision. In my personal opinion, not getting laid *for life!* will make anyone (man or woman) unfit for habitation in this planet, let alone to pass judgement.
As to your point about a priest being "a man like any other", no one is asking that (again that term that I don't understand) "common law" should not apply to him. Unless you mean that he's breaking the law by not reporting to the authorities. Any lawyers here? If I suspect illegal activity does "common law" require me to report it?
06-06-02, 06:24 AM aminator2002 An attorney is bound by a lot of rules that apparently priests do not have.
If someone confesses to their attorney it's one thing but I think if they talk about committing another crime then the attorney has some wiggle room.
I'm not Catholic and I don't really have a big problem with confession system (you may think otherwise from my posts) but I think that priests should all know that everyone else in the world besides their congregants think that they are just men even if they are a bit unusual and devout. They SHOULD use a little common sense when it comes to the things they learn in confession. If it happens to be that they learn that one of their fellow priests has committed child sexual abuse, rape or murder then they should do something to protect the people from that person. They do have responsibilities as citizens of this country.
Freedom of Religion does not protect people when they commit illegal acts such as animal cruelty, why would it cover the act of concealing crimes?
Just playing devils advocate.
06-06-02, 06:51 AM Elexina Response to Original post by Sarai:
I think that is a great idea, informing the confessor beforehand. Now, how would one implement it? ;-) Seriously, that is an excellent idea. I hope you don't mind if I steal it when I write my letter to Catholicism.
06-06-02, 06:57 AM Elexina [QUOTE]Originally posted by Strider0:
In a similar vein, who can be so bold as to say they want to violate an individual's right to the forgiveness of God?
*** I understand where you are coming from, but I have to ask: what about the victim? Doesn't the victim have a right to see his attacker punished? What good does it do the victim that the attack is 'sorry' and has 'confessed' and is 'forgiven by God'? None. The criminal must still be punished as a criminal, for that's what he is, and if he is not punished he will likely commit that crime again. And be sorry again. And be forgiven again. And then we have nothing but another victim who has no recourse. And another. And another...
06-06-02, 05:40 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Strider0:
In a similar vein, who can be so bold as to say they want to violate an individual's right to the forgiveness of God?
*** I understand where you are coming from, but I have to ask: what about the victim? ...
I also understand where you are coming from and genuinely appreciate your vexing question, but I believe requiring Priests to violate the confidentiality of confession is only going to largely deter people who seek spiritual salvation from entering the confessional in the first place. Would THAT situation make the US a better place to live?
The purpose of the US Justice system and our Law Enforcement system is the mechanism that is lawfully in place to protect victims from criminal behavior...that is not the principal purpose (by any stretch) of religious faiths, Catholic or otherwise.
I would propose the same question to you that I did to Animator...why violate the "seal of the confessional" but not attorney-client privilege when both are protected by the Constitution?
My own opinion would be that we could catch far more criminals if we violated attorney-client privilege than we would if we violated one faith's religious practice. But that is certainly not anything I want to see happen EVER! When that day occurs, our nation will be one that presumes "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the other way around.
I'd sincerely appreciate your feedback, Elexina.
PS - Don't you think it would be interesting to see the responses to a question (e.g. in the Western Religions forum perhaps) that was phrased to the effect:
"Some individuals who commit serious crimes go to a Priest for the confession of their 'sin.' Why do you think they do this? Are they trying to trick God or are they sincerely sorry for what they've done?"
That might even be a good poll question!
What would YOUR answer to that question be?
[This message was edited by Strider0 on 06-06-02 at 05:50 PM.]
06-06-02, 06:09 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: Response to Original post by Sarai:
I think that is a great idea, informing the confessor beforehand...
No offense to anyone, but in my humble opinion that is NOT a good idea!
If you were a confessee, would you confess your crime given that there was a "I gotta warn ya" clause? And if you knew that was now Catholic doctrine, would you even enter the confessional in the first place? I hardly think so.
And now, by implementing such a doctrine that deters people from seeking salvation and forgiveness, you've placed yourself (or the Catholic hierarchy), as mere humans, in spiritual judgment of your fellow brothers and sisters -- something that is God's determination alone. If you were Pope-for-a-day, would you be willing to take on God's role here? After all, such a policy would effectively condemn some people to Hell; those that MIGHT confess their sins if they knew they could trust their confessor.
No thank you! That is WAY above MY pay-grade. Way above anyone's paygrade.
06-06-02, 06:52 PM Sarai Strider, I think you've made some great points, and I'm definitely rethinking my previous post.
I've got a question for you: do you happen to know if priests occasionally make turning oneself in part of the act of penitence? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm certainly no expert on the Catholic Church, but don't priests usually give one confessing some act of penitence (such as saying certain prayers) to show God true repentance? If so, it seems to me that for one to show true repetance for certain crimes, one should confess to those people that he sinned against, as well as God. Does the Church ever give turning oneself in as an act of penitence?
06-06-02, 06:52 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by aminator2002: ...I think that priests should all know that everyone else in the world besides their congregants think that they are just men even if they are a bit unusual and devout. They SHOULD use a little common sense when it comes to the things they learn in confession. If it happens to be that they learn that one of their fellow priests has committed child sexual abuse, rape or murder then they should do something to protect the people from that person. They do have responsibilities as citizens of this country...
Aminator...a terrific devil's advocate (no pun intended I assure you) you are! :-)
First, I hardly think Catholic congregants view their Priests as anything more than flawed and sinful human beings, particularly given the current Pedophilia situation.
Second, I think Qwerty makes a great point...what law requires YOU and ME as citizens to report a crime? What makes the Priest's role in the confessional and different? I pose this as a US legal question, not a moral question.
Third, in your hypothetical, I might agree with you...given that the one Priest knows who his Confessee is...the other Priest. But the Confessional accommodates anonymity and one cannot assume that a Confessor Priest knows who the Confessee is.
And even if he did, later approaching the Confessee would demonstrate that Confessions aren't really anonymous.
Lastly, I would suggest the legal aspect of this issue comes down to cost-benefit.
Cost: Risk to the integrity of the US Constitution in addition to the spiritual violation of US citizens; risk to other privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution (e.g. Attorney-Client privilege).
Benefit: Potential apprehension of a FEW criminals who are highly likely to be sincerely sorry for their sin and action -- and the subsequent protection of any citizens they might victimize.
Now let's look at the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that our Constitution affords. That system regularly allows guilty criminals to go free, but most Americans don't wan't to challenge it. And for good reason.
Would you or anyone else suggest we change that foundation so that we can ensure THOSE criminals don't victimize others in the future? I think most Americans cherish our system of justice, but as I said, they ought to realize this...our great system of justice allows many guilty criminals to go free because of the burden of proof we require! Why not change it?
Cost-benefit.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 337 | Location: NE PA | Registered: 06-03-02
Strider, I'm writing this mostly because I think you typed the last comment before seeing my question... so I'm drawing your attention to it!
Also, just to comment on your most recent post, it is my understanding that in certain circumstances, an average person who has knowledge of a crime and fails to report it can be prosecuted as an accomplice to that crime. That does not hold for attorney-client privelege or priests in a confessional. ++++++++++++++++++++= 06-06-02, 10:09 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Strider, I think you've made some great points, and I'm definitely rethinking my previous post.
I've got a question for you: do you happen to know if priests occasionally make turning oneself in part of the act of penitence? ...
Wow...good question, Sarai! To get the best answer, you'd need to ask a Priest, but I'll give you an answer based upon what I know.
A Priest does in fact have some guidelines on what he is supposed to do based upon some confessions. There are some sins that the Catholic church considers so egregious they result in excommunication from the Church (e.g. abortion and most likely murder too - the basis for their seriousness is the taking of human life as the Catholic church sees it). For those kinds of sins, there are procedures in place for the Priest to consult his Bishop on the matter while preserving anonymity of the Confessee -- the Bishop can either empower the Priest to forgive the sin or he can arrange for himself to be the Confessor for the Confessee (all with anonymity preserved, of course).
But more directly to your question, Priests normally assign prayers as penance. They also can assign an action (what the Catholic church refers to as an 'act of good work') to the Confessee that they believe is appropriate to the nature of the sin(s) confessed. I don't think a Priest would ever assign to a Confessee a penance that would imperil that persons well-being though...so I think it would be very unlikely for a Priest to require a person to publicly admit to anybody the nature of their sinful act. That kind of scenario, in my mind, goes to root of the famous Bible story about Jesus saving the woman accused of adultery..."let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I can't ever imagine a Priest genuinely absolving a person of their sins, and then placing them in a predicament that could endanger their livelihood, physically or otherwise.
I have to say, I kinda feel like I might be perceived as the "ultra-Catholic" after all these posts I've made on this topic. But if anyone makes it to this point, I'd like to say that I was once where Qwerty was with Catholicism...highly skeptical of any God and VERY skeptical of Catholic doctrine...to the point where I left the faith for ~17 years. A true doubting Thomas. I'm still skeptical by all accounts...but all in all, I DO believe there's something WAY bigger than us that has been the cause of all we know. :-)
06-06-02, 10:22 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: ...it is my understanding that in certain circumstances, an average person who has knowledge of a crime and fails to report it can be prosecuted as an accomplice to that crime. That does not hold for attorney-client privelege or priests in a confessional.
The key word that you used is "accomplice." Now you are entering into a legal definition. The word accomplice implies one was complicit in the act of the crime itself -- part of a conspiracy in other words. That certainly isn't the nature of a Priest's role who is hearing a person's confession.
And if there WERE a situation like that, where a Priest was involved in the crime itself and was protecting the seal of the confessional to protect his own self...he not only would be committing a grave sin, he would also be subject to the legal consequences of his complicity and cover-up.
A lawyer engaged in the same sort of behavior would not only be violating the ethics of the legal profession...he or she would also be subject to criminal prosecution just as the Priest would be.
06-07-02, 06:47 AM aminator2002 I believe it is illegal to conceal a crime. For instance, recently there were two girlfriends who came forward in the Brown's Chicken Massacre in Illinois and told police that their boyfriends at the time did it. They had to be offered immunity to get the testimony. Why do you think they needed immunity if it isn't illegal to know about a crime and not report it. Simple, if you know about a crime and you do not report it, you are breaking the law unless you are a lawyer and the information was given to you by a client.
I don't propose that the legal system in this country change one iota. I think that the responsibility in this instance lies within the Catholic church itself. Catholics should demand that this system be modernized.
The fact is that you can successfully practice Christianity without the confessional system at all. Most Christians deal directly with God and do not have to deal with this silly confession system at all. SOmeone should look into when and why the Catholic church inserted themselves between confessor and God. (I'm serious because there are a lot of really interesting origins for rituals within the Catholic church).
I think that the Catholic church is very lucky that people of this country agree that their outrageous acts are protected by the Constitution; otherwise I think that there could be a Class Action case against the CAtholic church by all these people that were sexually abused. It could be directed against the church as a "conspiracy to conceal criminal behavior".
I bet they'll try anyway. Hope they do.
06-07-02, 07:17 AM Elexina
quote:
Originally posted by Strider0:
I also understand where you are coming from and genuinely appreciate your vexing question...
***
Yes, perhaps requiring priests to violate the code of confidentiality would deter the truly guilty from entering a confessional to search for forgiveness, but I’ll tell you what: I don’t care. If a person has committed a crime, confessing it to a priest does not atone for it. Whether they are forgiven by god or not, they must still face the laws that they have broken. Criminals who hide behind their faith as an excuse for not paying for their crimes do not deserve spiritual salvation.
And as far as any situation making the US a better place to live... I don’t feel that religion is essential to be a good person, and there are plenty of great people out there who have no religion at all. Perhaps the problem is that the ‘faithful’ feel they can get away with whatever they want because their god will forgive them and no one will tell. How is that right?
The guilty deserve to be punished.
And then there was your question about the attorney-client privilege. I, personally, do not believe in protected relationships. I believe that if someone has committed a crime, and another person knows about it, that other person –no matter who he or she is- has the obligation and the responsibility to report that crime to the proper authorities.
By the way, I think I just might post this in "Western Religion" and see what sort of answers pop up there...
06-07-02, 04:28 PM Strider0 [QUOTE]SOmeone should look into when and why the Catholic church inserted themselves between confessor and God. (I'm serious because there are a lot of really interesting origins for rituals within the Catholic church). ]/QUOTE]
Here is a description of the origin of Catholic confession. Hope this helps! ---------------------- After Jesus rose from the dead he authorized the apostles to forgive sins. St. John recorded this dramatic event. “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (Jn 20:21-23).
Sacred Scripture records that God breathes on humans only twice. The first occasion occurred at the moment of creation when God breathed his life into Adam, who was called by God to transmit human life (Gen 2:7). The second instance is narrated in the passage quoted from John’s gospel. Jesus breathed his life giving potency into the Apostles to whom he delegated the task of restoring all mankind in the supernatural life as a new creation in him through the sacrament of forgiveness.
It is important to note that Jesus did not merely commission the apostles to preach about forgiveness. He gave them the specific power to forgive sins or not forgive sins. The proper exercise of this power implies that the apostles would know what a person's sins are. This in turn necessitates oral confession. It is in this context that James writes: “Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (Jas 5:16). Similarly, St. John writes: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn 1: 9).
The commissioning of the apostles to forgive sins in John 20: 21-23 is an extension of the plentitude of authority that Jesus bestowed on Peter. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19).
06-07-02, 05:16 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Elexina: "Yes, perhaps requiring priests to violate the code of confidentiality would deter the truly guilty from entering a confessional to search for forgiveness, but I’ll tell you what: I don’t care."
My reply: Does this mean you are willing to take on the role of damning people to Hell?
"If a person has committed a crime, confessing it to a priest does not atone for it."
My reply: Catholics agree with you. That's what the Priest assigns penance for. Catholics believe that if a serious sin is not atoned for, their soul will spend time in Purgatory waiting to go to Heaven until the sin IS atoned for.
"Whether they are forgiven by god or not, they must still face the laws that they have broken."
My reply: I agree. But what does this have to do with the seal of the confessional? We are simply going to be in a circular argument if you reply that it's the Priest's duty to turn him in to the law. As you know from all of my previous posts, I strongly disagree.
"Criminals who hide behind their faith as an excuse for not paying for their crimes do not deserve spiritual salvation."
My reply: Perhaps God agrees with you, but perhaps he doesn't. Personally, I don't think God is going to let anybody hide behind him if they deserve to be punished.
"And as far as any situation making the US a better place to live... I don’t feel that religion is essential to be a good person, and there are plenty of great people out there who have no religion at all."
My reply: I couldn't agree with you more! I hope I haven't posted anything that would suggest I feel differently. What I DID say, in so many words, was that violating an individual's religious freedom will not make the US a better place.
"Perhaps the problem is that the ‘faithful’ feel they can get away with whatever they want because their god will forgive them and no one will tell. How is that right?"
My reply: Perhaps, perhaps not. I for one, do not think this is the problem as I've already stated. Have you really read what I've written on the matter, or do you have a predisposed opinion on this matter?
"The guilty deserve to be punished."
My reply: Agreed. And if they aren't punished by the judicial system here on Earth, I believe they are punished by God.
"And then there was your question about the attorney-client privilege. I, personally, do not believe in protected relationships. I believe that if someone has committed a crime, and another person knows about it, that other person –no matter who he or she is- has the obligation and the responsibility to report that crime to the proper authorities."
My reply: Here is the purpose of attorney-client privilege. Obviously, you are free to disagree with it's precepts:
Public policy and common law dictate that the interests of society and effective administration of justice are best served if there is a free flow of information between attorneys and their clients. Before that can happen, clients must be assured that their candid conversations with their attorneys will not be made public or used against those clients.
"By the way, I think I just might post this in "Western Religion" and see what sort of answers pop up there..."
My reply: Cool, Elexina...I'll check it out!
06-07-02, 05:39 PM Sarai Strider, I am really curious about the issue of whether turning oneself in is ever a part of penance. Would you ask your priest for me? I would feel really strange seeking out a priest just to ask him one silly question...
You wrote that such a thing might be like throwing stones at the prostitute. I'm not sure that I agree, especially since some sins can lead to excommunication, which for a true believer would be a much more serious punishment than imprisonment. If a person is truly Catholic, I don't think he'd be any more scared off by the prospect of having to turn himself in than he'd be by the prospect of being excommunicated. If the former would scare him more than the latter, then he isn't a true believer and all the confession in the world won't do him any good anyway, from a Catholic perspective.
Also, I think that imposing such a penance on certain crimes is, in some cases, the only thing that shows true repentance. For example, studies have shown that child molestation is "incurable"... one can learn to fight against those urges, but once a child molester, one will always have to deal with those urges. The only way a child molester can hope to fight against his illness is with some form surveillance, psychological help and probably a support group. Thus, confessing cannot stop the desire, and wouldn't be enough - even for the most truly repentant person.
What do you think? (And if you do get around to asking a priest my first question, I'd really appreciate it!!!)
06-07-02, 07:54 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: Strider, I am really curious about the issue of whether turning oneself in is ever a part of penance...
LOL, Sarai! Just when I thought I was through with posting on this thread!! :-) Hey, this question is GREAT...not silly at all...it's very thought-provoking!
And just so everybody understands, once I feel like the posts aren't sincere, thoughtful, or respectful in their nature, I will stop posting -- I come here to learn and understand with respect and I expect the same from others. In some regards, I think this thread may be getting away from that philosophy and I don't believe in axe-grinding. I'm also not here to convert people's thoughts...rather I hope to provide a perspective that some might feel useful and helpful.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Sorry I had to say that.
I'll be happy to ask a Priest about the nature of penances that are assigned in the most serious of sins. Don't expect a speedy reply, though! I don't often get the opportunity to engage a Priest in dialog like this. :-)
Let me further clarify what I was trying to say regarding the story of the prostitute. What I meant is that a Priest, via the confessional, has no desire whatsoever to place himself in the role of a person's JUDGE. As we know from current events, Priests can be very sinful themselves!
Anyway, prescribing a penance that places a person in peril or ruins the remainder of their time on this Earth is assuming that role. They will assign a penance they believe will help the person atone for their sin...and they are highly likely to assign a penance they believe will be constructive in helping the individual to remove themself from the cause of the sin that was confessed (e.g. counseling, removal, etc.).
So as for the matter where a person can't change their behavior (due to an addiction or something else), I imagine the Priest would most likely seek to advise the Confessee to get help or counseling so that they won't repeat the offense. One of the tenets of what Catholics regard as a "good" confession is that the Confessee must be sincere in their desire to never repeat the sin. If the Confessee is NOT sincere, then their confession is no good. So if the Confessee IS sincere and Priest advises it...the Confessee would likely do it if they are in the Confessional to ensure they wind up in Heaven.
Therefore, a Priest isn't going to be a rubber stamp for a Confessee so they can get to God. They DO evaluate the sincerity of the confesee to determine if the sins should be absolved. They also evaluate the seriousness of the sin to determine a proper course of action and the appropriate penance that should be assigned.
In reply to another part of your post, a true believer wouldn't be more worried about excommunication than imprisonment. Being in good stead with the Catholic church (communion vice excommunication) isn't what the Confessee is likely to care about...they are more likely concerned about the eternal damnation of their soul forever...the lack of Communion with God, not the Church.
Is this making any sense???? :-)
06-07-02, 11:25 PM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by Strider0: And just so everybody understands, once I feel like the posts aren't sincere, thoughtful, or respectful in their nature, I will stop posting -- I come here to learn and understand with respect and I expect the same from others. In some regards, I think this thread may be getting away from that philosophy and I don't believe in axe-grinding. I'm also not here to convert people's thoughts...rather I hope to provide a perspective that some might feel useful and helpful.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Sorry I had to say that.
No apologies necessary! I'm sorry if it seems like I have an ax to grind. I'm sort of tenacious when it comes to things that I'm curious about, which admittedly is one of my more annoying qualities. I truly respect the Church and am not trying to shake your faith or prove anyone wrong. I'm just curious, that's all.
quote:I'll be happy to ask a Priest about the nature of penances that are assigned in the most serious of sins. Don't expect a speedy reply, though! I don't often get the opportunity to engage a Priest in dialog like this. :-)
Thanks! smile
06-09-02, 09:58 PM Strider0
quote:Originally posted by Sarai: QUOTE]Originally posted by Strider0: And just so everybody understands, once I feel like the posts aren't sincere, thoughtful, or respectful in their nature, I will stop posting -- I come here to learn and understand with respect and I expect the same from others. In some regards, I think this thread may be getting away from that philosophy and I don't believe in axe-grinding. I'm also not here to convert people's thoughts...rather I hope to provide a perspective that some might feel useful and helpful.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Sorry I had to say that.
No apologies necessary! I'm sorry if it seems like I have an ax to grind. I'm sort of tenacious when it comes to things that I'm curious about, which admittedly is one of my more annoying qualities. I truly respect the Church and am not trying to shake your faith or prove anyone wrong. I'm just curious, that's all.
quote:I'll be happy to ask a Priest about the nature of penances that are assigned in the most serious of sins. Don't expect a speedy reply, though! I don't often get the opportunity to engage a Priest in dialog like this. :-)
Thanks! smile
Sarai, I hope you know me well enough to know that my soapbox comment was in no way directed toward you. You are one of the most genuinely inquisitive people I've "met" in this forum...I value that. Keep asking the hard questions and keep seeking the Truth as you know it. The Truth rules! :-)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2241 | Location: In between | Registered: 06-03-02
