• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Australian priests could be forced to breach seal of the confessional

Surtr said:
Then it's time we make them "see the light". With force if necessary.
Click to expand...

They're losing billions in settlement money and the crazy Catholic parishioners are just funneling more money into their coffers. Several diocese have already declared bankruptcy but we keep finding case after case where the RCC hasn't learned it's lesson. I guess that's what happens when the Pope is the one who wrote the policies that say not to call police.
 
Cephus said:
I think doctors ought to be required by law to report rape injuries too, suspicions of child molestation, etc.



In fact, it is against the law for employers of all kinds to act against employees who blow the whistle on criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Some good points that you raise.

Whistle blower legislation that was introduced to protect the employees as well as the public has holes punched through it by the Corporate law groups. The Corporate lobby groups have also obtained other Congressional and legal advantages over the years. The whistle blowers legislation has been rendered a legal straw man and almost impotent.

In almost all whislte blower cases, the actual employee loses their job and cannot enter the same industry again - even with another competitive corporation. THe famous chemist who blew the whistle on the tobacco industry that was using additives such as Ammonia in their cigaretts so as to provider the smoker with a quicker uptake of nicotine (making their cigaretts more addictive) didnt work in the undustry again, received death threats etc. In fact he was a leading industrial chemist in the USA and couldnt even get a another job as a Chemist in any corporate sector - he had to resort to teaching, which he still does.

The Aviation maintenance worker who blew the whislte on shoddy maintenance practices also didnt work in the Aviation industry again. The airline was fined for causing an accident whereby deveral hundred poeple were killed.

Legally psychologists and therapists are required to report information to the authorities if one of their patients provides information concerning illegal practices, murders etc.

The issue I see here, is a simple one.

You cant have Chruch groups and Religious organisations farbicating their own legal structures and making up their own laws. The separation if church and state does not mean the Church has legal immunity or can makes up its own rules.

The bottom line is that a priest can be called into call to restify and they can do what the tobacco company CEOs did - plead the 5th amendment.

I know there are legal moves to make the circumcision of babies and children illegal or classed as child abuse whereby the parents and any doctor or rabbi involved can be charged. Is this religious freedom of expression or child abuse and genital mutilation? Who decides if the person is a baby or child and must undergo this procedure?
 
Cephus said:
I'm all in favor of lawyers being required to report evidence that they come into possession of. I think defense lawyers, if their client admits to committing the crime, should be obligated to turn that confession over to the prosecution. The point here is justice.
Click to expand...

I understand your comment, but part of justice is allowing the accused to present a defense against the charges. What you suggest would collapse that system of justice.
 
Klown said:
Some good points that you raise.

Whistle blower legislation that was introduced to protect the employees as well as the public has holes punched through it by the Corporate law groups. The Corporate lobby groups have also obtained other Congressional and legal advantages over the years. The whistle blowers legislation has been rendered a legal straw man and almost impotent.

In almost all whislte blower cases, the actual employee loses their job and cannot enter the same industry again - even with another competitive corporation. THe famous chemist who blew the whistle on the tobacco industry that was using additives such as Ammonia in their cigaretts so as to provider the smoker with a quicker uptake of nicotine (making their cigaretts more addictive) didnt work in the undustry again, received death threats etc. In fact he was a leading industrial chemist in the USA and couldnt even get a another job as a Chemist in any corporate sector - he had to resort to teaching, which he still does.

The Aviation maintenance worker who blew the whislte on shoddy maintenance practices also didnt work in the Aviation industry again. The airline was fined for causing an accident whereby deveral hundred poeple were killed.

Legally psychologists and therapists are required to report information to the authorities if one of their patients provides information concerning illegal practices, murders etc.

The issue I see here, is a simple one.

You cant have Chruch groups and Religious organisations farbicating their own legal structures and making up their own laws. The separation if church and state does not mean the Church has legal immunity or can makes up its own rules.

The bottom line is that a priest can be called into call to restify and they can do what the tobacco company CEOs did - plead the 5th amendment.

I know there are legal moves to make the circumcision of babies and children illegal or classed as child abuse whereby the parents and any doctor or rabbi involved can be charged. Is this religious freedom of expression or child abuse and genital mutilation? Who decides if the person is a baby or child and must undergo this procedure?
Click to expand...

The 5th amendment protects against self incrimination. A priest refusing to testify is an issue of privacy.

In this situation I don't think a priest will be allowed to take the 5th. The pross will grant immunity and the judge will force the testimony and if the priest persists, send him to jail.
 
spanky said:
What of the confessor says "I raped my 16 year old daughter." and the priest knows he also has a 14 and 12 year old in his household, he's not obligated to tell authorities?

What, the priest tells him to say 10 Hail Mary's and to not do it again?
Click to expand...

Let's be realistic...how often does a child molester actually seek the sacrament of reconciliation?

I imagine priests have discussions about confessions (not the who but the what) among themselves and there are generally accepted guidelines for what to do/say when certain situations come up.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Let's be realistic...how often does a child molester actually seek the sacrament of reconciliation?

I imagine priests have discussions about confessions (not the who but the what) among themselves and there are generally accepted guidelines for what to do/say when certain situations come up.
Click to expand...

This issue isn't how often it happens, it's what should be done when it does.
 
spanky said:
I understand your comment, but part of justice is allowing the accused to present a defense against the charges. What you suggest would collapse that system of justice.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between presenting a defense and covering up evidence. The ultimate goal of the justice system is achieving justice. Punishing the guilty. In our current system, it is the job of the defense lawyer to get their client off, or to reduce the penalty, regardless of guilt.
 
Cephus said:
There's a difference between presenting a defense and covering up evidence. The ultimate goal of the justice system is achieving justice. Punishing the guilty. In our current system, it is the job of the defense lawyer to get their client off, or to reduce the penalty, regardless of guilt.
Click to expand...

The goal of justice is to achieve justice while protecting the constitutional rights of the accused.

It's not the job of lawyers to decide guilt or innocence, it's their job to provide the best possible defense, within the confines of the law, for their client. It's up to the jury to decide anything else.
 
spanky said:
The goal of justice is to achieve justice while protecting the constitutional rights of the accused.

It's not the job of lawyers to decide guilt or innocence, it's their job to provide the best possible defense, within the confines of the law, for their client. It's up to the jury to decide anything else.
Click to expand...

Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with a jury trial. If the convicted did the act they are accused of, no matter how the jury finds, they are guilty. If they did not do the act, no matter how the jury finds, they are not guilty. Guilt and innocence are objectively factual elements in a criminal trial, either they did it or not. However, in many criminal trials, whether they did it or not isn't all that important as the stage show both the prosecution and the defense teams put on. The defense team, in particular, is out to defend the defendant whether they are guilty or not. They are there to try to sway the jury to not convict their client, even if they are fully aware that their client is guilty of the crime. That's the problem, they aren't fighting for justice, they're fighting to get the guy paying their bills off.
 
Cephus said:
Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with a jury trial. If the convicted did the act they are accused of, no matter how the jury finds, they are guilty. If they did not do the act, no matter how the jury finds, they are not guilty. Guilt and innocence are objectively factual elements in a criminal trial, either they did it or not. However, in many criminal trials, whether they did it or not isn't all that important as the stage show both the prosecution and the defense teams put on. The defense team, in particular, is out to defend the defendant whether they are guilty or not. They are there to try to sway the jury to not convict their client, even if they are fully aware that their client is guilty of the crime. That's the problem, they aren't fighting for justice, they're fighting to get the guy paying their bills off.
Click to expand...

I have to say I don't understand your argument. Our system of justice is based on a decision by a jury of one's peers if accused of a crime. It's the state's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and it's the defense's job to put reasonable doubt in the jurors minds.

Jurors jobs are not to claim innocence for the accused, it's to judge whether or not the state has provided evidence necessary for a guilty verdict and if they don't, not guilty. Innocence is not a question.

It seems to me your issue is that sometimes the guilty go free. Happens every day. Welcome to life.
 
Cephus said:
Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with a jury trial. If the convicted did the act they are accused of, no matter how the jury finds, they are guilty. If they did not do the act, no matter how the jury finds, they are not guilty. Guilt and innocence are objectively factual elements in a criminal trial, either they did it or not. However, in many criminal trials, whether they did it or not isn't all that important as the stage show both the prosecution and the defense teams put on. The defense team, in particular, is out to defend the defendant whether they are guilty or not. They are there to try to sway the jury to not convict their client, even if they are fully aware that their client is guilty of the crime. That's the problem, they aren't fighting for justice, they're fighting to get the guy paying their bills off.
Click to expand...

Each one of us is entitled to a vigorous defense, and I don't think you can generalize about the entire defense bar.
 
nota bene said:
Each one of us is entitled to a vigorous defense, and I don't think you can generalize about the entire defense bar.
Click to expand...

A vigorous defense, assuming you're not factually guilty of the crime. If you pulled the trigger and you tell your defense attorney that you did it, they shouldn't be able to hide that evidence from the prosecution. Both sides ought to be working to get at the actual truth.
 
So priests should be required to rat out the people who confess to them but we cannot require a teenage girl to get permission from a parent to have an abortion because she might be a victim of rape and incest and have to tell somebody about it? Why allow a 14 year old girl to be a hidden victim and not a 14 year old boy? It is a curious world we live in.....
 
Cephus said:
A vigorous defense, assuming you're not factually guilty of the crime. If you pulled the trigger and you tell your defense attorney that you did it, they shouldn't be able to hide that evidence from the prosecution. Both sides ought to be working to get at the actual truth.
Click to expand...

No, a vigorous defense, period.

As officers of the court, attorneys are obligated to refuse to assist in a fraud. I want to believe that the vast majority of the members of the defense bar do their jobs honorably and in accordance with their oath.
 
spanky said:
Australian priests could be forced to breach seal of the confessional - Telegraph





So the solution from the church is for priests to refuse confessionals to pedos.

Nice.

So the question here is should priests be relieved from reporting pedophilia to authorities which they discover during confession?

FWIW - Even doctors, under the seal of medical privacy, are required to report such.
Click to expand...
If the priests report, pedophiles will stop talking to priests. If priests don't report, pedophiles will still talk, but the priest can't do anything about it.

Seems like a catch-22 to me. It doesn't matter either way....if you follow the rules.

The solution is to brake the rules. Let priests appear to offer confidentiality so that the pedophiles talk, and then the priest turns around and secretly tips off the authorities. This would have to be arraigned with the upper-most level of discretion. If it became known that the CIA full has access to your Facebook the priests were reporting illegal activities, people would stop offering them all their information.
 
Jerry said:
If the priests report, pedophiles will stop talking to priests. If priests don't report, pedophiles will still talk, but the priest can't do anything about it.

Seems like a catch-22 to me. It doesn't matter either way....if you follow the rules.

The solution is to brake the rules. Let priests appear to offer confidentiality so that the pedophiles talk, and then the priest turns around and secretly tips off the authorities. This would have to be arraigned with the upper-most level of discretion. If it became known that the CIA full has access to your Facebook the priests were reporting illegal activities, people would stop offering them all their information.
Click to expand...

But then the pedos won't receive absolution and will burn in hell for all eternity.
 
spanky said:
But then the pedos won't receive absolution and will burn in hell for all eternity.
Click to expand...

But if there is no hell (which most reasonable people would assume) then what?
 
spanky said:
Then what what? I don't understand the question.
Click to expand...

If, as seems most likely going by the evidence, there is no heaven, no hell, no God, then if you don't punish the pedophiles here during the only life any of us actually have, they get away with it scot free.
 
Cephus said:
If, as seems most likely going by the evidence, there is no heaven, no hell, no God, then if you don't punish the pedophiles here during the only life any of us actually have, they get away with it scot free.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about punishment here, for that we have the law. We were talking about absolution.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I said reasonable people not majority. One does not imply the other.
Click to expand...

So what is your definition of "reasonable"?

Let me guess--those who think like you? ;)
 
nota bene said:
So what is your definition of "reasonable"?

Let me guess--those who think like you? ;)
Click to expand...

Nah. Those are don't accept things before they have evidence for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom