1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

The Church and Laws

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by buffyfan, Aug 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I want to pose this. Should "priests" have a "special exception" to reporting crimes. If Priest A tells Priest B he commits a crime why should A be able to say "It was said in CONFESSION. I can not speak to that.". Why should the Church be able to tell LEOs "We can not answer because our FAITH demands Confession be secret.".
     
  2. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I'm assuming that you mean the Catholic Church specifically, because the other churches don't do that.
     
    TriadSibling likes this.
  3. Insp Gadget

    Insp Gadget Trusted.Member

    Catholic Priest ... Jewish Lawyer

    Sounds like somewhere between a Rock and a Hard Place.
    :D
     
    pussycat and Brutus58 like this.
  4. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah. Sorry. Force of habit. I use Church with a capital for the RCC and small for all other denominations.
     
    Brutus58 and Neophyte like this.
  5. Insp Gadget

    Insp Gadget Trusted.Member

    It is not surprising that one cult (jew media) should gleefully broadcast the alleged misdoings of another (catholic church).
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  6. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    The sanctity of confession is considered the same as lawyer client privileged or doctor patient confidentiality. If the priest is compelled to reveal what was said in confession then a lawyer would be compelled to reveal what he knows of his clients or a doctor compelled to give information about his patient. I'm sure there are other professions where a similar consideration exists.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  7. vjagan

    vjagan Trusted.Member

    Very interesting exchanges of info...!Thank you friends !
     
  8. Insp Gadget

    Insp Gadget Trusted.Member

    But let us not forget that an Einstein knows everything ... like, sure He does - and He talks, too. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  9. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    The difference is that lawyer/client, doctor/patient etc are laws that apply to everyone whereas the Catholic church enjoys a special privilege that the rest of us cannot access. It is an advantage that is discriminatory to all other non - catholic people.
    In my opinion this "right" of confidentiality should be revoked.
     
  10. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Actually, the priest-confessor confidentiality is covered under the law.
    There was a case not too long ago that a priest was jailed because of not disclosing or testifying.
    The state supreme court sided with the priest.
    But you have to remember too, the priest is under no obligation by the church to withhold
    information given in confession if another, or other lives and/or physical harm may come to others.
     
    Brutus58 likes this.
  11. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I don't see how this relates to the question stated.
     
  12. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Technically there is no specific law enforcing this, but it is considered valid under Common Law, and is accepted by the Police.
     
  13. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    I assume you mean in the US. I wasn't specifically referring to America. In all western countries it is either legally or generally accepted that the "church" has privileges. I'm saying that they should not.
     
  14. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    I think it applies to the Orthodox Church also (Greek, Russian), not really sure.

    (I can just imagine some priest telling Stalin "sorry, but ........")
     
  15. Lady Red

    Lady Red Account Deleted

    No
     
  16. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    In the U.S. we don't recognize Common Law as being official, we have a version very similar to Common Law, though I believe Common Law is valid in Canada. I wasn't agreeing that it should happen, I was just stating what was actually being done. I believe that Confession, Client/Lawyer and Doctor/Patient privileges were created to protect the guilty, they do nothing to protect the innocent.
     
  17. Brutus58

    Brutus58 Trusted.Member

    I am not a religious person by any means. I am VERY anti religion. But I do respect others beliefs as long as those beliefs don't injure any one else. Priests DO have an obligation to give information if another is in harms way. This is covered under both civil and Canon law. I used to be a Roman Catholic. Now I"m a devout heathin.
     
  18. TriadSibling

    TriadSibling Bro/Sis Enthusiast

    Confession should have it's limits, absolutely; If another person is being harmed, as was the case with the latest Catholic Church scandal, then priests must report it to the proper authorities. Anyone found to use the church to shield their brethren from prosecution should be made to stand with them in the crime, as a conspirator. People who do these things in the church, and then use the church to protect themselves - they are a disgrace to the religion, and they specifically are the reason people today take issue with the concept.

    On the note of Client/Attorney privilege, that concept is there to protect the sanctity of 'Innocent until proven guilty'. It doesn't matter if the person did anything wrong or not, without the right to speak to counsel privately, guilt (of something) is assumed, at the very least, and when that assumption enters into the process, there can be no justice. In the worst cases, not having that right can throw out the 5th amendment completely (the right to not incriminate yourself). After all, if you cannot speak with the person meant to defend your case, without the benefit of not having those conversations used against you, then that by definition would be self-incrimination. I believe the term was coined "Let's kill all the lawyers"? It's the state's job to prove their accusation, and the accused do not have to help them do so. Not in the U.S. at least.

    On the note of doctor/patient confidentiality, last time I checked, doctors are required by law to report crimes when they learn one has been committed, either by their patient, or against their patient.
    Doctor/patient confidentiality was created to allow privacy where applicable - it doesn't shield someone from the law. If police need medical records to prove a case or make an arrest, then they're required to present a warrant for those records.
     
    Brutus58 and Neophyte like this.
  19. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    The Law may protect these rights, but in principle, it only protects the guilty, the innocent don't need them. It would be nice if a guilty person goes free with the lawyers knowledge, if that person commits another crime, the lawyer is also held responsible. I know this will never happen, it just would be nice. Lawyers and judges should be working to get Justice, not trying to get their client off.
     
    Brutus58 and TriadSibling like this.
  20. TriadSibling

    TriadSibling Bro/Sis Enthusiast

    Guilt isn't determined before the court's judgement, it's determined as a result of it, after the prosecution can prove that guilt. Justice isn't only about jailing a guilty party, it's also about ensuring that an innocent doesn't get wrongfully prosecuted. That's why it's up to the state to prove their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, with actual evidence. We are granted the right of counsel so that we do not incriminate ourselves unduly. We are granted attorney/client confidentiality so that the court cannot use what we say to our lawyers as evidence, or in a means to skew the truth of the matter (again, the former goes against the 5th amendment). If lawyers were to be expected to be held responsible for their client's alleged crimes, post-release, there would be no defense attorneys out of pure fear, and without defense attorneys, there can be no defense, and without defense, there can be no justice when an innocent is brought before such a court. Lawyers aren't there to make judgement, they're there to present their client's side of the matter. A defense attorney that doesn't do their job to represent their client, regardless of what they were told, would be a moral, and probably legal, detriment to society.
    Judgement is left to the judges and the jurors, if you want to hold defense attorneys responsible for crimes committed by the defense, after trial is over and they are released, then surely the jurors and judges must also be held accountable because it was their judgment that set that person free. That's not justice, that's forcing guilt out of fear of being wrong.

    If you think innocent people would not be jailed, or coerced into saying something that would incriminate themselves, whether they did it or not, you are sadly mistaken my friend. And that is in today's world, with defense attorneys, and the privileges that come with them.

    I'd like to add a final point as well that the system we have is far from perfect, there certainly are crooked attorneys, judges, etc. there's no point in denying that. Perhaps someday we can figure out a better system, but for now, the one we have is paramount, we can't go backward with it, we can only move toward better ways of dealing justice all around.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
    Brutus58 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.