Catholic

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh good you just edited it to make yourself look even more stupid.

Look at the words before 'legally obligated' you moron.



The question of SHOULD something be legal/illegal is often/generally a moral one.
This one is and is framed that way, with the morality mentioned in the first sentence.

learn to read the question you idiot, you have tried to assert that there is only one
aspect, moral, clearly there are two, stating that the legality is a different issue is
failing to even comprehend the original question and stating the obvious, again, learn
to read the question.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh good you just edited it to make yourself look even more stupid.

Look at the words before 'legally obligated' you moron.



The question of SHOULD something be legal/illegal is often/generally a moral one.
This one is and is framed that way, with the morality mentioned in the first sentence.

yawn, your propensity for stating the obvious is remarkable, learn to read the question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
suck it up fatboy and learn to read the question in future.

You have serious reading comprehension issues.
And a total inability to use/comprehend logic.

I see how you got sucked into your stupid cult.

There was one question, framed two ways.

first

Sorry, that meant to be the Catholic Seal of Confessional, is that morally ok?

Which is obviously a moral question because it says "is that morally ok?"

That is to say, if a perp goes to a catholic priest and confesses he abuses children,
should that priest be legally obligated to turn the perp in?

This is also a moral question, as it's a re-framing and clarification of the first question.
Asking "Should [priests] be legally obligated to turn the perp in?"

To which you answered by saying ...

It depends entirely where you are, ....

Which is a dumb answer because where you are is utterly irrelevant to whether or not catholic priests
SHOULD be morally and legally obligated to report someone who confesses to a crime (and a heinous
one at that).

The morality doesn't depend on location, or jurisdiction.

The current law might, but as the question was about what should be and not what is, the current law
is irrelevant.



It would be like asking "should we execute criminals?"

And you responding by saying that it depends on where you are and then listing a set of places that allow it.




So yet again I'm right, and you're an idiot.

The order of the universe is maintained.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, your propensity for stating the obvious is remarkable, learn to read the question.

And your capacity for failing to understand the obvious is unbounded.

And I am not the one with reading comprehension issues.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are too aspects, one moral and one legal, get it.

You answered neither.

The question is SHOULD it be a legal obligation.

Stating various places where it is and isn't one doesn't answer the question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about lawyers who defend criminals?

P.S. That is, should defense lawyers be require to report to the court that their client has confessed the crime to them?

No that would undermine the entire legal defence system.
There is a good reason for attorney client privilege.

There is no such reason for priest/confessor privilege.

thankfully i have a user script for dealing with foul trolls who cannot even read the
question never mind formulate the answer, goodbye foul troll, your messages now
come with reassuring phrase

[CENSORED: This post has been removed to preserve sanity levels]

ahhhh, its better already.

now to change your name with the user script, avatard, this should be fun.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankfully i have a user script for dealing with foul trolls who cannot even read the
question never mind formulate the answer, goodbye foul troll, your messages now
come with reassuring phrase

[CENSORED: This post has been removed to preserve sanity levels]

ahhhh, its better already.

now to change your name with the user script, avatard, this should be fun.

Oh dear, did I upset him?

What a pity.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No that would undermine the entire legal defence system.
There is a good reason for attorney client privilege.

There is no such reason for priest/confessor privilege.

In my opinion, there should not be an attorney - client privilege either, but that is the law. Everything should be open for review.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In my opinion, there should not be an attorney - client privilege either, but that is the law. Everything should be open for review.

Why don't you think that there should be attorney - client privilege?

Don't you think that that would leave the system open to abuse?

It's there to protect people from the state, I thought you would appreciate that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why don't you think that there should be attorney - client privilege?

Don't you think that that would leave the system open to abuse?

It's there to protect people from the state, I thought you would appreciate that.

Another hitch in the system: States or countries not allowing testimony in court from spouses. Their testimony is disallowed in some places because they feel the spouse may have it in for or may be illegally protecting the other half.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No that would undermine the entire legal defence system.
There is a good reason for attorney client privilege.

There is no such reason for priest/confessor privilege.

its actually the exact same thing.


priests promise absolute secrecy, that is why people go to them. if they break it, nobody would use this "service"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
its actually the exact same thing.


priests promise absolute secrecy, that is why people go to them. if they break it, nobody would use this "service"

AND?

Someone goes to an attorney for legal council to deal with our legal/courts system.
Because not everyone is knowledgeable enough about the law, or adept at debating/arguing, and
so we have attorneys to speak for us in court, to fight for our interests, as a defence against
state tyranny.


Someone goes to a priest to confess to have the say "20 hail-Mary's and you're forgiven".

The only benefit to society from such a system is if someone who commits a crime and then confesses it
is handed in to the police.

If the priest just keeps quiet about it then there is no practical difference between them confessing or
them not confessing. (and no, saving their imaginary soul is not a 'difference'😉



There should be a legal requirement for people to report crimes, excepting situations where they genuinely fear
for their lives if they do so, and there should be no religious exception to this.

Just like there should be no religious exemption for any other law.

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
The laws here locally require doctors, psychiatrists, therapists, etc. to report all child abuse claims or suspicions.

What about the Law, itself?

What I mean is, is an attorney legally required to turn over his client to the authorities, if the client confides to him his guilt of what he is accused of?

Why then, should doctors, therapists and priests be expected to?

Oh, sorry, I didn't read the entire thread, discussion of this seems ongoing.

Very interesting how some defend attorney-client privilege and yet feel that priests should turn over those who confess. Clearly, this is just a disrespect for the concept of confession simply because it's a religious concept.