Replies

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

So you think comparing child molestors to runaway slaves is a fair comparison?

But to answer your question, no. I was speaking of those situations where man's law DOESN'T violate God's law. Many hold the position that 'protecting the innocent' is INDEED part of God's law, and would thus trump any law of man in the cases you cite.

Unfortunately, this issue treads into that thorny area where I don't also consider the confessional seal 'God's law', but you DO.

So, in summary: I think the "free exercise" clause absolves priests of the need to violate the "seal of the confessional". However, from my religious perspective, this represents MAN'S law (free exercise) and MAN'S flawed interpretation (confessional seal) trumping GOD's law (protecting the innocent). You will disagree, and I understand all the reasons why. I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.

However, I also don't agree with the impassioned defense of this part of Catholic dogma, which this law has prompted.

This part of the Catholic faith is etched in stone and no priest would ever violate it.

However, religion is not the issue between a lawyer and his client. How about we get all defense attorneys to 'fess up?

It's hard to find a Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's.

So you think it consistent with the Bible to inform the authorities where the Underground Railroad slaves were being hidden, or to turn in Anne Frank's family?

So you think comparing child molestors to runaway slaves is a fair comparison?

I was just wondering if you meant what you said "that it's hard to find Biblical basis for keeping quiet about a violation of law, man OR God's."

Obviously it is possible to find such a basis when man's law is in opposition to God's law. Since we seem to agree with the principle here, I shan't go further.

So, in summary: I think the "free exercise" clause absolves priests of the need to violate the "seal of the confessional". However, from my religious perspective, this represents MAN'S law (free exercise) and MAN'S flawed interpretation (confessional seal) trumping GOD's law (protecting the innocent). You will disagree, and I understand all the reasons why. I'm not saying it to offend you, just to identify the point of our divergence.

Fair enough. You don't need to agree with our "free exercise," but your support for the freedom is appreciated.

In all honesty, this is largely a hypothetical question.