Skip to comments.
Australian Priests Could be Forced to Breach Seal of the Confessional
The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^
| 11/14/12
| Jonathan Pearlman
Posted on 11/14/2012 10:52:47 AM PST by marshmallow
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: marshmallow
If I was the senior Cardinal in Australia I'd issue a statement that said something like “we won't obey any such order for many,*many* reasons..including because of the potential impact such revelations might have on this nation's governing Party”.Of course that would be a pretty risky strategy,but...
21
posted on
11/14/2012 12:04:13 PM PST
by
Gay State Conservative
(Benghazi: What Did Baraq Know And When Did He Know It?)
To: marshmallow
It won’t happen.
And if the priest refuses, I doubt whether there could be any convincing proof in court that he was covering anything up.
22
posted on
11/14/2012 12:14:59 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: taxcontrol
This is nothing more than a DIRECT attack on the Christian community and an attempt to make irrelevant one of the direct commandments from the New Testament. Well said. The Church is a social organization and authority structure independent of, older than, and not entirely subject to the State. Tyrants cannot tolerate such.
23
posted on
11/14/2012 12:29:16 PM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: stuartcr
Why stop at pedophiles? Why not all crimes and misdemeanors, including running stop signs and J-walking in rural areas?
Better they become martyrs than that. Plus if the government can do that why not also force lawyers to still out thier knowledge of crimes too.
24
posted on
11/14/2012 12:41:32 PM PST
by
fella
("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,")
To: stuartcr
Why not require defense attorneys to report to the prosecutor, during the “discovery” process, whatever their clients have told them?
25
posted on
11/14/2012 12:43:06 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: arthurus
Actually, no. Do unto others refers to personal actions.
Every thing you do is a personal action, you can not say the devil made you do it.
To: marshmallow
Very interesting.
I assume that lawyer, doctor, spousal privacy laws will be revoked also.
27
posted on
11/14/2012 1:13:39 PM PST
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: ravenwolf
I thought the sarcasm would shine through. Perhaps not.
But you correct that Liberals do get annoyed at the whole due process requirement when it holds back their demigod.
28
posted on
11/14/2012 2:34:47 PM PST
by
lastchance
("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
To: lastchance
I thought the sarcasm would shine through. Perhaps not.
The sarcasm came through quick enough, it is just me in one of my slow days, sorry.
To: taxcontrol
Instead of the state forcing it, why doesn’t the church just do the right thing, and say it’s ok? Why does the church fight this? They certainly don’t support pedophiles and I’m sure they think it’s illegal.
30
posted on
11/15/2012 6:06:02 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: nickcarraway
Why? What kind of power does it take to just say we should help put pedophiles away?
31
posted on
11/15/2012 6:07:40 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: arthurus
What’s the purpose of confessing to a priest anyway? God already knows if someone is a pedophile and if that person is sincerely sorry.
32
posted on
11/15/2012 6:09:46 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: ravenwolf
I don’t understand the value of it anyway. The pope can’t change something that his priests do, yet a priest can tell someone to do penance, and then it’s ok?
33
posted on
11/15/2012 6:12:42 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: DuncanWaring
I thought we hated lawyers that defend scum? Besides, that’s 100% legal, this issue with priests, is different.
34
posted on
11/15/2012 6:25:02 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: stuartcr
I don’t hate lawyers that defend scum.
Breaking “Attorney-Client” privilege is NOT 100% legal.
35
posted on
11/15/2012 6:34:15 AM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: stuartcr
So much ignorance, so little time.
36
posted on
11/15/2012 6:38:14 AM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: stuartcr
See #7
The church fights it because it is an attack on one of the direct commandments from the New Testament.
To: DuncanWaring
So what is the purpose of going through a human? Doesn’t God already know all this?
38
posted on
11/15/2012 6:54:01 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: taxcontrol
What was the original reason for this commandment?
39
posted on
11/15/2012 6:55:44 AM PST
by
stuartcr
("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
To: stuartcr
You’ll have to take that up with Jesus; He’s the one who gave priests the authority to forgive sins.
40
posted on
11/15/2012 6:59:13 AM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson