| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for Ivorythumper and JoeB | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 10:36 AM (1,374 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | Mar 13 2010, 01:25 PM Post #26 |
|
MAMIL
|
That's how I feel about vegetarians. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Quagmire | Mar 13 2010, 01:25 PM Post #27 |
|
Senior Carp
|
+1 for sure. Although, I have no doubt that its possible to achieve a state of enlightenment where one can transcend human need complacently, thats a very difficult journey and achieved by the very very few. It sure as hell aint the bulk of the catholic priesthood. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 13 2010, 01:25 PM Post #28 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Edited by Mikhailoh, Mar 13 2010, 01:28 PM.
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 13 2010, 01:32 PM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Even the secular John Jay report indicated a perhaps 4.3% rate of abuse among Catholic priests -- indicating 95% are presumably faithful to their vows. Where do you get this "bulk" statement? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 13 2010, 01:45 PM Post #30 |
|
MAMIL
|
Not to speak for Quaggy, but I doubt that the 95% are transcending their human need complacently. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that this a valid argument either for or against celibacy in the priesthood, which is a policy I suspect is likely to change over the next 2 or 3 decades. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 13 2010, 01:56 PM Post #31 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well, I won't get hung up on the phraseology "transcend human need complacently". I know hundreds of priests and several bishops, and in the vast majority they seem very well grounded emotionally and psychologically, and deal in entirely healthy ways with the human need for relationship and intimacy. Not without struggle, but I suspect that most of the men here would admit at least to themselves of the struggle even if they are married or in an exclusive relationship. It is bizarre to say that giving up sex for life indicates that there is something seriously wrong with you. What it does indicate is that the person found something they value more than sex. A person making that claim seems to be saying that there is nothing more important than sex, which seems to be indicate a really unhealthy psychology. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Mar 13 2010, 01:58 PM Post #32 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I've always suspected that a profession/lifestyle which outlaws sexuality might appeal to those who are ashamed of their own urges and want to flee from them. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 13 2010, 01:58 PM Post #33 |
|
MAMIL
|
Everyone except you and me, at least.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 13 2010, 02:00 PM Post #34 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course, we married exceptionally well.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Quagmire | Mar 13 2010, 02:26 PM Post #35 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Particularly if they flee to a religion that teaches shame of the urges. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 13 2010, 02:33 PM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Which religion does that? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 13 2010, 06:45 PM Post #37 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Certainly not Christianity. Bastards have been ubiquitous amongst the laity and clergy since day one of the scam. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 13 2010, 06:46 PM Post #38 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Still waiting ... I answered your questions, it seems fair to expect you to answer mine. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Quagmire | Mar 13 2010, 06:48 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Carp
|
And thats why the laity is a tramp. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 13 2010, 06:49 PM Post #40 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Do you not consider ordained clergy professionals? I do. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 13 2010, 06:54 PM Post #41 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
People who are professionals learn about things like abuse of a child in their professional capacity. Also, professionals are subject to professional standards of conduct. It's an interesting question as to whether ordained clergy are "professionals". They certainly seem like professionals, but, then again, there are not uniform standards of conduct for the profession. A Catholic priest and a rabbi aren't really subject to the same rules ... while all lawyers, all accountants, all architects, and all doctors have a basic code of conduct for their profession. So I guess, on balance, I'd lean toward saying they are professionals, but there are countervailing considerations that might suggest otherwise. So I'm not entirely sure. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| blondie | Mar 13 2010, 07:11 PM Post #42 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but it was my impression here in Alberta, that *any person* who knows of such abuse must report it. [See page 108 and 91 of this for example: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/userfiles/renkefrm.pdf ] I don't think anyone should stay mum over abuse. It's a citizen's duty to report this things. Protection of children is paramount. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 13 2010, 08:07 PM Post #43 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Don't ever think for a moment they're not professionals. They- protestants included- have 2000 years of honing their craft. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 13 2010, 08:08 PM Post #44 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm neither IT nor JoeB, but - The legal requirements for clergy, and medical, educational and similar professionals, vary from state to state. That includes just what level of protection is afforded to private conversations with clergy. For example, here in Ohio: If a person confesses to me that they committed a murder ten years ago, I have no legal obligation to report this information to the police - and while I would have a moral obligation to urge the person to turn himself in for the murder, I have a parallel moral obligation to preserve the integrity of the confidentiality of the parishioner/clergy relationship by not turning him in myself. This standard applies as long as I have no reason to believe the person is about to commit another murder or other crime. My right to preserve that confidentiality stops if I have reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger of being harmed by the confessor; in such a case I have a legal obligation to report him/her, and can go to jail if I don't report it. The requirements in Ohio regarding to child abuse are somewhat different from those general requirements identified above. If I have any reason to suspect child abuse of any kind, I have a legal obligation to report it to the authorities - without exception. Further, if a person confessed to me that they had molested a child, I would be obligated by law to report them, even though it took place in a conversation that was otherwise covered under privileged conversation (in other words, if he'd just told me he killed someone ten years ago, I would be obligated to NOT report that, but if he told me in the next breath that he fondled his niece the previous week, I would be obligated to tell the authorities that he'd confessed to that). But again, the legal obligations vary somewhat from state to state. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 13 2010, 08:13 PM Post #45 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
All lawyers, all accountants, all architects, and all doctors performing services within the same state abide by the same professional standards. But those standards vary from state to state. Similarly, rabbis and Catholic priests do not abide by the same common standard, but they do abide by the standard set for all Catholic priests, or for all rabbis of the same tradition, respectively. Just as accountants do not have to abide by the standards set for civil engineers within the same state in order to be considered professionals, various forms of clergy do not have to abide by some imaginary common standard in order to be considered professionals. Plus, as pointed out in my last post, there are actually legal requirements that govern clergy that do, in fact, apply across the traditional and denominational board. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| JoeB | Mar 13 2010, 10:00 PM Post #46 |
|
Senior Carp
|
For a Catholic priest the seal of the confessional is absolute and without exception. Does this mean that a priest must break Ohio law if someone confesses molestation? From catholiceducation.org:
|
| "There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 13 2010, 10:03 PM Post #47 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It seems increasingly clear that Ratzinger did NOT fail in his moral obligation since there is no record or evidence that Fr "H" committed ANY crimes while Ratzinger was AB of Munich. Fr H was transferred for therapy to Munich from another diocese (Essen). Some sources say he had been convicted of (an unspecified) crime and was placed in therapy. So Ratzinger as Bishop would have been the one to permit him into his diocese even for the purposes of treatment, even if he presumably was not given "faculties" to serve as a priest. For whatever reason, the Vicar General Gruber assigned H to work pastorally somewhere. I have no idea what that role was, but there is no reason to assume it was with children, nor is there any evidence that it was not with children. This seems to be a lapse in judgment on the part of Gruber -- who has taken full responsibility-- but in 1980 it was thought that such illnesses as homosexual attraction for adolescents could be cured. Regardless, in 1981-82 Ratzinger moved to Rome to head up the Congregation, and during the time he was still AB, there is no record of the priest acting out. After Ratzinger left, H was moved to another city -- Grafing -- where he again molested, and was investigated and convicted in 1986. Long after Ratzinger was out of Germany. So to answer your question, Jon, there is NO culpability on the part of Ratzinger here, and certainly no moral failure. He allowed the priest to be transferred for the purposes of treatment. That seems to be the sum total of his involvement. As much as you want to excoriate him, and as much as Jeff thinks he is truly an evil man, and most importantly as unfortunate for the victims as it is, this case does not show Ratzinger holding any smoking gun. Your whole line of questioning about whether someone has a duty to inform has NO bearing on Ratzinger since there is NO evidence that he had any knowledge of ANY crimes being committed in his diocese. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Mar 13 2010, 10:16 PM Post #48 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It means the priest must choose between obeying Ohio law and maintaining the seal of confession. The priest can choose to obey Ohio law and accept one set of consequences (presumably those to be meted by the Catholic church), or the priest can choose to maintain the seal of confession and accept a different set of consequence (presumably those to be meted out by Ohio). |
![]() |
|
| JoeB | Mar 13 2010, 10:59 PM Post #49 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The way I understand it there is no choice possible. A Catholic priest may not break the seal even to save a life. If he does he incurs an automatic excommunication. If a third person (not a priest) should accidentally or otherwise hear a confession he is also bound by the seal of the confessional.
catholiceducation.org I'm pretty sure a priest is on safe legal ground as far as the secrecy of the confessional goes anywhere in any free country, but it could be that a third party might not get the same legal protection as a priest while still being morally bound by canon law. Unlikely as such a case is, It certainly would be interesting. |
| "There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Mar 14 2010, 01:12 AM Post #50 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"May not" does not imply "cannot." To the extent that the priest "can" (as in "has the ability to") break the seal, the priest has a choice. |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









11:13 AM Jul 11