Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Question for Ivorythumper and JoeB
Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 10:36 AM (1,372 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 03:00 PM
Your argument is that Ratzinger is somehow morally responsible for the actions of someone who did something while he was not under his authority,
Nowhere have I held him accountable for the post-82 events. My argument is quite clear and unchanged. At this point its pretty clear you are moving into deliberate distortion mode, which as you know is how you behave when you've painted yourself into a corner.




In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 03:04 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 03:00 PM
Your argument is that Ratzinger is somehow morally responsible for the actions of someone who did something while he was not under his authority,
Nowhere have I held him accountable for the post-82 events. My argument is quite clear and unchanged. At this point its pretty clear you are moving into deliberate distortion mode, which as you know is how you behave when you've painted yourself into a corner.




You haven't painted me into any corner, and I am not distorting anything.

If the man had not resumed his criminal pattern, then the therapy would have been presumed successful. So why would Ratzinger have any moral responsibility to turn H over to the authorities when he was brought into the diocese for treatment? And what evidence do you have that the local civil authorities in Essen and or in Munich were not aware of this? Do you actually have any evidence or are you just again assuming that you know something that you really don't?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 03:10 PM
So why would Ratzinger have any moral responsibility to turn H over to the authorities when he was brought into the diocese for treatment?
Ask yourself that question - you said that, in general, people have a moral obligation to alert the authorities when they become aware of someone having sex with a child.


Have you changed your mind since yesterday?

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Renauda
Mar 14 2010, 10:34 AM
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 08:55 AM
No, I am not joking.

Quote:
 
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.


From Code of Canon Law (Vatican English)

If you think about it for a second it is a perfectly logical extension of the prohibition on the clergy.

Do you not think a person's civic duty trumps Canon Law in this respect? It's not like I'd go to hell or anything if I overheard a criminal confessing a crime and told the police.


In any case I am not bound by Canon Law.
No, the "civic duty" you have hypothecated here is based on a moral decision. If you were a Catholic and were guided by the Church (including Canon Law) your choice is easy, follow Canon Law and maintain the seal of the confessional because if you choose to do something that is a great moral wrong (to the point that it earns excommunication) such as deliberately breaking the seal of the confessional, being a believing Catholic, you would indeed believe you have put yourself in danger of 'going to Hell'.

Your argument that you are not bound by Canon Law (since presumably you are not a Catholic) may be correct BUT in an actual court of law I suspect whatever you report hearing someone confess under the seal of the confessional will be deemed inadmissible.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"May be correct"? Hell, I'm no more bound to Canon law than I am to Rabbinic law or Shar'ia.

If indeed what I might hear is inadmissable in a Her Majesty's Law court, my reporting it to the police for them to follow up and investigate is my civic duty. If they can bring charges to bear on a criminal then I have served my community well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 03:31 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 03:10 PM
So why would Ratzinger have any moral responsibility to turn H over to the authorities when he was brought into the diocese for treatment?
Ask yourself that question - you said that, in general, people have a moral obligation to alert the authorities when they become aware of someone having sex with a child.


Have you changed your mind since yesterday?

Are you now "moving into deliberate distortion mode, which as you know is how you behave when you've painted yourself into a corner."???

By your question, you seem to be saying that a doctor who is treating a patient who is a predatory sex abuser has to inform the authorities. It seems if he is unaware of any actual on going activity, but rather a historical occurrence, he does not have any responsibility to do so. You seem to be saying that the doctor is required to do so, even if it was a previous instance for which the abuser is now in therapy.

Again, what do you actually know, and what are you assuming that you know without any evidence to support your prejudicial belief?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I know that he approved the transfer of a known child molester and didn't inform the authorities. Thereby he protected him from arrest and prosecution.


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 03:36 PM
Renauda
Mar 14 2010, 10:34 AM
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 08:55 AM
No, I am not joking.

Quote:
 
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.


From Code of Canon Law (Vatican English)

If you think about it for a second it is a perfectly logical extension of the prohibition on the clergy.

Do you not think a person's civic duty trumps Canon Law in this respect? It's not like I'd go to hell or anything if I overheard a criminal confessing a crime and told the police.


In any case I am not bound by Canon Law.
No, the "civic duty" you have hypothecated here is based on a moral decision. If you were a Catholic and were guided by the Church (including Canon Law) your choice is easy, follow Canon Law and maintain the seal of the confessional because if you choose to do something that is a great moral wrong (to the point that it earns excommunication) such as deliberately breaking the seal of the confessional, being a believing Catholic, you would indeed believe you have put yourself in danger of 'going to Hell'.

Your argument that you are not bound by Canon Law (since presumably you are not a Catholic) may be correct BUT in an actual court of law I suspect whatever you report hearing someone confess under the seal of the confessional will be deemed inadmissible.
I haven't researched it thoroughly, but it appears that you are incorrect.

Quote:
 
The law protects communication, either oral or written, that was confidentially exchanged within the following special relationships:

* Spouse to spouse
* Between an attorney and client
* Between a doctor and patient
* Between a religious advisor and advisee (or priest-penitent)

* * * *

When are Confidential Communications Not Privileged?
Conversations are not considered privileged if someone overhears the private conversation. For example, the doctor-patient privilege doesn¿t apply if made in the presence of a nurse, and the spousal privilege doesn't apply if the conversation takes place in the presence of another relative, like a child.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/privilege-communication-lawyers.html


In addition, see the following cases in New Jersey and Texas. They aren't exactly on point, but they clearly trend in that direction.

http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/supreme/a-25-93.opn.html

http://www.churchlawtoday.com/private/library/cltr/c0401333.htm

However, there's a case in Arizona (of course there would be) that points in the opposite direction.

http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR080048.pdf
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 03:36 PM
Renauda
Mar 14 2010, 10:34 AM
JoeB
Mar 14 2010, 08:55 AM
No, I am not joking.

Quote:
 
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.


From Code of Canon Law (Vatican English)

If you think about it for a second it is a perfectly logical extension of the prohibition on the clergy.

Do you not think a person's civic duty trumps Canon Law in this respect? It's not like I'd go to hell or anything if I overheard a criminal confessing a crime and told the police.


In any case I am not bound by Canon Law.
No, the "civic duty" you have hypothecated here is based on a moral decision. If you were a Catholic and were guided by the Church (including Canon Law) your choice is easy, follow Canon Law and maintain the seal of the confessional because if you choose to do something that is a great moral wrong (to the point that it earns excommunication) such as deliberately breaking the seal of the confessional, being a believing Catholic, you would indeed believe you have put yourself in danger of 'going to Hell'.

Your argument that you are not bound by Canon Law (since presumably you are not a Catholic) may be correct BUT in an actual court of law I suspect whatever you report hearing someone confess under the seal of the confessional will be deemed inadmissible.
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 03:56 PM
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
:lol:
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 03:53 PM
I know that he approved the transfer of a known child molester and didn't inform the authorities. Thereby he protected him from arrest and prosecution.


What evidence do you have that the authorities in Essen or in Munich did not know about the problem? I have not seen that anywhere.

In fact, the leniency of the later prosecution seems to indicate that the civil authorities in Germany in the 70s and 80s did not register this sort of crime as strongly as we would today. Furthermore (and I'd like Klaus to give some insight to this), the fact that even today the man is still only known as "H" seems to indicate that even criminal and court records are not as freely available in Germany as they are here, even for heinous crimes such as child molestation.

So I see no reason for grounds to claim that you KNOW any of what you claim to know. Again, what do you actually KNOW? Where has it been stated that the local civil authorities in Essen or in Munich were not informed?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 03:56 PM
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
I don't recall H8 ever calling into question the legitimacy of confession or the inviolability of the seal of confession. I suspect he would have you in the Tower for that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
THe date of the police investigation and conviction is clear from the article.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 04:10 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 03:53 PM
I know that he approved the transfer of a known child molester and didn't inform the authorities. Thereby he protected him from arrest and prosecution.


What evidence do you have that the authorities in Essen or in Munich did not know about the problem? I have not seen that anywhere.

In fact, the leniency of the later prosecution seems to indicate that the civil authorities in Germany in the 70s and 80s did not register this sort of crime as strongly as we would today. Furthermore (and I'd like Klaus to give some insight to this), the fact that even today the man is still only known as "H" seems to indicate that even criminal and court records are not as freely available in Germany as they are here, even for heinous crimes such as child molestation.

So I see no reason for grounds to claim that you KNOW any of what you claim to know. Again, what do you actually KNOW? Where has it been stated that the local civil authorities in Essen or in Munich were not informed?

So maybe there was a hidden conviction that the pope knew about at the time but no one else does? And they haven't trumpeted that fact as loud as they can to defend the Holy Pedophile Protector See?


That's a pretty ragged straw you're reaching for there, buddy. THere's no way it's gonna hold your weight.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 04:12 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 03:56 PM
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
I don't recall H8 ever calling into question the legitimacy of confession or the inviolability of the seal of confession. I suspect he would have you in the Tower for that.
Quite frankly, I find the idea that if I overhear someone confess to raping a 12 year old that I have a moral obligation not to tell the authorities totally incomprehensible.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 04:16 PM
Quite frankly, I find the idea that if I overhear someone confess to raping a 12 year old that I have a moral obligation not to tell the authorities totally incomprehensible.
Reason number 364 why you'll never be Pope.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 04:12 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 03:56 PM
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
I don't recall H8 ever calling into question the legitimacy of confession or the inviolability of the seal of confession. I suspect he would have you in the Tower for that.
John, unfortunately IT is right. You could however be thankful for the efforts of Henry's Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (who was burned at the stake for heresy during Bloody Mary's reign) and Elizabeth I.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Renauda
Mar 14 2010, 04:19 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 04:12 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 14 2010, 03:56 PM
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.
I don't recall H8 ever calling into question the legitimacy of confession or the inviolability of the seal of confession. I suspect he would have you in the Tower for that.
John, unfortunately IT is right. You could however be thankful for the efforts of Henry's Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer (who was burned at the stake for heresy during Bloody Mary's reign) and Elizabeth I.
Without old 'Ennery and his over-active ways none of the subsequent freedom from the Papist menace would have been likely.

In addition, not many Popes have had amusing songs written about them. Who needs the bloody sistine chapel with this kind of culture?

What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 04:15 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 14 2010, 04:10 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 14 2010, 03:53 PM
I know that he approved the transfer of a known child molester and didn't inform the authorities. Thereby he protected him from arrest and prosecution.


What evidence do you have that the authorities in Essen or in Munich did not know about the problem? I have not seen that anywhere.

In fact, the leniency of the later prosecution seems to indicate that the civil authorities in Germany in the 70s and 80s did not register this sort of crime as strongly as we would today. Furthermore (and I'd like Klaus to give some insight to this), the fact that even today the man is still only known as "H" seems to indicate that even criminal and court records are not as freely available in Germany as they are here, even for heinous crimes such as child molestation.

So I see no reason for grounds to claim that you KNOW any of what you claim to know. Again, what do you actually KNOW? Where has it been stated that the local civil authorities in Essen or in Munich were not informed?

So maybe there was a hidden conviction that the pope knew about at the time but no one else does? And they haven't trumpeted that fact as loud as they can to defend the Holy Pedophile Protector See?


That's a pretty ragged straw you're reaching for there, buddy. THere's no way it's gonna hold your weight.
You still keep avoiding the obvious question of what do you actually know such that you know Ratzinger failed morally?

I can understand why you keep avoiding that question. But it won't go away with all your other speculations and assumptions.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
This is really troubling. I can only think of the polity of my own church tradition, which is that if a member of our clergy is *accused* of having sexually abused a child, the matter is immediately referred to the civil authorities, and the person is placed in some sort of ecclesiastical limitations where s/he is not around children, and sometimes even at least temporarily removed from any pastoral duties until the matter is resolved. If the civil authorities clear the person of the wrongdoing, the church still has a judicial process where they determine whether other, non-civil, church requirements were violated. The clergy person may be reinstated after having been cleared of both, or there may be some discipline arising out of the church's internal process, up to and including "defrocking" for conviction of various levels of misconduct. If the civil authorities find the person guilty of child sexual abuse, the person is typically removed immediately from the rolls of ordained clergy. After payment of any civil (in this sense, meaning "non-church") penalties, the person may request reinstatement to the clergy. On some occasions, the person may be reinstated, but only after going through the civil punishment, and then successfully going through church-mandated therapy/counseling - and even then, they would be limited to serving in "allied" ministries that had nothing to do with involvement with children, and most likely not anything at all to do with a pastoral call to a congregation.

I don't want to be seen as "Catholic bashing" here - and I'm definitely not saying that my own tradition has totally clean hands - every church tradition has its own horror stories. But unless a church adopts some variation of this kind of immediate aggressive response to accusations of child sexual abuse, the problem will only continue, and maybe even worsen.

"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
I don't want to be seen as "Catholic bashing" here...


Oh, don't worry your head about that. Jon's got that one sewn up already. :lol2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
This kind of errant nonsense makes me very grateful for Henry VIII.


Pope Clement did indeed find Henry a bit .... ah .... 'errant.' But those times were really wild and Wolsey. In any case, the More I think about it, a lot in this discussion is arrant nonsense. :whome:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Piano*Dad
Mar 15 2010, 05:12 AM
Quote:
 
I don't want to be seen as "Catholic bashing" here...


Oh, don't worry your head about that. Jon's got that one sewn up already. :lol2:
It's not that hard when the Pope hands you the club.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I've heard of bashing the bishop, but I've not clubbing the pope.
"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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Dewey
Mar 15 2010, 06:06 AM
I've heard of bashing the bishop, but I've not clubbing the pope.
Is that anything like choking the cleric?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply