|
Post by Isapop on May 26, 2019 11:01:01 GMT
And I have mentioned "THE ELIMINATION OF ONE OF THE MAJOR TENENTS OF THE RCC" in the past by seven states, and the apparent lack of will by the RCC to mount a fight over it. In view of that, my question remains: why should anyone take the objections of clergy in California seriously now?
They may have passed a law. Priests won't adhere to it... They are sacred bound to keep the confessional secret... even under threat of torture or death. So if the Church's stance in the past was, "Go ahead and pass your law, it doesn't matter, we won't obey it", then it's a little late to begin claiming constitutional protections now.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on May 26, 2019 15:26:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on May 26, 2019 18:14:27 GMT
I assume none of the "geniuses" on this board ever heard about St. John Fisher or many of the other Catholic clergy who refused to break their vows to the Church. They preferred death.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on May 26, 2019 18:17:04 GMT
Isapop
How are we claiming constitutional protection under freedom of religion, when we are forced to BREAK CANON LAW, by the state.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 26, 2019 18:39:57 GMT
Isapop
How are we claiming constitutional protection under freedom of religion, when we are forced to BREAK CANON LAW, by the state. Watch the video. At 2:30 to 3:40 the priest pleads how the state forcing priests to break canon law violates the constitution's 1st Amendment protection of freedom of religion. Apparently the Church didn't raise much of any fuss about priests having to break canon law years ago while seven states passed similar bills. They let the horse leave the barn back then. Too late to try to complain about opening the door now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 12:05:08 GMT
I assume none of the "geniuses" on this board ever heard about St. John Fisher or many of the other Catholic clergy who refused to break their vows to the Church. They preferred death. That's fine. Pass the law, let the priests refuse to obey it, and give them lengthy jail sentences. They're happy because they got to put their religion above the welfare of children like they wanted. The state is happy because dangerous priests are behind bars where they belong. It's a win-win.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 28, 2019 14:43:57 GMT
Seems reasonable. Can anybody give a good reason why clergy should be allowed to let child abuse go unreported? Not sure about good but these are routinely valid: 1. Confidentiality. 2. It’s not their job 3. They answer to a higher authority than the state These are all reasons I would use for the state forcing me to go against my beliefs, but my beliefs don’t prevent me from reporting harm to others. I just wouldn’t automatically do something jut because a secular authority said so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 19:31:01 GMT
Seems reasonable. Can anybody give a good reason why clergy should be allowed to let child abuse go unreported? Not sure about good but these are routinely valid: 1. Confidentiality. 2. It’s not their job Both superseded by the welfare of a child. The state rightfully doesn't recognise a higher authority than the state. If these people want to claim that then let them be tried, convicted, and go to prison as their conscience dictates.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 28, 2019 20:02:32 GMT
Not sure about good but these are routinely valid: 1. Confidentiality. 2. It’s not their job Both superseded by the welfare of a child. The state rightfully doesn't recognise a higher authority than the state. If these people want to claim that then let them be tried, convicted, and go to prison as their conscience dictates. Protection from abuse should go hand in hand with the goals of the church and the state. But the state is never going to be over the belief no matter what the state thinks. That’s my point. If someone tells me I have to pick between my beliefs or my government, my government is going to lose that bet. If the belief if a church is that the physical welfare of a child is not paramount to something sacred, there’s just going to be a lot of priests in jail. They should be able to live with that if they’re devout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 20:42:58 GMT
Both superseded by the welfare of a child. The state rightfully doesn't recognise a higher authority than the state. If these people want to claim that then let them be tried, convicted, and go to prison as their conscience dictates. Protection from abuse should go hand in hand with the goals of the church and the state. No, it shouldn't And that's fine. And my point is that if your beliefs dictate that you allow children to be harmed, and you refuse to help stop that, then you belong in jail away from decent people. Exactly. If they're happy to put their beliefs above the welfare of children, jail is where they belong. Society is protected from them, they get to feel good about how much they like their religion, all is well.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 28, 2019 21:01:41 GMT
Protection from abuse should go hand in hand with the goals of the church and the state. No, it shouldn't And that's fine. And my point is that if your beliefs dictate that you allow children to be harmed, and you refuse to help stop that, then you belong in jail away from decent people. Exactly. If they're happy to put their beliefs above the welfare of children, jail is where they belong. Society is protected from them, they get to feel good about how much they like their religion, all is well. [1. You don’t think that protection from abuse should be important to both the church and the state? 2. I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that the state can’t change a belief or doctrine anymore than they can change an opinion about anything. They can only enforce their own laws which may at times conflict with belief. If the church has some kind of sacred vow that obligated them to keep a confession confidential, then the state should do their job better if that’s all they’ve got and the church should look for ways to ensure the confessor honors his obligations to society which should be a big thing to Catholics considering how often they ran the church and the state in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 22:26:39 GMT
No, it shouldn't And that's fine. And my point is that if your beliefs dictate that you allow children to be harmed, and you refuse to help stop that, then you belong in jail away from decent people. Exactly. If they're happy to put their beliefs above the welfare of children, jail is where they belong. Society is protected from them, they get to feel good about how much they like their religion, all is well. 1. You don’t think that protection from abuse should be important to both the church and the state? I do. But clearly whilst it is important to the state, it is not very important to the church or to you. That's not under dispute.
|
|