US churches do not have to report child rapes.

[Abaxvahl]

So it’s worth taking the risk that the local priest will molest your child as long as the get their exposure to the church?

Do you have kids?

If one wants to protect their children from every bad thing that could possibly happen in life they should not have children. Having them is a risk worth taking, and no I do not have any.

 

[Valletta]

So give them another chance to do it again? I think it’s more important to protect the innocent children rather than the guilty adult.

There are major misunderstandings about Catholic confession and the seal of confession. The power to forgive sin as given by Jesus to the Apostles when He first appeared to them after rising from the dead.
Such a sacrament is important for a person who repents and wishes to sin no more.
It is up to the sinner as to whether to be behind a curtain to keep your identity anonymous. You can do this anywhere, far from where anyone knows you. Additionally, priests take a vow not to break the seal of confession and are excommunicated for doing so. On a practical basis, if the law were changed it is hard to believe any molester would have a face to face confession rather than an anonymous confession.

 

[partinobodycular]

The power to forgive sin as given by Jesus to the Apostles when He first appeared to them after rising from the dead.

Additionally, priests take a vow not to break the seal of confession and are excommunicated for doing so.

This is no doubt off topic, but of what need is there for a priest in this process of forgiveness?

 

[Larniavc]

and no I do not have any.

Then you have no idea of the responsibilities of being a parent. One of which is protecting them from molestation by priests, for example.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Then you have no idea of the responsibilities of being a parent. One of which is protecting them from molestation by priests, for example.

Has nothing to do with my point, if you don't trust my word on it then go ask the hundreds of millions of Christians who bring their babies in for baptism by a priest, their children to Confirmation, to Church, who wrote letters to holy men asking how to raise them, etc, all in the midst of scandals and knowing of bad priests. I am not alone in my judgment that it would be evil to separate children from Church even with the risk of evil people abusing them. It is a very common judgment by parents themselves, and when I have children should I marry I will make the same judgment.

 

[Valletta]

This is no doubt off topic, but of what need is there for a priest in this process of forgiveness?

That's the way God set it up one, and the normal way for Catholics, for forgiveness of sins. God often works through men, sometimes even objects. You can see this through history.

 

[Valletta]

Then you have no idea of the responsibilities of being a parent. One of which is protecting them from molestation by priests, for example.

Don't forget protection from Atheists. I suspect many molesters never mention those sins at confession if they bother to go to confession. Those who repent and go to confession can just choose a priest they don't know and go to confession anonymously. And the priests take a holy vow. So such a law does no good and a lot of harm.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's the way God set it up one,

Forgive my crassness, but aren't you conflating the Catholic church with God. It just seems a tad self serving that a book granting authority to the Catholic church was compiled, edited, and confirmed as divinely inspired, by the church itself.

Maybe it's just my ignorance, but other than the claims of the church, there wouldn't seem to be any logical reason why forgiveness should require a priestly intercessor.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are major misunderstandings about Catholic confession and the seal of confession. The power to forgive sin as given by Jesus to the Apostles when He first appeared to them after rising from the dead.
Such a sacrament is important for a person who repents and wishes to sin no more.
It is up to the sinner as to whether to be behind a curtain to keep your identity anonymous. You can do this anywhere, far from where anyone knows you. Additionally, priests take a vow not to break the seal of confession and are excommunicated for doing so. On a practical basis, if the law were changed it is hard to believe any molester would have a face to face confession rather than an anonymous confession.

Personally I prefer to confess straight to God. I don’t understand why someone would feel the need to confess to anyone else unless they had wronged that person in some way.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then you have no idea of the responsibilities of being a parent. One of which is protecting them from molestation by priests, for example.

Did you not understand the importance of protecting your children before you had them? I sure did, and I think the majority of people out there probably did as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It just seems a tad self serving that a book granting authority to the Catholic church was compiled, edited, and confirmed as divinely inspired, by the church itself.

Self serving? Not when you consider what the early church endured in order to accomplish these feats. The formulation of the church was nothing like anything we see today. It wasn’t simply going house to house evangelizing to people where the worst thing that might happen is you might get yelled at or cursed at. Early Christians risked their lives for the spreading of the gospel and endured imprisonment, torture, beatings, and even martyrdom on a regular basis.

 

[partinobodycular]

Self serving? Not when you consider what the early church endured in order to accomplish these feats. The formulation of the church was nothing like anything we see today. It wasn’t simply going house to house evangelizing to people where the worst thing that might happen is you might get yelled at or cursed at. Early Christians risked their lives for the spreading of the gospel and endured imprisonment, torture, beatings, and even martyrdom on a regular basis.

I do believe that if you make a careful study of the available historical information, that you'll find that the stories of martyrdom are a bit overblown, and at best should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, the Catholic church would have us believe that all the apostles, save one, died as martyrs. But the historical data begs to differ. However, when you're the one writing the history who's to question you?

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to point out the facts.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I do believe that if you make a careful study of the available historical information, that you'll find that the stories of martyrdom are a bit overblown, and at best should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, the Catholic church would have us believe that all the apostles, save one, died as martyrs. But the historical data begs to differ. But when you're the one writing the history who's to question you?

Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to point out the facts.

What facts? What historical data? I see no reason to deny such traditions (hand-downs).

 

[partinobodycular]

What facts? What historical data? I see no reason to deny such traditions (hand-downs).

Knowing that you'll probably reject any evidence that I present, I'll go with someone to whom you may give at least a modicum of credibility. Sean McDowell. Sean is one of the most intellectually honest Christian apologists that I know of.

This is a very short video, so everyone should have both the time and patience to watch it.

I'll grant Sean strong evidence for two, Peter and Paul, but for the two James's...ehhh, and from there on the evidence gets a bit more problematic. But suffice it to say that it's unlikely that eleven of the twelve apostles actually died as martyrs.

However, as Sean points out, the important thing isn't whether they died as martyrs, but whether they were willing to die as martyrs. Unfortunately, that's not a very strong argument. A brief look back over history will make it abundantly clear that a lot of people have been willing to die, for a lot of really strange reasons.

But here's an idea, why don't we compare the number of people martyred by the Romans et al, to the number of people martyred by the Catholic church. That should make for an interesting comparison.

Sorry for the snarkiness.

 

[Valletta]

Personally I prefer to confess straight to God. I don’t understand why someone would feel the need to confess to anyone else unless they had wronged that person in some way.

Well, I prefer the way Jesus set it up--it seems quite wise.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Knowing that you'll probably reject any evidence that I present, I'll go with someone to whom you may give at least a modicum of credibility. Sean McDowell. Sean is one of the most intellectually honest Christian apologists that I know of.

This is a very short video, so everyone should have both the time and patience to watch it.

I'll grant Sean strong evidence for two, Peter and Paul, but for the two James's...ehhh, and from there on the evidence gets a bit more problematic. But suffice it to say that it's unlikely that eleven of the twelve apostles actually died as martyrs.

However, as Sean points out, the important thing isn't whether they died as martyrs, but whether they were willing to die as martyrs. Unfortunately, that's not a very strong argument. A brief look back over history will make it abundantly clear that a lot of people have been willing to die, for a lot of really strange reasons.

But here's an idea, why don't we compare the number of people martyred by the Romans to the number of people martyred by the Catholic church. That should make for an interesting comparison.

Sorry for the snarkiness.

Nah it's fine, you would've presented what the video did which is really famous info I have known of. My main reason for trusting in the martyrdoms of the other Apostles (beyond which we have no record) is the phronema of the Church which venerates them as martyrs. It is to me a bad argument also for did not heretics, the Sahaba, and other worthless people die for their beliefs or were willing to? It is not an argument I would use except as support to far, far better ones and possibly not even then.

 

[Paidiske]

So with 1 Corinthians 5 in mind, how would someone repeatedly confessing the same sin against another parish member ever by handled?

One could potentially structure the penance given in such a way as to attempt to address the issue. That is fraught and I would do so with caution.

This is no doubt off topic, but of what need is there for a priest in this process of forgiveness?

Personally I prefer to confess straight to God. I don’t understand why someone would feel the need to confess to anyone else unless they had wronged that person in some way.

For many people, the interpersonal interaction - the fact that another person (someone you regard as spiritually mature and wise) has heard your sins, knows what you've done, and is still able to look you in the eye and assure you that God forgives you - is a very powerful thing. While confession in this sense is not such a big part of my own tradition as it is in Catholicism, I regard it is a very important tool in my pastoral toolkit, as it were.

More on topic, the problem with confession is less when the abuser confesses (and you can make self-reporting part of the penance), and much more when the victim discloses. Sometimes they disclose in confession precisely because they know it is a safe place to park that disclosure without it then being reported etc. before they feel ready to face the trauma of that process. And that then leaves the priest in an almost impossible pastoral situation.

 

[Zoii]

Seems fine to me. The Lord Jesus said to first go to the brother who sinned against you personally, then with others, then the Church, and finally if they be incorrigible then to treat them as a heathen and tax collector (although even love is owed to these). The Lord did not say "first bring it to the government." This also for groups such as the Catholic Church would be relevant to the Seal of Confession which can not be broken.

Then the lord is an ass if you truly believe that it's his instruction for a raped child, six years old, not to have the support of law enforcement, but rather to confront her adult rapist. What sort of religion and what sort of person can possibly condone that.

 

[Zoii]

Im curious if the same rule applies to psychiatrists and their patient confidentiality laws? My position on this is that the protection of the innocent should always take precedence over the protection of the guilty. I think they should be reported and face criminal charges.

The answer is yes - In my country a doctor or nurse is compelled to report the matter to police or face prosecution and discipline from the Australian Health Professional Regulation Authority.

 

[Zoii]

By and large there is enough evidence to say that reporting things unless absolutely forced to by law is not high on the Catholic agenda.

Or, as Australia uncovered in its Royal Commission, JWs, Anglicans, Jews, Hindus... in other words, all religious groups were found wanting. Only just recently Brian Houstan, head of Hillsong, was charged for not disclosing to police that his father reported to him his paedophile activities.