I feel a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I can understand the importance of protecting confession. But on the other hand, the church has proven to be unable to protect its youngest...
I feel a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I can understand the importance of protecting confession. But on the other hand, the church has proven to be unable to protect its youngest members. The idealistic side of me is all "freedom of religion". However, the pragmatic side says we must protect those that need it most, and in this case, it's the victims.
This changed law doesn't affect freedom of religion. Everyone is still able to hold the faith they think is the most convincing for them. And the new law doesn't restrict the religious...
The idealistic side of me is all "freedom of religion".
This changed law doesn't affect freedom of religion. Everyone is still able to hold the faith they think is the most convincing for them. And the new law doesn't restrict the religious authorities, it brings them in line with the standard:
Not reporting abuse will carry a maximum $10,000 fine, and brings expectations of priests in line with those of social workers, teachers, medical professionals and others in positions of authority.
"Religion" shouldn't be allowed as an excuse to keep one above the law, as it apparently did in Australia.
Though I am not at all against the change, the change does limit freedom of religion, specifically confession. Freedom isn't only the ability to freely hold your faith, but to also freely practice...
Though I am not at all against the change, the change does limit freedom of religion, specifically confession. Freedom isn't only the ability to freely hold your faith, but to also freely practice it. Holding confession in confidence is key to confession.
You can still confess, there's nothing changing here. Just like all other professions bound to secrecy, it is required to report possible harm unto others. You cannot freely rape children and then...
You can still confess, there's nothing changing here. Just like all other professions bound to secrecy, it is required to report possible harm unto others. You cannot freely rape children and then brag about it to your priest without consequences. If you're scared of the possible crimes that come from raping kids, it would be in your best interest to not rape kids. I don't think making a religion about raping kids should make it okay to do so and then hide behind the idea that it's your religious practice, and suddenly be above the law.
Again, I don't disagree with this law. However, there have always been places in the law that allow a person to expect a certain, for lack of a better word, protection. For better or for worst,...
Again, I don't disagree with this law. However, there have always been places in the law that allow a person to expect a certain, for lack of a better word, protection. For better or for worst, previously confession was protected. Now it's not, for this specific case. If you steal or rape an adult, your priest is not require to report it (as far as I know).
Now, I don't believe the sinner's rights and freedoms are violated in this case. I do believe, your rights end when another's begins. But, my statement above is more for the priests in this scenario. It's now the priests' relationship with God and their religion that is alter by this law.
Religion is no excuse for ignoring the law.
As long as it's a just law, which in this case, I think it clearly is.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
They're supposed to comply with the laws of the land.
Wasn't that the same bit sessions just got into supporting separating immigrant kids from their families? It's ridiculous to have a passage saying "obey the government" without the bible having...
Wasn't that the same bit sessions just got into supporting separating immigrant kids from their families? It's ridiculous to have a passage saying "obey the government" without the bible having any idea what the government is doing.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. This phrase makes no sense: "the same bit sessions just got into supporting". What's a "same bit session"?
Wasn't that the same bit sessions just got into supporting separating immigrant kids from their families? I
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. This phrase makes no sense: "the same bit sessions just got into supporting". What's a "same bit session"?
Sorry, poorly worded by me. I was referring to Jeff Sessions like others pointed out. I'll try and be more clear in the future and not assume everyones keeping up with everything.
Sorry, poorly worded by me. I was referring to Jeff Sessions like others pointed out. I'll try and be more clear in the future and not assume everyones keeping up with everything.
Thanks, but it's not just that. I didn't even realise that "sessions" (no capital letter) was supposed to be a name! If I'd seen the name "Sessions", I would have at least recognised that you were...
Thanks, but it's not just that. I didn't even realise that "sessions" (no capital letter) was supposed to be a name! If I'd seen the name "Sessions", I would have at least recognised that you were talking about one of the White House officials (I've seen the name "Jeff Sessions" around, and I know he's one of Trump's people), and that you were talking about something he said. I might not have known what he said, but I would have at least understood the intention of your comment.
Okay. I couldn't tell because "sessions" is a word, and doesn't look like a name. I assume there's some relevant events involving the US Attorney-General that would make sense of this that I, as a...
Okay. I couldn't tell because "sessions" is a word, and doesn't look like a name.
I assume there's some relevant events involving the US Attorney-General that would make sense of this that I, as a non-American, am not aware of. It happens!
Sure thing. Some background: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/06/05/sessions-defends-separating-immigrant-parents-and-children-weve-got-to-get-this-message-out/...
The kind of obedience here should be read more generally than blindly obeying every statute. Clearly, the Catholic Church is not of the opinion that governments cannot go wrong, given that the...
The kind of obedience here should be read more generally than blindly obeying every statute. Clearly, the Catholic Church is not of the opinion that governments cannot go wrong, given that the crucifixion was literally a government deciding to kill God. Even St. Paul himself (the author of this passage) violated Roman law at times because it contradicted the word of God.
There are two main principles at work here (and probably in Christian thinking more broadly): forgiveness and detachment from the material. Even if government officials are wrong, we should be forgiving, because God is all-forgiving, and even if ultimately the person does not deserve forgiveness, this is a matter for God to decide. In the Catholic position, there is not any worry about duly punishing people in this life, since God will ensure eternal punishment in the next. If a ruler is unjust, our moral obligation is to learn to love them despite this and treat them as well as we are able without violating our responsibilities to God. This is especially true for abuses that affect only the material world, thus the part later about paying taxes. (It's in the page linked for anyone interested. Romans 13:7) Rulers may be despotic in their reign over the material world, but ultimately this is supposed to be irrelevant. Suffering now is even to our benefit if we can keep our faith through it because it helps purify us from the material and focus more on the spiritual. This purity and this focus help us get into heaven and receive God's eternal reward. These considerations ultimately oblige us to be obedient fully whenever laws are congruent with faith and to not violently revolt, since trying to kill our rulers would not be forgiving them. Thus, the directive to obey rulers should not be read as "follow the king's every whim", but as a more subtle statement against anarchy and revolt.
This is written in first person plural mostly because that is the convention I usually see in Catholic theological work (from Church sources, I don't have much exposure to analysis of Catholic doctrine from outside), and while I am not a Catholic, it easier to write that way. I also should note that I am far from an expert on this, and (in true Catholic fashion) recommend speaking to a priest about these matters, especially any concerns about Canon law.
As a final aside, the King James Bible (a variant of which is linked and quoted) is a Protestant Bible. There are differences in translation that can be important, and the King James was translated in part to support Anglican theology (at least in the Church's view, I won't claim to know the history myself). This link (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm) has a list of approved bibles. The differences are not too important for this matter, the largest gap is the inclusion of certain books from the Old Testament. Catholics put some in which Protestants do not. Romans is New Testament and thus appears in both. The form used in Catholic churches today is the New American Bible.
edit: I put in the aside mentioning why I brought up the King James Bible.
Yeah... the flip-side of this attitude is (non-ironically) summed up by the saying "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." It doesn't really matter what we do here on Earth, because it all gets...
In the Catholic position, there is not any worry about duly punishing people in this life, since God will ensure eternal punishment in the next.
Yeah... the flip-side of this attitude is (non-ironically) summed up by the saying "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." It doesn't really matter what we do here on Earth, because it all gets sorted out after we die. So, whether we wrongly punish someone, or wrongly fail to punish someone, we don't have to worry because God will fix everything later.
If we take this attitude to its extreme (I do like a good reductio ad absurdurm argument!), there's no point in punishing anyone for anything. If we're all going to face an ultimate eternal punishment eventually, what's the point in punishing someone now? All we need to do is educate someone in right and wrong, and then let them go about their life freely. If they do anything wrong, then it's not our place to punish them. That's God's job.
I'm not sure I can get on board with that attitude - mostly, I suppose, because I don't believe in this alleged punishment after death, but also for other more earthly reasons.
The form used in Catholic churches today is the New American Bible.
I assume you mean American Catholic churches. I doubt that Catholic churches here in Australia or over in Britain use an American Bible. :)
I'm not sure about the use internationally. I think it got its name because the American bishops commissioned the new translation. Wikipedia says it is used in the Philippines as well, which makes...
I'm not sure about the use internationally. I think it got its name because the American bishops commissioned the new translation. Wikipedia says it is used in the Philippines as well, which makes sense. Appears different editions are used in England.
To the substantive bits of the post, the Catholic position is often punishment averse in ways that can look freakish from other religious perspectives. Medieval theologians were concerned that the only standard that allowed punishment was a confession. Admittedly there was a hypocrisy in allowing a lot of what would today be considered "punishment" (read torture) in order to produce such a confession with arbitrary ad hoc rules to limit what could be done in order to get a confession. I am not entirely sure about the Catholic theology of self-preservation. I vaguely remember there being a saint that let a traveler into his home even though he knew he would be murdered and that being considered praiseworthy (though not obligated). Generally, if one works directly from scripture, the Bible appears to assume that Christians will not be in power from now until the end of times. Unlike Quran, for example, which from what I understand has quite a bit to say about appropriate governance (this may be in the hadiths, not a Catholicism expert, definitely not an Islam expert), the New Testament focuses on the relationship from the perspective of the governed. Christianity is a fundamentally personal religion, even for Catholics, and almost all of its ethical problems need to be seen it that light for the answers to be comprehensible.
edit: When I say the Catholic position is punishment averse, I mean that it rarely suggests the Church or its members should go around punishing. Its opinions on the legitimacy of the state punishing are outside of my knowledge.
edit 2: I tried to get a sense of the Catholic theology around the issue. It sounds like a quagmire. I'm fairly comfortable regarding the matter as unsettled, which makes sense in light of my earlier comments about it being outside the principle focus of Scripture.
Here's the core of the Bishop's defense for this position: And a bit of background on the good bishop's position within the church: I question what the man considers to be the nature of his...
Here's the core of the Bishop's defense for this position:
"Politicians can change the law, but we can't change the nature of the confessional, which is a sacred encounter between a penitent and someone seeking forgiveness and a priest representing Christ," Bishop Greg O'Kelly told ABC Radio Adelaide on Friday.
And a bit of background on the good bishop's position within the church:
A bishop (English derivation from the New Testament of the Christian Bible Greek επίσκοπος, epískopos, "overseer", "guardian") is an ordained, consecrated, or appointed member of the Christian clergy who is generally entrusted with a position of authority and oversight. Wikipedia
I question what the man considers to be the nature of his calling. One might expect that it is to shepherd the flock, especially the most vulnerable among his sheep. Instead, we find him subverting this role and serving rather the rules of his priestly class. This is as pharisaic as it gets: neglecting the due process, care, and healing owed a child in favor of keeping the tradition of the priests.
If the confession must stay what it is, then the church must make a policy change: Notice to confessors, going forward, all confessions of child abuse will be reported to the authorities; your participation in confession is an acknowledgement that this reporting will take place and constitutes your permission for this reporting. No other aspects of confession are subject to this reporting.
It's not a real law, since it oversteps governmental authority. The Church is above the State, not subject to it. Disclaimer: There are only a few authentic Catholic priests in Australia; Greg...
It's not a real law, since it oversteps governmental authority. The Church is above the State, not subject to it.
Disclaimer: There are only a few authentic Catholic priests in Australia; Greg O'Kelly is not one of them. But regardless, the principle is what it is.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give a bit more detail? Are you referring to section 116 of the Constitution? I'm not positive, but I don't think it applies to the South Australian...
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give a bit more detail? Are you referring to section 116 of the Constitution? I'm not positive, but I don't think it applies to the South Australian parliament that passed this law.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
Church/State pluralism and shared legal powers with secular authorities has always been a part of Catholic doctrine. I'm guessing by your disclaimer that you're a Sedevacantist and reject the...
Church/State pluralism and shared legal powers with secular authorities has always been a part of Catholic doctrine. I'm guessing by your disclaimer that you're a Sedevacantist and reject the Second Vatican Council's cession of legal authority to secular states in which the church operates. But even pre Vatican 2 doctrine would only hold that church law trumps civil in the domain of a Catholic king or confessor state, which obviously doesn't apply to Australia.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not Catholic myself.
I reject the label "sedevacantist" as well, for various reasons. Catholic doctrine holds that all States have a duty to submit to God and His Church. There is no special privileges/exceptions...
Catholic doctrine holds that all States have a duty to submit to God and His Church. There is no special privileges/exceptions given to States that neglect their duty in this regard. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
I feel a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I can understand the importance of protecting confession. But on the other hand, the church has proven to be unable to protect its youngest members. The idealistic side of me is all "freedom of religion". However, the pragmatic side says we must protect those that need it most, and in this case, it's the victims.
This changed law doesn't affect freedom of religion. Everyone is still able to hold the faith they think is the most convincing for them. And the new law doesn't restrict the religious authorities, it brings them in line with the standard:
"Religion" shouldn't be allowed as an excuse to keep one above the law, as it apparently did in Australia.
Though I am not at all against the change, the change does limit freedom of religion, specifically confession. Freedom isn't only the ability to freely hold your faith, but to also freely practice it. Holding confession in confidence is key to confession.
You can still confess, there's nothing changing here. Just like all other professions bound to secrecy, it is required to report possible harm unto others. You cannot freely rape children and then brag about it to your priest without consequences. If you're scared of the possible crimes that come from raping kids, it would be in your best interest to not rape kids. I don't think making a religion about raping kids should make it okay to do so and then hide behind the idea that it's your religious practice, and suddenly be above the law.
Religion is no excuse for ignoring the law.
Again, I don't disagree with this law. However, there have always been places in the law that allow a person to expect a certain, for lack of a better word, protection. For better or for worst, previously confession was protected. Now it's not, for this specific case. If you steal or rape an adult, your priest is not require to report it (as far as I know).
Now, I don't believe the sinner's rights and freedoms are violated in this case. I do believe, your rights end when another's begins. But, my statement above is more for the priests in this scenario. It's now the priests' relationship with God and their religion that is alter by this law.
As long as it's a just law, which in this case, I think it clearly is.
The Catholic Church's own Bible says:
They're supposed to comply with the laws of the land.
Wasn't that the same bit sessions just got into supporting separating immigrant kids from their families? It's ridiculous to have a passage saying "obey the government" without the bible having any idea what the government is doing.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. This phrase makes no sense: "the same bit sessions just got into supporting". What's a "same bit session"?
Sorry, poorly worded by me. I was referring to Jeff Sessions like others pointed out. I'll try and be more clear in the future and not assume everyones keeping up with everything.
Thanks, but it's not just that. I didn't even realise that "sessions" (no capital letter) was supposed to be a name! If I'd seen the name "Sessions", I would have at least recognised that you were talking about one of the White House officials (I've seen the name "Jeff Sessions" around, and I know he's one of Trump's people), and that you were talking about something he said. I might not have known what he said, but I would have at least understood the intention of your comment.
Who knew grammar could be so important to communication! Thanks for pointing that out, I'll try and do better.
I believe the user means US Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Okay. I couldn't tell because "sessions" is a word, and doesn't look like a name.
I assume there's some relevant events involving the US Attorney-General that would make sense of this that I, as a non-American, am not aware of. It happens!
Thanks for explaining.
Sure thing. Some background:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/06/05/sessions-defends-separating-immigrant-parents-and-children-weve-got-to-get-this-message-out/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/15/jeff-sessions-says-bible-justifies-separating-children-illegal/
I wasn't asking (I'm not that interested in internal American politics!), but thanks anyway.
The kind of obedience here should be read more generally than blindly obeying every statute. Clearly, the Catholic Church is not of the opinion that governments cannot go wrong, given that the crucifixion was literally a government deciding to kill God. Even St. Paul himself (the author of this passage) violated Roman law at times because it contradicted the word of God.
There are two main principles at work here (and probably in Christian thinking more broadly): forgiveness and detachment from the material. Even if government officials are wrong, we should be forgiving, because God is all-forgiving, and even if ultimately the person does not deserve forgiveness, this is a matter for God to decide. In the Catholic position, there is not any worry about duly punishing people in this life, since God will ensure eternal punishment in the next. If a ruler is unjust, our moral obligation is to learn to love them despite this and treat them as well as we are able without violating our responsibilities to God. This is especially true for abuses that affect only the material world, thus the part later about paying taxes. (It's in the page linked for anyone interested. Romans 13:7) Rulers may be despotic in their reign over the material world, but ultimately this is supposed to be irrelevant. Suffering now is even to our benefit if we can keep our faith through it because it helps purify us from the material and focus more on the spiritual. This purity and this focus help us get into heaven and receive God's eternal reward. These considerations ultimately oblige us to be obedient fully whenever laws are congruent with faith and to not violently revolt, since trying to kill our rulers would not be forgiving them. Thus, the directive to obey rulers should not be read as "follow the king's every whim", but as a more subtle statement against anarchy and revolt.
This is written in first person plural mostly because that is the convention I usually see in Catholic theological work (from Church sources, I don't have much exposure to analysis of Catholic doctrine from outside), and while I am not a Catholic, it easier to write that way. I also should note that I am far from an expert on this, and (in true Catholic fashion) recommend speaking to a priest about these matters, especially any concerns about Canon law.
As a final aside, the King James Bible (a variant of which is linked and quoted) is a Protestant Bible. There are differences in translation that can be important, and the King James was translated in part to support Anglican theology (at least in the Church's view, I won't claim to know the history myself). This link (http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/index.cfm) has a list of approved bibles. The differences are not too important for this matter, the largest gap is the inclusion of certain books from the Old Testament. Catholics put some in which Protestants do not. Romans is New Testament and thus appears in both. The form used in Catholic churches today is the New American Bible.
edit: I put in the aside mentioning why I brought up the King James Bible.
Yeah... the flip-side of this attitude is (non-ironically) summed up by the saying "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." It doesn't really matter what we do here on Earth, because it all gets sorted out after we die. So, whether we wrongly punish someone, or wrongly fail to punish someone, we don't have to worry because God will fix everything later.
If we take this attitude to its extreme (I do like a good reductio ad absurdurm argument!), there's no point in punishing anyone for anything. If we're all going to face an ultimate eternal punishment eventually, what's the point in punishing someone now? All we need to do is educate someone in right and wrong, and then let them go about their life freely. If they do anything wrong, then it's not our place to punish them. That's God's job.
I'm not sure I can get on board with that attitude - mostly, I suppose, because I don't believe in this alleged punishment after death, but also for other more earthly reasons.
I assume you mean American Catholic churches. I doubt that Catholic churches here in Australia or over in Britain use an American Bible. :)
I'm not sure about the use internationally. I think it got its name because the American bishops commissioned the new translation. Wikipedia says it is used in the Philippines as well, which makes sense. Appears different editions are used in England.
To the substantive bits of the post, the Catholic position is often punishment averse in ways that can look freakish from other religious perspectives. Medieval theologians were concerned that the only standard that allowed punishment was a confession. Admittedly there was a hypocrisy in allowing a lot of what would today be considered "punishment" (read torture) in order to produce such a confession with arbitrary ad hoc rules to limit what could be done in order to get a confession. I am not entirely sure about the Catholic theology of self-preservation. I vaguely remember there being a saint that let a traveler into his home even though he knew he would be murdered and that being considered praiseworthy (though not obligated). Generally, if one works directly from scripture, the Bible appears to assume that Christians will not be in power from now until the end of times. Unlike Quran, for example, which from what I understand has quite a bit to say about appropriate governance (this may be in the hadiths, not a Catholicism expert, definitely not an Islam expert), the New Testament focuses on the relationship from the perspective of the governed. Christianity is a fundamentally personal religion, even for Catholics, and almost all of its ethical problems need to be seen it that light for the answers to be comprehensible.
edit: When I say the Catholic position is punishment averse, I mean that it rarely suggests the Church or its members should go around punishing. Its opinions on the legitimacy of the state punishing are outside of my knowledge.
edit 2: I tried to get a sense of the Catholic theology around the issue. It sounds like a quagmire. I'm fairly comfortable regarding the matter as unsettled, which makes sense in light of my earlier comments about it being outside the principle focus of Scripture.
This isn't a real law, since it oversteps the government's authority.
Here's the core of the Bishop's defense for this position:
And a bit of background on the good bishop's position within the church:
I question what the man considers to be the nature of his calling. One might expect that it is to shepherd the flock, especially the most vulnerable among his sheep. Instead, we find him subverting this role and serving rather the rules of his priestly class. This is as pharisaic as it gets: neglecting the due process, care, and healing owed a child in favor of keeping the tradition of the priests.
If the confession must stay what it is, then the church must make a policy change: Notice to confessors, going forward, all confessions of child abuse will be reported to the authorities; your participation in confession is an acknowledgement that this reporting will take place and constitutes your permission for this reporting. No other aspects of confession are subject to this reporting.
It's not a real law, since it oversteps governmental authority. The Church is above the State, not subject to it.
Disclaimer: There are only a few authentic Catholic priests in Australia; Greg O'Kelly is not one of them. But regardless, the principle is what it is.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you give a bit more detail? Are you referring to section 116 of the Constitution? I'm not positive, but I don't think it applies to the South Australian parliament that passed this law.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
Church/State pluralism and shared legal powers with secular authorities has always been a part of Catholic doctrine. I'm guessing by your disclaimer that you're a Sedevacantist and reject the Second Vatican Council's cession of legal authority to secular states in which the church operates. But even pre Vatican 2 doctrine would only hold that church law trumps civil in the domain of a Catholic king or confessor state, which obviously doesn't apply to Australia.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not Catholic myself.
I reject the label "sedevacantist" as well, for various reasons.
Catholic doctrine holds that all States have a duty to submit to God and His Church. There is no special privileges/exceptions given to States that neglect their duty in this regard. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Fair enough, sorry to put a label on you that you didn't choose. It was just the only term I was familiar with.
No, I'm referring to the fact that no civil government has authority over the Church. Not even a constitution itself can require violating the seal of the confessional.
You didn't actually reply to @Isaac's comment (and user-tagging doesn't work here yet).
Tried to. Not sure why it ended up here.