Ireland stepped up its battle with the Roman Catholic Church over child abuse Sunday, with Justice Minister Alan Shatter vowing to pass a law requiring priests to report suspicions of child abuse, even if they learn about them in confession.
The Catholic Church regards information learned in confession as completely confidential. But under the law proposed by Shatter, priests could be prosecuted for failing to tell the police about crimes disclosed in the confession box.
Shatter said in a statement through a spokesman last week that priests’ failure to report what they learn in confession “has led sexual predators into believing that they have impunity and facilitated pedophiles preying on children and destroying their lives.”
The minister’s comment to a local radio station Sunday comes after the Vatican rejected Irish accusations that church leaders sought to cover up extensive abuse of young people by priests in Ireland…
Released July 13, the 421-page report into the handling of abuses in the diocese of Cloyne demolished claims by the Catholic Church in Ireland that policies it put in place in 1996 had enabled it to get a handle on the problem.
It also accused Bishop John Magee, who was responsible for policing abuse in his diocese, of not backing the policies himself and failing to take action against abusers.
Overdue.
During a visit to Ireland awhile back, I had a very interesting conversation with someone in law enforcement.
He said that so many kids disappeared without a trace in that country that it would fill up a phone book. He accused the church of facilitating this tragedy and that things were looking up but they still had a long way to go. I asked why this wasn’t known more in the press. His answer, “The church is powerful in Ireland.”
Interesting tidbit (and no bearing on my above conversation that I can see) — 48% of the people in Ireland are under the age of 26.
LL–so what you’re saying is the cops rather than checking the confessional box for clues, they should be checking the dorm rooms at the Monasteries for imprisoned youngsters==lost forever into the Priesthood?
Sounds about right to me.
On my own visit to Ireland I was awestruck (sic!) by the various shades of green you could see in any landscape. Right after a rain with those shafts of light around the clouds–it was breathtaking. I could feel the poet being coaxed out of me.
Who’d a thunk there would be a connection between weather and literary creativity?
Yes, everything is connected to everything else.
Of course if anyone feels the need to confess and be forgiven by God then they can… without any need for a priest.
And it’s completely confidential!
#43, Heretic!
The simpler solution is for people to STAY AWAY FROM THE “CHURCH” IN DROVES !!!
But I predict that the “Church” will come out for the elimination of “age of consent” laws, making it open season on kids still in the “Church” !!!
And shielding them from future lawsuits that DRAIN MONEY FROM THE “CHURCH” THAT SEEMS TO ONLY BE ABOUT MONEY !!!
Caveat Emptor and YMMV !!!
#43 great point. The problem all started when the middlemen got involved.
#40 “Let Pedro do the mindless personality calls.”
You’re not too far behind. I’m not delicate, just like more signal and less noise.
#39 I would let them keep charitable status, but only on income used for actual charity. Non-religious groups need a ton of backup for 501(c)(3) status. Don’t see why we look the other way if the dude is wearing dress and claims to be an afterlife travel agent.
Alt if you’re still here, are you saying people routinely go to another church to give confession?
How many people are covered by a single priest? I would think he would know who is in the confessional most of the time, at least in small towns like we might see in Ireland.
I’ve been thinking about the tax exempt status of churches and here’s what I’ve concluded. It isn’t that churches are getting special treatment. They are getting NO treatment.
Here’s something I posted in another thread. I think it still applies.
As soon as you start taxing churches, you are automatically favoring some over others. The tax system in the US is designed around social engineering (buy a house, get married, have kids, buy this car, donate to this charity, employer-provided health insurance, sin taxes, etc.).
Do you really want the government using the churches in this country to further its own agenda (abortion and anti-abortion, gay and anti-gay)? This may sound appealing if your party of choice is in power, but what happens when your party is NOT in power?
I shudder at the thought of the government funneling billions of dollars to a church to brainwash its followers into thinking “the right way.”
Pretty soon, all the small-town country churches are out of business because the bigger churches sent lobbyists to DC to get the regulations written in their favor and now we only have three or four big churches all preaching for us to pray for our Dear Leader who is working too hard.
You may not like churches but as soon as you start regulating them, they will be in your bed every Friday and Saturday night.
bobbo, really?
“There is no such thing as forced self-incrimination.”
and
“I CHALLENGE YOU to name any legal circumstance comprising involuntary testimony against one’s self.”
1) Extraordinary Rendition. Secret prisons. Guantanamo. “Enhanced interrogation.” Waterboarding.
2) The popular practice, especially in the Southern states, of interrogating people too ignorant to invoke their right to representation, for 15 to 20 hours or more without a break.
3) Strictly speaking, even the widely accepted practice of forcing people to be fingerprinted could be called involuntary self-incrimination.
#49 oh lord. Where does thou begin.
Church gets no treatment ? No government money? Really ?
#49 “Do you really want the government using the churches in this country to further its own agenda”
Religious orgs are happy to try and influence government policy, so I think turnabout is fair play.
Your point about mega-churches taking over is already happening. Their model is to provide a wide variety of very targeted services to members with different interests. That’s really the secret. It isn’t one big room with 10k people, but a vast collection of smaller groups that get together on Sunday. Many of the services provided look a lot like non-religious businesses(dating service, child care, performance art, themed leisure activities).
Maybe it’s time to redo charitable status tax rules to create a mixed status. Focus on the money flows within these massive organizations rather than just declaring it a black box.
#50–Uncle Patso==congrats. A fair reply. I could accept it as written, but let’s see what some contrarian person might parse:
“I CHALLENGE YOU to name any legal circumstance comprising involuntary testimony against one’s self.”
1) Extraordinary Rendition. /// Is that “legal?” Is it fair to say we are subjected to this when who knows how many/few have been and most of those are not US citizens? When is an aboration fairly said to be part of our system?
Secret prisons. Guantanamo. “Enhanced interrogation.” Waterboarding. /// Same response as above. All have troubling aspects though. I don’t worry about any of these when I get stopped by cops though. Am I being naive?
2) The popular practice, especially in the Southern states, of interrogating people too ignorant to invoke their right to representation, for 15 to 20 hours or more without a break. /// Statistics?==I doubt this is true. More urban myth. Jack Bower TV mentality???? Such interrogations are illegal–still need money to have “all” your rights defended though. Money and justice==always an issue.
3) Strictly speaking, even the widely accepted practice of forcing people to be fingerprinted could be called involuntary self-incrimination. //// Strictly speaking–absolutely not. there is no “testimony” and such evidence is called “objective” evidence. Can’t lie about it, can’t be coerced into having different dna and such.
Well done and right you are===depending on what is meant.
Herman Cain, a refreshing change from DU nutters:
http://breitbart.tv/herman-cain-releases-very-unique-web-ad/
#52, Church gets no treatment ? No government money? Really ?
Really. They might get recognition, but they do not get any government money through tax breaks, tax incentives, stimulus funds, or grants. Bush tried the latter, under the guise of self-help, but it didn’t work out too well.
#52, Religious orgs are happy to try and influence government policy, so I think turnabout is fair play.
Chuckle. There is that word again, “fair.”
Who determines fair?
You are playing with fire if you are serious about that. We’ve been through one reformation. I would really hate to go through another.
Your point about mega-churches [...]
And your point is? Join one if you want their services. But that isn’t an excuse to give them favorable or non-favorable tax treatment.
The hypocrisy and culpability of DU progressives is offensive.
Perversion is progressive liberation, when a sicko is brought to justice; progressive justices let them go Scott free or with such meager sentencing as to be openly supportive of perverts.
Progressives are the reason perverts are now out of the closet running for office.
The solution is not overturning freedom of religion; the solution is executing perverts, quickly dispatching them to the Almighty, without delay.
That is, within a week, not after years on death row.
#55–Lucidity Loser==I think you lost something in not wanting to exactly repeat what you previously said. You were mostly wrong the first time, totally wrong this time.
What else is an income tax exempt organization except one that is getting a tax “break?” Not paying taxes is the very definition of a break.
I assume you simply lost track of your previous argument in your dogma induced haze???
HAW, HAW!!!!
I think the separation of church and state has gone way too far. Nothing at all in Church Dogma prohibits it from paying taxes. They should preach social and political values recommending to their sheep openly who the better political candidate is and pay taxes like everyone else. Why not?
As far as interfering with their internal operations: thats just what society should demand of them==just as they do with everyone else. This here thread just another example of the type of interference that should be had and isn’t.
Religion: a good example of how stupidity like a stone hits the pond of civilization and generates disruptive ripples out as far as its mania will allow.
Yea, verily.
#55
“but they do not get any government money through tax breaks, tax incentives…”
They are tax exempt, which is a decent sized break.
“… stimulus funds, or grants”
Many charities that receive government assistance are religious. Look here: http://www.hhs.gov/partnerships/
“Who determines fair?”
Notice the presence of ‘I think’ in the sentence you quote. No way are my opinions the objective standard of truth, but I like having/sharing them anyway. I’m not tax exempt though.
Big money religion is probably the most adept at working the intricacies of campaign finance law, and greatest violators of the spirit of those laws.
“And your point is? Join one if you want their services”
The point is that they get the status because they are a charitable organization, or at least that’s how the law is written. Other non-religious charities also appear to be playing dirty.
If a non-religious 501c org is spending a majority of it’s receipts on executive pay or fundraising, and some spend a LARGE majority on those things, I don’t think they should get tax exemption either.
There are good works, and then there are abusive tax shelters. A quick look at the head office will give you a good indication…
#58, They are exempt because by using social engineering (i.e., the US Tax Code), the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” clause would be violated.
It’s that simple.
If we didn’t have the totally useless tax code we have now, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I can see a tax code interpretation that said, “churches that encourage their members to buy Ford Expeditions will get a 15% tax deduction” or “churches that don’t pray for our fallen troops twice during a service don’t get the Patriot Tax Break.”
Worse yet, I see deals between candidates and churches — “Hey, you preach my virtues in service and I’ll see you get a grant for a new Sunday School Wing.” And then the church names the wing after said politician.
Don’t laugh. It would happen.
And I see your point on the hhs site, but the majority of charities are religion based because religion is where you find the majority of givers. As long as the charity isn’t funneling money to the church, I don’t have a problem with it.
Point taken on “fair”.
Regarding Church vs State, the Bill of Rights states that government shall make no laws regarding religion. Government does, however, make laws regarding religion indirectly, such as how the IRS deals with churches.
The Constitution says nothing about “separation of church and state” (that’s a Liberal/Leftist Fiction), only that laws can not be made (directly) regarding religion. That restriction is expressly one way, government towards religion.
It says nothing about religion influencing the government the same as any other special interest can (and does). Tax exemption for churches is a function of tax code which includes places of worship under general non-profit rules without actually mentioning religion. And that still does nothing regarding individual parishioners who have the same rights as any other special interest group’s individuals.
I was not too happy about Bush’s Faith Based Initiative programs which gave government money to religious groups. While church charities can and often are models of cost effectiveness in rendering aid to those in dire need, most of them cannot scale up rapidly (read “sudden influx of government money”) and still retain that cost effectiveness unless they’ve already got a pretty big membership (read “volunteer”). I can easily imagine Obama’s old church saying, “God Damn the Honkies/Crackers/Amerikkka/the Middle Class/Republicans/The Rich, Amen.” whenever they handed out government funded aid via Bush’s program.