.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« It is a condition of Confessional Absolution that the penitent is truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more; if these conditions are not met then the Absolution is invalid.

The priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves »
.

If we accept the idea that paedophilia is a health problem (a mental disorder, a neurological abnormality or a psychological pathology) – which, for want of a better explanation, I do – then I have no difficulty understanding that some paedophiles have immense difficulty resisting their natural sexual attraction to young children. It must be a constant struggle for them. A genuine moral and psychological torture.

For those paedophiles where this is the case, whether they be priests or not, I see no reason to think that they are not, as you say, truly sorry for their “sins” (acts) and that their “resolve to sin no more” (never repeat the offence again) is not genuine. Quite the contrary, I am convinced that there are many such paedophiles, perhaps even the majority.

But, to my mind, that does not exclude the possibility that they might lose the interior battle that hounds them, persecutes them and pursues them relentlessly, and reoffend – not just once, but time and time again.

The philosophy of the Christian Churches or their hypothetical God in respect of paedophilia is no concern of mine. I am concerned with the risk to young children of paedophiles within the community, and especially within the clergy.

As I indicated in my post on page 7 of this thread, paedophile priests necessarily knew of their sexual orientation well before taking up their religious vows and should never have become priests.

That said, Is Mise, I can find nothing to substantiate your interpretations of either confession or absolution :

Confession :

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=31425

Absolution :

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=78
.

Would you be so kind as to indicate your sources ?

Many thanks.

.

Dear Foxy,

«Murder, rape, threatening or endangering life are considered major indictable crimes in this country.»

Nevertheless, the state could change that at any time: all is needed is a democratic majority, to legislate that under specified conditions, murder and rape are not only fine, but even mandated.

My question, though, was addressed to you personally: it wasn't a question about the state, but about yourself and what would YOU do if such a thing, God forbid, happened. You still have not answered this.

I think that you misunderstand the term "theocracy":

In a theocracy, churches/clergy make laws for other people, forcing them to follow religious (or supposedly-religious) observances.

This would be terrible, but it was never suggested, neither by myself nor by anyone else here.

«Just societies enact laws to promote general welfare.»

Just societies never devastate innocent people, even if it somehow promotes general welfare. Just societies never instruct people to act against their conscience, to kill their mother or anything else that would give them an equivalent pain, such as the case of ordering Christian priests to disclose what they heard in confession.

Just societies, also, are voluntary: they never force anyone to be counted as belonging to them against their will.

«And yes, I would sleep very soundly if I knew that children's lives were being saved.»

As I explained over and again on this thread, not a single child's life will be saved.
Likely, children's lives will be lost instead due to their suicide, once confession is no longer available to them.

«I would sleep very soundly if I knew that children's lives were being saved.»

How would you feel if you were ordered to kill your own children because this would somehow save the life of your neighbours' children?

How would you feel about belonging to and supporting an organisation that instructs others to do so? Still sleeping well at night? Are you this cruel indeed?

I find it hard to believe that you are: more likely you just lack the skill to enter into other people's shoes and recognise their pain and anguish.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Isn't it wonderful when you have a prophet to tell you in advance whether your rebellion will succeed or fail?

It would indeed be interesting to count how many times in the bible prophets spoke in favour of open rebellion and how many times against. The most obvious case of being in favour, is the great Exodus from Egypt.

Surely you don't think that ALL that Jesus taught his disciples is in the gospels: after all he spent years with them and also some teachings were quite personal. Suppose he did speak in favour of rebelling, how likely do you think would it be for the disciples to dare to include it in the gospels?

Yes, Daniel's story is very inspiring: I wish and pray I had the same courage!

Yes, the issues of child abuse is a black mark on the churches, yet 90% (just a guess) of the priests are true believers and not child abusers, and so are 99% of those who come to confession. As a result of this legislation, confessions will have to stop, not a single child-molester will be caught this way, but all good people will greatly suffer as a result.

«But this is not asking to turn in any professing believer, but to turn in those who harm children.»

The problem is that there is no way to tell in advance who is going to mention child-sexual-abuse in the confessional, thus ALL confessions will need to stop. You can place big notices and ask people not to do it, but what if they do it anyway?

«I know you're not a Christian Yuyutsu, but are Hindu.»

On this issue you can count me as a Christian. I am totally with you here and we, religious people, the people of God, must support each other, especially in times of need and trouble.

To Yuyutsu.

Child abuse is bad enough to make amends and changes, and have those changes stick. I don't think mandating priests to tell on their confessors will solve anything, but at this point, losing the right to confession without a possible consequence might be a solid step in showing that the authorities in the church are ready to make steps to correct a great misdeed within the church. I'm not sure how much this will affect confession or destroy it from being practiced. I bet there's a decent amount of harm this will do to stop people from confessing at a confessional. Especially with how the nature of some social movements go. Ask for a little concession now and use that to take everything else away latter.

If such a legislation does pass though, I wonder how many people will abide by it? If it will split the church over the practice of safe confession verses obeying the law, or if it will be more wholly accepted or rejected by everyone. Perhaps a look at countries that have mandated the priests to this kind of law have some experience on the response by priests within their borders and the results after it.

As for rebelling. I don't see the Exodus in Egypt as a rebellion. The people didn't fight the pharaoh. God did after He had Moses warn the Pharaoh to let His people go or face the consequences. I'm not aware of any times in the old testament that God spoke well of rebelling against the governing authority. The closest I know of is active war with the Canaanites, or later the ongoing wars with the Philistines. Those weren't rebelling though, those were war and God evicting the sins of the Canaanites from the land. (Something done to Israel as well temporarily when they were conquered by Babylon).

(Continued)

(Continued)

I see no reason to think that Jesus would teach to rebel when many of His teachings say to do the opposite.

When asked to walk a mile, walk two is one teaching to take the law of the land that Roman solderers can burden anyone to walk up to a mile carrying their things without punishment. What does Jesus say? When asked to walk one mile, walk the extra mile.

Same with a generous heart, if someone asks for a shirt give your coat too.

When tested by religious leaders on the taxes demanded on them, Jesus rebuked them and said it's Caesar's coin. Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and give to God what is God. To say that Jesus also taught secretly in private to rebel makes no sense to believe, and flies in the face of so many other teachings He did teach as recorded in the gospels.

If I could see this as just a religious issue and standing up for religious rights then it could be possible that I count you and I as the same in this fight. I can't though for two reasons. One, you don't believe the accounts of the bible as they are recorded, (or else you wouldn't try to throw in your seeds of doubt). And Two,if you were a Christian and believed in the bible, I would still have the same rebuttals to your stance between you and Foxy regarding your views of not acknowledging the authority of the government, or seeming to advocate open rebellion to fight against the authority.

Jesus did not say to rebel. He warned us of persecution, and to persevere through it and trust God through the hardships. Do not fear men who can destroy the body (kill you), but fear God who can destroy the body and the soul. Jesus also said that the authorities will have to answer to God. So with that in mind I would think Jesus's teaching are saying don't rebel, but let God handle it. Trust in God even if it means to lose your life.

Banjo,

Try, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

for Confession, and it is axiomatic that if the penitent is not truly sorry for his sins and does not resolve to sin anymore then the Absolution is ineffective, and its ineffectiveness rests with the penitent.

As to why homosexual paedophiles and the few "straight" ones become priests or members of religious orders, one can only assume that they see it as a glorious opportunity to practice their perversions.