Posted on 02/05/2016 5:55:33 PM PST by marshmallow
A Delaware superior court judge has questioned the constitutionality of a state law that protects the secrecy of sacramental confession.
State law mandates the reporting of suspected child abuse except in cases covered by the attorney-client privilege and conversations "between priest and penitent in sacramental confession."
Ruling in a case involving the failure of elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses to report child abuse, Judge Mary M. Johnston said that if "priest," "penitent," and "sacramental confession" are interpreted narrowly, then the law is unconstitutional because its "effect would be to advance certain religions over others."
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
It ain’t how much as that there is any. Funding bringing islam into free countries is insane. Just one hidden case of diddling kids is too much.
It is not hard to be honest and defeat evil. islam, Dindus, illegals and Gibsmedats are evil. Defeat them, don’t defend them.
What is your plan, consistent with our Constitution, to eliminate every person in the United States who does things you believe are wrong?
Actually, Protestant pastors don’t have the same privelege that Catholiic priests do.
Many of the Protestant religions have similar "Rites of Confession" that are recognized by state and federal laws. An ordained minister/priest/pastor is bound by the seal of the confessional, but they are also bound to protect the innocent. It is possible to do both, just a bit tricky to keep the spirit and letter of God's law with the spirit and letter of Man's law. Telling law enforcement that a child is endangered does not break the seal of the confessional. Telling law enforcement who is endangering the child would, though.
I know it’s complicated by innocent until proven guilty.
If you are guilty of wrong that harms innocents, you must confess and anyone that knows you are guilty of same must turn you in.
How hard can honesty be?
A judge believes himself above God and religion.
Are we going back to the time of the pharaohs?
Actually, they do. It depends on the state.
Oh. I didn’t know that. Dad was a preacher in NY in the ‘50s and ‘60s, and it was a “thing” then and there.
So your plan is simply that anyone who does anything you consider bad will confess to the police on his own initiative?
This seems rather unrealistic to me. As far as I can tell, much of what you consider bad, such as being a welfare recipient, is neither illegal nor considered wrong by the average American.
Or
The Judge could simply be an idiot.
Well there’s that and then you will have no one confessing. Of course I’m sure if one confesses (who is not one of the inner circle priests) then the first item of business is to admit what they have done. So unless they are a priest being protected by the church they can’t be forgiven until they admit what they have done and accept their punishment.
Of course I’m not catholic, but my ex-wife is so I may be wrong on how all that works.
It’s okay to be wrong as long as it’s not at the expense of the innocent.
Every action taken in error harms someone.
...Oh, I didn’t know that...
Thats OK.
Uniform Rule of Evidence 505 a guide to The Feds and States defines clergy as a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him. As you can see, the Uniform Rule provides a broad definition; in fact, the privilege would even apply to an individual who is not clergy as long as the parishioner reasonably believed he was. While many jurisdictions have used the Uniform Rule as a guideline, most have altered the definition in one way or another.
For example, Michigan defines clergy broadly, to include a minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner.
>Every action taken in error harms someone.
Sometimes an action with intention harms someone. To kill the ones trying to kill you or loved ones for revenge or hate is not wrong.
I would do it again and again until the evil are gone.
I’m sure that’s lovely, but you’ve taken quite a step from wiping out all welfare recipients, petty criminals, and illegal immigrants, as your previous posts suggested. Of course, every single one of them could be trying to kill you or your loved ones, I suppose ...
You’re awfully vague on what you want done, exactly, not to mention how it relates to the seal of the confessional. Perhaps you imagine that all sorts of high-level criminals, child molesters, and members of the U.S. Senate are rushing to confess on Saturday from 4:30-ish to maybe five of five. Like in the movies.
Nope. Old people. Middle-aged moms, guilt-wracked, with kids who don’t think they’ve done anything wrong ... kind of like most real criminals and U.S. Senators.
As long as their sins harm none other than themselves, I’m good with it.
ALL true!
What on earth does that have to do with the sacrament of reconciliation? Or is that just another driveby shot at the RCC?
“If the Catholic religion is the only one with “sacramental confessionâ€...”
It isn’t. Eastern Orthodox, and even some Lutherans and Anglicans have it too. And I thought it extended to all faiths when it came to confidential matters. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_Pastor_Confid_.cfm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.