Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

There is no generic duty to report crime, so anything like the above would need a major overhaul of the law.

And not before time.

[Nearly Sane]

And not before time.

What sort of law do you envisage?

[jjohnjil]

jj,

This priest in particular didn’t seem to me to be “fervent” and the point is that as a general principle such people think – really think – that they answer to a higher authority on matters such as the sanctity of the confessional, so I suspect that his response would be more common than you think. I also wonder by the way whether the child abuse scandal is in part at least explained by the certainty of the perpetrators that they’ll be right with god come what may so mere secular concerns aren’t that big of a deal to them. 

I’ve no idea – it’s not my problem. If though someone belongs to a club that’s decided that a rule is inviolable regardless of the circumstances and then he want to start chipping away at it for hard cases, then it’s up to him (or his club) to tell us where (if anywhere) he draws the line. The point I was making though is that in my view the certainty of faith beliefs can be utterly corrupting.     

My point was, if the confessional didn't exist, there would be no chance of such a heinous crime coming to light before disaster struck.

[Roses]

My point was, if the confessional didn't exist, there would be no chance of such a heinous crime coming to light before disaster struck.

And how many priests reveal it, even if it meant a terrible tragedy could be prevented, if it meant disobeying Catholic law?

[jjohnjil]

And how many priests reveal it, even if it meant a terrible tragedy could be prevented, if it meant disobeying Catholic law?

I think they would, even if privately.  A bomber who thought priests had to go to the authorities wouldn't confess to anyone.  I would rather he confessed and that there be a chance that the priest would speak out instead of keeping it to himself.

Don't forget, a bomber who was of any other religion or none wouldn't tell anyone, so no one would get the chance to go to the authorities.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I have been that side of the fence, Blue. What someone does who believes that they have to violate God's rule is throw his or herself on his mercy. If you believe that God is merciful then you take a chance.

Well, that doesn’t seem to have been the case regarding some confessions at least of child abuse when the perpetrator has been left to carry on abusing. As to the general idea though, you’d have to ask a sample of priests what they’d actually do but so far as I  understand it the “seal” of the confessional trumps all other considerations, no matter how heinous they may be.   

A priest confessing to another priest about abuse is laden with the need to protect the church and the priesthood. For comparison, I've seen the medical profession close ranks to protect each other even though it potentially compromised the protection of a child. The drive that people have to protect their 'tribe' and their own self-interests is a pretty disgusting aspect to humanity. But I guess at one time it served an evolutionary purpose.

Perhaps, but I’d be surprised if in, say, the medical profession a doctor telling his doctor that he was abusing a child would cause a closing of ranks such that nothing was done. Admitting to a one-off incidence of negligence that caused a patient death perhaps, but surely not a continuing situation?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj

My point was, if the confessional didn't exist, there would be no chance of such a heinous crime coming to light before disaster struck.

But that's not really a point (or at least not the point). We're talking here about cases when the crime does come to light, albeit in the very odd circumstance of a confessional. No morally aware person not bound by a "seal" would just sit on his hands, but the certainty of the faith belief that a god wants confidentiality above else else changes that. That's the point. 

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Well, that doesn’t seem to have been the case regarding some confessions at least of child abuse when the perpetrator has been left to carry on abusing. As to the general idea though, you’d have to ask a sample of priests what they’d actually do but so far as I  understand it the “seal” of the confessional trumps all other considerations, no matter how heinous they may be.   

Perhaps, but I’d be surprised if in, say, the medical profession a doctor telling his doctor that he was abusing a child would cause a closing of ranks such that nothing was done. Admitting to a one-off incidence of negligence that caused a patient death perhaps, but surely not a continuing situation?   

People close ranks. It's what they do. Not necessarily in the scenario you describe, but in exposing people to harm.. it happens.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

People close ranks. It's what they do.

Are you seriously suggesting that a doctor (for example) would close ranks in the case I described and leave the other doctor free to keep on abusing? Seriously though?

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi,

Are you seriously suggesting that a doctor (for example) would close ranks in the case I described and leave the other doctor free to keep on abusing? Seriously though?

You mean like the following 'industrial scale cover up'?


https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-apologises-to-victims-of-infected-blood-scandal-11509407

[Rhiannon]

You mean like the following 'industrial scale cover up'?


https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-apologises-to-victims-of-infected-blood-scandal-11509407

Or Hillsborough...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi/NS,

No, not like either of those things. I'm talking about prospective situations - cases where person A says to person B, "I'm doing a terrible thing and I'll keep doing that terrible thing" and person B does nothing to prevent it. 

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi/NS,

No, not like either of those things. I'm talking about prospective situations - cases where person A says to person B, "I'm doing a terrible thing and I'll keep doing that terrible thing" and person B does nothing to prevent it.

Not really seeing the difference in real terms, and in the case of the blood poisoning, the cover up meant more people died

[Rhiannon]

Rhi/NS,

No, not like either of those things. I'm talking about prospective situations - cases where person A says to person B, "I'm doing a terrible thing and I'll keep doing that terrible thing" and person B does nothing to prevent it.

If we look at some on the hospitals we can see that deaths carried on even after concerns were noted. There are some ongoing investigations into deaths of mothers and babies in some maternity units going back years.

There are also the cover-ups where silence is to conceal the failure to end abuse or similar by a third party. Heads get shaken, promises are made; nothing changes and kids still die or fall into the hands of those who pimp them or get them involved in gangs.

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45757510

A two week old baby is in hospital in NI after being raped, a man is in custody. If convicted he should never see the light of day again. 

[SteveH]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45757510

A two week old baby is in hospital in NI after being raped, a man is in custody. If convicted he should never see the light of day again. 

And the relevance to the thread is...?

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45757510

A two week old baby is in hospital in NI after being raped, a man is in custody. If convicted he should never see the light of day again. 

Wrong thread?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Not really seeing the difference in real terms, and in the case of the blood poisoning, the cover up meant more people died

It’s the difference I guess between acts of omission and acts of commission. If one doctor had said to another, “I know this stuff is poisonous but I’m going to keep administering it anyway” and the second quack had done nothing about it then the situations would be analogous. If that is what happened then fair enough, but my understanding is that it was more of a cover up of the failure to investigate after the event.

Rhi,

If we look at some on the hospitals we can see that deaths carried on even after concerns were noted. There are some ongoing investigations into deaths of mothers and babies in some maternity units going back years.

See above. Were “concerns” not investigated, or was a substance unequivocally known to be contaminated administered nonetheless? “I’m abusing children and will continue to do so” seems to me to be more akin to the latter than to the former. 
 

There are also the cover-ups where silence is to conceal the failure to end abuse or similar by a third party. Heads get shaken, promises are made; nothing changes and kids still die or fall into the hands of those who pimp them or get them involved in gangs.

Yes I know, and for lots of bad reasons – fear of being branded racist being one of them. So far as I know though, the social services, police etc involved in these failures weren’t acting as they did because they were carrying out correctly the rules of the organisations to which they belonged. Of course if in each case the result is that children were unnecessarily harmed that’s equally appalling, but failing to carry out the rules properly or rules that can be changed in the light of experience are one thing. How would these opportunities to get it right in future work with an institution that thinks that an inviolable “seal” is divinely ordained?     

[jjohnjil]

jj

But that's not really a point (or at least not the point). We're talking here about cases when the crime does come to light, albeit in the very odd circumstance of a confessional. No morally aware person not bound by a "seal" would just sit on his hands, but the certainty of the faith belief that a god wants confidentiality above else else changes that. That's the point.

Blue

It's a catch22 situation though.  A confessional is a place where a criminal feels free to get his crimes off his chest, so it's also a chance for the priest to persuade him to do the right thing.  He can be told that all sorts of nasty things will happen to him if he doesn't give himself up and stop the catastrophe happening. But he has to trust the priest.

The guy you mentioned who told you on this forum that he would never betray that trust had no choice but to say that.  If he had said on a public forum that he and any other priest would always tell the authorities in that situation, no bomber or anyone else would ever confess again.

That said, I think he would in fact never keep such a disclosure to himself. Having dozens of small children's deaths on his conscience would outweigh any other concern - in my opinion. anyway     

[Alan Burns]

jj,

But you can criticise him I think for just dismissing rather than addressing the determined vs binary problem that applies equally to his soul conjecture. "It's magic" seems to be enough for him, but I see no reason for anyone else to be satisfied with that. Indeed, using our friend Occam if "it's magic" is good enough for his soul, even if there weren't the findings we have from neuroscience in particular we could just make the same defence and be done with it without the additional assumption of "soul" all.

Something tells me though that AB won't accept "it's magic" for brains even though he insists on it for "soul". That's called special pleading - one of the dizzying array of logical fallacies he commits on a regular basis.       

But the magic claim is on your side, Blue.
Magic is an illusion.
It is you who will claim that my freedom to consciously compose this post is "just the way it seems", implying that my freedom to consciously control my thoughts is just an illusion.
But I claim that it is not an illusion, it is not magic.
My freedom, and everyone else's is demonstrably real.
It is a freedom which defies any physical explanation, because such physical explanation will remove any concept of freedom and consign everything to be derived from consequences of physically controlled reactions.

[Gordon]

It is a freedom which defies any physical explanation, because such physical explanation will remove any concept of freedom and consign everything to be derived from consequences of physically controlled reactions.

You're never far from your favourite fallacies, Alan.

[torridon]

But the magic claim is on your side, Blue.
Magic is an illusion...

Wrong.

Magic is impossible, whereas illusions are commonplace,especially in matters of human perception.  for example :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0 

Nothing magic about illusions

[Alan Burns]

Wrong.

Magic is impossible, whereas illusions are commonplace,especially in matters of human perception.  for example :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKa0eaKsdA0 

Nothing magic about illusions

And nothing illusionary about my freedom to consciously compose this post.
Illusions are demonstrably not real.
But my freedom, and yours, is demonstrably real.

[torridon]

And nothing illusionary about my freedom to consciously compose this post.
Illusions are demonstrably not real.
But my freedom, and yours, is demonstrably real.

You haven't demonstrated 'freedom' to write the post.  Fact is, you wrote the post because you wanted to; and since we have no freedom to choose our wants, there is no real freedom in the situation.  At all times, we do what we most want, we can do no other.

[wigginhall]

Alan uses the word "demonstrably" in a strange way.   For him, it seems to mean "I think it, therefore it is real".   This seems different from its normal usage, whereby I demonstrate something to the satisfaction of others.   For example, if I say that there is demonstrably a new star in Cassiopeia, that requires further demonstration, and in fact, agreement by others, based on their own observations.   They won't just take my word for it, and if they can't find it, my claim fails.  It's not demonstrably anything.