Of course, somebody outside the Church will point out that you’re simply assuming the conclusion under this point. I think it’s perfectly sensible to say that in your opinion no interest, even saving the lives of thousands of people, could ever outweigh the absolute interest in the sanctity of the confession. I also think that there are some acts (say, torturing or murdering a small child) that could never be justified ethically, no matter how many lives might be saved thereby. The difference, I would say, is that it is possible for me to discuss that “balance” outside the context of my specific religion, while the balance you make will only make sense to your co-religionists.</p>
<p>Hunt- I would think that the notion of attorney-client privilege would be similar in some ways to the confession scenario. The attorney cannot reveal what the client tells him under any circumstances. </p>
<p>Likewise- there is doctor/patient confidentiality- which also protects a bond between individuals. Could a doctor reveal that his patient has AIDS to others- even if the patients says he/she is going to go out and whoop it up with as many folks as possible in order to infect them? No- the doctor cannot reveal that patient’s medical condition.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. Except that you must consider the theological/rational/whatever basis for the belief within the appropriate context, in this case Catholicism, in order to understand it and, I would posit, discuss it productively.</p>
<p>That’s not true. Every state has a list of “reportable” diseases which by law the doctor must report. In the case of HIV, the state health dept. will attempt to find and notify the patient’s sexual contacts. That would likely require his/her cooperation, but it is the doctor’s responsibility to report it. </p>
<p>Likewise, health care workers/psychologists/psychiatrists are required to report suspected child abuse even if it means breaching the patient’s confidentiality.</p>
<p>I don’t know how “absolute” the attorney/client privilege is in the case of a public health crisis or imminent danger to the public, but the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement is not absolute.</p>
<p>In re post 125 The bridge was discussed on the first 3 or 4 pages, BBoy, and sporadically throughout. I urge you to re-read all post to find opinions on that here</p>
<p>You may ask whatever you want to ask, indeed. It makes, however, no sense and honestly does not reflect well on your knowledge and state of mind to ask questions that have already been answered, refuse to read previous answers, and (implicitly at best) demand answers to those same questions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the sky is blue. That statement has just as much relevance as the fact that priests acting in persona Christi is not explicitly in the Bible (and even that is arguable).</p>
<p>OK since persona Christi has no Biblical base, why is it necessary to confess sins (type makes no difference, sin is sin) to another human being? One can confess directly to God. The curtain was torn down!</p>
<p>My knowledge isn’t in question, Baelor, and you continual personal attacks are getting tiresome and annoying.</p>
<p>BalconyBoy, I wish you wouldn’t divert this thread into another slugfest over Catholic doctrine in general. Obviously, you don’t believe it. But more on topic:</p>
<p>
This is where I don’t agree. While the sanctity of the confessional is doctrine of your religion, it is also a privilege (priest-penitent) recognized in our law. And like all such privileges, we as a society have to decide whether we will allow that privilege to exist without exceptions. As noted above, there are exceptions to the doctor-patient privilege, and there are exceptions to the attorney-client privilege as well. So let’s imagine (and it’s not too hard, after some of the referenda that were passed in some states last night) that a state passed a law that said, “Any person receiving credible information of an impending terrorist attack has a legal obligation to report that information to the police, irrespective of any privilege previously recognized by law.” How will you convince us that this is a bad law?</p>
Yes it does, the Roman Catholic Church believes it does. But, as Hunt says you want to argue Catholic Doctrine.</p>
<p>
I won’t convince anyone it’s a bad law. It is probably a good law. Just like the obligation to report child abuse is a good law.
However, a Priest is not only beholden to man’s law but to God’s law as well.</p>
<p>If the Church started making exceptions to the sanctity of the Confessional - that would open a Pandora’s box. Sinners would stop confessing their sins and no Priest would be trusted - hence they would cease to act as Christ.</p>
Do you really think people would stop going to confession if the law I suggest above was passed? I think nothing would change, except that a few priests might go to jail for refusing to reveal information under subpoena.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that. I said that Priests must uphold God’s law and God’s law requires the sanctity of Confession.<br>
Once a Priest puts Man’s law ahead of God’s law - game over. This is why the Church ‘rewards’ martyrs.</p>
<p>If Priest’s could make the individual judgement on the sanctity of Confession then who would the confessor trust? They would quit going (not that they go now anyway ;))</p>
<p>You can certainly consider it from a secular perspective, it just doesn’t shed light on the theological implications. I’m not saying only address it in the context of the religion; I’m saying that it is necessary in order to understand it. The law may not care about theology, and I’m not saying it should.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t even a valid question. Have you taken courses in rhetoric and/or logic? The protasis of this sentence is totally irrelevant. Consider the following,</p>
<p>"OK since Persona Christi wasn’t spelled out in my alphabet soup (which I had with a nice glass of soda on the side) at lunch today, why is it necessary to confess sins (type makes no difference, sin is sin) to another human being?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhm. My answer, justifiably, would be, “The protasis here has no effect on the apodesis. Thus, I will not answer the question as it is currently formulated.”</p>
<p>I am sorry BBoy has chosen an uninformed view. I have no objection based on what he feels about confession. But please! Don’t ask us to repeat the same responses we already gave many pages of answers to. It’s like he’s come in in the middle of a movie and wants us to explain to him all that he missed. The first few pages discussed many aspects of confession, not only if the Bible specifically required it. By saying there is “no point” to it, it is clear he has chosen not to look at the many responses and varying reasons for confession. As has been thoroughly discussed here on pages before, there were many points to confession in addition to directly quoting the “need” for it from the Bible. Instead, he is essentially asking all here to repeat their answers from earlier because he chooses not to read what has already been answered.</p>
<p>I’ll ask this rhetorical question to BBoy- Is there any point to speed limit laws, since they aren’t mentioned in the Bible? Could it be that though this example wasn’t taken directly from the Bible yet there is a point?</p>
<p>There are a lot of things that aren’t mentioned in the bible that Christians believe…Where’s the word, “Trinity”? Where’s the format for Christian weddings? Where’s Christmas determined to be Dec 25? Where is the formula for determining Easter? Where in the Old Testament do they mention which books should be included in the New Testament? I could go on.</p>