Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He has nothing to do with religion and there is nothing in it for making you proud to be an Atheist.
IMO, this monster priest is the ACTUAL ATHEIST who has no consciousness and no fear of God - You should be ashamed to have one of your kind cloaked in a religious attire.
Another straw man murdered, tortured to death by twisted logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
There are many such Atheists in all religions posing to be religious men, but in fact they don't have an iota of belief in the God and his justice that will be served to ALL. And this is what makes them Atheists.
No, not believing in gods would be what makes them atheists. And should any atheist be condemned for serving a community in a religious way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Sorry and Sad for the child.
This monster Atheist who has posed to be a Priest should be put to death if convicted in a fair trial.
Thank you for the correction - it was a Mormon bishop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Another straw man murdered, tortured to death by twisted logic.
No, not believing in gods would be what makes them atheists. And should any atheist be condemned for serving a community in a religious way?
Or that priest who is not an atheist ...
Religious leaders begin their path believing in God. Some lose their faith and refuse to give up the job and its benefits. It's a job that gives you instant respect, control over people and a pulpit to be admired from by a community. In the case of Catholic priests, there is no marriage which suits a sociopath.
However, in this case, a Mormon Bishop conducted a sacrament under the requirements of his religion. End of story.
THE REST OF THE STORY that the article linked by the OP doesn't tell you:[LIST][*]The father confessed to the LDS bishops in 2011 precisely one incident of abuse involving the 5-year-old daughter.[*]The bishops urged the father and mother to report the abuse; they refused.[*]The bishops sought the advice of church attorneys – who, as you will see, gave correct legal advice.[*]The couple was excommunicated from the church in 2013; most of what is described in the linked article occurred after the excommunication.[*]The trial judge originally ruled against the church, saying the events were so ghastly that the confessional privilege had been waived.[*]The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge, finding that the privilege was sacrosanct.[*]In April, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals.[*]When the case went back to the trial judge, he had no alternative but to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court.[/LIST]Apparently the judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court are heartless beasts who fail to grasp what the geniuses on this forum see so clearly. Ya think? Perhaps they just understand that hard cases make bad law.
Because my state Texas is one of the six states that includes clergy in the duty to report, I looked up the statute. Fortunately, my teaching career involved only high school students and ended via retirement before the statutes were in anything like their present form. Bear in mind, the duty to report extends to any "child" under 18.
Priests typically do not hear happy things in confession. Imagine priests having to sort through whether what they have just heard might constitute "abuse" or "neglect" of a child as defined below.
Yes, the Arizona case is ghastly. Apparently the years of sexual abuse of a 6-month-old baby and 5-month-old toddler went unnoticed or at least unreported by the mother, grandparents, physicians and God knows who else within the victims' circle – but we're going to pretend LDS bishops who sought the advice of church attorneys after hearing about precisely one incident in 2011 are somehow responsible?
This is why hard cases make bad law. The knee-jerk reaction always ignores the realities of the situation and the unintended consequences of the supposed solution.
Here you go, my fellow priests and bishops - figure out whether what you just heard confessed imposes a duty to report.
[FONT="Courier New"]Sec. 261.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person:[INDENT](A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;
(B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;
(C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm;
(D) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child;
(E) sexual conduct harmful to a child's mental, emotional, or physical welfare, including conduct that constitutes the offense of continuous sexual abuse of young child or disabled individual under Section 21.02, Penal Code, indecency with a child under Section 21.11, Penal Code, sexual assault under Section 22.011, Penal Code, or aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021, Penal Code;
(F) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child;
(G) compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct as defined by Section 43.01, Penal Code, including compelling or encouraging the child in a manner that constitutes an offense of trafficking of persons under Section 20A.02(a)(7) or (8), Penal Code, solicitation of prostitution under Section 43.021, Penal Code, or compelling prostitution under Section 43.05(a)(2), Penal Code;
(H) causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing the photographing, filming, or depicting of the child if the person knew or should have known that the resulting photograph, film, or depiction of the child is obscene as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code, or pornographic;
(I) the current use by a person of a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner or to the extent that the use results in physical, mental, or emotional injury to a child;
(J) causing, expressly permitting, or encouraging a child to use a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code;
(K) causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing a sexual performance by a child as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code;
(L) knowingly causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing a child to be trafficked in a manner punishable as an offense under Section 20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8), Penal Code, or the failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent a child from being trafficked in a manner punishable as an offense under any of those sections; or
(M) forcing or coercing a child to enter into a marriage.[/INDENT]
(3) "Exploitation" means the illegal or improper use of a child or of the resources of a child for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain by an employee, volunteer, or other individual working under the auspices of a facility or program as further described by rule or policy.
(4) "Neglect" means an act or failure to act by a person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare evidencing the person's blatant disregard for the consequences of the act or failure to act that results in harm to the child or that creates an immediate danger to the child's physical health or safety and:[INDENT](A) includes:
(i) the leaving of a child in a situation where the child would be exposed to an immediate danger of physical or mental harm, without arranging for necessary care for the child, and the demonstration of an intent not to return by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of the child;
(ii) the following acts or omissions by a person:
(a) placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a situation that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities and that results in bodily injury or an immediate danger of harm to the child;
(b) failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, with the failure resulting in or presenting an immediate danger of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child;
(c) the failure to provide a child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, excluding failure caused primarily by financial inability unless relief services had been offered and refused;
(d) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to an immediate danger of sexual conduct harmful to the child; or
(e) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to acts or omissions that constitute abuse under Subdivision (1)(E), (F), (G), (H), or (K) committed against another child;
(iii) the failure by the person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare to permit the child to return to the child's home without arranging for the necessary care for the child after the child has been absent from the home for any reason, including having been in residential placement or having run away; or
(iv) a negligent act or omission by an employee, volunteer, or other individual working under the auspices of a facility or program, including failure to comply with an individual treatment plan, plan of care, or individualized service plan, that causes or may cause substantial emotional harm or physical injury to, or the death of, a child served by the facility or program as further described by rule or policy; and[[/INDENT][/FONT]
Another straw man murdered, tortured to death by twisted logic.
No, not believing in gods would be what makes them atheists. And should any atheist be condemned for serving a community in a religious way?
Or that priest who is not an atheist ...
Actions speak louder than words.
He can say he is a religious man who believes in God and he believes in reward of Heaven and the punishment of hell - but his actions make him look otherwise. And that is, neither does he actually believe in God, nor Heaven or hell. Which makes him a TRUE CORE TO THE HEART Atheist!
And as I said, it’s not only in Christianity - such hardcore Atheists exist in every religion. Wolves in a sheep skin.
Morally cautious and God fearing men, don’t do these things.
Thank you for the correction - it was a Mormon bishop.
Religious leaders begin their path believing in God. Some lose their faith and refuse to give up the job and its benefits. It's a job that gives you instant respect, control over people and a pulpit to be admired from by a community. In the case of Catholic priests, there is no marriage which suits a sociopath.
However, in this case, a Mormon Bishop conducted a sacrament under the requirements of his religion. End of story.
Since I have the person to whom you were responding on Ignore, I'm not sure of the context here but I will say:
1. Religious leaders of every sort and at every level are subject to incredible temptation. Whether one thinks this is attributable to Satanic forces or not, the fact is that religious leaders are almost uniquely attractive targets for some forms of temptation. I know from experience that the wise ones take truly extraordinary measures to avoid such temptation. My favorite pastor would simply never be alone with a woman other than his wife - not in his church office, not in a car, not anywhere else.
2. Being a religious leader does not magically eradicate human nature. The assorted lusts are extremely powerful. Some who genuinely believe in God and have not lost their faith at all nevertheless succumb to temptation in jaw-dropping ways - and those, of course, are the ones we hear about. I'm a pretty firm believer, yet I often succumb in non-jaw-dropping ways that cause me to join with Saint Paul in shaking my head and saying "I can't believe I just did that. It's contrary to everything I believe."
3. Religious leaders are expected to be paragons of virtue at an unrealistic level. This puts them under tremendous psychological pressure. When they crack, it tends to be in jaw-dropping ways. I believe this is the case with many Catholic priests. Celibacy is so contrary to human nature and core human drives that trying to maintain it simply isn't realistic - hence, the effort tends to go off the cliff not just in occasional fornication but in homosexuality and child molesting. By no means have all these folks lost their faith.
THE REST OF THE STORY that the article linked by the OP doesn't tell you:
The father confessed to the LDS bishops in 2011 precisely one incident of abuse involving the 5-year-old daughter.
The bishops urged the father and mother to report the abuse; they refused.
The bishops sought the advice of church attorneys – who, as you will see, gave correct legal advice.
The couple was excommunicated from the church in 2013; most of what is described in the linked article occurred after the excommunication.
The trial judge originally ruled against the church, saying the events were so ghastly that the confessional privilege had been waived.
The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the trial judge, finding that the privilege was sacrosanct.
In April, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals.
When the case went back to the trial judge, he had no alternative but to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Apparently the judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals and Arizona Supreme Court are heartless beasts who fail to grasp what the geniuses on this forum see so clearly. Ya think? Perhaps they just understand that hard cases make bad law.
[post snipped to keep only the relevant part]
Of course the courts ruled the way they did. Judges make rulings based on the law, supported by legal precedents. The law in Arizona allows this to happen. The question before the court wasn't about the legitimacy of the law, which would have been a very different question. Because of the way the LDS church is organized, with lay people making up much of the organization, it wouldn't even be clear how the law would apply even if priests were mandatory reporters in that state.
He can say he is a religious man who believes in God and he believes in reward of Heaven and the punishment of hell - but his actions make him look otherwise.
No, his actions makes him look like a bad religious man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
And that is, neither does he actually believe in God, nor Heaven or hell. Which makes him a TRUE CORE TO THE HEART Atheist!
No, his actions are that of a Catholic priest, therefore by your logic he is a Catholic.
And as you are being dishonest, by your logic, you too are an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
And as I said, it’s not only in Christianity - such hardcore Atheists exist in every religion. Wolves in a sheep skin.
Morally cautious and God fearing men, don’t do these things.
So all these Muslims who kill themselves to go to heaven do not believe in heaven?
In this case, the individual taking the confession is a complete layman despite the title of "Bishop". I don't know what the law might be in that case as compared to an actual authority figure or a professional such as a doctor, counselor or someone like that.
Certainly, there is an ethical dilemma here if not a legal one. Maybe Katzpur knows how the LDS church advises their Bishops and other authority figures manage confession.
This is from the LDS Bishop's Handbook:
In some countries, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops. These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused. They should also call it if they become aware of a member viewing, purchasing, or distributing child pornography.
The help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Phone numbers are shown below. (A list of phone numbers to report abuse worldwide was listed here.)Bishops and stake presidents should call the help line when addressing situations involving any type of abuse. Legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions. These professionals will also give instructions about how to:
Assist victims and help protect them from further abuse.
Help protect potential victims.
Comply with legal requirements for reporting abuse.
The Church is committed to complying with the law in reporting abuse (see 38.6.2.7). Laws differ by location, and most Church leaders are not legal experts. Calling the help line is essential for bishops and stake presidents to fulfill their responsibilities to report abuse.
A bishop should also notify his stake president of instances of abuse.
In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president. The stake president should seek guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office. He is also encouraged to counsel with the Family Services staff or the welfare and self-reliance manager at the area office.
Of course the courts ruled the way they did. Judges make rulings based on the law, supported by legal precedents. The law in Arizona allows this to happen. Because of the way the LDS church is organized, with lay people making up much of the organization, it wouldn't even be clear how the law would apply even if priests were mandatory reporters in that state.
I have now located the Arizona Court of Appeals opinion and can speak even more intelligently about this case, as opposed to those who speak with no clue whatsoever as to what they are talking about.
Here is the opinion: [url]https://casetext.com/case/the-corp-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-sts-v-cardinal[/url]
I could not locate the Supreme Court opinion, so possibly it was unpublished or just a simple affirmation of the Court of Appeals opinion.
In Arizona, it seems, clergy are subject to the mandatory reporting requirement. However, there is an exemption for things learned in a confessional setting to which the priest-penitent privilege applies.
The Court of Appeals said the exemption is a narrow one and is interpreted restrictively. The privilege can also be waived.
The trial judge found that the father had waived the privilege by blathering about his abuse to others. The Court of Appeals, however, said that a waiver of the privilege requires both disclosure of the facts to third parties AND disclosure of the confession itself. Here, the father did not disclose his confession. (These facts do suggest, however, that plenty of others could have reported the abuse.)
The Court of Appeals likewise considered whether the privilege applied to the LDS officials, who were allegedly just a ward clerk and members of a disciplinary commission. You can read the short opinion yourself, but suffice it to say the court decided the privilege did apply.
Here is the LDS Church's official response to the errors in reporting, such as those in the article linked by the OP: [url]https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8/17/23310740/statement-from-church-on-arizona-sex-abuse-case-mormon-lds[/url]. This is a newspaper article, but the full church statement appears in it.
Virtually NOTHING mensaguy says is true or informed by even a minimal understanding of the case. In other words, par for the course on forums such as this - particularly when we have the opportunity to vent our anti-Christian spleens and strut our woke faux outrage. (The "most shocking case" of "religious abuse," I tell you! REALLY?)
Last edited by O'Darby; 11-17-2023 at 09:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
