In the news today, a Catholic priest decided to break his vow of silence and exonerate an innocent man that HE KNEW WAS INNOCENT FOR THIRTEEN FUCKIN' YEARS. He finally sung to the authorities after the real killer, who "confessed" during a Catholic "confession", croaked.

Now, let me get this straight. You or me, if we have someone confide in us for a murder, we would be sent to prison for "accessory after the fact", or "aiding and abetting a fugitive", or "conspiracy" or some such shit. But these pedophile Catholic priests, because they are backed by "God's emissary on Earth", the Pope (read, Mafioso in Vatican City), they are given the same privilege as an attorney/client?

What the hell is wrong with this picture, uh, other than the fact that AN INNOCENT MAN SPENT 13 YEARS LOCKED UP, TAKING IT UP THE ASS, BECAUSE OF RELIGION?

Al-D? Frank? Any body?

-- Cathy Catholicism (answer@this.one), July 25, 2001

Answers

Praise God the perp croaked!

There must be thousands out there that know a "truth" but don't for one reason or another come foreward. Doubt this priestly fella would find anything in scripture that rewards innocent suffering over sin.

Just goes to show it's gettin tough to find good help out there divine or otherwise.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 25, 2001.

Hi Cathy! I'm religiously screwed up enough to explain it to you. Ministers -- not just Catholic priests -- have "privileged communication" by law. The same legal principle keeps your defense attorney from revealing what you said to her. I don't know if the same legal principle covers your communications with your shrink or not.

If your attorney spills your beans, you may have legal grounds to sue. If a priest spills your beans, he could be "defrocked". (Stoppit right there, Boswell!) To be defrocked is to be un-ordained. This is a really bad thing if you happen to be a priest, and not just a Catholic priest. There are priests in other branches of the Christian religion.

You almost never hear of a priest spilling the beans. It isn't because of a potential law suit, though I suppose he could be sued. It's because the thought of being cut off from his life within the context of being Christ's representative on earth is something hardly any priest would willingly contemplate.

This particular priest says he was directed by the guilty party to clear the wrongfully accused after his death. Until then, the priest could not act and remain a priest.

Before you chuck out legally immune conversations, talk to your attorney.

-- helen (al_d@take.a.turn.at.it), July 25, 2001.

When is the price too high? Certainly any vows to God don't include being implicit to 13 years of suffering by an innocent man. That a guilty might enjoy freedom thru silence is one thing but this case cries to divide Papal loyality from justice among men and God's as well. God's justice to the innocent is unserved here. Sometimes you just have to say fuck the Pope and the church's teachings as well.

BTW, how did this priest keep track of the perp after 13 years to know he'd died? Checkin obits maybe?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 26, 2001.

Yeah I know. It's "complicit". U guys are tough.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 26, 2001.

Carlos, if a confession is not covered by "privileged communication", then the perp might never have confessed in the first place. The innocent would remain in jail for the rest of his sentence. Thirteen years in prison is a bad thing, but the alternative is for the innocent to finish the sentence.

-- helen (dont@ask.dont.tell), July 26, 2001.

Cathy, a discussion between a priest and a parishioner are very confidential, just as a discussion between lawyer and client. When someone confesses a sin to a priest, that person must be assured that it is in strictest confidence and the priest will not discuss these sins with any other person. If any priest were to break that trust, he would also break his sacred vows.

Sorry you don't understand the necessity for this trust and the sacredness of a priest's vows. For Catholics, confession is an important step toward reaching heaven. If parishioners could not confess, they believe that they will not reach heaven. It may sound stupid to you but this faith is stronger than an innocent life behind bars. Maybe we should be questioning the capability of the detectives to do their work in finding the real perpetrators.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 2001.

To muddy the water further, my understanding of this case is that the fellow did not confess this in a formal confession - yet the priest still felt bound to secrecy.

-- flora (***@__._), July 26, 2001.

Father Francis, I confess that I tortured and murdered three innocent children. You won't tell anyone, right?

You are forgiven. Say 10 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers. God bless you my son.

-- (Fr Guido Sarducci@Vat.city), July 26, 2001.

I know that Father Sarducci is speaking from ignorance because it doesn't happen that way.

-- Father Silence (man@of.the.cloth), July 26, 2001.

Of course not. It's actually 5 Hail Marys and 10 Our Fathers.

-- (for@your.info), July 26, 2001.

HOW did,the confess to a man/priest thing ,get so warped??? why not a 1-1 with GOD ,and let the priest confess his own sins. gee, my bible say's =we who are believer's=are all priest's ,unto GOD,AND JESUS never mentioned=hail mary's.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 26, 2001.

Al, Catholics DO confess their sins to God. The priest acts as a counselor. Priests aren't telepathic, so if you say you repent, they believe you repent. Only God knows for sure. Why go in there and say anything if you haven't really repented? God would still know. People get Catholic confession mixed up with human legalities. Priests aren't detectives. Priests don't work for the justice system. What you confess to God in front of a priest is never revealed because it took place between you and God.

-- helen (dont@ask.dont.tell), July 26, 2001.

What you confess to God in front of a priest is never revealed because it took place between you and God.

Huh? Didn't it take place in front of God AND A PRIEST?

Is NEVER revealed? Gimme a break!! The priest is just a man! No more...no less. A man subject to the same sinful nature every other human is on this planet.

-- Priests R Sinful Humans 2 (asking@telling like it is.com), July 26, 2001.

So I wonder how many lawyers are walking around today who have had clients admit to a crime but got off anyway because of their legal defense. Or vice versa. Do wonder, tho, why that priest didn't approach the d.a. years ago and say that someone else confessed to him about the crime in question. He wouldn't have to say who, and being a priest his word would have been pretty good, seems to me.

-- shakespeare was right (lawyer@question.here), July 26, 2001.

A lawyer is legally responsible to give the individual he/she is representing the best possible defense. To whom is a clergy member accountable -- only to the one individual under their care, or to the community, whether those people are members of their faith or not?

http://www.lc.org/OldResources/clergy.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle? item_id=317

http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp? pageLoc=/story/84/story_8493_1.html&boardID=21171

-- Firemouse (thewholeworldachurch@gaia.planet), July 26, 2001.

If you want to talk to God, what the hell do you need a priest there for? Screwy if you ask me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 26, 2001.

>>If you want to talk to God, what the hell do you need a priest there for? Screwy if you ask me.

Then don't do it.

Catholics believe that Jesus told his disciples-- the first priests-- what sins you forgive are forgiven, what sins you bind are bound. Now, either Jesus meant what he said, or he was just some crazy guy.

Since Catholics believe in Jesus, they accept the commission as delivered. Pretty simple.

Yep, priests are human, and have throughout the centuries been killed for not revealing the secrets of the confessional. They take the vow seriously, which is something normal people in the 21st century find very hard to do- even find it strange. This seriousness of the vow, of course, is why believers confide.

AND it's lots cheaper than going to a psychiatrist.

-- Jamie (You.Got@Potty.Mouth), July 26, 2001.

The sanctity of the confessional is necessary because without it, the whole apparatus of Catholic confession is completely unworkable. Obviously, if a sinner believes his confession will become public knowledge, then he won't confess to anything above the level of venial sin and will keep any mortal sins locked in his heart. That much is a dead certainty. A priest is expected to endure torture rather than divulge the secrets of the confessional.

So, as some of you have asked, why get the priest involved at all? Pretty much because the priest is entrusted with the care of the souls in his parish - as God's vicar on earth. The priest needs to know in order to do his job of sheparding his parishoners' souls to safety.

It's one of those things that, if you believe the inital premise, then the rest falls out of it rather naturally. If you reject the inital premise, then of course the rest of the conclusions seem unsupported.

The Catholic Church has an answer for just about every question you could ask. You may not like their answers. You may not agree with them. But they are fairly systematic and logical, once you accept a certain set of axioms. That's what the scholastics spent the whole Middle Ages doing - setting up the church as a nearly bulletproof theological structure.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 26, 2001.

Jamie,

I talk to God all the time. All by myself, without outside help.

I am not sure what "what sins you forgive are forgiven, what sins you bind are bound" has to do with needing to have a priest help you to confess your sins. To me, "what sins you forgive are forgiven" means that if you forgive others their trespasses, you will be forgiven too, by God.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 26, 2001.

Unk,

Unless you are willing to go through years of indoctrination in the belief system of the Catholic Church you will never understand this. Some of us were "fortunate" enough to be born into the system so we have an ingrained knowledge of this God-priest-sinner thing.

Anyway, this subject is like many others that are discussed here. People have there own beliefs and no amount of discussing or arguing about them will change either side.

BTW, all born again christians are now invited to give thanks to the Catholic Church for preserving knowledge of the new and old testaments so that they can now criticize catholic doctrine. Those weren't Baptists illimunating all those old books and scrolls you know. With that I will now duck.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 26, 2001.

{ducking as well, to avoid any of JBT's incoming}

In case anyone missed the news, here's a quick write-up of this 'street priest's' case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/aponline/20010723/aponline153405_000.htm

"Priest Testimony Tests Catholic Law"

-- flora (***@__._), July 26, 2001.

Ahhhhh.....so I will never understand because I have not been brainwashed?

Interesting.

*ducks and runs*

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 26, 2001.

The penance for not informing me that the address was bad IS to be subjected to a nasty cut & paste. Go now, sin no more - dammit!

Priest Testimony Tests Catholic Law By Tom Hays Associated Press Writer Monday, July 23, 2001; 3:34 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK –– The Rev. Joseph Towle saw himself as a "street priest" on a mission to get hoodlums to cleanse their souls. But last week in federal court, it was Towle's turn to make a confession.

For 12 years, he said, he did not tell anyone that a teen-ager had admitted to a murder for which two others are now serving time.

Towle, 65, testified that he kept quiet because he considered the 1989 confession by Jesus Fornes confidential. But once the priest learned his heart-to-heart talk could be central to an appeal by the two men who say they were falsely convicted in the 1987 slaying, he questioned whether it was a sacramental confession as defined by Roman Catholic law. He reached the conclusion that it wasn't, even though he had absolved Fornes of his sin.

Besides lending high drama to the case, the priest's decision to come forward has posed the question of what constitutes a confession in the Roman Catholic Church.

Prosecutors oppose the request for a new trial, saying eyewitness accounts and other evidence prove the two defendants are the killers.

They also say that Fornes' words are a theologically valid confession and are thus inadmissible in court under a state law establishing the "clergy-penitent privilege." Under the law, the privilege can be waived if the confessor agrees. However, Fornes is dead; he was killed four years ago.

A federal judge is expected to rule this week on whether the two men deserve a new trial.

Across the country, state courts have generally ruled that priests and other clergy are not required to disclose admissions made by congregants. Last month, for instance, a Washington state judge ruled that a jury may not hear a man's alleged confession to a church elder in a molestation case.

The disclosure by Towle was cleared beforehand by the Archdiocese of New York.

But Rev. John Beal, head of the canon law department at Catholic University of America, said the priest's testimony raises serious questions.

Was it a sacramental confession?

"If he gave him absolution, I don't know what else it could be," Beal said.

Beal said priests can take confessions in any setting, and granting absolution – "I grant you pardon and peace, in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit" – should have bound Towle to absolute secrecy.

The theological dilemma arose from the gritty streets of the South Bronx in the late 1980s. Fornes was a member of a street gang called the Wolf Pack.

"These were not churchgoing boys," Towle said. He said he Fornes' "street priest."

Towle described receiving a phone call from Fornes, then 16, summoning him to the teen's home. The despondent teen-ager told him that he and two others stabbed and beat to death a man who had attacked one of them during an earlier dispute. Fornes also allegedly claimed two defendants convicted of the murder, Ruben Montalvo and Jose Morales, were never there.

"Was he confessing, was he having a heart-to-heart talk with you, what was he doing?" U.S. District Judge Denny Chin asked during last week's hearing.

"I am very careful about the word 'confession' because it can be used in many different ways," Towle said. "It was a heart-to-heart talk where he was feeling very badly that two of his friends had been accused and convicted of something which he had done."

Towle admitted under cross-examination that the blessing he "tacked on" at the end of the encounter was absolution.

At the priest's urging, Fornes revealed his story to an attorney for Montalvo and Morales just as the two were to be sentenced in 1989. But when called to testify, Fornes invoked the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his own lawyer. The priest also remained silent.

In an exchange of letters beginning in 1995, Montalvo asked Towle for help with his appeal, prompting the priest to seek the advice of the archdiocese legal department.

Towle told church officials that his quandary did not involve a sacramental confession, only a confidential conversation. So testifying for Montalvo is a matter of civil – not Catholic – law, archdiocese spokesman Joseph Zwilling said.

Zwilling said the archdiocese agreed that under the circumstances, the priest could make Fornes' statement public.

In court, Towle defended his interpretation of the conversation: "I am a well-trained theologian and a well-trained pastor, and I am in a position to make a judgment as to whether this could be divulged."

-- flora (***@__._), July 26, 2001.

Now you're catching on Unk.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 27, 2001.

One of the kids came home from catechism class and asked me if I believed "all that stuff". This was the ultimate test of parental religious responsibility. I opened my mouth to say "yes", and "no" came out. Must have been God's will. The child was relieved and has been fairly happy in church since.

Unk, the confessional thing is overrated by non-Catholics. It's not a big deal. I don't even worry about what I'm going to say and then I forget about it. Of course, I've been booted out of confessional and told not to come back until I get it right. Always consider the source of your information. >;)

-- helen (lukewarm@gets.spat.out), July 27, 2001.

>>I talk to God all the time. All by myself, without outside help.

Catholics do this, too, of course, as can everyone.

>>I am not sure what "what sins you forgive are forgiven, what sins you bind are bound" has to do with needing to have a priest help you to confess your sins. To me, "what sins you forgive are forgiven" means that if you forgive others their trespasses, you will be forgiven too, by God.

It's possible to forgive anyone's misdeeds against YOU. How can you forgive them when the transgressions are against others, or are against God, since you have no legal standing, and presumably no personal interest? This difference is why Jesus' charter in this case was much broader than just a personal turn-your-cheek, and in fact was given at a time of general passing of orders.

-- rjr (johnnyreb@bismuth.com), July 27, 2001.

Kind of like going to the GYN.

-- name (123@456.com), July 27, 2001.

The Catholic Church has an answer for just about every question you could ask. You may not like their answers. You may not agree with them. But they are fairly systematic and logical, once you accept a certain set of axioms. That's what the scholastics spent the whole Middle Ages doing - setting up the church as a nearly bulletproof theological structure.

Yeppers...Just ask Gallilaio.

They did all they could possibly do to keep earth as "The Center of the Universe". And look what happened because of that...Fremont now is the center of the known universe.

If they would have just allowed the knowledge that Capernucus (sp) discovered to be knoen and believed, science could have advanced a heck of a lot faster then it did.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 27, 2001.

LN, I agree with you. If you believe the premise then the rest just falls into place.

Jamie, it *is* cheaper than going to a psychiatrist and protected by the same laws.

Unk, you haven't been brainwashed and you haven't been instructed on it either. A few brief phrases on this forum won't explain it to you and poor 'Cathy' knows it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 2001.

"I talk to God all the time. All by myself, without outside help."

Yes and so do lots of folks but most don't hear any words back from GOD (or they can't be sure). The priest is just a man true but a man who has studied the religion, just as much as any other professional studying their field and can provide feedback in that field. More than just 'forgiveness', I'm sure the priest recommended that this teenager go to the authorities and turn himself in. I'm sure he gave him counseling on how to make things right.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 2001.

The bible has a passage recommending that Christians confess their sins to each other. I think. I'd have to dig it out and look for it.

Confession with a priest involves counseling specific to your problem. I've visited several Christian denominations extensively, and congregations who practice formal confession as part of their religious habits seem to experience a high degree of psychological health as a group.

One of the reasons formal confession helps me is that I would hate to have to confess the same thing again, so I'm more motivated to avoid repeating it. If the sin is repeated, I can always engage in strategic priest selection. Or I could listen to the guy the n+1 time around. >;)

-- helen (its@been.a.year.fr), July 27, 2001.

Cherri, the core problem the Catholic church had with Copernicus and other scienctists is the exact same one that the Protestant fundamentalists have with Darwin. All of the axioms of the faith are derived from what is written in the Bible. Once you admit that the Bible may be fundamentally in error in one passage, it is less easy to assert its infallibility in another passage.

It is kind of like a DA deciding whether to use a witness. If the defense attorney can rip up the witness's credibility by showing he lies with great regularity, then the jury will dismiss the witness's account - even when it can't be proved that the account is a lie.

Christians who believe their faith is exclusively true have an enormous stake in the Bible's accuracy for that reason. Take away the specific claims of the Bible and Christianity starts to look indistinguishable from many other religions and moral systems.

This difficulty is the exact theological equivalent of the Copernican revolution that took the earth out of the center of the universe. Demoting the Bible from an infallible true history to a set of meaningful, insightful myths would mean that Christianity is no longer the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, but merely another religion. Christians hate that. Oh, don't they just hate that with a passion!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 27, 2001.

Hey Unc, I was *once* told my brain needed a good washing.

Go figure :-)

-- yep (Sez@me.com), July 27, 2001.

LN. that is one way to look at it. You seem to think it is the only way.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.

" that is one way to look at it."

Fine. And another way (yours for example) is... what?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 27, 2001.

Hey sumer!

Nice to *see* you stranger!

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), July 27, 2001.

Sumer. DoEs YoUr BoY Have WeePinG SoRes On HiS boDy?

-- (Its@YouR.faUlT), July 27, 2001.

My way? I'm convinced that no one knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth---especially those who claim that they do, be they Christians, Muslims, atheists or "scientists".

Yet I also believe that there are eternal, unchanging truths and I am not uncomfortable believing that the "truth" (ie, that which is) is God's truth. Beyond that, all in good time.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.

Being mean to sumer is wrong.

-- helen (bad@bad.wrong), July 27, 2001.

Lars:

My way? I'm convinced that no one knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth---especially those who claim that they do, be they Christians, Muslims, atheists or "scientists".

Yet I also believe that there are eternal, unchanging truths and I am not uncomfortable believing that the "truth" (ie, that which is) is God's truth. Beyond that, all in good time.

That answer is a major; not to be exceeded by anyone; cop-out. It isn't an answer to the question.

Come on, my old friend; give an answer.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 27, 2001.

helen,

Given his behavior on this board you have to wonder what a complete confession of his real life activities would reveal.

Pax Vobiscum

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 27, 2001.

Sorry Z, that's all there is.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 27, 2001.

Deus Vobiscum, JBT. :)

-- helen (tomorrow@is.i.love.you.day), July 28, 2001.

There once was a priest from Paree

who went to the cloister to pee

He said "pax vobiscum,

oh why won't the piss come?

I must have the C-L-A-P"

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 28, 2001.