Article Re: Clergy/Penitent Privilege

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How is being married at 14 "fundamentally" bad?

That you have to ask this question is actually disturbing to me. Do you really want me to start explaining why marriage at 14 is fundamentally bad? Would you want your daughters to get married at the age of 14?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That you have to ask this question is actually disturbing to me. Do you really want me to start explaining why marriage at 14 is fundamentally bad? Would you want your daughters to get married at the age of 14?

I’m not surprised you’re disturbed at being disagreed with.  

I would not choose marriage at 14 for my daughter. But there are a lot of things that God sees fit to bring into my children’s lives that I would not choose so I don’t use that as a standard to judge what is fundamentally good or bad for all of mankind.  Neither is my daughter currently in a position or culture where I can conceive of it being God’s will for her.

In a different culture/society under different circumstances (and of course completely depending on the husband), there are situations where I could conceive of it being a blessing for her that God would condone or bring about.  Especially in societies where women are or were viewed and treated like adults after puberty.

There isn’t anything fundamentally bad with marrying at 14. Plenty of cultures throughout the ages have had such societal norms and there wasn’t a thing wrong with it.

Does that mean I’m suggesting it’s always or even often a good thing? No, of course not. 

[Calm]

Calling all Catholics!

Timing is everything…

So I just started watching a French police procedural and the murder turns on the concern that the priest won’t keep the confession confidential and in fact he tells the Bishop if anything happens to him, it won’t be an accident…which is one of the reasons they suspect murder….talk about altering his behaviour based on a confession….

Supposedly in France (or at least on this TV show they are acting like that is the rule) priests are told to break confession if it has to do with abuse of a minor under 15….I am already going hmmm….

Then the bishop explains absolution is granted after confession if three conditions are met:   Detestation of the sin,  resolution not to commit the sin again, and penance.

But here is the real kicker…if the conditions are not met, then the priest has the option to refuse to grant absolution and if he refuses, then these is no confessional seal and the priest can choose to break confession with being excommunicated himself.

That is a false story line just to justify the drama of killing a priest, correct?  No such qualifier attaches to the confessional seal where the priest has the right to toss it out say if he thinks they are still tempted to sin or hasn’t done enough penance.

What are the conditions surrounding absolution?  I was under the impression it was granted if confession took place, but are there conditions to receive absolution?

Edited December 11, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

In a different culture/society under different circumstances (and of course completely depending on the husband), there are situations where I could conceive of it being a blessing for her that God would condone or bring about.  Especially in societies where women are or were viewed and treated like adults after puberty.

We aren't dealing with the past. We aren't dealing with other cultures and societies. We are dealing with present day US policy questions here.

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

There isn’t anything fundamentally bad with marrying at 14. Plenty of cultures throughout the ages have had such societal norms and there wasn’t a thing wrong with it.

Again, I am going to disagree. Let me put a little context on your justification here. I am going to replace one context with another -

"There isn't anything fundamentally bad with slavery. Plenty of cultures throughout the ages have had such societal norms and there wasn't a thing wrong with it."

Who here thinks that girls at age 14 are capable of making a well informed decision about getting married? About having sex? About having babies? Who here thinks that the statistics suggest that this is a good thing? Underage marriages in the US have the highest divorce rates (even at a time when divorce rates for other groups are dropping). Early marriage statistically impedes education. It is associated with very high poverty risks. When a girl who is married is a minor, they often have difficulty managing their own affairs (because while they may be filling some adult roles as wife and potentially a mother, they aren't legally adults). Even the US State department has argued that arranged child marriages as both human rights abuses and child abuse. It is nearly impossible to distinguish between child marriages (especially on the younger end like 14) and grooming (to put a current spin on it). There is a reason why such marriages are illegal in most contexts in the US. And yet you think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it?

The fact that cultures in the past may have associated adulthood with puberty doesn't mean that girls who experience puberty are adults. The idea that parents have, in the past, arranged marriages, doesn't mean that it is a good thing for girls to be pushed into arranged marriages. The fact that in the past, some states in the US has allowed marriages as early as 12 years old doesn't mean that we should consider this appropriate. Even when we can find historical evidence where underage marriage improved a girls life doesn't mean that we should view this as normal or as good - we should instead be focusing on how to keep people from having such poor living conditions that marriage as a child becomes a good thing by comparison. We should be working very hard to make sure that no child is in that sort of situation.

And, to get back to this thread, the fact that some people have had successful marriages at young ages doesn't mean that they aren't a tiny minority of the statistically expected outcomes of child marriages.

I'll avoid the questions that I really want to ask so that we can stay on topic ...

Edited December 11, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We aren't dealing with the past. We aren't dealing with other cultures and societies. We are dealing with present day US policy questions here.

Again, I am going to disagree. Let me put a little context on your justification here. I am going to replace one context with another -

"There isn't anything fundamentally bad with slavery. Plenty of cultures throughout the ages have had such societal norms and there wasn't a thing wrong with it."

Who here thinks that girls at age 14 are capable of making a well informed decision about getting married? About having sex? About having babies? Who here thinks that the statistics suggest that this is a good thing? Underage marriages in the US have the highest divorce rates (even at a time when divorce rates for other groups are dropping). Early marriage statistically impedes education. It is associated with very high poverty risks. When a girl who is married is a minor, they often have difficulty managing their own affairs (because while they may be filling some adult roles as wife and potentially a mother, they aren't legally adults). Even the US State department has argued that arranged child marriages as both human rights abuses and child abuse. It is nearly impossible to distinguish between child marriages (especially on the younger end like 14) and grooming (to put a current spin on it). There is a reason why such marriages are illegal in most contexts in the US. And yet you think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it?

The fact that cultures in the past may have associated adulthood with puberty doesn't mean that girls who experience puberty are adults. The idea that parents have, in the past, arranged marriages, doesn't mean that it is a good thing for girls to be pushed into arranged marriages. The fact that in the past, some states in the US has allowed marriages as early as 12 years old doesn't mean that we should consider this appropriate. Even when we can find historical evidence where underage marriage improved a girls life doesn't mean that we should view this as normal or as good - we should instead be focusing on how to keep people from having such poor living conditions that marriage as a child becomes a good thing by comparison. We should be working very hard to make sure that no child is in that sort of situation.

And, to get back to this thread, the fact that some people have had successful marriages at young ages doesn't mean that they aren't a tiny minority of the statistically expected outcomes of child marriages.

I'll avoid the questions that I really want to ask so that we can stay on topic ...

It is interesting that many here will softly advocate for more female representation and participation in church affairs, while at same time appearing unconcerned with practices that evidence a subordinate position for women, like child marriage and polygamy. 

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

It is interesting that many here will softly advocate for more female representation and participation in church affairs, while at same time appearing unconcerned with practices that evidence a subordinate position for women, like child marriage and polygamy. 

Exactly. And more disturbing is the fact her post had 6 up votes so far. Evidence of how far we still have to go even within the church . 

 

On Edit. I wonder how many of those upvoting would also be comfortable with a 14 year old boy marrying?

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I would not choose marriage at 14 for my daughter. But there are a lot of things that God sees fit to bring into my children’s lives that I would not choose so I don’t use that as a standard to judge what is fundamentally good or bad for all of mankind.  Neither is my daughter currently in a position or culture where I can conceive of it being God’s will for her.

Is there an age, 13, 12, 11 ..., at which you would disagree with God that your daughter should get married?

[MustardSeed]

If God himself told me that he wanted any girl to marry in today’s culture, anywhere in the world, under the age of 17, I’m afraid it would impact our relationship. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

It is interesting that many here will softly advocate for more female representation and participation in church affairs, while at same time appearing unconcerned with practices that evidence a subordinate position for women, like child marriage and polygamy. 

We can do something about what is happening now.  Activism for something that happened before we were born or when we were children isn’t going to change anything, though it is wise to always try and understand what and why something happened, especially when it allows us to better see how we can make changes now.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We aren't dealing with the past. We aren't dealing with other cultures and societies. We are dealing with present day US policy questions here.

How is a marriage made 60 years ago not in the past?  

Present day we have a 74 year old woman choosing to stay in that marriage.  I assume no one has concerns about consent for her at this time?

And if I recall correctly Danzo’s in law family is not American, so that is another culture and society (even if transported by the family to the US), not a present day US policy question (unless something to do with immigration).

Edited December 11, 2023 by Calm

[Smiley McGee]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

We can do something about what is happening now.  Activism for something that happened before we were born isn’t going to change anything, though it is wise to always try and understand what and why something happened.

This is nonsense. 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We aren't dealing with the past. We aren't dealing with other cultures and societies. We are dealing with present day US policy questions here.

Again, I am going to disagree. Let me put a little context on your justification here. I am going to replace one context with another -

"There isn't anything fundamentally bad with slavery. Plenty of cultures throughout the ages have had such societal norms and there wasn't a thing wrong with it."

Who here thinks that girls at age 14 are capable of making a well informed decision about getting married? About having sex? About having babies? Who here thinks that the statistics suggest that this is a good thing? Underage marriages in the US have the highest divorce rates (even at a time when divorce rates for other groups are dropping). Early marriage statistically impedes education. It is associated with very high poverty risks. When a girl who is married is a minor, they often have difficulty managing their own affairs (because while they may be filling some adult roles as wife and potentially a mother, they aren't legally adults). Even the US State department has argued that arranged child marriages as both human rights abuses and child abuse. It is nearly impossible to distinguish between child marriages (especially on the younger end like 14) and grooming (to put a current spin on it). There is a reason why such marriages are illegal in most contexts in the US. And yet you think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it?

The fact that cultures in the past may have associated adulthood with puberty doesn't mean that girls who experience puberty are adults. The idea that parents have, in the past, arranged marriages, doesn't mean that it is a good thing for girls to be pushed into arranged marriages. The fact that in the past, some states in the US has allowed marriages as early as 12 years old doesn't mean that we should consider this appropriate. Even when we can find historical evidence where underage marriage improved a girls life doesn't mean that we should view this as normal or as good - we should instead be focusing on how to keep people from having such poor living conditions that marriage as a child becomes a good thing by comparison. We should be working very hard to make sure that no child is in that sort of situation.

And, to get back to this thread, the fact that some people have had successful marriages at young ages doesn't mean that they aren't a tiny minority of the statistically expected outcomes of child marriages.

I'll avoid the questions that I really want to ask so that we can stay on topic ...

I should have been more clear so I'm sorry for the confusion.  

I wasn't saying that the fact that both men and women have been getting married young throughout history proves it's not always bad.  I was attempting to illustrate that different times and cultures have supported the practice throughout history with positive results both for the people involved and the communities that support them.

This is true especially in those times and cultures when 14 years old was not considered a child.  I recognize that you don't want to deal with those times and cultures because they negate your statement of fact. But that is specifically why I am bringing them up. 

Your statement of fact was overly broad and made a moral judgment about all marriages that occur at the age of 14, or have ever occurred, or ever will occur, that can't be supported.  

 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

It is interesting that many here will softly advocate for more female representation and participation in church affairs, while at same time appearing unconcerned with practices that evidence a subordinate position for women, like child marriage and polygamy. 

I doubt your ability to follow my nuanced argument on this topic (not because you aren't capable but because I don't think you care to, despite your faux championing of the rights of women).

But, I will say that I would finding it concerning anytime marriage at a young age would put or did put anyone into a subordinate position that was worsened by the marriage arrangement.  However, throughout most of history (and still today in many countries), women are already in a subordinate position, and would/will continue to be in that position regardless of the age they are or were married.  At such times and in such places, the age that they marry has little to no impact on their the status or their position in the home.

While marrying could, in some instances, provide protection and stability to a woman's life that she could not have had access to without it.  

So it's not that I'm unconcerned when women are subordinate to men, it's just that I have a lot of information and knowledge on this subject (not "a lot" a lot, but a lot compared to many other people, especially many men) and I have been exposed to the complexities of the issue that don't always seem obvious from the outside of the subject.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Exactly. And more disturbing is the fact her post had 6 up votes so far. Evidence of how far we still have to go even within the church . 

 

On Edit. I wonder how many of those upvoting would also be comfortable with a 14 year old boy marrying?

 

I would put forth that your knee-jerk reaction to the idea that marrying young is not fundamentally bad could be due to your superficial knowledge on the subject of women's rights and their connections to marriage throughout history.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

If God himself told me that he wanted any girl to marry in today’s culture, anywhere in the world, under the age of 17, I’m afraid it would impact our relationship. 

I can't say this is true for me anywhere in the world (because there is a lot about current world cultures that I don't know), but amen to anywhere where anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor and the laws favor the adult in the situation.

The fact that we let minors enter into legal agreements with adults that the minor then has no legal ability to get out of--who often times cannot even legally hire a lawyer or take advantage of services for abused spouses because they are a minor--and who's legal guardian becomes his or her spouse, is completely insane.

 

[Smiley McGee]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I doubt your ability to follow my nuanced argument on this topic (not because you aren't capable but because I don't think you care to, despite your faux championing of the rights of women).

Your argument is not nuanced. You’re just engaging in apologetics — poorly. You allow for instances of child marriage because Joseph and others married 14 year olds and being consistent would suggest a challenge to prophetic authority, which appears to be a line you won’t cross. This is apparent in many of your “nuanced” arguments on past threads. Like many apologists, when challenged you resort to ad hominem. What you refer to as nuance is just your unwillingness or inability to admit your motives. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Is there an age, 13, 12, 11 ..., at which you would disagree with God that your daughter should get married?

Interesting question.  Today, I don't believe God would want my daughter to be married as a minor.  Definitely never as a child (I'm talking about biologically and not legally since that's a manmade construct that is only applicable based on the laws of the land).  It's hard for me to answer questions about God doing something that I don't believe He would do.

Speaking to the topic generally though, most scholars believe that Mary the mother of Jesus was around 13 or 14 when she married and gave birth.  Most believing Christians aren't really scandalized by that (I don't know if any are scandalized by it but I didn't want to speak in absolutes.  Maybe Ben McGuire since Mary's marriage would have been fundamentally bad from his point of view?).

But we would definitely be scandalized today in our current culture and society by that, and rightly so in my opinion.  We are living in a completely different culture and time than Mary was and just because it was appropriate for her doesn't mean it's forever appropriate in any and all cultures and times.

 

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Your argument is not nuanced. You’re just engaging in apologetics — poorly. You allow for instances of child marriage because Joseph and others married 14 year olds and being consistent would suggest a challenge to prophetic authority, which appears to be a line you won’t cross. This is apparent in many of your “nuanced” arguments on past threads. Like many apologists, when challenged you resort to ad hominem. What you refer to as nuance is just your unwillingness or inability to admit your motives. 

Mind reading is always fun, but only when you can actually do it.  And you've failed spectacularly here (not that you will care). 

I can honestly say that JS and his marriage was not in my mind at all when I made the claims that I did.  I was actually thinking about Danzo, and how brazen anyone would have to be to tell him that his family's experiences were "fundamentally bad" when they know nothing about them other than a few shared facts.

And that led me to considering a lot of what I studied when I was getting my degree in history about women's status and marriage throughout history and how again, brazen, it is to make a statement of fact about 'the badness' of all young marriages throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

In the end such braziness wasn't supported by any evidence so I disagreed with it and outlined why.

No go forth and dismiss my arguments as you will.   

 

[Smiley McGee]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Mind reading is always fun, but only when you can actually do it.

This you?

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

despite your faux championing of the rights of women

 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No go forth and dismiss my arguments as you will.

Dismissed.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

You allow for instances of child marriage because Joseph and others married 14 year olds and being consistent would suggest a challenge to prophetic authority, which appears to be a line you won’t cross.

I don’t think it’s bluebell who is so locked into defending or criticizing Joseph’s marriages here. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If God himself told me that he wanted any girl to marry in today’s culture, anywhere in the world, under the age of 17, I’m afraid it would impact our relationship. 

It's said that the brain hasn't fully matured till mid to late 20's. But I believe it varies, and my maturity is still happening. 😏

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Mind reading is always fun, but only when you can actually do it.  And you've failed spectacularly here (not that you will care). 

I can honestly say that JS and his marriage was not in my mind at all when I made the claims that I did.  I was actually thinking about Danzo, and how brazen anyone would have to be to tell him that his family's experiences were "fundamentally bad" when they know nothing about them other than a few shared facts.

And that led me to considering a lot of what I studied when I was getting my degree in history about women's status and marriage throughout history and how again, brazen, it is to make a statement of fact about 'the badness' of all young marriages throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

In the end such braziness wasn't supported by any evidence so I disagreed with it and outlined why.

No go forth and dismiss my arguments as you will.   

 

Good answer bluebell!

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Calling all Catholics!

Timing is everything…

So I just started watching a French police procedural and the murder turns on the concern that the priest won’t keep the confession confidential and in fact he tells the Bishop if anything happens to him, it won’t be an accident…which is one of the reasons they suspect murder….talk about altering his behaviour based on a confession….

Yeah, that's on the border or across it when it comes to breaking the seal.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Supposedly in France (or at least on this TV show they are acting like that is the rule) priests are told to break confession if it has to do with abuse of a minor under 15….I am already going hmmm….

This is absolutely against church doctrine and law.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Then the bishop explains absolution is granted after confession if three conditions are met:   Detestation of the sin,  resolution not to commit the sin again, and penance.

Penance is not required for absolution. One should perform the assigned penance, but if one forgets or whatever, the absolution is still valid. The other 2 are required.

9 hours ago, Calm said:

But here is the real kicker…if the conditions are not met, then the priest has the option to refuse to grant absolution and if he refuses, then these is no confessional seal and the priest can choose to break confession with being excommunicated himself.

A priest can refuse to grant absolution if he has strong evidence that the penitent doesn't have contrition and/or doesn't resolve to commit the sin again. However, the evidence needs to be strong (like the penitent saying "I'm not going to change") and priests should always err on the side of granting absolution.  In fact, the act of going to confession shows some form of contrition.

I've never thought about denial of absolution and the confessional seal. Interesting! From poking around the internet it appears that the seal still applies, because the sinner confessed. The seal and absolution are two different parts. Canon Law clearly says that there is no reason whatsoever that the seal can be broken, so I would assume that "not granting absolution" would count as a reason, but no reason counts (oooo, nice antimetabole there!), so the seal remains inviolable. 

We need a Canon lawyer!

Here's an interesting blog about the confessional seal that addresses some of these issues: https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/12/04/can-a-priest-ever-reveal-what-is-said-in-confession/

9 hours ago, Calm said:

That is a false story line just to justify the drama of killing a priest, correct?  No such qualifier attaches to the confessional seal where the priest has the right to toss it out say if he thinks they are still tempted to sin or hasn’t done enough penance.

What are the conditions surrounding absolution?  I was under the impression it was granted if confession took place, but are there conditions to receive absolution?

I think I answered this above.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's said that the brain hasn't fully matured till mid to late 20's. But I believe it varies, and my maturity is still happening. 😏

Ain't that the truth!

My husband and I got engaged after knowing each other for 8 weeks (dating for 6), and then we were married five months later when I was 23 and he was 22 (none of this happened in utah for those assuming).  We've been so incredibly blessed with a great (not perfect) marriage and relationship.  

But would I do that again if he died and I remarried?  Heck no!  I know too much now whereas before I was blissfully naive.  I don't even know if I'd want to get married again actually because I know how hard that relationship is and how people can often hide "crazy" really well.

Thankfully we were both mature and responsible people and we made good responsible choices and it turned out good but I would never recommend our approach to anyone else.  Just because something is good and right for one person or couple doesn't mean it is for everyone.  

[webbles]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Supposedly in France (or at least on this TV show they are acting like that is the rule) priests are told to break confession if it has to do with abuse of a minor under 15….I am already going hmmm….

This is absolutely against church doctrine and law.

There appears to have been something in 2021 where the archbishop of Reims said something along the lines that the confessional will always be secret and that it is above the law of France.  That triggered the Interior Minister to summon the archbishop and then the archbishop put out a statement apologizing for his earlier remark and something about how the confessional does need to work with the laws of France (which do require everyone to report child abuse).  I don't think the archbishop is saying that the priest should break the confessional but it does look like France would go after a priest who learns of child abuse in a confessional and doesn't report it to the police.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-rebukes-bishop-who-said-sex-abuse-revealed-confession-would-stay-secret-2021-10-07/

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211013-child-abuse-scandal-france-s-top-bishop-acknowledges-primacy-of-law-over-confession-secrecy