Aus gov't announces Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse

[Carinthium]

I think I know what my counter-case is already, but could you give some examples of when people don't follow each of these? Which ones can you demonstrate are broken?

[Metahive]

Here, have some numbers of Catholics who don't take the proscription of mandatory confession seriously in the US.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/reconciliation.pdf

Almost half of them don't ever bother. I bet you can find similar numbers regarding the other precepts, especially concerning mass-attendance and the like. I find it very hard to believe that you profess ignorance about the fact that the first world isn't taking religion as seriously as it used to.

[Alkaloid]

Cari, other people have covered most of my position already, but it boils down to the. A secular (not atheist) nation should have a set of laws that apply equally to everybody. If a person chooses to add other restrictions or requirements to their own behaviour, through following a religion, refusing to eat meat or just generally following an unusual ethical system, that is fine. The state should only interfere with these other actions if they conflict with the states laws. This can include anything from honour killings, public disturbances, violations of building codes and yes, failure to report crimes when legally required. We already have a system in place where nominally confidential information, such as that provided to medical professionals by a patient, needs to be disclosed to law enforcement in certain circumstances, I don't know why priests and confessions would be any different, and I don't know what about that stance would be hypocritical. Demanding that of doctors but not priests would seem to be more so.

[Lord Zentei]

In any case, a person's rights end when he uses them to transgress against the rights of others. Freedom of religion and suchlike included.

As for the sanctity of the confessional - if we were talking the government hacking into records without a warrant, then you would have a point regarding the "free people" argument. But this is a very different situation. People do have responsibilities too.

[Carinthium]

For future reference, I've thought about it and I think I've lost this argument. The only argument I can't refute is Metahive's- I considered arguing that the Church has made it clear how people are supposed to act, but forgot that my family and most of those I socialise with are, Christian or not, unusually well-read in theology amongst other things.

I still mantain, however, that in a hypothetical world where one could not call the Catholic Church on inconsitencies WITH ITS OWN TEACHINGS (in the sense that it made clear how a Catholic was supposed to behave, however that was, and stuck to it), I would be right.