Are religious leaders above the law?

[OldTimeRadio]

that will depend on to what extent they report on the affair. the priest isn't on any charge at present. it could arguably be moved into conspiracy if the clampdown on reporting the affair continues after the case though.

A priest participating in a sexual relationship with an adult parishoner (even one of foreign citizenship) surely doesn't violate any civil law. And the State obviously isn't in the business of enforcing canon law.

In short, the "clampdown" may merely indicate that the affair had nothing whatsoever to do with this tragic young woman's murder and therefore running the priest's personal life through the mill may be nothing more than an unwarranted and highly illegal invasion of privacy.

But that does not mean that I approve of the priest's actions.

EDIT - I meant to write CRIMINAL law above rather than CIVIL.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

that will depend on to what extent they report on the affair. the priest isn't on any charge at present. it could arguably be moved into conspiracy if the clampdown on reporting the affair continues after the case though.

A priest participating in a sexual relationship with an adult parishoner (even one of foreign citizenship) surely doesn't violate any civil law. And the State obviously isn't in the business of enforcing canon law.

In short, the "clampdown" may merely indicate that the affair had nothing whatsoever to do with this tragic young woman's murder and therefore running the priest's personal life through the mill may be nothing more than an unwarranted and highly illegal invasion of privacy.

But that does not mean that I approve of the priest's actions.

but a media blackout which threatens to use the force of law to protect a priest's privacy would surely indicate that the religious institution is given different treatment from other members of society?

look at the stories today about david cameron and cannabis for an example or any number of politicians who've been up to the same types of thing as the priest. at least in their defence having sex doesn't make them incapable of doing their job as laid down by their employer. when john major's governemnt declared a policy of family values there was a series of stories on tory mps affairs. this was defended in the public interest. i don't see why parishioners or practitioners of this particular faith aren't entitled to know what those granting them absolution for their sins get up to (particularly if this was already known to the church hierachy).

if the affair had no bearing on the case then there would be no legal impedement to the story being repeated during the trial. if the priest in question was that concerned about his reputation then he wouldn't be giving the interview presumably. if he had the interview unfairly doctored or squeezed out of him then he should be complaining to the press complaints commission or taking civil action, not using the defence of contempt of court.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

but a media blackout which threatens to use the force of law to protect a priest's privacy would surely indicate that the religious institution is given different treatment from other members of society?

The point which I was attempting to make is that if the priest is entirely blameless in this adult woman's murder the fact that he had a sexual relationship with her probably doesn't even enter into the equasion. That's true no matter how morally repugnant we may find this priest's actions to have been.

And since (under the above circumstances) the affair had nothing to do with the murder, questions directed in court to the priest concerning the "juicy details" of the sexual union would almost certainly be immediately ruled irrelevent and therefore inadmissable.