Does the news break, does the news come, and do we see religious organizations convicted in the first instance of the next post?For the “undeserved blessing,” some feel wounded and go to court to retrieve the offer delivered. Preaching in the Christian context is also the subject of controversies that call into question the vision of civil liability. Contemporary law and its multiple “generations of rights” have created real challenges for doctrinal free expression, it is important to be careful, in fact, it is always important to be careful, as Aristotle said.
The strength of the pulpit is known for the chief’s attraction to the believer, much of what is observed in the current judicial state is genuine activism on certain issues, an example of this is the repeated number of situations involving requests for cancellation of donations. by ex-believers, who feel hurt by unfulfilled graces (sometimes promised in the pulpit), want to recover what they had previously given as part of their spiritual commitment, it is interesting to note that jurisprudence refers to these cases as an “irresistible moral coercion”.
- Thinking about the public cult? As a genus.
- The preaching or use of the pulpit is the most sensitive species.
- The excess of the preacher.
- To the point of undermining someone’s honor.
- Can often be opened to the judiciary to recognize the possibility of compensation.
- But such a possibility can never be catalogued simply in objective standards.
- To put it another way: the details of the case itself.
- Must be carefully analyzed.
- Before any conviction decision.
- Because we face the sacred and spiritual order.
- Which.
- Through the judiciary.
- Must enter only in exceptional situations and deviations from the sacred.
The scope of equivalence of constitutional principles clearly demonstrates that freedom of belief and expression of religiosity is fundamental to the true exercise of democratic citizenship in the context of the democratic rule of law, so those who claim to live according to the belief system they have adopted tend to put all life situations in this perspective; Does the community that recognizes those who use the chair share the same values and principles as the statements emanating from it?Except when they really run away from the declaration of faith and community practice?It expresses the will of those who live through the prism of their religion denomination.
Assuming that there is indeed abuse and abuse of purpose that goes beyond the spiritual order, which is immune to state interference, it is important to look for markers to recognize when pulpit use can be done illegally. It would be to understand whether direct discourse or its context could lead to criminal criminal criminalation of honour crimes, i. e. those sanctioned by the Penal Code, in articles 138 to 140, which deal with slander, defamation and prejudice.
The crime of defamation (art. 138) is committed when the official attributes to the victim a fact considered a crime that was not committed by the victim; the crime of defamation (art. 139) refers to the reputation that has been assaulted, for example when someone speaks publicly in a way that offends someone for their profession or intellectual capacity; on the other hand, the crime of insult (art. 140) is called cursing, offending someone, that is, the characteristics?physical or non-physical, which make the victim what he is.
Second, in the analysis of the statement in the pulpit that led the victim to seek moral reparation in the courts or even to the offering of a criminal complaint to open a criminal proceeding in these cases, it will also be up to the judge to understand whether there is a consensus in that community and its rules of faith and practice on what has been said; The consensus discourse is the discourse of each one, the isolated discourse does not represent the thought of the community, in addition to the objective preservation of the dignity of the human person, all the canonical norms, agreed by the members and their leaders, are of made and by law its Constitution; from it emanate the maximum axioms by which they express their inalienable right to religious freedom and, if the declaration is made in accordance with all standards, in a proven environment of civility and decorum, there will be little margin to determine the act as illegal, falling to the ground, the first condition sine qua non to recognize the possibility of compensation.
Speaking in the pulpit according to the canonical rules of his confession gives the minister the same immunity of speech as the parliamentarian in the use of the forum or the lawyer in the exercise of procedural management The logical conclusion of this issue refers again to the obligation. Recognize the subjective nature of the analysis of civil reparation on the use of pulpit. Any other position violates the broad freedom conferred by the 1988 Constitution and, moreover, the sovereign will of the Brazilian people.
We hope you’ve come before?The text does not theologically validate any kind of doctrine. All in place! For a good theological presentation on the subject, the Church has several intellectual personalities competent to do so.
Although a certain line of denominational thinking goes against what is believed in the reformed community, the constitutional right to religious freedom and freedom of choice remains. Doctrinal imposition is not part of the Brazilian secular model, but of a purely theocratic model, which is not the case of the Federal Republic of Brazil.
This text contains excerpts from the book: Religious Law: Theoretical and Practical Issues [3rd ed. Rev. e ampl. Sao Paulo, new life. ]