The Catholic Church has issued a warning to its clergy in Washington state: Any priest who complies with a new law requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities will be excommunicated.
https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-church-excommunicate-priests-following-new-us-state-law-2069039
I read the headline and was prepared to support the church on this one (for once). Then I read the first paragraph of the article. I have never made a 180 on an opinion so fast. The fuck is wrong with the Catholic church and child abuse? Why is this a constant problem with them?
Imagine if any other type of organization had this sort of systemic problem with child abuse.
“Wow, there sure are a lot of pedophile employees at Apple Computer abusing their customers’ children.”
“Dang, the US Department of Transportation sure does have a kiddie diddler problem.”
“Holy shit, what’s the deal with all the abusive perverts working at Ronald McDonald House?”
Sounds absolutely bonkers, right‽
If any secular organization was having this kind of problem at scale, we’d all be calling for their blood. Yet the church gets a pass somehow. A few complaints, a few lawsuits, some big scandals, some negative press, but fundamentally nothing ever changes.
To hell with the church.
You mean like the Boy Scouts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases
Do the Boy Scouts have a legally protected mechanism to talk with each other about their child fucking that I’m not aware of?
They do not. Your point of distinction is valid.
Like a Signal chat? Wtf are you even asking?
I’m talking about how Catholic priests can legally refuse to report child abuse revealed to them in confessional in most states, the subject of this post.
I think Boy Scouts have done a better job reforming than the Catholic church.
Recently maybe, but there was decades of abuse before that.
Yup, that’s what reforming means
That’s affiliated with the church so it’s probably ok.
You’re out of date. A lot of scouts exist apart from churches now. Hypocritically, the churches are distancing themselves from scouts which have reformed.
I just looked it up off the back of your comment, things have changed since I was a scout.
Thanks for being open minded!
They do affiliate themselves with Christianity - maybe not Catholicism specifically, but the Catholic Church is hardly the only denomination of this cult that can’t keep their hands/mouths off of kids’ genitals.
Frankly if I ever had kids I’d have a gaggle of drag queens babysit before I let any even slightly religiously affiliated group near them.
Same here. Leary of any adult dude who wants to hang out with kids that don’t include their own child in the mix.
I think you should make some exceptions. Youth (including scouts) need mentors to develop skills. Just because my kids age won’t change that. I’ll still feel the Call. It’s very rewarding to see a kiddo grow. Totally redefined my concept of “legacy”.
I loved being a summer camp counselor so much that it was a factor in my decision to have kids. Almost became a teacher. Would you have been leery of me before I had the kids?
Wasn’t their founder Lord Baden-Powell a nonce?
I don’t want to derail the discussion, but Churches aren’t the only organisation attracting/raising child sexual abusers. Sports clubs are an example for secular organisations facing a similar problem.
Sports clubs on the other hand don’t have this kind of power and history as organised religion.
Sports clubs would simply be banned, but try to ban the Catholic Church in a place with a Catholic majority.
I mean, you joke, kind of, but a massive, MASSIVE amount of QAnon bullshit that drives current rightwingers in the US is literally nothing but inventing fake demonic pedophile cults and putting anyone they don’t like in these made up cults…
All so that they can demonize others, and what this functionally does is give these nutjobs an infinite well of whataboutisms to either shift a conversation about pederasty and child abuse in any christian church/sect … over to ‘the even worserer badderer people’…
…or just do something akin to a ‘no true scotsman’ and claim that anyone in any church who is a pedo or child abuser… well actually they’re not a real christian, they’re a secret demonic cult member who is embedded in the organization to both commit evil and also to discredit the church when they are exposed.
The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it claims to do.
These people invented what is essentially their own new religion, a religion dlc, which entirely serves as a mechanism to avoid and make impossible discussions of actual child sa, abuse, going on in the institutions they revere.
What about the CIA and the pentagon?
The entire religion is based on shame and fear. The clergy take advantage of both.
This isn’t just Catholic church thing. It’s rampant in any religion, organization, hierarchy, etc. where the person on top of the totem pole demand obedience, they are insulated from outside accountability, and there is a culture of secrecy.
Go probe Ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish community, Quranic Schools. It’s rife with sexual abuse.
It’s a constant problem because its a cult that wants to protect its cult members. It finds no issue with indoctrinating kids, to the point where nobody batted an eye when they recently (like, in the past 10 years) decreased the age at which children go through the sacrament of Confirmation. The same sacrament that is meant to affirm your adulthood in the church, where you say, “I may have been told to practice this by my parents before, but now I’m an adult now and choose to practice it of my own volition.”
They do this when children are thirteen years old. Thirteen.
When I was fifteen I did not have the capacity to make this decision for myself. Now I have to live with the fact I’m on a list somewhere as an adult in the church. The Catholic Church is an evil institution that uses trauma for the purpose of coercion.
For a century now, the option has been at some point between 7 and 16, at the diocese’s discretion. I received mine around 16; 13 sounds like an outlier, to me.
I truly wonder what’s going through someone’s head when they downvote purely factual statements. I didn’t even give an opinion here.
I can explain what’s going through my head for you. I downvoted you because your purely factual statement seems to completely miss and is entirely irrelevant to my point – that coercing a child to declare themselves an adult in the eyes of a particular social group, to declare that they have the agency to consider such a thing that is supposed to be a LIFE LONG decision, is straight up wrong.
Doesn’t matter if it has been in place for a century, if age 13 is an outlier, or if you think 16 is old enough because that’s when you had to do it. It’s whack, and your justification is whack. I downvoted you instead of engaging because most of the time it’s not worth entertaining someone who justifies the cult I was indoctrinated into as a child, from which I had to spend many years deconstructing the hate for others – often the lowliest groups of individuals – that Catholicism had fomented in my child and adolescent heart. Forgive my harshness, but I’m not going to act like this thing that made me into a spiteful hateful kid – towards the exact groups of people that Jesus tells us to love the most – is a good thing.
Oh yeah, my bad for not including what it’s about. I’ll edit that back into the post.
Personally, I think it goes back to the Catholic Church’s special status as its own sovereign country. They didnt just elect a Pope this week. They elected an absolute monarch. Even though that monarch’s territory is only .5 sqkm, it used to be much larger, and the Church literally has outposts everywhere indirectly subject to its rule.
And a key thing to understand is that the Church doesn’t use confession to hide crimes from just anyone. If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
The Church was always super arrogant when it came to transgressions by its own people. To them, subjecting a priest to civil law makes just as much sense as subjecting an Italian to Australian law. When a priest confessed he was diddling kids, they would handle it in their own manner, without getting the local authorities involved.
That’s the real reason why this law is written the way it is. It’s to keep the Church from hiding its own people. The Church, as an institution, has proven over the years that it can’t be trusted on that front.
I haven’t read the law, but it would be interesting if it explicitly allowed a “mandatory reporter” to satisfy the requirement by facilitating the transgressor to turn themselves in. That is a clear way out of this problem, keeping the confidentiality intact while keeping the local government’s jurisdiction over crimes as well.
If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
This is the thing that’s bugging me. People are taking the Catholic church’s history with priests committing child abuse, then making a blind logical leap that Catholics in general are child abusers (or a significant number of them). It’s twisting the feelings about Catholic priests and targeting them at a wider group. What’s happening here is insidious.
How many Catholics are child molesters, and how many of them are confessing in church, and what penance were they given?
I haven’t read the law, but it would be interesting if it explicitly allowed a “mandatory reporter” to satisfy the requirement by facilitating the transgressor to turn themselves in.
Here’s a link to the law as passed.
It doesn’t seem to explicitly allow what you are suggesting but I supposed the “or cause a report to be made” clause could be interpreted that way.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn’t the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be “saved from God”, and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.
I don’t know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it’s true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I’m too skeptical of the state to trust it’ll always be a good thing.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume).
Lawyers don’t get to avoid this. They need to, in fact they are forced to, otherwise the entire legal system fails. There is no justice without privileged defense. That’s literally in the fifth amendment.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
Confession requires penitance. They must confess and repent to God, but there is no reason why the penitance for Catholic confession can’t involve actually fucking answering for your crimes.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
It is not the opposite direction. It’s the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn’t only between you and the clergy.
I don’t think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they’re required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there’s no reason it shouldn’t expand to more/all crimes.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It’d only be things said in the confession box that are safe.
I don’t like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people’s lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?
Not all laws are good or just.
And yet, it’s effectively a universal truth that child sexual abuse is the gravest offense imaginable, and a very common result of religious secrecy is covering up child sexual abuse.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason. We can all fucking agree on a law against child sexual abuse being fair and just. When it comes to anything else, we can have that conversation.
No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes.
Except for the fact that there’s a legal loophole in place for confession. If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”
Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn’t fallacious always.
'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:
“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”
The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A’
(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)
Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.
If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”
That’s just blatantly incorrect. They’re not required to report on stuff they’re told in confessionals and that’s all. They’re still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?
Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.
In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I’m sure this won’t always happen, but it may. If they’re required to report it, they’ll never be told, so can’t act on it.
I don’t like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it’s way into people’s lives that I don’t like.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.
Is this intentionally bad faith, or just a deep misunderstanding of the legal system?
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
They also have the bar - a legal association specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
It’s not perfect, but it’s something.
It’s not the same for the clergy. A priest can be witness to whatever, and there’s no legal obligation to stop being the person’s priest or hearing their confessions. But there is a tremendous amount of evidence that clergy associations have been exclusively dedicated to ensuring that clergy never face the law at all.
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.
They also have the bar - a legal association…
An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.
…specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
Sure, I’d advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.
I feel like it’s fair to say that if you want god’s forgiveness you must accept mans judgement in cases of abuse. If their god’s salvation is worth less than however many years of prison they’d get, then that’s their choice. I don’t want them to be able to shrug off the guilt and continue the abuse with peace of mind just so they may also escape the punishment they think would otherwise await them after death.
deleted by creator
I agree and I agree. However, as a being that was indoctrinated and abused by the church, I still have to point to the ”Sacrament of Confession”, which… yeah… evil bastards.
Because that is what they are.
Is it a constant problem? How many child molesters are confessing in church? How many Catholics are child molesters?
The Catholic church’s history with child abuse is to do with Priests and the church covering for them. This is new spin, suggesting that Catholics as a whole contains a lot of child molesters, but I’ve not seen any evidence showing that.
Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.
This is not actually about child abuse per se. It’s also not about “warning” priests.
This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.
I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.
I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.
If the Bar Association told their lawyers not to report child abuse from their clients you would have a point. And confidentiality agreements are not going to protect child abuse. The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers in order to maintain their “reputation”.
The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers
Nearly 1000 years of a confession’s confidentiality being absolute and the punishment for violating it being excommunication, is the exact opposite of “going out of its way”.
Ah, yes… tradition! Because the way things have been done is the way they must, should, will be done! Something being wrong is still wrong despite any length of time it has been done.
No, that just means they’ve been going out of their way to protect abusers for nearly 1000 years
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent? Why the fuck do you think any policy that hides child abuse is okay?
If you know a kid is getting hurt and you don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. If you defend those that don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. I hope you reflect on that before putting some imaginary sky daddy rules before a living and breathing child. The same ones he told you guys to protect and you decided to rape them instead.
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?
No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.
But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.
I’d argue, and this isn’t easy, the church can continue to use the rule. After all, it is from “God”. Who are we to define the rules. But any priest (and above) that doesn’t report it, is an awful human being. Stick to dogma, but accept the consequences of being a human. If a child is abused and you can stop it, pay the price to make it stop. Child is safe; you go to hell - fair deal. No mater what, someone is going to suffer. Make the “saintly” call. And make it known!
I’d argue, and this isn’t easy
Then don’t? There is absolutely no reason society needs to obey objectively evil arcane rules because some dude who has absolutely no say in how we run society says we should.
I still have absolutely no idea why people would jump in to defend the churches right to keep CHILD ABUSE secret. It seems like you would either be afraid of getting discovered, or you have so little faith in your church that you’re afraid they’re going to get discovered.
I’m not afraid nor am I a member of any church. I am firm in my stance that there is no god. Small or little G. If you read my post again you will see that my point is, even if you are going to go to hell, you are obliged to report abuse. Again, report it. Fucking report it. If the cost is your eternal salvation, you will fucking report it.
They is my point. There is a cost to everything. No matter what you believe, be ready to pay it.
Next time, please read what someone says and not what you want to believe they say. The world would be much better that way.
or you have so little faith in your church
I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.
But when a “remember that the confession’s confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god’s/church laws first an foremost” (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.
Confidentiality agreements do not cover illegal acts. Since you brought up the bar association, fun fact about that is that if you admit to say abusing a child to your lawyer not only is that not covered by attorney-client privilege the lawyer is obligated to inform law enforcement or face punishment by the bar association for failing to do so.
Small correction, a lawyer is only obligated if they believe there is a specific ongoing risk. It’s the difference between saying you committed a crime in the past and saying that you are going to commit one in future.
No.
If I tell my lawyer about a child I abused years ago he can do exactly nothing as there is no imminent crime to prevent that would allow him breaking confidality.
If I tell my priest the same applies.
If you want to change that, change the laws binding those people. But don’t pretend that the church is going out of its way to protect child abuse by in reality doing nothing and applying the same rule indiscriminately exactly like they did for a millenium.
Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.
No, you just don’t like their conclusion. The article explains what confessional is, which only alters your opinion of the case if you care more about the religious ‘right’ of a child fucker to talk about their child fucking in secret with someone who promised to not tell than you care about the wellbeing of the child victim.
Your lawyer line of reasoning is also based on a misconception: that attorney-client privilege universally extends to knowledge of child abuse, outside representing a client specifically on child abuse. This isn’t the case, there are states where attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply in this scenario. Bar associations in general also allow breaking confidentiality if they have reasonable belief that someone is going to be seriously harmed or killed.
Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.
This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.
While this is true it turns out that the United States isn’t bound by Catholic dogma. And the Church’s methods for handling this sort of problem have thus far been… questionable at best.
Doesn’t the bible say to obey the emperor and follow the law? So reporting abuse to the authorities shouldn’t be a sin since there’s a law compelling priests to violate the confessional for specific issues.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Romans 3:31
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Who cares?
This is a simple and factual reminder: you’re arguing to protect child abuse. Shut the fuck up.
No, I am arguing for a church law established nearly 1000 years ago and upheld ever since that indiscriminately protects all confessions. If you want to argue for changing this (as you should) go along.
But pretending that this is about protecting child abuse or even -as multiple comments here do- hallucinating how the catholic church “goes out of its way” (by doing exactly the same aus in the last ~900 years) is insane.
And nobody cares about church law. It’s entirely irrelevant.
What an unbelievably stupid take.
A) Do you actually know what excommunication means? It’s not a permanent sentence to Hell. It’s a temporary separation from the Church that can be reversed after penance. Do you think a “time-out” is so unbelievably painful that it warrants protecting child abusers? If so, you are fucking disgusting.
B) You analogy ALREADY HAS agreed upon laws about violating confidentiality, including when the lawyer believes an extreme crime might be committed in the future. So no, we would not be reacting with outrage because we are not psychopaths.
It’s hard to state how stupid your post is.
Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they suspect child abuse. The church thinks it is above secular law and only answers to God, not to mention the protection it offers to its own child abusers. It’s complete nonsense and a good example of why religious tolerance has limits.
That’s not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don’t confess to things that haven’t happened yet. You’re more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that’s when a confession should become reportable, if we’re want the law to be secular and equitable.
Technically everything you’ve done is in the past, unless you’re doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they’re confessing, it’s in the past, they’re repentant–not an ongoing risk–therefore I don’t have to report. But that’s obviously bullshit.
What’s your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don’t have to report cases of child abuse.
I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.
It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).
To be clear, it’s the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):
What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?
At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that’s pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[1:1] is summarised as:
When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) ↩︎ ↩︎
https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/ ↩︎
This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it’s not.
A mandated reporter is a person who is required by law to report crimes, typically if they know or suspect a child or vulnerable adult has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected
Mandated reporters have to report child abuse. Full goddamn stop. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past, why the fuck would that change anything?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It’s always a balancing act and from what I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Mandatory reporting doesn’t solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There’s a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit. Without mandated reporting, we can literally never know what happened.
There is very little evidence of societal benefits or needs when it comes to secrecy in confession. There are benefits and needs when it comes to secrecy with mental health professionals, and yet they often are mandated to report these crimes anyway, because the risks of not reporting far outweigh the benefits of secrecy.
Germany is behind the times and most of the EU on this one:
In 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) reporting obligations are in place for all professionals.
In 10 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia) existing obligations only address certain professional groups such as social workers or teachers.
In Germany, Malta and the Netherlands, no reporting obligations were in place in March 2014.
This isn’t “the US is the exception” for once.
I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Don’t know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/
But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.
So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say “I can convince this guy to be more mindful”. That alone wouldn’t be that bad, but if you’re in a downward spiral, “causing harm to yourself”, they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.
[citation needed]
I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting – but not when it comes to confession. “See something, do something”, yes, but not “Take confession, do something”.
It’s that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for – somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don’t turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won’t do anything to institutional rot. You’re focussing on the wrong thing.
I’m a medical student in America and we’re required to know some of the legal cases that define our standards and practices. The legal precedent that requires the breach of confidentiality to report a patient for being a danger to themselves or others is the Tarasoff case.
A patient has to be a direct threat to themselves or others in terms of suicide, self-harm, assault, or murder (i.e. meaningful bodily harm) to justify the breach of confidentiality.
The TL;DR of the Tarasoff case was a patient was talking to his physician about wanting to kill his stalking target and then he did so. The precedent means that a physician is required to notify the potential victim and/or the police if a direct threat is made.
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Please provide a source of that actually happening or a legislative or judicial ruling that supports that idea at all.
While there is some support for absolute secrecy of a private confession, Lutheran history and the Book of Concord do not support the concept of keeping a confidence if it risks the ongoing abuse or death of a child or requires the pastor to violate civil or criminal laws designed to protect children from abuse.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt."
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Did some further googling and it appears that what I remember might apply to a) school councillors and the like, and b) law enforcement getting reports about type of treatment after they dropped someone off. Why law enforcement is doing EMT stuff is of course yet a whole another topic.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt.
And that’s exactly how German law sees it: Breaking confidence is permitted in certain cases, but not mandated. On the flipside, if you’re e.g. a cop or a child care worker, when you see certain things you are required to pursue them, that’s different in e.g. the Netherlands where cops are free to ignore you if you light up a joint in front of them, and tell them about it, and don’t even hide it in a brown bag. People taking confessions including therapists are neither of those, though, so they do not have that kind of duty.
Law will never be able to cover, in detail, the balancing process necessary to actually reduce harm in any specific case. It is a very blunt instrument.
You’re exchanging one absolute for another. The original absolute btw, not being that absolute because catholic priests can tattle anonymously (if the state allows for such things, different topic), and then themselves confess. But it should never be a “hear X, do Y” kind of deal. That doesn’t serve the situation.
Remember that episode of South Park where the Catholic priest saw child rape and exploration as a kind of perks of the job. Whelp they hit the nail right on the head 10 years ago with that one and it’s still relevant to this day.
Shit like this is why it is explicitly written that Baha’is must follow the law of the land before the laws of god.
This is not true. A therapist would be required to break confidentially if they became aware that their Client is going to harm themselves or others, or if they are mandated by law.
What someone already did in the past generally isn’t reported.
I find zero sources that agree with your claim.
I find several sources that indicate that therapists in all US states are required to break confidentiality when child abuse has occurred.
https://psychcentral.com/health/what-do-therapists-have-to-report
https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-must-a-therapist-file-a-report
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-therapists-report-confidentiality_l_5d2cf063e4b0bca603641a62
https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/exceptions-to-confidentiality-in-counseling
So either you’re talking about another country’s laws (in which case I’d like to know which country), or you’re just incorrect.
I’m in Colombia, where psychologists are required to report “human rights violations, mistreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions of confinement of which any person is a victim and of which they become aware in the exercise of their profession.”
deleted by creator
Why aren’t all the preists who diddle kids excommunicated?
Catholic Church = Child Molester Haven.
Pretty simple.
Oh, it’s most churches. And the GOP.
I’m going to describe a joke from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (since I can’t find a clip).
The season 15 Ireland arc
After Mac goes to a church and tells a priest he wants to become a priest, he presents a potential conflict. In vague terms, Mac explains he is gay. The priest the entire time says that is acceptable. In the end you learn the priest misunderstood and thought Mac was saying he was sexually attracted to children.
Because that’s the whole point of the church. It’s just one big sham so they can diddle kids
The oughta write a song about it
They’d have no priests left
Because they get to keep stuff like that secret.
No one would go to church if they thought their kids wouldn’t get experience
You act like excommunication is only a slight matter. For someone who is not religious, being kicked out of a religion might not sound like a big deal, but compare it with citizenship/nationality. Crimes have punishments, so something like murder might involve decades in prison. In the Catholic Church, a priest who murders (or rapes or whatever) might be defrocked, or alternatively sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prayer and solitude, but part of the essence of Christianity is the belief in forgiveness. Excommunication is more akin to stripping citizenship. The US (despite what some people currently im power might want) doesn’t allow stripping citizenship from people who commit regular crimes, even serious ones like murder or rape. Imagine if every murderer or rapist in the US got their citizenship revoked and not only permanently lost all rights (from voting to housing) but could then be deported. Well, I’m sure the uproar that would be caused by even suggesting that. Well excommunication is like that. It is only permissible in certain very tight circumstances where something that fundamentally goes against the entire Church takes place knowingly and intentionally. It would be akin to something like high treason or whatever if I had to draw a comparison, which many countries do have an exception for the absoluteness of citizenship/nationality. There are few instances of excommunication that I can think of in this day and age, but a few would be breaking the seal of confession, breaking the secrecy of papal conclaves, attempting ordination outside of what of permissible while disobeying local bishops, and heretical schisms attempts I guess and all of these mostly for priests and bishops since they have a higher standard and pastoral/leadership responsibilities.
And for extra reading, learn about how the new pope covered up for priests that abused kids when he was a bishop:
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-853274
*Edit: removed the bad source. The Jpost article is good and includes several additional sources. For more: https://www.qwant.com/?q=+Robert+Prevost+abuse+cover+up
If you’re gonna bash the guy, at least use a credible source for christ’s sake.
Edit: 👍
the Will County Gazette is an imposter site, lacks transparency, and publishes false information. As a result, we rate them right-center, biased, and Questionable.
Right you are, updated accordingly. Thanks for the tip.
Fucking… of course he did 🤦♂️
The worlds largest pedophile ring doing gods work I guess.
Teaching has the most pedophiles, followed by music tutor, and priests/clerics are 3rd.
Teaching might have the most reported pedophiles. (Might because there’s no citations)
This comment below the post about how the Catholic Church will excommunicate those who report pedophiles may be… not as supportive for your argument as you might think.
Could be more like they give children a safe space they can trust to confess, but I’m more on team they just want to cover up their own diddling.
Teaching might have the most reported pedophiles. (Might because there’s no citations)
There are also mandatory reporting law in many states.
Yeah but is there a central leader for for teachers?
There is for Catholics. They’re all pederasts. Or at least comfortable with pederasts
It’s not like the pope or the catholic leadership is encouraging pedophiles. They’ve covered things up that happened, but it’s pretty wild to act like it’s some kind of pedo ring.
Hahahaha yeah ok.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to silence the countless victims of their systematic abuse but they’re not a pedo ring. lol
😂
I guess I would define a pedophile ring as an organization whose purpose is to abuse children.
Do you really think a pedophile ring would publicly advertise as such?
Hold on, you seriously believe that the purpose of the catholic church is to promote pedophilia?
That dumbass really isn’t living up to the username.
Bingo! You described Catholicism!!! And all religions. Actually!!!
Religion is child abuse. Catholics actually systematically rape the kids too.
Not sure if you are just being an edge lord or if you are a moron.
Covering thins like that up, is encouraging pedophiles. It let’s pedos know that it’s safe for them on the church.
There is a difference between wanting to deal with things internally without involving authorities, and actively promoting pedophilia. But I’m not here to go to bat for Catholics, I’m just pointing out the difference.
I feel like the distinction starts to get pretty blurry when “dealing with things internally without authorities” mostly just means covering stuff up and protecting predators, but yeah they don’t literally advertise to pedophiles
My only real problem with the narrative in this thread is with distilling the catholic church down to pedophile ring. It’s super reductive, ignoring so much history and the world views of so many decent people in light of a single issue. But just to be clear, I get that it’s a serious issue and they did a very poor job in dealing with it.
Is parenting no longer a job? Because that’s top by far.
Step-fathers in particular seem unusually prone to child abuse in all its forms.
By straight numbers I’m sure that’s the case, but i doubt its true by percentage. But to be honest I’m not sure if the study included parents.
The U.S. Department of Justice said it is investigating whether the law infringes on First Amendment religious protections.
Looks like I’m going to continue not being catholic.
Wait a sec. What the fuck? So reporting child rape is now BAD???
Note for the internet: I am just clarifying the Catholic stance. I am not Catholic and not defending them.
Priests cannot reveal what someone tells them in confession. It’s a lot like attorney-client privilege, as your priest is supposed to be your advocate before God. Breaking the seal of confession is a big deal (to them) because, just like criminals deserve representation, sinners need to be able to confess.
Sinners should be allowed to confess, but not be absolved of consequence or even just be allowed to continue.
Confession is for stuff you’ve done, not are going to do. Presumably they recognize it was wrong or they wouldn’t go to confession about it.
I agree it sucks, but I also agree with the comment above yours. Yes, this crime is bad and the people deserve to be caught. I don’t trust the state to always do the right thing though. If we agree with this, we should also agree when they do the same for petty theft, assisting with an illegal abortion, or whatever other crimes they want. This is a slippery slope (not the fallacy) to the state removing protections of any confession, and these people believe if they don’t confess they’ll go to hell, regardless of if they’ll never do it again or if it wasn’t that significant.
If things worked the way they should you don’t just confess your sin and go about your day. The priest assigns a penance. We are at the edge of my knowledge, and I would love for a Catholic to chime in, but I know penance can be harsh, especially for a grave sin. I’m not sure how it works in practice.
The idea is certainly not to just allow it to continue. Here we get to obvious failings of the Catholic Church. But, honestly, it’s not like the government is that great about protecting children from powerful men either.
They hold confession to be inviolate, which is fucking bullshit. Doctors, including psychiatrists, who aren’t allowed to share that shit do have to report certain criminal acts to police.
Unfortunately all too often freedom of religion translates to freedom from consequences. Fuck the Catholic church (and all churches) in general, but in particular for shit like this. Three Catholic church isn’t unique in this, it’s just got the most rigidly hierarchical, top-down structure of them all.
If lawyers had to report the worst types of crimes committed by their clients, or ones they suspect them of having committed, don’t you think that would break down the legal system? So too with confession. For it to work, there has to be absolute secrecy. Punishments can apply anywhere else, investigations, reporting, whatever. But there fundamentally must be at least that one avenue for an individual to get legal help that is there for them and only them, or to have a priest hear their sins on behalf of God and offer absolution. Without secrecy, both structures would break down and a fundamental part of the legal system is the right of everyone to defend themselves, and a fundamental part of Catholicism is the availability of God’s forgiveness of sins.
Now?
It’s always been this way. There are a few states that require a priest to report child aduse but most don’t require it.
It’s always been this way.
Yah but now there’s an american pope who is against trump so crank up the smear machine
Trump should confess the Epstein Island sins he comitted.
It’s just catholic canon for „snitches get stitches“.
Fuck. Religion.
Agreed its a cancer on humanity. Fake ass shit.
Separation of church and state goes both ways.
Confession is a religious rite. Try to legislate that rite is a violation of that separation.
Priests are bound by their office to maintain absolute confidentiality of confessed sins. Otherwise people are not likely to confess their sins.
It doesn’t matter how you, personally, feel about this or their religion or the value of confession as a sacrament, that’s their religion. The state doesn’t get to intervene.
The church should stay out of state affairs, and the state should stay out of church affairs. Exceptions exist, like when practices are outright criminal in themselves. But the state cannot compel a priest to violate their office. This is long accepted. You cannot compel a priest to testify about confession, for example.
Priests can encourage people to go to the police, but that’s it. Their role in confession is between the sinner and their god.
Yeah religion is a great cover for abusing kids.
This isn’t about priests abusing kids (though that’s definitely a recurring issue as well), it’s about people who have done so confessing such to a priest.
I’m not religious so don’t really have any stake in this, but it’s interesting that it is specifically about child sex abuse and not other major crimes such as rape, murder etc. That makes me worried as “for children” is often used as a testing ground for stuff that will be expanded upon later, and there’s a lot of stuff people likely confess - supposedly under strict confidence - to their religious figures.
Confession is about reconciliation with god and anyone that comes to ask forgiveness from their deity should be willing to make it right with the people they hurt by taking responsibility and accepting the consequences in a tangible way rather than thoughts and prayers.
I agree - and I would hope any advice given by a priest would cover this - but if it becomes a mandatory thing where does it end. Should priests report abortions in states that have made then illegal? How about sheltering an undocumented immigrant, or any number of things that the current administration might decide they don’t like?
No, and the difference is that reporting pedophilia isn’t a slippery slope to criminalizing human rights. The source of the problem is completely unrelated.
You can’t make diddling a child right, ever. But man, so glad diddy had something named after him…
Along with the laity, priests must also go to confession. So it does provide cover for priests abusing kids.
This is disgusting, doctors need to report the same thing. Its child abuse its basically saying you support pedofilia. Unless that’s what you’re covering up in your thinly veiled argument. The Catholic church should not be a safe haven for pedophiles.
This is disgusting, doctors need to report the same thing.
Doctors are not religious figures. Doctor patient confidentiality is not an absolute protected by the first amendment (with legal precedent).
Its child abuse its basically saying you support pedofilia. Unless that’s what you’re covering up in your thinly veiled argument.
That’s a nice false equivalence. I’m impressed that you managed to get from “priests cannot be compelled by the state to violate their religious office” to supporting pedophilia.
The Catholic church should not be a safe haven for pedophiles.
I agree. That’s a larger problem though.
A larger problem addressed by bills just like this.
Therapists are allowed to maintain confidentiality.
Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they’re mandated reporters.
They have some obligations in cases of child endangerment or suicide, direct threats to others. I’m not sure of the details, if it’s similar expectations or what.
You’re right, that commenter doesn’t know what they’re talking about
They are.
Source: wife is a therapist. She is also ethically obligated to (and does) disclose her mandatory reporting obligations to new clients.
That’s an interesting point. Maybe priests should have similar requirements, licensing, oversight, and malpractice liability.
More the point is that therapists don’t have the same obligations as doctors. Therapists can keep confidentiality of things that doctors aren’t allowed to. The guy i responded to was comparing priests to doctors, but a better comparison would be comparing them to therapists.
Are therapists not mandatory reporters in your jurisdiction?
They have more patient confidentiality than doctors, but I’m not sure of the specifics.
If you don’t mind my asking, which country are you in? Therapists are mandatory reporters for child abuse everywhere in Canada/USA.
Yep
No they are not.
Therapists are subject to mandatory reporting laws.
Exceptions exist, like when practices are outright criminal in themselves
Aiding and abetting criminals is a crime.
How does receiving a confession aid or abet the perpetrator?
«Bless me father for I have sinned: I have a sex slave in my basement. I rape him every day because I cannot control myself."
You don’t report that and you’re siding the continue commission of a crime.
Overall you’re right about the first amendment, but it feels like that separating only goes one way, and I’m tired of religion getting the better side of it.
It’s also so selective. I can’t kill a live chicken to practice Santeria but it’s fine for orthodox jews on Kaporos? We can’t compel a priest to report a murder or testify but they can tell their constituents to vote for the candidate that bans women’s healthcare?
You’re right, having done some light wikipedia-ing, emotional support such that a priest provides would make him an accessory.
Psychiatrists are legally obligated to report knowledge of certain crimes that would otherwise be protected by confidentiality laws, I don’t see why priests should be any different.
Psychiatrists
Thank you, this was the comparison I was looking for and the standard I would hold for this. I agree with your assessment.
What if the priest doest’t provide emotional support
Then they won’t know about the crime to begin with. The very act of listening to the confession and advising spiritual penance provides emotional support.
emotional support such that a priest provides would make him an accessory
That does not appear to be true, unless the crime is being planned or in progress.
But even if it somehow did, you’d effectively be demanding a priest self-incriminate by admitting to the contents of a confession.
It’s called “accessory after the fact”, and they wouldn’t be guilty of it if they report it, that’s the whole point of reporting it.
An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
they wouldn’t be guilty of it if they report it
Imagine believing this given the current state of the criminal justice system
Psychiatrists don’t get arrested for reporting on patients when the law requires it, this is no different. You’re thinking of whistleblowers and functional regulation enforcement agency employees. Now, if the confessor in question is, like, the mayor or something, then yeah, Father’s fucked.
If a child says my dad touches me at night and you do nothing you belong in jail
Pretty much describing how we ended up with the Satanic Panic
There’s two sides to this coin. Getting children - particularly young children who don’t understand what they’re being asked - to confess and accuse people of crimes is trivially easy.
Except in that case, people never confessed to anyone. Instead, religious fanatic adults knowingly or not coached children to provide details of abuse. Most of the accounts were physically impossible or supernatural in nature. Fundies were involved, so what else would you expect?
So, nothing like this case at all. In the Satanic Panic, there was no credible, actionable information. Just a feedback cycle of ignorant rumor that led to (nominally) secular authorities being manipulated into taking action that was a miscarriage of justice against innocent people.
It doesn’t, there’s just stupid people out there who find X so abhorrent that can’t possibly have a rational thought regarding it.
But you’ve been on Lemmy before, so I’m sure you know all about it.
Typical lemmy, finding X abhorrent*.
^*for child-rape values of X^
What the fuck are you talking about cunt?
yer mum
I wouldn’t know, I don’t have an X account
Yeah me either? Never had Twitter and I certainly won’t make a fucking x
Cool, break that down for us.
I was wrong, the priest is an accessory to the crime.
In the United States, a person who learns of the crime and gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an “accessory before the fact”. A person who learns of the crime after it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an “accessory after the fact”. A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an “accessory before and after the fact”, but this usage is less common.
There’s a Christian duty to follow laws that are just as well. From a very Christian perspective, the right thing to do would be convincing them to confess outright at least.
I’m no priest and I was definitely never catholic, but that’s how I see it as someone who grew up in a protestant house.
I can tell you that that’s also what I got. The way confessions work, the priest gives you… “penance” is what it might be called? What you need to do to repent for your sins and be absolved of them. Usually that’s some prayer, but they can tell you that you have to turn yourself in and admit to your crimes to the police.
I have no idea if priests actually do that, and I imagine with the secrecy it’d be hard to get any information.
Well put. At a point it would be the only way to be “right with god” in the first place.
In the end the system is eerily, well, identical to American cops protecting their own. At least it makes Thin White Line kinda funny for a few reasons.
There’s a Christian duty to follow laws that are just as well.
If you read St Paul, the “that are just” clause appears nowhere. Instead, there is an absolute requirement to obey the authorities (though clearly they made an exception when the authorities were persecuting Christians, though some might argue that Christians are now effectively self-persecuting).
Hyup, I grew up semi-methodist, which honestly still colors my agnostic/atheistic beliefs today, and that whole vibe with Catholicism always missed me. Now that you mention it, the self-persecuting is very in-groupy too.
You know what that’s fair. This is the “just” thing to do.
I still do hope priests will try to fix it in their own communities tho.Try to legislate that rite is a violation of that separation.
No. Secular law takes precedent. For example, a religion practicing human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape or slavery would be shut down, and rightly so.
Separation of church and state means that laws are not made that explicity refer to religious practices. But that does not imply that any aspect of religious practice is above the law.
Secular law takes precedent. For example, a religion practicing human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape or slavery would be shut down, and rightly so.
I do cover that in a later comment.
Confession and its confidentiality has already been upheld in legal precedent.
And there goes any hope of Ameripope not being a piece of shit. Delightful.
This article is from 2 days ago before he was elected the pope.
How could they possibly have known?! /s
Being a piece of shit is a prerequisite to be a religious leader, full stop.
Eh, there are absolutely religious leaders who aren’t pieces of shit, but there are very, very few of them.
That ship sailed when they elected a Catholic. What else could have happened?
You… uh… realize that the pope is the head of the Catholic Church, right…?
Their point was that all Catholic leadership are pieces of shit. Basically just saying, ‘duh’
Yes.
you don’t get to a place where you’re eligible to become pope without some skeletons in your closet
I was really hoping they’d be refusing to comply with unjust laws. If they wanted ways to look like the good guys, these days we’ve got plenty.
There’s all this talk about how this will automatically excommunicate priests who violate the confessional and how it’s a grave sin and how the law is forcing them to sin and all that. I would understand the extreme pushback on this if this made a priest go to hell.
Here’s the thing: Excommunication is TEMPORARY!! The penalty for a priest violating the confessional and potentially saving the lives of many children is a temporary separation from the Church that can readmit the priest after a penance. They care more about themselves being away from the Church for a short period of time than for the lifetime of health and happiness of children. They make it sound like it’s the worst punishment you can give to a priest, on par with the punishment this gives to a kid who is harmed. It’s fucking sickening.
readmit the priest after a penance
The priest actually has to repent - if he still thinks he did the right thing, he isn’t forgiven.
He could just lie. Priests are great at it.
Doesn’t apply to God’s forgiveness
Agreed, and right now they are fighting tooth and nail against having to say something, so it sounds like they are repenting it already. They are being compelled by law, not by their own desire to be, you know, good people.
“Compelled by law” isn’t a sufficient justification for Catholics in this case - they’re supposed to die rather than reveal something that was said to them in confession, like Saint John of Nepomuk.
Yes, we all know that. This entire story is the church stating publicly they don’t consider compelled by law to be sufficient justification.
I’m talking about the punishment for breaking the church law is basically “take a time out for a bit” while the punishment for following church law is “child gets a lifetime of pain and trauma.” Priests are choosing their own personal connection to their friends rather than helping to prevent child abuse.
Arguably a priest who really cared would be morally obligated to speak up about a situation like the one being described, even if the consequence is excommunication.
I would understand the extreme pushback on this if this made a priest go to hell.
I wouldn’t. Religion shouldn’t get a fucking hall pass for arbitrarily bad shit because “we don’t want to go to the scary place we made up.”
: reads headline
Woo! Good for them! Stick it to The Man!
: reads article body
ahhhh fuck these guys
A curious question. Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?
You’ve touched on a key point, I think. Doctors and other professionals have mandatory reporting because a) they are in positions of respect and trust within the community, and b) they are professionals, as defined in law, and have standards to uphold.
Priests definitely meet the definition of a), however b) is a bit of a sticking point: their role isn’t defined by law, but by the church. Furthermore, a court can order you to go to therapy sessions, but they can’t order you to go to confession - it’s completely voluntary. A therapist could tease out previous abuse, but a priest will only hear what the confessor wants to tell them about.
I’m in line with you in thinking that everyone should report abuse, but I think that a priest has more in common with an average person in this regard compared to a person working in a legally protected profession. There would be legal consequences for impersonating a therapist, but not for impersonating a priest.
It has to do with professional training and responsibility (duty of care), coupled with kids trusting them more and they are considered to have some para-custodial responsibility for children.
Priests aren’t entirely in that category, but they probably should be, the question is the relationship of the priests, ie a random priest who heard a rumor is very different from one who heard confession or tends the victim or abuser directly.
Also, you don’t want to empower random-ass people too much, people are absolute fucking morons and media will incite them to do something more moronic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Inbred rednecks just danger incarnate, empowering them in any way is insane and will guarantee needess innocent victims.
Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse?
Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for any crime?
There have been numerous societies in history where ratting out one’s neighbors was expected behavior. None of them were fit places for people to live.
