• Etterra@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

      • Mustakrakish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Sinners should be allowed to confess, but not be absolved of consequence or even just be allowed to continue.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    239
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.

    • Photuris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      106
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        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.

      • 5715@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      The entire religion is based on shame and fear. The clergy take advantage of both.

      • cocolowlander@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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?

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        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.

    • Regna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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”.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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”.

          • GoodLuckToFriends@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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.

          • forrgott@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            17 hours ago

            No, that just means they’ve been going out of their way to protect abusers for nearly 1000 years

          • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            16 hours ago

            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.

            • Ooops@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 hours ago

              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.

            • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              16 hours ago

              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!

              • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                15 hours ago

                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.

                • Ooops@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  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.

                • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  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.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          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.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        18 hours ago

        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.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Who cares?

        This is a simple and factual reminder: you’re arguing to protect child abuse. Shut the fuck up.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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.

      • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        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.

  • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Imagine thinking you could sin recklessly, tell it to some dude in a funny hat/robe and that God is somehow okay with it. Imagine keeping the identities of child abusers secret because of that stupid line of thought (or because you can relate to the person touching kids).

  • Helvetica@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Oh, I thought maybe this had to do with standing up against some regressive anti-immigration law, but nope, it’s just the Catholic church being weird about sexual abuse. Again.

  • Dzso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I support this state law, though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.

    I don’t think people with a guilty conscience should have a way to clear their conscience other than behaving better and making up for their wrongs with better behavior.

    At the same time, I get why the Catholic Church opposes the state law. And it’s one of the biggest reasons I’m against all Christian religions, Evangelicalism included: they’re more concerned about power than about people. And yeah, I think the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue is fucked up, just like most Christian stances on political moral issues are fucked up these days.

    But the timing of this article, and the right wing motivations against Catholicism make it clear that this article is also more concerned about power than about people. The state law doesn’t stop child abuse or result in any more reporting of child abuse.

    The way I see it, this article is actually right wing propaganda targeting the Pope because he supports Europe and Ukraine against Russia.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.

      That’s the thing, if you violate the confidentiality of confessionals then people simply won’t confess, and then you lose the avenue for a priest to try and convince someone to address their behaviour. Maybe that’s not very effective, but it’s more effective than not having it.

      In line with your assessment of the article’s agenda, I have to question how much of an issue this even is. Like, the Catholic church has a long history with child abuse, but wasn’t that primarily about Priests abusing children in their parish, and the church protecting its priests? This is an accusation that Catholics themselves are a bunch of child molesters, which is not something I’ve seen any evidence in support of.

    • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I also wonder logistically how it would work with the confessional booth. The church allows you to confess without the priest ever seeing your face or knowing your name. Would they be required to perform citizens arrests upon hearing of a crime?

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

    • snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      K, so, maybe an unpopular opinion, but given the current administration and local governments of some states… would you have the same reaction if Texas passed a law that priests have to report confessions about being trans, or gay?

        • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          This is about client/attorney or patient/doctor privilege. It’s about the state defining laws that violate said confidentiality agreements. If it the state can violate one confidentiality with a law, why not another?

          More importantly, there’s a difference to you and to me, but I’ll bet there are people in the MAGA base who disagree. Who believe abortion is murder and is therefore worse than child abuse. Who will, when it occurs to them, to pass laws saying that if you admit to an abortion, the priest has to turn you in.

          I mean, abortion is already an unforgivable sin in the Catholic church, so that’s probably no conflict; but child abuse isn’t a mortal sin. You’re trying to apply secular logic to an organization whose rules come from a collection is fairy tales.

  • Limonene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    19 hours ago

    They’ve always had this policy. A priest would be excommunicated for revealing even a murderer, if they knew about it from a confession.