Feddit.onlineCatholic Church To Excommunicate Priests for Following New US State Law
www.newsweek.com/catholic-church-excommunicate-…
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
310 Comments
Comments from other communities
FauxPseudoLike any priest was going to turn in a member of his congregation for child abuse in the first place. They'd probably recite "the lord forgives" or "turn the other cheek" and let it go on.
ExtremeDullardWell well, what a surprise... Just when you thought the Catholic church might be turning into a halfway decent organization with some principles, they go right back to their old ways.
In other news: water found to get things wet, bear shits in woods, and a United States President is a criminal.
Some of the things you cite aren't that clear-cut: water doesn't wet Rain-X and bears sometimes shit in cities.
I think this might be a whoosh for you. News casters on television would, before an ad, sometimes give you a preview of what stories they would do and what time they would start talking about them. I juxtaposed a series of unsurprising statements as a response to another unsurprising piece of info: the Catholic church is, in fact, not changing. The items I cited were mundane and unsurprising items, not universal truths.
kroldenWhy would you think that
Did you read the article?
The church warned priests that they'd be punished if they denouce pedophiles to the police.
Who threatens anybody for denouncing pedos to the police? Other pedos, and pedo-friendly organizations, that's who. And the Vatican is known for having been a safe haven for pedos for decades, if not centuries.
So yeah, the Catholic church would love to make you think they're not pedo enablers no more. But you can't make a racehorse with a donkey. They just can't help themselves.
Time to start shutting 'em down and seizing assets, in that case.
Or Washington State should modify the law to protect the anonymity of priests who comply.
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.
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.
You mean like the Boy Scouts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases
Wasn't their founder Lord Baden-Powell a nonce?
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?
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.
Oh yeah, my bad for not including what it's about. I'll edit that back into the post.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Because that is what they are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Looks like I'm going to continue not being catholic.
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):
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] is summarised as:
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.
This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it's not.
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?
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.
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.
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:
This isn't "the US is the exception" for once.
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/
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.
[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.
And really? Most of the Lutheran church specifically agrees with breaching the seal of confessional, and specifically supports mandated reporting.
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.
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.
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.remnantcounselorcollective.com/resources/86536/the-ultimate-guide-to-mandated-reporting-laws-in-all-50-us-states-child-adult-abuse-neglect
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 author
Wait a sec. What the fuck? So reporting child rape is now BAD???
It’s just catholic canon for „snitches get stitches“.
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.
Why aren't all the preists who diddle kids excommunicated?
The oughta write a song about it
Because they get to keep stuff like that secret.
They’d have no priests left
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.
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.
Because that's the whole point of the church. It's just one big sham so they can diddle kids
No one would go to church if they thought their kids wouldn’t get experience
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?
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.
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://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html
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.
They've always had this policy. A priest would be excommunicated for revealing even a murderer, if they knew about it from a confession.
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: 👍
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/will-county-gazette-bias/
Right you are, updated accordingly. Thanks for the tip.
Fucking… of course he did 🤦♂️
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.
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.
The same line of reasoning applies to mental health professionals. But even more so since a judge can order mental health care, but not confession. So why is it considered in one case to keep the avenue open, but not the other?
Well you already pointed at why: because you can be ordered into mental health care. You can't be ordered into confession, it's completely voluntary. Furthermore, priests do not have a legal duty of care; they are not registered professionals with professional standards to follow. Their role is defined by the church, not law and regulation.
In a practical sense, such a law isn't going to work much anyway. It would be almost impossible to prove that a priest had been confessed to, short of someone admitting it directly. So the only way it works is if the child abuser wants to get one over on their priest - giving the child abuser another avenue to hurt someone else.
On the second point, many priests are good people. And they may follow the law simply gecause it exists. So the law could have some impact.
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?
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.
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."
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.
: reads headline
Woo! Good for them! Stick it to The Man!
: reads article body
ahhhh fuck these guys
We also need a law that requires news sources to provide links to law(s) being discussed in their articles!
If anyone would like to read this law here you go.
Fuck. Religion.
Agreed its a cancer on humanity. Fake ass shit.
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.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Abusers-occupation-Occupation-n_tbl4_237962292
There are also mandatory reporting law in many states.
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.
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?
Bingo! You described Catholicism!!!!! And all religions. Actually!!!
Religion is child abuse. Catholics actually systematically rape the kids too.
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
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.
The Catholic church is hardly going to allow priests to be forced to go to the police and admit crimes.
This law is more about priests hearing others confessing to crimes.
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.
And there goes any hope of Ameripope not being a piece of shit. Delightful.
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.
This article is from 2 days ago before he was elected the pope.
How could they possibly have known?! /s
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
A priest is substantially closer to a therapist in function than to a lawyer.
Mixed feelings
Obviously the clergy have absolute values which they believe come from god, so obviously they're not equipped to make exceptions such as this as individuals. You would have to appeal the to pope and cardinals directly to change the rules.
How does the state intend to enforce this? Is there a priest registry in washington state, and does it account for all recognized religions for tax purposes? Are they going to take away peoples license to preach?
During the investigation of child sexual abuse, if the perpetrator is a Catholic, they'll ask if the abuser confessed. If so, the priest is liable to be prosecuted.
Honestly, my biggest problem with the law is how unlikely it is to ever be prosecuted. Proving that an abuser confessed would be impossible. They are infringing on the First Amendment and ensuring that no abuser ever talks to their priest, but in practice priests probably won't follow the law and if they don't the state is unlikely to actually enforce the law.
If they only ask Catholics that sounds like it also infringes freedom of religion first amendment rights. They either have to ask every perp which church/temple/mosque/etc they go to and if they ever told a clergy member or none of the perps.
Aiding child abuse isnt a first amendment right. You are only allowed freedom to practice religion and the government can't force you to practice anything else. Confession isn't protected by this.
If the law specifically targeted Catholics then that denomination would not have equal rights to religion. However, I went and looked up the definition just to put the issue to rest:
~SB 5375
This is wildly outside of the mainstream interpretation of the first amendment. Whether the law would be upheld by the court is basically a toss up.
This isn’t really news. This has always been their stance. Priests will always urge the person to turn them self in for true repentance but they won’t ever break the confidentiality of confession.
We'll kick you out of our kiddy diddler club
Is quite the threat
Priest: I’d like to report child abuse because that’s the law.
Church: You’re out! Go to hell, dickbag.
To be fair and if we consider Catholic lore and dogma technically any kind of breach of the confessional seal is a major breach in Catholic law or whatever. So I understand this from a faith based perspective.
On the other hand, I'm an atheist so fuck the confessional seal and report major crimes. Especially fucking child abuse! Any kind of child abuse!
Other professions that hear personal information, such as psychologists and lawyers, are subject to mandatory reporting requirements, generally when people's lives, either the client or members of the public, are endangered by not reporting.
We make the laws, the Catholic Church is subject to them, regardless of what the reactionary and corrupt Supreme Court might claim.
Catholics and all christians by extension are also bound to do good and protect those who can't defend themselves.
I'm going to risk that denouncing and delivering to secular authoroties those who practice one of the most heinous acts we can think of falls under that responsibility.
Or because the church has lost its power to deliver "justice" of their accord (read inquisition and the follow up torture and mutilation) it has also lost the will to persecute evil deeds?
The confessional is one of the world's most productive intelligence-gathering systems. And it wasn't part of the earliest forms of Christianity-- there's no evidence it was used prior to Constantine. Even when it was first introduced, it was more of an annual thing connected to Lent.
The modern system grew in the middle ages because of its revenue-generating possibilities: the confession -> penance -> absolution pipeline included the possibliity of gaining forgiveness by donating large sums to the Church (remember indulgences?). Nice little earner, that. And it remains a rich source of material to blackmail Catholics who would otherwise do things that are inconvenient to the church hierarchy.
I've phrased this in such a way as to make it clear that it's not just about pedophilia. The Church commits other crimes too (remember the financial entanglement with the Mafia that was exposed during the Banco Ambrosiano scandal?) and also seeks (and uses) other forms of political leverage to protect and expand its power. And they don't want to be scrutinized for fraud or influence-peddling any more than they do for protecting pedos.
I like your point of view but that's an ever dwindling information base. Most catholics don't go to confession and a good portion of humans on this rock isn't one.
But besides that, spot on.
So the new pope is off to a GREAT start, I guess 🤷
So it was unclear to me from the article if it simply made priests mandatory reporters or if it went further. My understanding is that mandatory reporters don't have to report past occurrences specifically. They only havecto report if it is currently happening or they suspect going to happen.
If that is the case, it should be fine. Confession isn't about what you are going to do.
Priests are being made into mandatory reporters in Washington state. In Washington state, the mandatory reporting law appears to require reporting of all past events of abuse - it does not make reference to recent acts or imminent risk.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025
It would be fine as long as it didn't apply to confession where the seal of confession applies to all information. Any other time the priest can and should use any information available to him properly, and that could include that sort of reporting. But the seal is absolute. And honestly it's protected by law, by the constitution and case law, so the Washington law is a hassle but completely toothless as it'll be struck down the moment any challenges to it get brought to the right courts. The authors had to have known it was unconstitutional, so it was basically just them doing this for show, and to antagonize Catholics.
I agree it was for show. But question. You say the seal is absolute and protected by law and the constitution. That seems odd. Any source on that. I totally buy that case law has upheld it. But plenty of case law is beyond the actual written law. And since the constitution covered the separation of church and state, guaranteeing a specific part of a specific religion like confession seems out of place. Though it was common to all the religions they cared about, so they might have.
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).
In Catholicism, presumption makes a confession invalid
Confession is invalid.* (respectfully)
Is this about God's forgiveness not being deserved?
Geez... I never thought I would see so much support for religious bullshit on this site. I'd rather see fewer children harmed than preserve the "sanctity" of confession, and every excommunicated priest is a priest with actual integrity.
It means the law works.
If they truly believe in their faith, then they will serve their sentences faithfully, as a show if their devotion to their god.
Protecting child abuse should have a cost regardless of the motivation.
It's funny, the post above this one on my feed is a bunch of people crowing about how yoid have to be a "tankie" to not support the new head of this organization.
?
From what I've heard he doesn't like Trump, and the tankie label is commonly and incorrectly equated with MAGA.
I do think it's funny that Republicans are attacking the Pope for being "woke" and other nonsense, but are leaving out calling him a pedo. They do it for just about everyone else they call "woke".
Gee, I wonder why this one is different. Lol.
Pedophiles protecting pedophiles? Who would have thunk!
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.
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.
I do cover that in a later comment.
Confession and its confidentiality has already been upheld in legal precedent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine believing this given the current state of the criminal justice system
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.
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
Typical lemmy, finding X abhorrent*.
^*for child-rape values of X^
What the fuck are you talking about cunt?
yer mum
Cool, break that down for us.
I was wrong, the priest is an accessory to the crime.
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.
Doctors are not religious figures. Doctor patient confidentiality is not an absolute protected by the first amendment (with legal precedent).
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.
I agree. That’s a larger problem though.
A larger problem addressed by bills just like this.
Therapists are allowed to maintain confidentiality.
No they are not.
Therapists are subject to mandatory reporting laws.
Is this true? I thought with things like danger to oneself or others they're mandated reporters.
They are.
Source: wife is a therapist. She is also ethically obligated to (and does) disclose her mandatory reporting obligations to new clients.
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
That's an interesting point. Maybe priests should have similar requirements, licensing, oversight, and malpractice liability.
Yep
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.
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.
Just make a new tax called the "Molestation Enablers Tax" that all institutions will pay if they opt out of reporting.
The directive came from the Archidiocese of Seattle, not (apparently) the Vatican. This archdiocese has been at the center of the scandal that prompted the law, so it looks like the archbishop may be doubling down on the cover-up.
Excommunicated vs Imprisoned. The choice is yours.
Imprisoned for what? I can't see how any jury could ever convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" or what not on someone saying something. Most prosecutors would likely say you'd need more evidence to even start building a case. Now if the person went to the police and reported being sexually assaulted and then the priest came forward it might go somewhere, but even then it may not go anywhere if there wasn't evidence. They have to prove someone performed an illegal act, which someone's word counts for shit. We could get 1,000,000 people to say pdiddy raped Selina Gomez, but without any other evidence, it shouldn't go anywhere with the way our justice system is set up.
Public Defender: "were you there?"
Priest: "No"
It is illegal to be complicit in child sex abuse.
"Oh but the rapist must be comfortable in knowing their confession is scared knowledge"
Rights never are allowed to harm others so gravely. Will this law flush it all out? Doubt it, but the duty to protect children has nothing to do with religion.
I find it hard to believe this is controversial.
It's not yours, though. It is the choice of the state/federal prosecutors. And that's where this gets hairy.
Because the modern political order is dripping with pedophiles and rapists and accomplices to the same. They go about openly admitting to their crimes, while silencing their critics and avoiding any kind of punishment. Meanwhile, they unleash the fully-unchecked power of the police, in defiance of court order and legislative statute, to arrest and remove suspects without trial or even serious investigation.
A legal system operating in this capacity - one in which a donation to Trump's bitcoin fund matters more than the contents of a case file or a jury's verdict - cannot deliver anything resembling justice.
Found the bot.
Well, glad I'm not catholic. Fuck these assholes
Holy fuck that’s awful
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?
I would argue that being trans or gay isn’t actively harming anyone else just like being cis or straight isn’t. There’s no difference.
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.
So they aren't blatantly evil at least. Confessions remaining private is the foundation of how they work. Either way, the church loses on this one.
The actual law isn't about confessions nor is it solely about CSAM. What Washington State has done is amend their mandatory report law by removing the exemption for Clergy.
"...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 as provided in RCW 26.44.040."
So yes, if a Priest (Catholic or not) hears a confession about CSAM they will be required to report. However if they hear about child *neglect *in a confession they have to report that as well.
Likely more meaningfully they ALSO now have to report those same things even if it isn't during a Confession. For example if they witness a parent smacking their kid around in the parking lot.
It's a necessary and correct change but it reaches a lot further than just the confessional.
It would seem the church is looking at it from the opposite direction: it reaches all the way into the confessional. Anything outside it should be fair game, it's just the violation of the sacrament they object to - though I guess "go
confessturn your self in" could count as "cause a report to be made".Client-therapist privilege is foundational to how therapy works, but most states have laws saying a therapist must report admissions of abuse. I don't see doctors rallying against those laws.
Still blatantly evil. Telling someone your crimes in confidence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card.
Take away their tax exempt status and tax them as the huge profitable businesses that they are.
The legit response. And continue to arrest members of this self aggrandized gang for the crimes they commit.
Deleted by moderator
It's not unique to Catholicism. Fundamentalists are just as bad. It's also not unique to Christians. It's not even unique to religious people.
So your rant is obscuring the real scope and nature of the problem, and your encouragement of arson would almost certainly lead to the deaths of innocent people.
Incidentally, I'm an atheist who is a former Catholic, so there's no love lost between me and the Catholic Church. But I'm also aware that the US has an ugly history of anti-Catholic persecution that has no basis in the church's odious practices. For example, the KKK and many nativist groups from the late 19th and early 20th centuries hated Catholics as much as they hated Black people or the Chinese.
Oh, there are plenty of other kinds of war going on now in addition to the class war that the rich have been waging against us for centuries.
Let's do the thought experiment where this is about muslims instead of christians...
How does that play out?
Call me crazy, but I don't think any religion should be molesting children or hiding it for others.
Ill call you Thomas the Tank Engine if i care to call at all, and i was pointing out the selective exceptionalism at work.
Kinda torn on this one. Confessional is kind of like a safe space — like talking to your therapist or a lawyer. It doesn’t help that the Catholic Church is probably the biggest cabal of pedophiles on earth. But, if they weren’t there would be an argument.
There is no absolute confidentiality even with therapists and lawyers, they're both obligated to report anything said to them that they believe indicates you're planning to commit a crime or do harm to yourself or others. You can't just walk into your lawyers office and go "so I was molesting this eight year old" and expect them not to report that.
In the US there isn't but as far as I can tell, over here in Germany lawyers and doctors are not permitted to report past crimes. The damage has been done and there is no harm to prevent anymore, as such keeping confidentiality has a higher priority than the state's desire to prosecute crimes.
Even if these groups become aware of future planned crimes, they are not obligated to report anything if they genuinely attempt to prevent the person from comitting the crime (except for murder, manslaughter, kidnapping/taking hostages, genocide or war crimes).
How does the nonexistant confidentiality of lawyers prevent them from deciding to stop being your lawyer and become a witness against you? I.e. you are accused of a crime, admit said crime to your lawyer, your lawyer then becomes a witness stating you admitted to the crime.
Past crimes, when there's no reason to believe you would commit another crime in the future are covered by confidentiality. However if the lawyer believes you intend to continue committing crimes or that you have admitted that you plan on committing a crime are not covered. So yes, your lawyer could be a witness against you if you admit to planning a crime you have either not yet committed, or which you hadn't committed at the time you told your lawyer but subsequently then committed.
There's also a question on whether admitting to crimes unrelated to your current case is covered by confidentiality or not. I'm not entirely clear on if that applies, but I think E.G. if a lawyer is representing you on a robbery case and you admit to him you murdered somebody 5 years ago he might be allowed to tell the police about that without breaking his obligation of confidentiality since that admission is entirely unrelated to the current case.
Isn’t a confessional where you talk about past crimes? You absolutely do have a right to discuss past crimes with your lawyer in confidence. It’s called attorney-client privilege.
That privilege does not extend to ongoing crimes or future crimes. Lawyers have an obligation to act to prevent harm to both their client and others. If you were to tell your lawyer you kidnapped someone and locked them in your basement, they're absolutely going to tell the police about it so that person can be rescued. Past crimes may or may not be confidential depending on the nature of them. For instance if you admit to molesting a kid in the past that's currently living with you the lawyer would likely report that because it's highly likely you would molest that child again in the future. It's all contextual, but there is no absolute right to confidentiality.
If the lawyer believes you might commit a new crime based on the way you talk about past crimes, they are required to report it. Therapists might have to report past crimes, depending on the age of the victim and the type of crime. They have to report current and future crimes if there might be danger to others.
Oh, are we going to play that game?
Why does the Catholic Church have to be so fucking evil?
It was founded on lies and for political reasons. Remember: Jesus was a Jew, a God fearing man in the vein of Abraham and Solomon, he never meant to create a new religion ("I didn't come to change the law, I came to enforce it") but Rome had to ride the Jesus wave or get trampled underneath it so they added their semi OG anthropomorphic polytheism to make it palatable to the European masses and bam, Catholicism was born.
Bro it's breaking Catholic canon. They can change that shit that's what the Pope is for.
Maybe God would be chill with revealing child abuse even if it comes from confession. Just carve a little exception out there. Crazy that the clergy would rather protect pedophiles than reinterpreting some doctrine.
First off, adapting religion to secular laws is not how that works. There's the separation of church an state and the state should have no say in any religion. The country was based on religious freedom and escaping what the English kings were trying to do to Christianity in their realms (controlling religion).
But second you shouldn't take that way since you don't seem to grasp the role reconciliation has for Catholics and Orthodox (and others). It's a sacrament (or sacred mystery for Orthodox). That's dogma and the practice/form is in large part a matter of unchangeable doctrine. That kind of doctrine never gets changed, ever, and never has. It's an essential part of Catholics' beliefs. Parts of format are just regular teaching which can get changed, but that's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of practice (in this case canon law) guided by the foundatinal dogma and unchanging doctrine. The seal of confessing is so fundamental, so sacred that there have been numerous martyrs whose status comes from having been willing to die rather than break it. It's would be less grave to lie about believing in Christ to save your life than to break the seal (and most martyrs died for refusing to reject their faith when Christianity was prohibited).
Oh, well my bad, I didn't realize mumbo jumbo God land gets a fucking wave off for protecting pedophiles because it's been that way for a long time.
The state saying, "hey you can't hide behind the veil of religion to protect the people doing horrible things to children," is definitely something to argue in court regarding the first amendment.
I'd argue it's not a restriction of the practice of religion to compell someone with knowledge of child abuse or similarly heinous crimes to share that with an authority (the state) that can take action to protect people.
Setting all that aside. How is it not just wrong on some fundamental level to have the power to halt but still let abuse and pedophilia occur? It just seems wrong.
Maybe that's why religious participation has been declining. Because they're busy telling you that it's sacred to protect pedophiles.
Quick edit:
Emphasis mine. Ok so you're saying that there is a possibility that dogma and the practice/form can change and has changed. So... Let's do that.
Holy Shit!
The holiest of shits
Confession is a sacrament of the Catholic Church - pretty much the definition of "religion" in Europe for two thousand years. It's clearly something the first amendment is intended to protect and this law is well over the line into unconstitutional.
You know what, you're right. We should definitely not protect children from a lifetime of trauma because of tradition. What was I thinking?
And this is clearly not something the first amendment is intended to protect. The first amendment is about government punishment for private speech and allowing religion to be practiced. This doesn't stop the religion from being practiced, it just says priests have a choice between a temporary time out from the church and a temporary time out from society if they choose to protect child abusers. And even if it were about this, we ALREADY have laws compelling people to report crimes. You think because it is a priest they get a special pass that lawyers, therapists, and doctors don't get?
Honestly I agree with you here. Either confessions are protected from being used as evidence or they aren't there cannot be specific carve outs for this even for child abuse. Its all or nothing here.
So, all. Obviously. Why should there be any protection for admitting your crimes because a special club you're part of has a tradition of keeping secrets?
Same reason there is protection if you admit crimes to your lawyer and sometimes to your spouse. It's a matter of privacy. It isn't just some special club, any faith that establishes a rite similar to confession should be able to use a similar protective mechanism within certain limits to enable discussion about sensitive and possibly criminal issues.
To be fair, the issue isn't so much the person admitting things being protected by being part of the church, but if a third party not associated with law enforcement can be compelled to say to said law enforcement about the things said to them. Honestly I think I get the arguments on both sides of this one, it's not great to legally compel people to say things, especially when saying those things is directly in violation of their sense of ethics, and it's also not great to just not do anything when made aware of something like child abuse. I think that a law like this is unlikely to help much though: if the church caves, then it seems unlikely that people would be willing to admit to these things anymore anyway, at least to priests, and if they don't, these guys seem to believe that the consequences of following the law are worse than breaking it, and so it seems unlikely to do much more than occasionally send a priest to jail when it can be proven that they were told of something and didn't report it.
Are you aware of how the mandatory reporting laws came into being? It is absolutely fucked up beyond belief. Anyone who doesn't report these sorts of crimes has no ethics.
It's not really true that they have no ethics though, if it was, it'd be a simpler problem, because they'd presumably just care about reducing unpleasant consequences to themselves and as such a legal deterrent should be effective. The issue is that they have different ethics, which are misaligned with everyone else's and so result in conflict when they stubbornly refuse to do something that everyone else perceives as a no-brainer. It isn't like the church gets some material gain out of keeping confession secret.
You can run but you can't hide.
That catholics should practice confession is a religious belief. But the confidentiality part is from canon law - i.e. in terminology of most other organisations, it is a policy. It is a long-standing policy to punish priests for breaking it, dating back to at least the 12th century, but nonetheless the confidentiality is only a policy within a religious organisation, and not a religious belief.
Many organisations punish individuals who break their policy. But if an organisation has a policy, and insist that it be followed even when following it is contrary to the law, and would do immense harm to vulnerable individuals, then I think it is fair to call that organisation evil - and to hold them culpable for harm resulting from that policy.
Even if the confidentiality itself was a core part of the religious belief itself, religious freedom does not generally extend to violating the rights of others, even if the religion demands it. Engaging in violent jihad, for example, is not a protected right even in places where religious freedom cannot be limited, even if the person adheres to a sect that requires it.
Double win! Child abuse gets reported, and the catholic church gets less influence.
Priests for jail! So many of them should be there for their own pedophile anyway.