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
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.
This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it’s not.
A mandated reporter is a person who is required by law to report crimes, typically if they know or suspect a child or vulnerable adult has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected
Mandated reporters have to report child abuse. Full goddamn stop. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past, why the fuck would that change anything?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It’s always a balancing act and from what I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Mandatory reporting doesn’t solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There’s a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit. Without mandated reporting, we can literally never know what happened.
There is very little evidence of societal benefits or needs when it comes to secrecy in confession. There are benefits and needs when it comes to secrecy with mental health professionals, and yet they often are mandated to report these crimes anyway, because the risks of not reporting far outweigh the benefits of secrecy.
Germany is behind the times and most of the EU on this one:
In 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) reporting obligations are in place for all professionals.
In 10 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia) existing obligations only address certain professional groups such as social workers or teachers.
In Germany, Malta and the Netherlands, no reporting obligations were in place in March 2014.
This isn’t “the US is the exception” for once.
I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Don’t know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/
But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.
So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say “I can convince this guy to be more mindful”. That alone wouldn’t be that bad, but if you’re in a downward spiral, “causing harm to yourself”, they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.
[citation needed]
I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting – but not when it comes to confession. “See something, do something”, yes, but not “Take confession, do something”.
It’s that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for – somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don’t turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won’t do anything to institutional rot. You’re focussing on the wrong thing.
I’m a medical student in America and we’re required to know some of the legal cases that define our standards and practices. The legal precedent that requires the breach of confidentiality to report a patient for being a danger to themselves or others is the Tarasoff case.
A patient has to be a direct threat to themselves or others in terms of suicide, self-harm, assault, or murder (i.e. meaningful bodily harm) to justify the breach of confidentiality.
The TL;DR of the Tarasoff case was a patient was talking to his physician about wanting to kill his stalking target and then he did so. The precedent means that a physician is required to notify the potential victim and/or the police if a direct threat is made.
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Please provide a source of that actually happening or a legislative or judicial ruling that supports that idea at all.
While there is some support for absolute secrecy of a private confession, Lutheran history and the Book of Concord do not support the concept of keeping a confidence if it risks the ongoing abuse or death of a child or requires the pastor to violate civil or criminal laws designed to protect children from abuse.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt."
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Did some further googling and it appears that what I remember might apply to a) school councillors and the like, and b) law enforcement getting reports about type of treatment after they dropped someone off. Why law enforcement is doing EMT stuff is of course yet a whole another topic.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt.
And that’s exactly how German law sees it: Breaking confidence is permitted in certain cases, but not mandated. On the flipside, if you’re e.g. a cop or a child care worker, when you see certain things you are required to pursue them, that’s different in e.g. the Netherlands where cops are free to ignore you if you light up a joint in front of them, and tell them about it, and don’t even hide it in a brown bag. People taking confessions including therapists are neither of those, though, so they do not have that kind of duty.
Law will never be able to cover, in detail, the balancing process necessary to actually reduce harm in any specific case. It is a very blunt instrument.
You’re exchanging one absolute for another. The original absolute btw, not being that absolute because catholic priests can tattle anonymously (if the state allows for such things, different topic), and then themselves confess. But it should never be a “hear X, do Y” kind of deal. That doesn’t serve the situation.
This is not true. A therapist would be required to break confidentially if they became aware that their Client is going to harm themselves or others, or if they are mandated by law.
What someone already did in the past generally isn’t reported.
I find zero sources that agree with your claim.
I find several sources that indicate that therapists in all US states are required to break confidentiality when child abuse has occurred.
https://psychcentral.com/health/what-do-therapists-have-to-report
https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-must-a-therapist-file-a-report
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-therapists-report-confidentiality_l_5d2cf063e4b0bca603641a62
https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/exceptions-to-confidentiality-in-counseling
So either you’re talking about another country’s laws (in which case I’d like to know which country), or you’re just incorrect.
I’m in Colombia, where psychologists are required to report “human rights violations, mistreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions of confinement of which any person is a victim and of which they become aware in the exercise of their profession.”
deleted by creator
Shit like this is why it is explicitly written that Baha’is must follow the law of the land before the laws of god.
That’s not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don’t confess to things that haven’t happened yet. You’re more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that’s when a confession should become reportable, if we’re want the law to be secular and equitable.
Technically everything you’ve done is in the past, unless you’re doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they’re confessing, it’s in the past, they’re repentant–not an ongoing risk–therefore I don’t have to report. But that’s obviously bullshit.
What’s your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don’t have to report cases of child abuse.
I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.
It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).
To be clear, it’s the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):
What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?
At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that’s pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[1:1] is summarised as:
When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) ↩︎ ↩︎
https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/ ↩︎
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.
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:
(18) “Member of the clergy” means any regularly licensed,27 accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or28 similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church,29 religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect,30 or person performing official duties that are recognized as the31 duties of a member of the clergy under the discipline, tenets,32 doctrine, or custom of the person’s church, religious denomination,33 religious body, spiritual community, or sect, whether acting in an34 individual capacity or as an employee, agent, or official of any35 public or private organization or institution.
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.
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.
Fuck. Religion.
Agreed its a cancer on humanity. Fake ass shit.
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:
That’s dogma and the practice/form is in large part a matter of unchangeable doctrine
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 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.
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?
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn’t the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be “saved from God”, and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.
I don’t know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it’s true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I’m too skeptical of the state to trust it’ll always be a good thing.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume).
Lawyers don’t get to avoid this. They need to, in fact they are forced to, otherwise the entire legal system fails. There is no justice without privileged defense. That’s literally in the fifth amendment.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
Confession requires penitance. They must confess and repent to God, but there is no reason why the penitance for Catholic confession can’t involve actually fucking answering for your crimes.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
It is not the opposite direction. It’s the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn’t only between you and the clergy.
I don’t think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they’re required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there’s no reason it shouldn’t expand to more/all crimes.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It’d only be things said in the confession box that are safe.
I don’t like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people’s lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?
Not all laws are good or just.
And yet, it’s effectively a universal truth that child sexual abuse is the gravest offense imaginable, and a very common result of religious secrecy is covering up child sexual abuse.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason. We can all fucking agree on a law against child sexual abuse being fair and just. When it comes to anything else, we can have that conversation.
No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes.
Except for the fact that there’s a legal loophole in place for confession. If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”
Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn’t fallacious always.
'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:
“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”
The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A’
(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)
Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.
If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is “I cannot testify, it is against my religion.”
That’s just blatantly incorrect. They’re not required to report on stuff they’re told in confessionals and that’s all. They’re still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?
Do you understand the issue? The priest can’t ever say “I can’t testify because I heard it in confession” because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say “I cannot testify” and we all have to leave it at that.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.
In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I’m sure this won’t always happen, but it may. If they’re required to report it, they’ll never be told, so can’t act on it.
I don’t like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it’s way into people’s lives that I don’t like.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.
Is this intentionally bad faith, or just a deep misunderstanding of the legal system?
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
They also have the bar - a legal association specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
It’s not perfect, but it’s something.
It’s not the same for the clergy. A priest can be witness to whatever, and there’s no legal obligation to stop being the person’s priest or hearing their confessions. But there is a tremendous amount of evidence that clergy associations have been exclusively dedicated to ensuring that clergy never face the law at all.
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person’s lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.
They also have the bar - a legal association…
An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.
…specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
Sure, I’d advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.
I feel like it’s fair to say that if you want god’s forgiveness you must accept mans judgement in cases of abuse. If their god’s salvation is worth less than however many years of prison they’d get, then that’s their choice. I don’t want them to be able to shrug off the guilt and continue the abuse with peace of mind just so they may also escape the punishment they think would otherwise await them after death.
deleted by creator
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.
Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.
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.
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.
I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.
If the Bar Association told their lawyers not to report child abuse from their clients you would have a point. And confidentiality agreements are not going to protect child abuse. The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers in order to maintain their “reputation”.
The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers
Nearly 1000 years of a confession’s confidentiality being absolute and the punishment for violating it being excommunication, is the exact opposite of “going out of its way”.
Ah, yes… tradition! Because the way things have been done is the way they must, should, will be done! Something being wrong is still wrong despite any length of time it has been done.
No, that just means they’ve been going out of their way to protect abusers for nearly 1000 years
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent? Why the fuck do you think any policy that hides child abuse is okay?
If you know a kid is getting hurt and you don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. If you defend those that don’t say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. I hope you reflect on that before putting some imaginary sky daddy rules before a living and breathing child. The same ones he told you guys to protect and you decided to rape them instead.
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?
No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.
But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.
I’d argue, and this isn’t easy, the church can continue to use the rule. After all, it is from “God”. Who are we to define the rules. But any priest (and above) that doesn’t report it, is an awful human being. Stick to dogma, but accept the consequences of being a human. If a child is abused and you can stop it, pay the price to make it stop. Child is safe; you go to hell - fair deal. No mater what, someone is going to suffer. Make the “saintly” call. And make it known!
I’d argue, and this isn’t easy
Then don’t? There is absolutely no reason society needs to obey objectively evil arcane rules because some dude who has absolutely no say in how we run society says we should.
I still have absolutely no idea why people would jump in to defend the churches right to keep CHILD ABUSE secret. It seems like you would either be afraid of getting discovered, or you have so little faith in your church that you’re afraid they’re going to get discovered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
What about the CIA and the pentagon?
You mean like the Boy Scouts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases
Do the Boy Scouts have a legally protected mechanism to talk with each other about their child fucking that I’m not aware of?
They do not. Your point of distinction is valid.
Like a Signal chat? Wtf are you even asking?
I’m talking about how Catholic priests can legally refuse to report child abuse revealed to them in confessional in most states, the subject of this post.
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 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 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 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
Wasn’t their founder Lord Baden-Powell a nonce?
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!
Oh yeah, my bad for not including what it’s about. I’ll edit that back into the post.
Just make a new tax called the “Molestation Enablers Tax” that all institutions will pay if they opt out of reporting.
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.
Yeah presumably not other priests confessing to crimes involving abusing children.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the new pope is off to a GREAT start, I guess 🤷
We also need a law that requires news sources to provide links to law(s) being discussed in their articles!
Why aren’t all the preists who diddle kids excommunicated?
They’d have no priests left
No one would go to church if they thought their kids wouldn’t get experience
The oughta write a song about it
Because that’s the whole point of the church. It’s just one big sham so they can diddle kids
Catholic Church = Child Molester Haven.
Pretty simple.
Oh, it’s most churches. And the GOP.
I’m going to describe a joke from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (since I can’t find a clip).
The season 15 Ireland arc
After Mac goes to a church and tells a priest he wants to become a priest, he presents a potential conflict. In vague terms, Mac explains he is gay. The priest the entire time says that is acceptable. In the end you learn the priest misunderstood and thought Mac was saying he was sexually attracted to children.
Because they get to keep stuff like that secret.
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.
