Should Priests be required to report child abuse exposed during cofessions?

[Jeff]

I think the church should get their own house in order before snitching on other people.
It's well known that Catholic priests have a LONG history with child abuse of this nature.

Do I think they should report it?
My heart says yes, but I think the DOJ is nipping this in the bud to prevent a massive can of worms from potentially opening in all other aspects of the 1st amendment violations. They have a lot more resources available to spend on this than we do.

[Del.]

Because it's nothing more than a deflection from what I asked.  Do you think that priests should get a free pass on this? Answer that, and I'll answer your question. And I promise not to answer a question with a question or a deflection.

Wut? That's what you always do.

[neurosis]

but Yes. I do not think that a priest should be required to report abuse.

That's all I was asking. I don't agree with you, but thanks for answering.

No, I've never been to confession.

3) why stop with child abuse, maybe the person is a mafia hit guy, should the priest be required to report. why stop with child sexual abuse, why not be required to report all abuse. Maybe a man is asking forgiveness for sleeping with prostitutes, that might give his a wife an STD, should a priest be required to report to that man's wife?

Yikes. 

In my opinion, priests shouldn't be protecting anyone for breaking any law. Anything that I'm required to report, they should be required to report.  And look, you know I'm not religious, so I'll never understand the justification for it.

4) do you believe in a wall of separation between church and state? Is that a impenetrable wall or just guideline for when it's fits in to your world view?

I don't believe in anything that protects child abusers. Is that the guideline from my worldview that you're talking about? Or is there something else that you think I'm imposing on the church?

And out of curiosity, when was the last time a preist defended anyone in the court of law and how is that considered a comparable example?

[neurosis]

Wut? That's what you always do.

You might have me there.

[neurosis]

I think the church should get their own house in order before snitching on other people.
It's well known that Catholic priests have a LONG history with child abuse of this nature.

I think they should too, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I don't know why they're protected from reporting sexual abuse inside the church. What is the justification for this?

I know this has probably been argued ad nauseam over the years and I usually stay out of those discussions, but now it's hitting our State, so I'm trying to find the justification for it. From the outside, it looks like religion, particularly Catholic = protect child abusers, and that's not a good look.

but I think the DOJ is nipping this in the bud to prevent a massive can of worms from potentially opening in all other aspects of the 1st amendment violations. They have a lot more resources available to spend on this than we do.

What can of worms are you talking about?  What would be the downside? There may be one that I'm not aware of.



 

[Jeff]

What can of worms are you talking about?  What would be the downside? There may be one that I'm not aware of.

I was speculating about the can of worms and maybe that's why they don't want it to become a law.
We can only make our decisions/opinions on what we know, and the DOJ knows a lot more than we do.
Maybe it opens the door for more potential 1st amendment violations?
Maybe it ruins some court cases?
Who knows.

[mowens]

What can of worms are you talking about?  What would be the downside? There may be one that I'm not aware of.

53 million Catholics in the US.

[neurosis]

53 million Catholics in the US.

That's a lot of voters you would want to keep on your side.

[MIL-TFP-41]

I think that any clergy member that covers up abuse/refuses to disclose abuse should be fed into a woodchipper with the perpetrator of said abuse. This shit happens a lot.

"Oh, this member of the church is in good standing, pays his tithing, goes to church on Sundays. Sure head beats and rapes kids, but we are collecting his $$$, so lets give him a good warning, and have him pray"

Fuck any church who gives a pass on abusers.

[Del.]

That's a lot of voters you would want to keep on your side.

My wife retired from working for a catholic organization. I was surprised by the overwhelming number of liberals from the sisters.

[neurosis]

Fuck any church who gives a pass on abusers.

To me, it's a general "anyone".  I don't care if it's church, family, best friend, whatever.

I've seen what child abuse does to people and anyone who defends it or hides it, deserves the "10" RUBBER SCHLONG OF JUSTICE"

[Jeff]

That's a lot of voters you would want to keep on your side.

As a whole, yes.
But how many are actually doing this? Besides the obvious answer of too many, the number is very small compared to the lot.

If they are able to report this, then what's stopping them from reporting other things from confession? Like hate speech?
Activist priests reporting everything to the police? We already have activist judges and "journalists".
Another door that opens, once it's opened, there's no going back.

We need to find another way of getting this info, I don't think priests giving up confession information is the way.

[neurosis]

As a whole, yes.
But how many are actually doing this? Besides the obvious answer of too many, the number is very small compared to the lot.

My comment was more aimed toward the defense of protecting the Church from laws like the one passed in Washington State.

If the number of Dem vs R Catholics are divided, then the number shouldn't matter when it comes to votes.  I'm guessing that I missed mowens point? 

[beej]

From the outside, it looks like religion = protect child abusers, and that's not a good look.

It's not a good look because of your inability to see the big picture. What if the states had required priests to reveal participants of the underground railroad in the 1850's?

What if the 1940's Germany required priests to disclose the names of people hiding jews from the holocaust. (fun fact:that happened)

So right now we would look at those 2 particular instances and probably think the priests were noble in these secrets from the state. but the problem with your "no-brainer idea" is that if a state can cause a priest to break the seal of confession for something like a child abuser, then they can cause the priest to break the seal for nefarious reasons as well, like the 2 mentioned above.

According to church law, the priest is required to keep the seal of confession even if it leads to his own death under penalty of excommunication. The purpose of the law is to be merciful to the repentant sinner. And while this was an ancient custom of the church dating back 3rd or 4th century, it became coded into Canon law in the year 1215

The people of Washington, enacting that law know full well that the result of this law will lead to the imprisonment of priests rather than the revelation of child abusers. The state of Washington is not going to change Canon law.

[mowens]

If the number of Dem vs R Catholics are divided, then the number shouldn't matter when it comes to votes.  I'm guessing that I missed mowens point? 

I didn't really have a specific point, other than that's a lot of people to piss off.