Archbishop pledges to shield pedophiles

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... and wants legal protection when he does it:

The archbishop of the archdiocese of Melbourne, Denis Hart, said he would risk going to jail rather than report allegations of child sexual abuse raised during confession, and that the sacredness of communication with God during confession should be above the law.

Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession

He's certainly not alone in his opinion, and the law of many countries does give priests the protection he wants.

... but should it? Should priests who decide to shield child abusers be exempt from mandatory reporting laws?

 

[Revoltingest]

Report abuse.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Child abusers should not be shielded under any circumstances. Shielding them behind the guise of religion absolutely sickens me. I have yet to see God come down to personally protect an abused child.

 

[bobhikes]

... and wants legal protection when he does it:



Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession

He's certainly not alone in his opinion, and the law of many countries does give priests the protection he wants.

... but should it? Should priests who decide to shield child abusers be exempt from mandatory reporting laws?

The only reason people confess is because of the protection. Take away the protection and they won't confess. The priest does not just listen to the confession but tells the confessor what he/she must do to be redeemed. They have to make right the sin which means getting the offended's forgiveness. So if you steal you must return the item(or its value) and ask forgiveness of the offended. Many times the confessor is told they must turn themselves in to be in Gods good graces.

They are not shielding any criminals in fact they tell the criminals they are wrong and cannot be forgiven unless they right the wrongs. They are encouraging the criminals to turn themselves in. The criminals that confess realize they have done wrong and this maybe all they need to turn themselves in.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only reason people confess is because of the protection. Take away the protection and they won't confess. The priest does not just listen to the confession but tells the confessor what he/she must do to be redeemed. They have to make right the sin which means getting the offended's forgiveness. So if you steal you must return the item(or its value) and ask forgiveness of the offended. Many times the confessor is told they must turn themselves in to be in Gods good graces.

They are not shielding any criminals in fact they tell the criminals they are wrong and cannot be forgiven unless they right the wrongs. They are encouraging the criminals to turn themselves in. The criminals that confess realize they have done wrong and this maybe all they need to turn themselves in.

The law differentiates between reporting past crimes & the likelihood of committing a
crime in the future. It could be reasonable to allow confidentiality when discussing a
past crime, but it becomes less so if the therapist believes the perp is likely to do it again.
It would be tough to argue that tacitly allowing the rape of more children serves society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only reason people confess is because of the protection. Take away the protection and they won't confess. The priest does not just listen to the confession but tells the confessor what he/she must do to be redeemed. They have to make right the sin which means getting the offended's forgiveness. So if you steal you must return the item(or its value) and ask forgiveness of the offended. Many times the confessor is told they must turn themselves in to be in Gods good graces.

They are not shielding any criminals in fact they tell the criminals they are wrong and cannot be forgiven unless they right the wrongs. They are encouraging the criminals to turn themselves in. The criminals that confess realize they have done wrong and this maybe all they need to turn themselves in.

Where are you getting this stuff from? This Catholic source says that typical practice is to give a penance that can be completed before the penitent leaves the church, and in the rare cases that this limit is exceeded, the penance shouldn't be something that the penitent probably can't or won't complete.

Regardless, would you consider it acceptable if a teacher told a child who was the victim of abuse to tell someone else instead of taking action themselves? If not, why should it be acceptable for a priest to do it?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Perhaps they should just use the same rules as psychologists. If there's potential harm then they should take action.

 

[Lyndon]

The whole concept of confession is ridiculous, it is not even vaguely Biblical, the idea that some man can forgive your sins through intercessing with God is just wrong.

 

[bobhikes]

Where are you getting this stuff from? This Catholic source says that typical practice is to give a penance that can be completed before the penitent leaves the church, and in the rare cases that this limit is exceeded, the penance shouldn't be something that the penitent probably can't or won't complete.

Regardless, would you consider it acceptable if a teacher told a child who was the victim of abuse to tell someone else instead of taking action themselves? If not, why should it be acceptable for a priest to do it?

The key word there is typical practice, most people don't come in admitting to a crime. As an example I know of a person that confessed doing drugs and stealing money from the family to support it. The priest told the person (their words to me) that they must give up drugs and ask the family members that the stole from forgiveness. There are also sins you can't be forgiven for.

The issue is not who is being told it is what the confessor is told about the priest. The confessor is told that the priest will not disclose the information before the confession. This is true of psychologists and lawyers. Even reports hold the claim that they don't have to reveal there source. If it is made clear that no one will have protection when talking about anything to another, I have no problems locking up Priests, Lawyers, Psychologists and Reporters.

Why do cops have to read you, your miranda rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Priests, Lawyers, Psychologists and Reports start reading this before listening then I'm OK with holding them responsible.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted no,I find it utterly sickening,nobody should be shielded no matter who they are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The issue is not who is being told it is what the confessor is told about the priest. The confessor is told that the priest will not disclose the information before the confession. This is true of psychologists and lawyers. Even reports hold the claim that they don't have to reveal there source. If it is made clear that no one will have protection when talking about anything to another, I have no problems locking up Priests, Lawyers, Psychologists and Reporters.

Apparently, this Australian law applies to all of those professions. This archbishop wants a special exemption for priests. IOW, he wants priest-penitent privilege to be given higher status than attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege.

Why do cops have to read you, your miranda rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Priests, Lawyers, Psychologists and Reports start reading this before listening then I'm OK with holding them responsible.

Miranda is an American thing. The story I mentioned in the OP is Australian and I deliberately tried to frame the OP with a worldwide focus.

 

[bobhikes]

Apparently, this Australian law applies to all of those professions. This archbishop wants a special exemption for priests. IOW, he wants priest-penitent privilege to be given higher status than attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege.


Miranda is an American thing. The story I mentioned in the OP is Australian and I deliberately tried to frame the OP with a worldwide focus.

I'm American and can only go by the American standard. I do not believe the church should be treated different than any other client privilege law of the state.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The only reason people confess is because of the protection. Take away the protection and they won't confess. The priest does not just listen to the confession but tells the confessor what he/she must do to be redeemed. They have to make right the sin which means getting the offended's forgiveness. So if you steal you must return the item(or its value) and ask forgiveness of the offended. Many times the confessor is told they must turn themselves in to be in Gods good graces.

They are not shielding any criminals in fact they tell the criminals they are wrong and cannot be forgiven unless they right the wrongs. They are encouraging the criminals to turn themselves in. The criminals that confess realize they have done wrong and this maybe all they need to turn themselves in.

When was the last time a priest exhorted a pedophile to turn himself in and he did it?

When was the last time a pedophile went to his victim and apologized?

Christians do not need to do any more to feel forgiven than to pray for forgiveness. It's automatic. It's forgiveness on demand, and no restitution or apology is necessary, just self-absolution - you know, the sanctifying power of the blood of Christ to wash away sin.

I see no value in facilitating a confession to somebody that needn't report it. The perp should not be comforted.

How is this any different than shuffling pedophile priests around to protect them from known crimes? Should that behavior be protected as well, or considered obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony? Which serves society best?

 

[corynski]

I think all clergymen should be required to follow civil law and report child sexual abuse to authorities.... any and all cases of sexual abuse. Children are already indoctrinated, by their parents and teachers, as well as pastors and priests, to accept older and elder authority, but it is the clergies that must be watched....the celibate clergies in particular I would think, as we learn from everyday news reports. One freethought group in particular, Freedom From Religion, in their publication Freethought Today, has performed this service well, devoting two full pages monthly to listing the convictions. Their website is ffrf.org, and email is [email protected]. Typical entry is: Rev. Dirk P. Jackson, 32, Port Orchard, Wa.: 41 months in prison on 2 counts of indecent liberties. Jackson admitted to sexual contact, including forcing a 12 year old female student to ........ at Manchester Christian Academy...... a charge of 2nd degree rape was dropped in a plea bargain...... He was fired as pastor of a Baptist church after being charged. Or perhaps the "Creep of the Month"...... Rev. Dino Cardelli, 50, former pastor of Calvary Chapel, Arcata, Ca. was sentenced to 18 years in prison for molesting his adopted daughter and using bible verses to justify his assaults, which started when she was 13. Prosecutors said he molested another adopted daughter at least 3 times. Cardelli pleaded guilty in June to continual sexual abuse of a minor, child molestation ..... "It seems very disturbing, as a pastor, to be using the bible to induce the victim to participate, in essence, seducing her with bible passages," Judge Bruce Watson said. Yes, reality can be stranger than fiction......

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Miranda is an American thing. The story I mentioned in the OP is Australian and I deliberately tried to frame the OP with a worldwide focus.

Whilst we word it differently, there are a set of rights communicated to an person being questioned, which includes both the right to remain silent, and the right to contact a legal practioner, as well as a friend or relative.
And we have a LegalAid concept which allows for provision of a lawyer to all parties being questioned.

(just fyi)

 

[Shiranui117]

... and wants legal protection when he does it:



Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession

He's certainly not alone in his opinion, and the law of many countries does give priests the protection he wants.

... but should it? Should priests who decide to shield child abusers be exempt from mandatory reporting laws?

Honestly, I know the Seal of Confession is a thing. I get it. But I think in this case, Catholic priests should absolutely refuse to give absolution until the penitent turns themselves into the police for their crimes. Abbot Tryphon wrote back in 2015: "An important element in confession for any person who is truly sorry for their sins, is their willingness to accept the consequences of justice rendered." And if you're not willing to accept the consequences of your sins, you're not sorry for them. Make the people confessing turn themselves in.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The law differentiates between reporting past crimes & the likelihood of committing a
crime in the future. It could be reasonable to allow confidentiality when discussing a
past crime, but it becomes less so if the therapist believes the perp is likely to do it again.
It would be tough to argue that tacitly allowing the rape of more children serves society.

Boom! Exactly.

The thing that makes priests receiving full immunity from prosecution for complicity compared to your average layman all the more ridiculous is the level of trust invested in a member of the clergy by their religious community. By failing/refusing to come forward with information about a child abuser's activities the priests in question are enabling that abuser to continue their activities confident that one of the few people other than their victims who knows about them is restrained from alerting the authorities - and into the bargain they are breaching their duty of care by permitting (or even personally visiting) harm on some of that religious community's most vulnerable members.

The wider RCC is also culpable as an organisation because its tendency to shunt problematic men of the cloth from one diocese to the next protects them from scrutiny as well as enabling them to continue to molest kids. And to top it off, they encouraged a culture where children who did try to talk to their elders about it were silenced and punished for doing so.

We're already all-too-aware of the consequences of making these clergymen above the law; time to end their unreasonable exemptions.

 

[Kemosloby]

I would say the archbishop shouldn't have to report anything said in confession since it's confidential. But if he has some other reason to believe it's happening he should report it, regardless of whether he also heard about it in confession.

 

[bobhikes]

When was the last time a priest exhorted a pedophile to turn himself in and he did it?

When was the last time a pedophile went to his victim and apologized?

Christians do not need to do any more to feel forgiven than to pray for forgiveness. It's automatic. It's forgiveness on demand, and no restitution or apology is necessary, just self-absolution - you know, the sanctifying power of the blood of Christ to wash away sin.

I see no value in facilitating a confession to somebody that needn't report it. The perp should not be comforted.

How is this any different than shuffling pedophile priests around to protect them from known crimes? Should that behavior be protected as well, or considered obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony? Which serves society best?

For me this in not about the crime, it is about the way the information is gotten. If you lie to a person or torture a person to get the information it is not valid. If the state comes out and says there are no protections for criminals. If they say anything to anyone and that person does not turn the information over to the police they can also be held in jail then it is equal and fair.

If you are only going to only make it illegal for priests and only for a specific crime, I would fight against it to the supreme court.

 

[columbus]

The only reason people confess is because of the protection. Take away the protection and they won't confess. The priest does not just listen to the confession but tells the confessor what he/she must do to be redeemed. They have to make right the sin which means getting the offended's forgiveness. So if you steal you must return the item(or its value) and ask forgiveness of the offended. Many times the confessor is told they must turn themselves in to be in Gods good graces.

They are not shielding any criminals in fact they tell the criminals they are wrong and cannot be forgiven unless they right the wrongs. They are encouraging the criminals to turn themselves in. The criminals that confess realize they have done wrong and this maybe all they need to turn themselves in.

I've been Catholic since I was born, in 1958. I couldn't disagree more.

There's a reason that we have laws requiring people to report child abuse. Laws that don't apply to other kinds of crime, like burglary and drug dealing and fraud. It's because child abuse is so easy to overlook, rationalize, justify, etc. But it causes huge amounts of cumulative damage. This has been going on for centuries. Not just the RCC, but our sense of entitlement and authority has been a huge source of human suffering for altogether too long and has to stop! Child abuse too ugly of a crime to leave it up to a nonprofessional to take responsibility for the outcome of deciding which abusive situations need to be investigated by the law and which don't.

No! Priests need to stick to religion and let other people do their job of protecting people from molesters. They cannot be given legal protection from the outcome of their decisions on this subject. They need to decide whether leaving a child at risk is worth a multimillion dollar lawsuit against their diocese and prison time, or just doing the right thing. Which is involving the professionals, not hiding behind ecclesiastical law.

I have seen too much damage done. No. Take that burden off of priests by requiring them to follow the law.
Tom