Archbishop pledges to shield pedophiles

[idav]

Then let it be between them and God.


It obstructs "worldly closure." It prevents or delays getting victims the care they need. It prevents or delays justice. It increases the odds of more abuse in future by the perpetrator.


I don't care. That's secondary to making sure that abuse victims get the care they need.

I don't know how I came off but what I'm getting at is, going to a priest is supposed to be getting help, but not if that priest is willing to obstruct justice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's crap that no one else is legally allowed to withhold such information, but the "me, me, me" religious types expect an unreasonable extension of their rights to give special privileges to themselves, at the expense of allowing pedophiles to continue their predatory and harmful ways.
Another fine example of where we allow religion too much freedom.

 

[metis]

That may be true however the church could simply make a very progressive step and post signs outside confessionals that they will no longer enable or facilitate sinners who commit capital crimes OR sinners (parishioners) who commit any sexual crimes against children.

Here in the States, we have the 5th Amendment under our constitution, which prevents forced confessions of self-incrimination, even though forcing such confessions might actually help catch more crooks. So, why do we have this? Because the alternative is worse, namely forced confessions. Do we really want this? Not imo.

As @columus so passionately expressed, the churches have had a pretty dismal track record thus far on policing this type of crime in the past.

There's another issue here as well, namely that if people who have committed a crime well know that their confession may be forced out of the priest hearing it, then why in the world would they go to the priest? The end result is they likely won't go. Then by him/her not going, the priest is in no position to help out the situation, so nothing is gained and some things may be lost in the process.

When I turned 30, I converted to Catholicism and was active for 20 years before leaving, so I did go to confession many times. At no point did I walk in, confess my sins, and just have the priest say just something like "Say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers". No, instead what took place was at the least a short conversation, often with the priest trying to get at the root of the problem and how maybe I could handle it better than I had.

By doing what some here are recommending, what would be lost is the opportunity for the priest to help out because people are less likely to go, therefore nothing would likely be gained overall.

 

[YmirGF]

Here in the States, we have the 5th Amendment under our constitution, which prevents forced confessions of self-incrimination, even though forcing such confessions might actually help catch more crooks. So, why do we have this? Because the alternative is worse, namely forced confessions. Do we really want this? Not imo.

There's another issue here as well, namely that if people who have committed a crime well know that their confession may be forced out of the priest hearing it, then why in the world would they go to the priest? The end result is they likely won't go. Then by him/her not going, the priest is in no position to help out the situation, so nothing is gained and some things may be lost in the process.
When I turned 30, I converted to Catholicism and was active for 20 years before leaving, so I did go to confession many times. At no point did I walk in, confess my sins, and just have the priest say just something like "Say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers". No, instead what took place was at the least a short conversation, often with the priest trying to get at the root of the problem and how maybe I could handle it better than I had.

By doing what some here are recommending, what would be lost is the opportunity for the priest to help out because people are less likely to go, therefore nothing would likely be gained overall.

I get that, @metis

I'm not talking about forced confessions. I'm talking about confessions made to ease a person's guilt to another person who is under some kind of confidentiality rule.

 

[metis]

I'm not talking about forced confessions. I'm talking about confessions made to ease a person's guilt to another person who is under some kind of confidentiality rule.

But that still would be a type of "forced confession".

There simply is no advantage in the long run forcing priests to testify what has been confessed because people simply will stop going.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're essentially looking at this is "black & white" terms when it really is not that simple, plus you use a loaded term with your use of "shielding".

The term is appropriate and accurate.

This had been debated for centuries with even movies made about this, but what you are doing is trivializing the complexity of what really is involved.

It may be complex for the priest, but I don't think it has to be complex for the law.

There are many situations where deciding to obey the law is hard, even if the law is reasonable.

BTW, did you notice that I haven't given an opinion?

I noticed you hadn't said either way. I have no way to see how - or whether - you voted in the poll.

 

[metis]

The term is appropriate and accurate.


It may be complex for the priest, but I don't think it has to be complex for the law.

There are many situations where deciding to obey the law is hard, even if the law is reasonable.


I noticed you hadn't said either way. I have no way to see how - or whether - you voted in the poll.

See my last post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here in the States, we have the 5th Amendment under our constitution, which prevents forced confessions of self-incrimination, even though forcing such confessions might actually help catch more crooks. So, why do we have this? Because the alternative is worse, namely forced confessions. Do we really want this? Not imo.

Voluntary confession isn't forced incrimination.

There's another issue here as well, namely that if people who have committed a crime well know that their confession may be forced out of the priest hearing it, then why in the world would they go to the priest? The end result is they likely won't go. Then by him/her not going, the priest is in no position to help out the situation, so nothing is gained and some things may be lost in the process.

When I turned 30, I converted to Catholicism and was active for 20 years before leaving, so I did go to confession many times. At no point did I walk in, confess my sins, and just have the priest say just something like "Say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers". No, instead what took place was at the least a short conversation, often with the priest trying to get at the root of the problem and how maybe I could handle it better than I had.

By doing what some here are recommending, what would be lost is the opportunity for the priest to help out because people are less likely to go, therefore nothing would likely be gained overall.

Another scenario: an abuse victim might decide not to seek treatment from a doctor for an STD or pregnancy if they think the doctor will report the "relationship" to the police.

Despite this real risk, Australia has decided that the very real harm that happens because of this avoidance of treatment is outweighs by all the harm that will be prevented by mandatory reporting.

Given all this - and noting that nobody here has questioned mandatory reporting for doctors - why bring these issues up for religious ministers... and only religious ministers?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am very fond of the RCC. But this attitude is it's worst feature. "We have always been above the law and will remain so." is not acceptable any more. In fact it is exactly what created the child abuse scandals of the past.

It is why the Church doesn't have the moral authority it used to have. And why it is peculiarly untrustworthy on this particular issue.
I hope that it doesn't become necessary to jail and fine bishops. But if it is then so be it. The children of the world deserve better protection than the Church has been able to provide.
Tom

Hitchens cleverly called that No Child's Behind Left.

I'm pretty sure that if it were any other organization or institution than the Catholic Church that perpetrated what is essentially an international child sex ring, law enforcement whether the US military or Interpol would have invaded the Vatican, seized records, and frog marched the pope out in front of cameras as if it were Noriega, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that still would be a type of "forced confession".

There simply is no advantage in the long run forcing priests to testify what has been confessed because people simply will stop going.

I think you're looking at this too narrowly. It's not so much "forcing priests to testify" as it is mandatory reporting for either professionals who tend to have responsibility for children or literally every adult, depending on the specific jurisdiction in Australia:

Mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect

So why should the law apply to professionals who tend to have responsibility for children except priests or every adult except priests?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's an idea: Keep your confidentiality, but expect to held accountable as an accessory to crime when it's discovered you knew and did nothing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sometimes a priest can go about this in a roundabout way, such as notifying the police that a child may have been molested by an unnamed person.

Would we expect that priest to do the same after the perp confessed to him about his next rape of a minor? There might eventually be a dozen children out there that this same perp has raped and confessed to this trusted priest.

I'm sure that these kids will all need a lot of attention for years to come, so it's great that this priest is letting the community know who has been raped in a timely way.

 

[Mister Silver]

The Catholic Church pedophilia ring and the church's insistence on protecting the priests instead of the children is why I could never support the church or the people who ignore it to remain Catholic. It is no surprise that religious people are rated highest for cognitive dissonance.

 

[metis]

why bring these issues up for religious ministers... and only religious ministers?

First of all, I did not bring up these matters and, secondly, because of the nature of confession as used in religious institutions and not just the CC, it falls into an unusual category. To me, it's like the pleading of the 5th.

Again, we should look at the long-term implications and not just short-term ones, therefore, in the long run, there is not likely anything to be gained but something to be lost as I've already covered.

 

[metis]

The Catholic Church pedophilia ring and the church's insistence on protecting the priests instead of the children is why I could never support the church or the people who ignore it to remain Catholic. It is no surprise that religious people are rated highest for cognitive dissonance.

Apparently you don't keep up with the news as there's been significant steps taken from the top to the bottom to address this issue.

 

[metis]

Would we expect that priest to do the same after the perp confessed to him about his next rape of a minor?

That's actually the tougher question, but what a priest could do is to report to the police that there could be something that they may keep an eye on w/o mentioning names.

One has to realize that a confession by itself is strictly hearsay since the priest probably wasn't a witness to the act, and it would likely boil down to his word versus the suspect's.

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the significance of this issue but am trying to convey there there are complications the minute we start forcing confessions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently you don't keep up with the news as there's been significant steps taken from the top to the bottom to address this issue.

So they say. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who are very concerned with stopping and catching child abusers. It remains to be seen whether they've been secretly undermined by the Vatican as has happened in the past.

 

[metis]

So they say. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who are very concerned with stopping and catching child abusers. It remains to be seen whether they've been secretly undermined by the Vatican as has happened in the past.

The pope has said this must be done and, at least here in the States, the bishops have said that any such indications of abuse must be turned over to the police.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all, I did not bring up these matters

I wasn't talking with myself.

and, secondly, because of the nature of confession as used in religious institutions and not just the CC, it falls into an unusual category. To me, it's like the pleading of the 5th.

Does the law acknowledge this "unusual category" in any other way?

There are plenty of ways that the law creates prohibitions or obligations that can be personally difficult for people and go against their deeply-held beliefs. Despite this, we still ban polygamy, FGM, animal sacrifice, and plenty of other things that people care deeply about. The only real difference I see between mandatory reporting and these other things is that the Catholic Church and Catholic voters have much more political influence than the marginalized groups.

Again, we should look at the long-term implications and not just short-term ones, therefore, in the long run, there is not likely anything to be gained but something to be lost as I've already covered.

You keep saying that nothing will be gained, but I don't buy it. At the very least, it sends the message that sexual abuse of children is unacceptable with no exceptions. I also don't see why it would stop one type of confession that makes up a large proportion of the abuse cases priests find out about: when the child victim thinks that the abuse is their "sin" and seeks absolution for it. In these cases, I see nothing wrong with expecting that a responsible adult who has been told by a child that he or she has suffered abuse would immediately act to notify the police and get the child proper care. Anything less is irresponsible and unethical, regardless of the rules of the Catholic Church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The pope has said this must be done

John Paul II spoke out against sexual abuse of children, too.

and, at least here in the States, the bishops have said that any such indications of abuse must be turned over to the police.

That was what the Irish bishops said, too, and it's what led to the letter to them from the Vatican telling them that these sorts of policies violate canon law.