Archbishop pledges to shield pedophiles

[Deidre]

I read the article and the guy's comments. Another old dude who is in a position of power within the RCC, who doesn't give AF about kids. Say it ain't so.

I guess at least we should give him props for being honest. He's at least open enough to admit that he doesn't care about the well being of kids, and that the Church's made up rules that aren't Biblical, are superior to the legal system. Many in the hierarchy clearly don't care about kids because they've allowed so much abuse to happen on their collective watches, but at least this guy, admits he doesn't care.

This institution has evil running through it, straight up evil.

https://news.vice.com/article/pope-francis-accused-of-shielding-priests-who-sexually-abused-children

In this article, the author writes ''Pope Francis has been surprisingly silent on this issue...'' Yea, I bet. It's amazing to me that you can be a criminal basically, or know of crimes being committed in your organization, not report them, and get selected to be in these lofty positions of power. And the crimes are against children, no less. It's just so sad and upsetting.

 

[metis]

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.

I'm certainly not opposed to that, so I've not stated nor implied that the priest doing nothing is somehow fine with me..

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

Ya, but not forcefully enough, so I don't cut him any slack whatsoever..

Anyhow, I've made my point, and let me just finish off with my first response was to you, namely that this is a tough nut to crack because there's numerous factors that should be taken into consideration. I don't see it in black & white terms, nor do I justify the atrocities that have been committed by the CC and other religious or secular institutions. You might remember me mentioning a while back that my younger daughter was molested by the choir director at my wife's church, and the diocese just moved him to another church, so I know what the effect of things like that is like and how it feels.

 

[metis]

BTW, to what I just posted let me add this, namely that it is very "natural" for not only so many religious institutions but also secular ones as well, to go into a defense mode when threatened. This in no way justifies these actions, but it is probably more common versus those institutions that say "Ya, we're all too corrupt as well".

Also, let me add to my add above that if one feels that it should be compulsory for a priest to testify what he hears in confession, then logically one should also be opposed to the 5th Amendment. Think about it.

 

[Kemosloby]

I agree that the criminal should pay the price, but the price that the state has a right to ask of the convicted felon is the loss of freedom, the loss of dignity, the social stigma, removal from the household, the loss of income, the permanent loss of the vote, and the permanent loss of the right to gun ownership - not beatings, rapings, AIDS acquisition, or murder.

Do you agree?

Prison has its own rules...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Hey, I mentioned this before, but there's a book (quite old now) called 'God and the Gun' that deals with confessionals in the context of the IRA.
It doesn't fall clearly on any 'side' but my overall impression is that the good the church could do by sending a clear message about acceptable behaviour outweighed the very small chance of a priest being able to 'talk someone out' of a crime.
Catholics do seem to want to live in a state of Grace, regardless of the crimes they are committing, and withholding this is more effective than talking people through issues within the bounds of confessional.

Just my take, though. It's an interesting book.

 

[Glaurung]

This is a hard thing to evaluate because it's not amenable to experimentation.

Reason alone is sufficient to grasp that a criminal will not self-incriminate to a priest who is likely to alert the authorities, unless of course that criminal has the contrition to be turned in the first place. (Which one would imagine would be the minimum required for absolution). As much as you may want to 'stick it to the Church', in terms of actually protecting children you've accomplished nothing by such laws.

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.

No one disputes that the state has the right to punish those molesting children, no matter who they are. And no one disputes that the Church failed spectacularly in the scandals and that should be held to account for that.

Be that as it may, the faith does trump the state. It trumps even our lives. That the Church institution has failed so utterly in addressing the issue of pederasts in its ranks doesn't change the authority of the faith and the laws of the Church regarding that faith.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Reason alone is sufficient to grasp that a criminal will not self-incriminate to a priest who is likely to alert the authorities, unless of course that criminal has the contrition to be turned in the first place. (Which one would imagine would be the minimum required for absolution). As much as you may want to 'stick it to the Church', in terms of actually protecting children you've accomplished nothing by such laws.


No one disputes that the state has the right to punish those molesting children, no matter who they are. And no one disputes that the Church failed spectacularly in the scandals and that should be held to account for that.

Be that as it may, the faith does trump the state. It trumps even our lives. That the Church institution has failed so utterly in addressing the issue of pederasts in its ranks doesn't change the authority of the faith and the laws of the Church regarding that faith.

The laws should apply to all. Protection of children doesn't stop at the doors of a church. Or should not. Mandatory reporting laws either are good for society or they're not.

Take the priest out of it. What should a doctor who is treating an injured child do if those injuries are likely the result of sexual abuse?

 

[Glaurung]

The laws should apply to all. Protection of children doesn't stop at the doors of a church. Or should not. Mandatory reporting laws either are good for society or they're not.

You're not answering the question. If the seal of confession is compromised then who not willing to be turned in would go to confession at all? Albeit going to confession without that willingness is probably futile to begin with as I would hope that accepting legal consequences would be a prerequisite to absolution.

Take the priest out of it. What should a doctor who is treating an injured child do if those injuries are likely the result of sexual abuse?

Report it, as a priest should if he were to notice such signs. I'm not saying that a priest can't report obvious abuse if it is occurring. What I'm saying is that a priest can never under any circumstances whatsoever on pain of excommunication break the seal of confession. And the attempt to force priests to do so won't actually result in protecting children because as I've said multiple times, who would go to a potentially compromised confession?

I also question just how often it is that serious crimes are ever actually confessed.

 

[JJ50]

Anyone failing to report child abuse should be arrested and sent down for a good long time. As for paedophiles, priests or otherwise, they should be locked up for life, without remission, as they are always a danger to children.

 

[Glaurung]

Anyone failing to report child abuse should be arrested and sent down for a good long time. As for paedophiles, priests or otherwise, they should be locked up for life, without remission, as they are always a danger to children.

Which makes me wonder how long it will be before the progressive movement starts to push for gradual lowering the age of consent wherein pederasty starts become slowly acceptable. #love is love.

Mark my words, it will happen. Probably a few years after getting polygamy though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're not answering the question. If the seal of confession is compromised then who not willing to be turned in would go to confession at all? Albeit going to confession without that willingness is probably futile to being with as I would hope that accepting legal consequences would be a prerequisite to absolution.


Report it, as a priest should if he were to notice such signs. I'm not saying that a priest can't report obvious abuse if it is occurring. What I'm saying is that a priest can never under any circumstances whatsoever on pain of excommunication break the seal of confession. And the attempt to force priests to do so won't actually result in protecting children because as I've said multiple times, who would go to a potentially compromised confession?

I imagine that because of this coercion from the Church that you describe, enough priests will disobey the rule enough of the time that a criminal might feel safe with the "right" priest.

And I think it would be pretty rare for the perp himself or herself to confess. The more likely scenario, IMO, is that the child victim blames themselves for what happened and seeks absolution for their "sins." ... or other peripheral people mention things that lead to the priest knowing about the abuse: maybe a wife mentioning that her husband molests their daughter, for instance.

There are lots of ways that a priest could find out about abuse in the confessional.

Also, it's worth pointing out that some priests and churches might take steps to make sure their conflict of conscience never takes place by doing their best to root out and report abusers before they get to the confessional. If that was the only consequence of the law, it would be very positive just because of that, IMO.

I also question just how often it is that serious crimes are ever actually confessed.

Often enough that it's a concern for the archbishop.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, let me add to my add above that if one feels that it should be compulsory for a priest to testify what he hears in confession, then logically one should also be opposed to the 5th Amendment. Think about it.

The 5th gives us the option to not self-incriminate our own self. However, there are already legal obligations for those who work in many different fields to report even suspected child/sexual abuse.

Which makes me wonder how long it will be before the progressive movement starts to push for gradual lowering the age of consent wherein pederasty starts become slowly acceptable. #love is love.

Personally, I'm for people starting to have sex when they are ready to have sex, rather than this silly and absurd idea that we all become ready at the same age, and just cannot absolutely handle it before that.

 

[Ponder This]

... 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?

It's my understanding that mandatory reporting increases the number of cases reported enormously, but decreases the number of substantiated cases. A lot of pointing fingers is reminiscent of a witch hunt.

If mandatory reporting leads to fewer abusers being caught, then it seems to be a case of public ignorance and general human stupidity to mandate it. It's an emotional response rather than a rational one that makes people feel like they are doing something about the problem when in reality they aren't (and may even be causing the crime to go undetected/unpunished).

I think there is a burden of proof to show that mandatory reporting deters the crime. Since mandatory reporting is an invasion of a confidential communications, it stands to reason that the invasion must be justified and that in the absence of this justification such laws should be considered a violation of human rights.

Supposing that such a law actually had the intended effect of catching more perpetrators of abuse, there would still exist a debate about mandatory reporting, but there would actually be a case for it rather than a mere expression of emotional outrage and clouded thinking about solutions: "I hate the church, therefore, we need to impose upon them."

 

[JJ50]

The 5th gives us the option to not self-incriminate our own self. However, there are already legal obligations for those who work in many different fields to report even suspected child/sexual abuse.

Personally, I'm for people starting to have sex when they are ready to have sex, rather than this silly and absurd idea that we all become ready at the same age, and just cannot absolutely handle it before that.

That is what the 'Paedophile Information Exchange' suggested, saying that children had a right to have sex with adults! They are now a banned organisation, thank goodness. Any adult who makes an excuse for having sex with a child is a social pariah!

 

[leibowde84]

... 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, here is what I think should happen. Priests keep up appearances and promise (with their fingers crossed) to not go to the police regarding admitted child abuse. Then, they should go to the police anonymously, initiating an investigation. They should not be called to testify in court or make any public statements, but they should at the very least initiate investigations.

It seems like the Archbishop is putting the importance of confession above the safety and well-being of children. I cannot see that as anything more than awful.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

So, you are saying that the sacrament of confession is more important than protecting children from abuse? I agree that, without the protections, there will be less people confessing criminal acts. But, who is that helping? Do you really think that child molesters turn themselves in just because a priest suggests it?

It seems that confession is a way for these child abusers to feel better about themselves. I don't think that should even be considered at all. The safety of children is far more important than any religious sacrament.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reason alone is sufficient to grasp that a criminal will not self-incriminate to a priest who is likely to alert the authorities, unless of course that criminal has the contrition to be turned in the first place. (Which one would imagine would be the minimum required for absolution). As much as you may want to 'stick it to the Church', in terms of actually protecting children you've accomplished nothing by such laws.

What you say has merit, but we don't really know the relative efficacy
of that approach without quantitative comparison with alternatives.
I'd er on the side of reporting crimes, but I don't assert that I'm right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's my understanding that mandatory reporting increases the number of cases reported enormously, but decreases the number of substantiated cases. A lot of pointing fingers is reminiscent of a witch hunt.

If mandatory reporting leads to fewer abusers being caught, then it seems to be a case of public ignorance and general human stupidity to mandate it. It's an emotional response rather than a rational one that makes people feel like they are doing something about the problem when in reality they aren't (and may even be causing the crime to go undetected/unpunished).

I think there is a burden of proof to show that mandatory reporting deters the crime. Since mandatory reporting is an invasion of a confidential communications, it stands to reason that the invasion must be justified and that in the absence of this justification such laws should be considered a violation of human rights.

Supposing that such a law actually had the intended effect of catching more perpetrators of abuse, there would still exist a debate about mandatory reporting, but there would actually be a case for it rather than a mere expression of emotional outrage and clouded thinking about solutions: "I hate the church, therefore, we need to impose upon them."

While I have some disagreements with your argunents, I also notice that you're not arguing for special treatment for priests, but for no mandatory reporting at all for anyone... i.e. the same set of rules for everyone.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Are you referring to the attorney-client privilege? Because, obviously a priest would in no way be included in that protection. Or are you agreeing that Priests should not protect those who confess to child molestation/abuse?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

You are referring to duress. No information should be used in court if that information was attained under duress. But, confessions are not given under duress. No one is forcing anyone to confess anything to a priest. So, duress would not be at issue. Hence, there is no connection with torture or dishonesty.

Also, no one is suggesting that priests be held criminally responsible for not turning information over to the police. The issue is whether priests have a moral obligation to protect children from further abuse. Obviously, if a man comes in and confesses to abusing a child, there is a good chance that man will continue to do so after confessing his sins. Don't priests have a responsibility to protect children from abuse when it is in their power to do so?