343 Comments
User's avatar
Troublesh00ter's avatar

No great surprise that this bill is causing a considerable ruckus in the Catholic Church. The sad fact is that it could be perceived as the result of a failure on the part of the Church to police its own ranks. The blunt fact is that there have been damned few arrests of priests, few trials conducted, and hardly any of those of the cloth who had to trade their collars for orange jump suits, solely because they either opted to surrender themselves or were turned in by their fellows. The state of Washington therefore opted to take it upon themselves to create a mechanism to deal with the problem, and of course, the RCC of Washington objects to this because it forces their hand.

There are a good couple questions that might get answered in the process of this lawsuit, but none more important than this: Which is more important - the sanctity of the confessional or the well-being of a child?

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

The predatory nature of the RCC is a feature, not a bug. To police their own ranks would be to admit they are the predators.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

So they wind up getting their noses rubbed in it. Comes to the same result, only the Church looks the worse for not being able to admit it to themselves.

Expand full comment
Walt Svirsky's avatar

Exactly, Joe.

Expand full comment
Bensnewlogin's avatar

The answer is :

Money and power.

Expand full comment
The Epistler's avatar

When the head of a religion that preaches the virtues of charity and poverty lives in a fucking PALACE, something has been rotten about that religion from day one.

Expand full comment
Bensnewlogin's avatar

Well, you see, it’s not like he actually owns the palace. He just gets to live there rent free for his entire life, with free medical care and free food.

Expand full comment
The Epistler's avatar

Oh, the austere deprivation. Such a fine example to us all.

Expand full comment
Bensnewlogin's avatar

That’s how you can be rich without being rich. That’s the sort of thing you need God for.

Expand full comment
The Epistler's avatar

Praise the Lord and pass the caviar.

Expand full comment
Larry Desmond's avatar

And expect that he (never will be a her) will always be consulted by governments about a whole range of issues he has no business interfering in - e.g.,, family planning, alleviating sickness, poverty, at least until he and his religious con-game clean up their act regarding catholic priests, bishops, popes, lay persons, nuns, etc., covering up for catholic employees (e.g., priests) raping children. Just one example out of thousands:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/12/24/enough-with-buck-passing-child-abuse-in-the-church-is-systemic

And to help alleviate the suffering of the most vulnerable (e.g., poverty, starvation) it could start with giving away its vast billions to appropriate, secular charities, to make sure it follows christ's teachings. But it never will - too much greed and desire for power over others in the church.

https://www.marketplace.org/story/2023/02/10/how-much-money-does-catholic-church-have

Expand full comment
Bensnewlogin's avatar

To be fair— in the most sarcastic way possible— the article was about Catholic priests, and your link was to an article about the church of England. Potato potahto.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

You are right.

The church was incredibly dim to launch that lawsuit. Because it would have been more advantageous for that question to remain fudged.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

'Is the millennium worth having if it can only be ushered in by torturing one child to death'.

Expand full comment
RegularJoe's avatar

Um......... who's the child? 😉

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

Does it matter? Any child is just as important as any other.

Expand full comment
RegularJoe's avatar

Baby Hitler, baby Trump, baby Elon, baby Stephen Miller......

Yes it matters.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

And how much is Nature and how much is Nurture? I have come to believe that Authoritarianism is a genetic personality trait - 'Nature'. But, my crystal ball is in the shop. How would we know which ones to remove?

Expand full comment
Jimbo17's avatar

The new pope could do a lot of good by making it church policy that the priority is to protect children over protecting abusers who confess.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

He could, but he likely won't.

Expand full comment
Linda Bower's avatar

Correct. The child abusers must be protected at all costs. People forget the insane amount of money that is involved here. It’s a very wealthy secret pedophile ring.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

Pope Bob could do a lot of things. The most we can hope for, however, as with Fluffy before him, is that he avoids making anything worse than it already is.

Expand full comment
cdbunch's avatar

High expectations huh?

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

Subterranean.

Expand full comment
cdbunch's avatar

I suspect he'll fail to meet them anyway.

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

This is not about protecting abusers, but about protecting priests who will burn for eternity in hell when they break the confidentiality of the holy sacrament of confession.

Expand full comment
phelpsmediation's avatar

There is NO evidence that hell exists. It is a tool for cult control.

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

It is the argument that will win this case when (not if) it will be reviewed by the supreme court.

You are completely right about the existence of hell, heaven and all other bullshit invented by religions.

Expand full comment
Larry Desmond's avatar

But not in the Trump-Supreme Court. Trump; is a sexual predator himself and many of his cabinet/nominees are the same. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/robert-morris-trump-megachurch-pastor-charged

Expand full comment
Kay-El's avatar

Sometimes the priests are one and the same

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

But then they will not go to confess to themselves.

Expand full comment
Kay-El's avatar

💯

Expand full comment
The Epistler's avatar

Confession implies guilt. Predators, for the vast majority of the time, do not feel any guilt about what they've done.

Expand full comment
Larry Desmond's avatar

But only works if one believes in, and there actually is a "god" who has a "hell". Many of us (e.g.,, atheists) don't. And idea of punishment after death is why many catholics and believers in other "gods" don't push to have the various churches cleaned up (i.e., rapist clergy and their protectors tried and sent to prison for many, may years with, hopefully, no parole!) by forcing them to report any suspicions of child sexual assault to police - not the various churches.

Expand full comment
Larry Desmond's avatar

Agree, but I can't find any evidence that the church does have the priority of protecting children from its child rapist clergy. Generally, once a catholic priest/nun confesses to raping a child to their confessor, that diocese will spring into action to remove the criminal(s) and move them to another diocese - but neglect to tell parents of children in the rapist's new dioceses that they have a child rapist in their midst. And so the crimes continue because - protecting the rapists (and the reputation of the catholic church, of course!) is always more important than protecting children.

FYI - just a few examples, out of thousands, of how the catholic church's "cares" for children:

https://apnews.com/article/nuns-sexual-abuse-catholic-sisters-a80c46e2f4f4c8e3d1ce30d22628e963

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2019/11/11/catholic-sexual-abuse-accused-priests-arent-sex-offender-registry/4012206002/

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/12/24/enough-with-buck-passing-child-abuse-in-the-church-is-systemic

https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/the-new-pope-was-accused-of-covering-up-child-abuse-why-is-no-one-talking-about-it/

Expand full comment
RegularJoe's avatar

Leaders of international pedophilia conglomerate sue to hide evidence of kiddie-fucking, claim magical immunity.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Looks like the clergy weren't content to fuck kids literally. Now they want to endanger children through a ghastly lawsuit.

The RCC can go fuck itself. They can also cease and desist with that moronic claim of being pro-life while they're at it.

Expand full comment
John Smith's avatar

This goddamm fucking scumbag of a bishop should be charge with accessory to child sexual abuse should any child sexual abuse be discovered within his district.

Oh yeah, this bishop should go suck jeezyboy’s dead dick while getting aa Ebola infected cactus wrapped in barb wire shoved up his fucking ass. Why, due to the fact this bishop would rather protect the reputation of the church than protect any child, let’s face this is about the Roman Catholic Church image hiding behind the ritual of confession.

Jesus fucking Christ, the RCC had to go and be more a threat to humanity, especially to our kids. This is why people hate the Catholic Church, this right here!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

What reputation? That's been shot to hell.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Pro-life in their case means proforced birth.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

They were never pro-life. Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Bingo, you are as always correct. As I stated repeatedly it was just a marketing campaign.

Expand full comment
Matri's avatar

They need the steady supply of young meat, after all.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

The RCC. Ever defending the indefensible. They've been doing just that for nearly 2 millennia.

To the Catholics of my state, especially those with children. Free yourselves and your loved ones from the anaconda grip of Holy Mother Church. Starve the church of your money and your offspring. Otherwise, you will continue to enable all of the RCCs abuses.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

If they ever stopped defending the indefensible, they'd then have to stop 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 the indefensible, and they certainly don't want to give up their priestly vices!

Expand full comment
oraxx's avatar

Jesus never intervened to stop a priest from raping a child, so I'm thinking excommunication isn't all that much of a threat. At least it shouldn't be. It has long been said there is nothing that cannot be justified in the name of religion, and this is a case in point. It is something that makes me detest religion all the more.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Humanity is long past the need for religion. Science has long since explained the natural phenomena that once led to the belief in gods and magic.

Expand full comment
larry parker's avatar

Stopping a child abuser leads to eternal damnation. Makes about as much sense as a talking snake.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

I'd rather have the snake.

Expand full comment
Die Anyway's avatar

If you report child sexual abuse that you've learned about, the Easter Bunny won't hide any colored eggs in your yard. And the Great Pumpkin won't rise from your pumpkin patch. And, and...Santa Claus will put you on his naughty list. And that's for realsies.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Say it ain't so!

Expand full comment
Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

😱

Expand full comment
Die Anyway's avatar

Join me on my next adventure to Sark Chasm, a natural wonder carved out over millennia by the Puhponastic river.

Expand full comment
Black Hole and DM mourner's avatar

Et la 'tite souris ?

Expand full comment
Ronald Furr's avatar

The churches priority is to protect it's wealth.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Indeed. Observe the difference in how they treat their clergy when those clergymen steal from the church. Compare and contrast this with how molesting/raping clergy are treated.

It's like night and day.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

I agree. I imagine if (and that's a very big if) the church is ever beaten back enough to have those vaults under the Vatican opened, to see what all they have squirreled away in there, billions of jaws will hit the ground with a resounding thud. I can only imagine the resentment that might follow, flowing from people who have lived in squalor their entire lives while HMC has squatted on unimaginable wealth that could feed the hungry of the world several times over.

Expand full comment
wreck's avatar

Catlick lawsuit says:

"Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation"

I'm looking forward to seeing their evidence showing that "eternal damnation" is an actual thing.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

If their god gave a fig about his earthly agents putting their hands (and other things) on children's bodies, he'd have smited them.

Instead, Ol' Cloudy apparently likes to watch. Reminds him of that time when he changed himself into a pigeon and ravished an underage girl that wasn't his wife.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

There's a word I'm looking for, here. It's that thing where you know about a crime, and you know who did it, and where, and when, and to whom, and you know all of that because the person who did the crime told you, right to your face, and then you agreed not to tell anyone about it?

What's that word again?

Oh yeah, that's right!

𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚.

Expand full comment
Matri's avatar

Accessory.

Accomplice is when they actively help.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

I would classify advertising to everyone and their dogfucking third cousin a place where they can talk freely about their crimes, without worry of consequence, to be a pretty active kind of help... but that's just me.

"Accessory after the fact" 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 probably be the legal term for it, though; that's true.

Expand full comment
Walt Svirsky's avatar

Now they want separation of church and state? What a bunch of maroons!

Maybe those 10 commandments should have included #11 - Thou shalt not be a fucking hypocrite.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

But before "Thou shalt not be a fucking hypocrite" there should be THIS commandment:

"Thou shalt not molest or rape children" (seems like that one should've been part of the 10 to begin with).

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

Better yet, a mirror commandment. If Yahweh wants us to honor our father and mother, parents should honor their children.

Of course, patriarchy and dictatorial attitude pretty well counts that out.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Isn't there a verse in there somewhere like "provoke not thy children to wrath?" How the hell did that one get past the ecclesiastical gatekeepers? Who cares if somebody provokes the chattel?

Expand full comment
Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

Thou shalt not molest or rape anyone.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Instead, half the commandments are wasted on how he is to be worshiped and revered.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

Unfortunately, their 11th Commandment is already "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught."

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

They'd break that one with the same regularity they break the other 10.

Expand full comment
painedumonde's avatar

One of the first things they'll attempt is to seal the proceedings; can't have their weird reasoning becoming public.

If they don't succeed, this is the time try God, the deity with the Plan to hide the abuse of children. What bugs me is that the sin of the abuser can always be forgiven as they serve their time in prison, why not report? Their other defense will be: this will drive abusers further into the dark; they won't even seek confession. My answer to that is: when forgiven without consequence the Church reinforces the act. In a sense the Church stands for abusing children as a pillar that holds up the heavenly roof.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

The clergy might as well replace their current headgear with cowboy hats of every kind because they're forever circling the wagons.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

They should replace their headgear with underpants, because they're always covering their asses.

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

Canon law tells us: "Priests are obligated to defend the sacramental seal, if necessary, usque ad sanguinis effusionem—i.e., through the shedding of blood".

It doesn't specify if it has to be the priest's own blood.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

Telling that there isn't a similar provision for defending the laity in their care, particularly from their own colleagues.

Expand full comment
cdbunch's avatar

Noticed that too, huh? Nice excuse for the conquistadors and the Crusades, the Inquisitions. Get-Out-of-Jail card all around.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

"𝑊𝑎𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑡𝑜𝑛'𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑖𝑠𝑛'𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 -- 𝑖𝑡'𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑗𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ'𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠," 𝑅𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑖 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑.

Yet another lying liar for Jesus lying. Quelle surprise. Except this time it's not about access to impressionable children to lie to them. It's about protecting child rapers. The Washington law does not single out Catholic priests. It's about making sure that the proper authorities are alerted when evidence of child abuse is discovered.

Why don't the priests follow their own rules? If "breaking the seal of confession" is a sin, then just go confess. Why are they so insistent that their get out of jail free card applies to child abusers, but not to reporting child abusers? (I think we know the answer to that.)

Expand full comment
Matri's avatar
3dEdited

What “ancient faith practices”, Rienzi? Pedophilia?

Expand full comment
Die Anyway's avatar

By Jove, I think you've got it.

Priest reports child abuse he heard about in a confession.

Priest goes to confession with Bishop and confesses to a transgression.

Bishop orders him to say 10 Hail Marys.

Priest is good to go.

Simple!

Expand full comment
Black Hole and DM mourner's avatar

Some people should start to learn the difference between amending a law and creating a new one. Plus, not all religions have a seal of sacrament. It's correcting another inequality.

How is it phrased already ? Congress shall not make something something about privileging religion above secular law and one religion above the others.

One country laws, unless particular circumstances like extradition treaties, only applies in the country they were promulgated. Thus, canon law should only be relevant inside the borders of vaticon city.

Edit : If confession absolve crimes and god's law is the only one that matters, why vaticon city has the need for a penal code ?

"The penal code now includes specifics defining money laundering, explicit listing of sexual crimes, and violating confidentiality."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Vatican_City

Expand full comment