Well Bishop, you're in luck because both the private and government world has thought of a great solution for this problem. It's been implemented, tested, and it works, so it's ready to go for Church use.
You see, people in other organizations ALSO used to get fired and kicked out for reporting it when their boss was committing felonies. So you know what the entire rest of the civilized world did? They put "no retaliation for reporting crimes" rules in their corporate and civic organization structures.
So, if you want to prevent this from becoming an 'impossible choice' where a priest must suffer from either letting a child molester run free or being excommunicated, it's simple. Change church rules so that the priest-employee isn't retaliated against when they report child sexual abuse by another employee in the Church organization.
What are you sorry for? Compromises can be made on things like economic considerations, infrastructure spending, and other things like that. There is never room for compromise when it comes to individual human rights, like the right of a child to have their abusers brought to justice.
Nope. Nothing breaks the secrecy of confession. It is absolute. People have died before breaking that secrecy before, and priests will gladly go to prison before turning snitch for your government thugs.
It sounded heartfelt but I kind of detect a twinge of "you had your chance" in there too. The pro-silence folks could've helped pass a bill with less explicit demands, they chose instead to fight, and now this bill looks likely to pass. You bet all your money on red, whose fault is it that you end up with no money at all when it comes up black.
"to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse, of children."
What about the religious freedom OF NOT BEING MOLESTED BY SOMEONE THE CHILDREN WERE TEACHED TO RESPECT AND OBEY ? Show me the babble verses where confession is mentioned. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while waiting.
Well, that's completely incorrect, which is why you didn't cite any verses. But we all know that truth is less important than spewing bile about religions you don't like!
There is NO GOOD reason why someoneβs mythology should ever be given priority over the physical and mental health of a child victim., if we live in a just and fair society.
Exactly! If someone goes to confession it's allegedly for the purpose of coming clean; if what they confess to is a crime, there's no legitimate reason to protect that person from the consequences of their actions.
There is a legitimate reason. It's quite simple: Priests are supposed to keep confessions secret. In your world, all confessions would be public, which just means that no abuser would ever confess at all.
There's no legitimate reason for anyone, priests included, to participate in covering a crime. Period. You're not going to straw man your way out of this with bad faith arguments about what you think you know about 'my' world.
Maybe if you have absolute faith in the government to only have just laws and never go overboard in prosecutions. Or if you think you should always break your word to snitch to the government when you hear about any crime. But my ethical standard is that, first and foremost, you keep the promises you make. If that means going against the government, so be it. I'm not a big fan of this government anyway.
In good faith, what is the rationale? Can you understand the moral argument I'm coming from, where keeping your word is more important than cooperation with government dictates?
"You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No! And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scorching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
Compromising with people who are willing to cover up abuse is giving in to abuse. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.
So what if the abusers stop going to confession. Their feelings on the matter are not important in these situations. Arguments claiming this wonβt help children come off as arguments to allow abusers to keep abusing. The status quo isnβt working and even if this law doesnβt solve the problem, itβs at least doing something to address it. Allowing abusers to confess with no consequences hurts children. Removing the seal only hurts the abusers. Because the way things work now has protections beyond just if the abuser confesses, if the victim mentions their abuse during confession, the clergy can withhold information from the authorities, if a witness confesses their information can be withheld. If thereβs a question about whether the confession confirms the suspected situation the clergy will err on the side of protecting the criminal rather than the victim, they always have.
No more compromises with jackals. We have gotten to a point lately where we value compromise over human rights and protecting the vulnerable and innocent. No compromise to protect child abusers. No compromise to eliminate healthcare access. No compromise for human rights and dignity. Fuck your sincerely held beliefs if they endanger my life, liberty and family.
"This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs"
If the RCC has a sincerely held belief to protect child rapists, well our society has the sincerely held belief to put both the rapist and their accessories in jail. So let us all act according to our beliefs: the RCC can first protect their rapists, and then we will jail everyone involved.
Fuck your sincerely held beliefs if they endanger my liberty. You're the one trying to pass bills to make my church a police state. Just leave us the fuck alone.
All evidence suggests otherwise. You are supporting a criminal enterprise that has a millennia long history of corruption and genocide while delighting in burning women. Molesting children is only the crime theyβre still able to get away with.
Public schools in your country have a far higher rate of sexual abuse than the Church ever has. Come back with evidence to the contrary if you ever find some. Or you may apologize for accusing me of molestation with no evidence. But, like Elon Musk, you'll never do that.
The fucking church admits it has a child molestation problem. Courts around the world have tried cases of priests molesting kids. Many countries have done thorough investigations and released reports showing hundreds of priests molested thousand so children in each country. This isnβt Q-anon nonsense, it is verifiable fact.
Public school teachers are required to report when they suspect child molestation and teachers are incarcerated when they are caught, not sent to new schools to prey on new children. But priests protect each other, hiding priests from punishment and the structure of the church chooses not to punish rapey priests but send them to different parishes just so they have a new batch of victims. And no, the public schools arenβt worse than the church. Finally, whataboutism is a logical fallacy that doesnβt fly around here. Churches are hotbeds of sexual assault and child molestation.
That's the politician's fallacy. "Even if this doesn't work, at least We're Doing Something!" But when that Something is forcing priests to break their oaths and become snitches for the government on command, reasonable people who do not hold your faith in government can say "No thanks."
Seriously? Priests do nothing to protect their flock from their predators and you think thatβs noble.
Whatβs my faith, darling? Youβre the only one working with faith here. Yeah the government might say no thanks because theyβre just as corrupt as your priests. Itβs not a good thing.
Are you touching children too? Thatβs the only reason someone might defend this shit.
You are defending child molesters energetically enough to cast some suspicion your way. You arenβt just disagreeing with me, you are defending criminality and advocating for hiding it.
How old is this article? Jan. 30, itβs sick how much Iβve lost any faith in the government since then and there was very little to begin with. But I have even less faith in the Catholic Church to police itself.
I'm defending the thousand year old tradition of keeping your word. Priests have died instead of becoming government snitches. Some people think keeping their word is important in and of itself. Others don't. But surely even someone whose word means nothing understand that if you take away the secrecy of the confessional, abusers simply... won't confess.
Priests have also snitched when it profited the church. Thereβs plenty of history of blackmail from confessions throughout the history of the Catholic Church. If it suits them their little tradition of keeping silent is negotiable. Always has been.
We donβt need the abusers to confess, we need the priests to report when their victims confess, or they see the crimes happening, and not use confession as an excuse to look the other way. Fuck the perpetratorsβ so called everlasting soul. Fuck you and the church you rode in on. Iβll never leave this alone because it has hurt people, killed people, and then proclaims moral superiority over actual good people. Youβre sick for defending them.
Confession may square the sinner with their god and church, but it doesn't do a damned thing for the victim or secular justice. The church won't see it that way.
Actually, it is the people running it that make it evil. Burn them at the stake as they did to witches, heretics and anyone else they did not like. Save the buildings as homeless shelters.
Book and movie of the same name, wherein the first non-Italian pope (BEFORE JPII!) attempts to avoid war by liquidating the Church's vast wealth, to be used to feed and clothe the poor.
I THINK that's the thrust of it, but it's been ages since I last saw SotF, and I'm not clear on details.
I am part of the Church. I am often in churches. You can keep it up with the slander, but I'd prefer it actually, if you followed up with your threat of arson.
May I suggest a slight change in church procedure and decoration? By all means allow child abusers seek and obtain absolution by confession. Their sins might be forgiven but not their crimes. The penitent would be given the choice of reporting him(usually)self to the police or submitting to church justice as evidenced by the millstone outside the confessional booth.
Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
β thereβs no way to exempt confession from mandated reporting when confession itself is the problem here. It gives sexual predators a way to shed some of their guilt without interfering with their actions.β
And there it is in its entirety. Failing to report the abuse simply gives the abusers permission to abuse some more. The conversation will run this way:
β well, I told Jesus* all about it**, and Jesus has forgiven me.*** I promised**** never to do it again.*****β
* actually a priest. I donβt know if Jesus was there.
** probably not. These people donβt just do it once.
*** heβs very reliable about showing up on toast, and just as reliable about forgiving me. In fact, I can clear my conscience of any atrocity by following this simple formula.
Funny how the RCC always seems to wind up being on the side of the predator in these cases. You'd be forgiven for thinking that they might have something - or several someones - they wanted to protect.
The worst part is that there is, in point of fact, a way around it even now. Any sensible priest can, at most any time, decide to withhold the 'forgiveness' part of the whole thing until the criminal comes forward and confesses to secular authorities. I've heard cases of spouses being told by priests that they must admit their adultery to the other spouse before they could receive forgiveness, so I don't see why the same method can't be used here. Interesting how that doesn't seem to happen for child molesters, isn't it? One would think, considering the nature of the crime, some act of contrition would be more required in these cases than it would be in cases of adultery.
I guess we know who is and who isn't important in the RCC estimation, don't we?
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law that exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting.
The Founding Fathers never intended the Bill of Rights to be a suicide pact. There can be imposition if there is an extremely strong state interest in protecting the rights of others. Protecting children from abuse should be sufficient.
Even attorney-client privilege can be breached to protect others from harm or if the privileged communication poses a danger to others. There's no reason some phony 'seal of confession' should be allowed to override a legitimate breach of confidentiality on the same bases. Protecting children from further abuse is a flashing red light that should be given the highest level of deference in legitimately breaching any claims of confidentiality.
1. Our legal system is adversarial by design. Your lawyer is hired for - and ethically bound to - 'take your side' in court. Priests are not.
2. AIUI Lawyers can't lie about confessed crimes. It's why you don't tell your lawyer you did it. Priests lie.
And the biggies...
3. A lawyer generally won't assist a criminal in the commission of future crimes (mob lawyers excepted, maybe).
4. Religious organization help child molesters flee from the law. Lawyers do the opposite: they advise their clients to face the law (then help them win).
If the RCC took the lawyer position of "we will walk the child molesting priest to the police station, but as one of us we will ensure his rights are respected", that would be a massive and immense step forward from "we will hide priest child molesters by moving them to a different parish, and let them keep molesting."
Also, priests don't work in the secular, legal realm; they can't represent anyone in court. Their only function is to ease the conscience of people who've 'sinned.' They have no power to forgive crimes. That's why their 'privilege' is a bogus one.
When the Empire of Gilded Lies was required to accept LGBTQ+ youth into their homeless shelters in order to continue getting government money for their services, they opted to get out of the shelter business. When they were required to accept same-sex couples to be candidates for Empire-sponsored adoption agencies to keep receiving government funds, they opted to get out of the adoption business, or at least threaten to. Same thing for their medical businesses.
Whenever the Kingdom of Corruption is pressured to behave with simple human decency instead of defending their despotic power over people, they threaten to get out of whatever social service or business they're providing.
OKAY, let them get out of the church business in the state of Montana rather than actually protect the most vulnerable of their customers. Bye.
If this bill passes, the Robed Rapists will challenge it all the way to the most exclusive chapter of the Knights of Columbus, aka the Supreme Court, and of course POTUS will find in their favor.
When they can't have it all their own way, xtians will always take their ball and go home. No wonder their god refers to them as his children. They act like spoiled, petulant brats at the drop of a hat.
They call themselves "pro-life" but their own actions prove them to be just the opposite.
Bishop Shuster warned us about the existence of a contradiction between protecting children from abuse and the secrecy of confessions. To solve this issue, I propose this simple modification to Canon Law: "Any priest who is aware by any means, including confession, of child abuse and fails to report it to civil authorities will be excommunicated".
I expect this modification will help both the children and the priests.
Because the seal of secrecy in the confessional is absolute. Priests have rather faced death than violate that secrecy in the past. Making them snitch A. Won't work, and B. Would just mean that nobody confesses abuse anymore.
Special pleading that is backed by a thousand years of unbroken tradition. Unlike Elon Musk, I'm not comfortable with moving fast and breaking things.
But let's take your position seriously. Should anyone be a mandated reporter? It's odd that the government can't force you to self-incriminate, but can punish you if you refuse to incriminate others.
He kept going on about intelligence. Air Traffic Control doesn't need great intelligence, it needs great spacial awareness and the ability to keep track of a dozen objects at once. You can be very smart and not have either of those skills. It seemed he mostly wanted to blame the "handicapped" physical and especially mental. Given what he said about his own nephew(?), I really think he's going to go after the ADA by summer.
π΅ππ βππ πΉππππ ππβπ’π π‘ππ ππ π‘βπ π΄ππβππππππ π ππ ππππ‘π‘ππ, π€βπ π πππ, πππππππ‘ππππ¦, π‘βππ‘ ππ‘ π€ππ’ππ ππ βπππππ π ππππ πππ π πππππ π‘ π‘π ππππππ¦ π€ππ‘β π‘βππ ππππβ πππππ’π π βπ‘βπ ππππππ‘π¦ πππ ππππππππ π‘βππ‘ π πππ [ππ ππππππ π πππ] ππ ππ₯πππππ’πππππ‘πππ.β
Well Bishop, you're in luck because both the private and government world has thought of a great solution for this problem. It's been implemented, tested, and it works, so it's ready to go for Church use.
You see, people in other organizations ALSO used to get fired and kicked out for reporting it when their boss was committing felonies. So you know what the entire rest of the civilized world did? They put "no retaliation for reporting crimes" rules in their corporate and civic organization structures.
So, if you want to prevent this from becoming an 'impossible choice' where a priest must suffer from either letting a child molester run free or being excommunicated, it's simple. Change church rules so that the priest-employee isn't retaliated against when they report child sexual abuse by another employee in the Church organization.
Not by an employee. This is requiring that priests snitch on their parishioners, for confessions made in secret.
πΌ'π ππππππ¦ π ππππ¦ π‘βππ‘ πΌ πππ'π‘ ππππ ππππ πΌ πππ ππππ π πππππππππ π πππ π¦ππ’ πππ¦ππππ, πππ πΌ π π‘πππ ππ¦ π‘βπ ππππ π€ππ‘β ππ ππ₯ππππ‘πππ.
Senator Frame:
What are you sorry for? Compromises can be made on things like economic considerations, infrastructure spending, and other things like that. There is never room for compromise when it comes to individual human rights, like the right of a child to have their abusers brought to justice.
It's past time to make excuses for the Church and start holding them to account. If they don't like that we're challenging their doctrine, TOUGH.
The kids are more important than their damned doctrine.
Nope. Nothing breaks the secrecy of confession. It is absolute. People have died before breaking that secrecy before, and priests will gladly go to prison before turning snitch for your government thugs.
It sounded heartfelt but I kind of detect a twinge of "you had your chance" in there too. The pro-silence folks could've helped pass a bill with less explicit demands, they chose instead to fight, and now this bill looks likely to pass. You bet all your money on red, whose fault is it that you end up with no money at all when it comes up black.
"to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse, of children."
What about the religious freedom OF NOT BEING MOLESTED BY SOMEONE THE CHILDREN WERE TEACHED TO RESPECT AND OBEY ? Show me the babble verses where confession is mentioned. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while waiting.
To the bible, children are property. Women are property. Less "respect and obey" than submit and shut up.
Frame's bill is badly overdue.
Child abuse enablers can shove that with a tabernacle and the papal crown where the sun doesn't shine, snd I don't mean in Lancre
Granny Weatherwax would not want them around.
I would be more afraid of Nanny Ogg.
It was overdue on November 12, 1889, the day after Washington's statehood.
It's been overdue since CE 325.
Well, that's completely incorrect, which is why you didn't cite any verses. But we all know that truth is less important than spewing bile about religions you don't like!
This idea religion gives you special privileges the rest of us donβt get needs to die a horrible death.
There is NO GOOD reason why someoneβs mythology should ever be given priority over the physical and mental health of a child victim., if we live in a just and fair society.
Exactly! If someone goes to confession it's allegedly for the purpose of coming clean; if what they confess to is a crime, there's no legitimate reason to protect that person from the consequences of their actions.
There is a legitimate reason. It's quite simple: Priests are supposed to keep confessions secret. In your world, all confessions would be public, which just means that no abuser would ever confess at all.
There's no legitimate reason for anyone, priests included, to participate in covering a crime. Period. You're not going to straw man your way out of this with bad faith arguments about what you think you know about 'my' world.
Maybe if you have absolute faith in the government to only have just laws and never go overboard in prosecutions. Or if you think you should always break your word to snitch to the government when you hear about any crime. But my ethical standard is that, first and foremost, you keep the promises you make. If that means going against the government, so be it. I'm not a big fan of this government anyway.
Another straw man argument. Come back when you're ready to have a good faith discussion.
In good faith, what is the rationale? Can you understand the moral argument I'm coming from, where keeping your word is more important than cooperation with government dictates?
Phelpsmediation- My thought exactly!
The following was in my newspaper this morning as well as online last night
"WA clergy may be required to report child abuse disclosed in confession"
seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-clergy-may-be-required-to-report-child-abuse-disclosed-in-confession/
Let's show that we here in Washington really do think of the children.
That they are edible roasted with hot sauce ?
Roasted with hot sauce is fine. Just can't boil a kid in its mother's milk according to Exodus 23:19.
Is another unrelated goat's milk ok?
How many degrees of separation are required?
I'm going to say at least third cousin.
Seems to be, though I suspect there would be vast disagreement with my assessment depending on sect.
I think goat sects is forbidden.
The third cousin rule may still apply here
"You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No! And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scorching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
Just the babies.
Compromising with people who are willing to cover up abuse is giving in to abuse. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.
So what if the abusers stop going to confession. Their feelings on the matter are not important in these situations. Arguments claiming this wonβt help children come off as arguments to allow abusers to keep abusing. The status quo isnβt working and even if this law doesnβt solve the problem, itβs at least doing something to address it. Allowing abusers to confess with no consequences hurts children. Removing the seal only hurts the abusers. Because the way things work now has protections beyond just if the abuser confesses, if the victim mentions their abuse during confession, the clergy can withhold information from the authorities, if a witness confesses their information can be withheld. If thereβs a question about whether the confession confirms the suspected situation the clergy will err on the side of protecting the criminal rather than the victim, they always have.
No more compromises with jackals. We have gotten to a point lately where we value compromise over human rights and protecting the vulnerable and innocent. No compromise to protect child abusers. No compromise to eliminate healthcare access. No compromise for human rights and dignity. Fuck your sincerely held beliefs if they endanger my life, liberty and family.
I'm so sick of the three words "sincerely held beliefs."
Sometimes even brutal colonialists get it right:
"This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs"
If the RCC has a sincerely held belief to protect child rapists, well our society has the sincerely held belief to put both the rapist and their accessories in jail. So let us all act according to our beliefs: the RCC can first protect their rapists, and then we will jail everyone involved.
Fuck your sincerely held beliefs if they endanger my liberty. You're the one trying to pass bills to make my church a police state. Just leave us the fuck alone.
Your church is criminally molesting children. Fuck your beliefs.
No it isn't. Leave us alone, pervert.
Youβre the one defending child molesters.
Q-Anon nonsense.
All evidence suggests otherwise. You are supporting a criminal enterprise that has a millennia long history of corruption and genocide while delighting in burning women. Molesting children is only the crime theyβre still able to get away with.
Public schools in your country have a far higher rate of sexual abuse than the Church ever has. Come back with evidence to the contrary if you ever find some. Or you may apologize for accusing me of molestation with no evidence. But, like Elon Musk, you'll never do that.
The fucking church admits it has a child molestation problem. Courts around the world have tried cases of priests molesting kids. Many countries have done thorough investigations and released reports showing hundreds of priests molested thousand so children in each country. This isnβt Q-anon nonsense, it is verifiable fact.
Public school teachers are required to report when they suspect child molestation and teachers are incarcerated when they are caught, not sent to new schools to prey on new children. But priests protect each other, hiding priests from punishment and the structure of the church chooses not to punish rapey priests but send them to different parishes just so they have a new batch of victims. And no, the public schools arenβt worse than the church. Finally, whataboutism is a logical fallacy that doesnβt fly around here. Churches are hotbeds of sexual assault and child molestation.
That's the politician's fallacy. "Even if this doesn't work, at least We're Doing Something!" But when that Something is forcing priests to break their oaths and become snitches for the government on command, reasonable people who do not hold your faith in government can say "No thanks."
Seriously? Priests do nothing to protect their flock from their predators and you think thatβs noble.
Whatβs my faith, darling? Youβre the only one working with faith here. Yeah the government might say no thanks because theyβre just as corrupt as your priests. Itβs not a good thing.
Are you touching children too? Thatβs the only reason someone might defend this shit.
Your faith in government. I wrote that. Struggling with reading comprehension?
Sure. Now because I don't agree with you, I must be a molester. That's an argument worthy of a Q-Anon!
You are defending child molesters energetically enough to cast some suspicion your way. You arenβt just disagreeing with me, you are defending criminality and advocating for hiding it.
How old is this article? Jan. 30, itβs sick how much Iβve lost any faith in the government since then and there was very little to begin with. But I have even less faith in the Catholic Church to police itself.
I'm defending the thousand year old tradition of keeping your word. Priests have died instead of becoming government snitches. Some people think keeping their word is important in and of itself. Others don't. But surely even someone whose word means nothing understand that if you take away the secrecy of the confessional, abusers simply... won't confess.
Priests have also snitched when it profited the church. Thereβs plenty of history of blackmail from confessions throughout the history of the Catholic Church. If it suits them their little tradition of keeping silent is negotiable. Always has been.
We donβt need the abusers to confess, we need the priests to report when their victims confess, or they see the crimes happening, and not use confession as an excuse to look the other way. Fuck the perpetratorsβ so called everlasting soul. Fuck you and the church you rode in on. Iβll never leave this alone because it has hurt people, killed people, and then proclaims moral superiority over actual good people. Youβre sick for defending them.
Go back to your hole.
Confession may square the sinner with their god and church, but it doesn't do a damned thing for the victim or secular justice. The church won't see it that way.
They need to be convinced otherwise.
The church needs to be burned to the ground.
Actually, it is the people running it that make it evil. Burn them at the stake as they did to witches, heretics and anyone else they did not like. Save the buildings as homeless shelters.
Have you ever been in a gothic church? Hot as Satan's taint in the summer and cold as a witch's tits in winter.
Catholicism: we even make you suffer when you come to give us your money.
Many have tried. None have succeeded. Take your best shot.
Before we do that, I think an application of a little "Shoes of the Fisherman" tactic would be appropriate.
Ref ?
Book and movie of the same name, wherein the first non-Italian pope (BEFORE JPII!) attempts to avoid war by liquidating the Church's vast wealth, to be used to feed and clothe the poor.
I THINK that's the thrust of it, but it's been ages since I last saw SotF, and I'm not clear on details.
Can't we do both?
"I'm sorry about burning down the church, your honor, but I swear to God I thought the bishop was inside."
This comes under the heading of VW's "Sign, THEN Drive" ad campaign. Just get the order right, eh?
Close enough. You hit all the salient points. Love Anthony Quinn in that role.
Try it and see what happens.
Are you threatening me? I am the Great Cornholio. I need t.p. for my bunghole.
You're threatening me.
You are the church? Then you are a grifting, lying, child rapist.
I am part of the Church. I am often in churches. You can keep it up with the slander, but I'd prefer it actually, if you followed up with your threat of arson.
Go for it.
May I suggest a slight change in church procedure and decoration? By all means allow child abusers seek and obtain absolution by confession. Their sins might be forgiven but not their crimes. The penitent would be given the choice of reporting him(usually)self to the police or submitting to church justice as evidenced by the millstone outside the confessional booth.
Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
First!
We all know how much I love psychology.
β thereβs no way to exempt confession from mandated reporting when confession itself is the problem here. It gives sexual predators a way to shed some of their guilt without interfering with their actions.β
And there it is in its entirety. Failing to report the abuse simply gives the abusers permission to abuse some more. The conversation will run this way:
β well, I told Jesus* all about it**, and Jesus has forgiven me.*** I promised**** never to do it again.*****β
* actually a priest. I donβt know if Jesus was there.
** probably not. These people donβt just do it once.
*** heβs very reliable about showing up on toast, and just as reliable about forgiving me. In fact, I can clear my conscience of any atrocity by following this simple formula.
**** I promised. Why are you laughing?
***** until the next time.
Not first. Dammit.
Consolation prize, it's the usually the middle of the afternoon for me when Hemsnt post, and yet I am never the first to comment π€£
Iβm a lot closer and Hemant usually posts an hour or two before I log on.
Funny how the RCC always seems to wind up being on the side of the predator in these cases. You'd be forgiven for thinking that they might have something - or several someones - they wanted to protect.
The worst part is that there is, in point of fact, a way around it even now. Any sensible priest can, at most any time, decide to withhold the 'forgiveness' part of the whole thing until the criminal comes forward and confesses to secular authorities. I've heard cases of spouses being told by priests that they must admit their adultery to the other spouse before they could receive forgiveness, so I don't see why the same method can't be used here. Interesting how that doesn't seem to happen for child molesters, isn't it? One would think, considering the nature of the crime, some act of contrition would be more required in these cases than it would be in cases of adultery.
I guess we know who is and who isn't important in the RCC estimation, don't we?
They're not very good at choosing sides. They always stand beside the brute, the dictator, the fascist, etc.
So why were there so many Catholics sentenced to death by the Nazis?
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law that exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting.
In fairness, I feel I have to point out they did that because the LDS pretty much IS the local mafia.
thanks for this news
The Founding Fathers never intended the Bill of Rights to be a suicide pact. There can be imposition if there is an extremely strong state interest in protecting the rights of others. Protecting children from abuse should be sufficient.
Even attorney-client privilege can be breached to protect others from harm or if the privileged communication poses a danger to others. There's no reason some phony 'seal of confession' should be allowed to override a legitimate breach of confidentiality on the same bases. Protecting children from further abuse is a flashing red light that should be given the highest level of deference in legitimately breaching any claims of confidentiality.
Plus, it gives a privilege to the religions that practice confession. Doesn't the US Constitution forbid that ?
Good point. You're correct!
There are several big differences though.
1. Our legal system is adversarial by design. Your lawyer is hired for - and ethically bound to - 'take your side' in court. Priests are not.
2. AIUI Lawyers can't lie about confessed crimes. It's why you don't tell your lawyer you did it. Priests lie.
And the biggies...
3. A lawyer generally won't assist a criminal in the commission of future crimes (mob lawyers excepted, maybe).
4. Religious organization help child molesters flee from the law. Lawyers do the opposite: they advise their clients to face the law (then help them win).
If the RCC took the lawyer position of "we will walk the child molesting priest to the police station, but as one of us we will ensure his rights are respected", that would be a massive and immense step forward from "we will hide priest child molesters by moving them to a different parish, and let them keep molesting."
Also, priests don't work in the secular, legal realm; they can't represent anyone in court. Their only function is to ease the conscience of people who've 'sinned.' They have no power to forgive crimes. That's why their 'privilege' is a bogus one.
When the Empire of Gilded Lies was required to accept LGBTQ+ youth into their homeless shelters in order to continue getting government money for their services, they opted to get out of the shelter business. When they were required to accept same-sex couples to be candidates for Empire-sponsored adoption agencies to keep receiving government funds, they opted to get out of the adoption business, or at least threaten to. Same thing for their medical businesses.
Whenever the Kingdom of Corruption is pressured to behave with simple human decency instead of defending their despotic power over people, they threaten to get out of whatever social service or business they're providing.
OKAY, let them get out of the church business in the state of Montana rather than actually protect the most vulnerable of their customers. Bye.
If this bill passes, the Robed Rapists will challenge it all the way to the most exclusive chapter of the Knights of Columbus, aka the Supreme Court, and of course POTUS will find in their favor.
Boycott them into extinction.
When they can't have it all their own way, xtians will always take their ball and go home. No wonder their god refers to them as his children. They act like spoiled, petulant brats at the drop of a hat.
They call themselves "pro-life" but their own actions prove them to be just the opposite.
Dear Holy Father,
Bishop Shuster warned us about the existence of a contradiction between protecting children from abuse and the secrecy of confessions. To solve this issue, I propose this simple modification to Canon Law: "Any priest who is aware by any means, including confession, of child abuse and fails to report it to civil authorities will be excommunicated".
I expect this modification will help both the children and the priests.
regards,
π »
IIRC, a papal bull several years ago stated anyone discussing child rape in the church faces excommunication.
Now I have something to do on Sunday!
That would just mean nobody ever confesses child abuse or neglect anymore.
As a physician and a mandated reporter for 30 years, I can't wrap my head around why this is remotely controversial.
It's how you cover stuff up for two thousand years.
Edit: Wrong spot, but it works here too.
That's what she said?
Because the seal of secrecy in the confessional is absolute. Priests have rather faced death than violate that secrecy in the past. Making them snitch A. Won't work, and B. Would just mean that nobody confesses abuse anymore.
By that illogic, no one should be a mandated reporter.
People "confess" to all sorts of things knowing full well that it's reportable. Saying that priests somehow get a pass is just special pleading.
Special pleading that is backed by a thousand years of unbroken tradition. Unlike Elon Musk, I'm not comfortable with moving fast and breaking things.
But let's take your position seriously. Should anyone be a mandated reporter? It's odd that the government can't force you to self-incriminate, but can punish you if you refuse to incriminate others.
Do you know what special pleading is?
A plea that is in some way special, for some important reason?
You're either a Poe or a troll.
Have a nice day.
So in his so-called βspeechβ about the air crash, Trump blamed Obama, Biden, Buttigieg, DEI, andβ¦
*checks notes*
Dwarves.
Which kind, Duergar, Snow White, Carrot Ironfoundersson?
Tyrion Lannister, Harry and Daisy Earles, Mimi Mathy ?
He didnβt say. Probably leftist.
He kept going on about intelligence. Air Traffic Control doesn't need great intelligence, it needs great spacial awareness and the ability to keep track of a dozen objects at once. You can be very smart and not have either of those skills. It seemed he mostly wanted to blame the "handicapped" physical and especially mental. Given what he said about his own nephew(?), I really think he's going to go after the ADA by summer.
"Β the ability to keep track of a dozen objects at once"
One of the reasons why I never got my license. I can barely keep track of my feet.
Apologies in advance.
You should be able to track your feet, they are pretty close by. : )
Her feet are metric
And her toes are digital.
That explains it.
Pretty short sighted on Trump's part.
No matter how hard he tries, heβll never be able to stand tall.
He's always going off half-assed into one thing or another.
Which is surprising because he's all ass.
Russia's ass.
So much for conservatives/Republicans being AGAINST the "never let a crisis go to waste" ethos.