Is Nothing Sacred?

[Selena_Kitt]

Bill Would Require Priests To Report Abuse Revealed In Confessional


not sure how I feel about this... I'm not actually religious... but some things feel sacred to me... legal counsel, the counsel of a priest...

what do you think?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Confidentiality of information with your preist has long been held to be protected by secular law.

I've never really been able to wrap my head around it. It seems to put a preist in the unenviable position of knowing someone is a danger to his flock and or society, but being unable to do anyting about it. I guess that's something they are taught to deal with.

 

[lil_elvis]

Bill Would Require Priests To Report Abuse Revealed In Confessional


not sure how I feel about this... I'm not actually religious... but some things feel sacred to me... legal counsel, the counsel of a priest...

what do you think?

Bad idea. Goes totally against the separation of church and state. If we're going to keep religion out of government institutions (an ongoing battle), then keep the government out of religion. Seems to me that if abuse is okay to report then by extrapolation (in the sense of a legal argument) any and all crimes would be reportable. A slipeery slope indeed.

Like you, Selena, I'm not particularly prone to organized religion (had my bellyfull of that in HS). However, having your priest, rabbi, immam, minister, or whatever as a snitch is just dead wrong.

 

[RogueLurker]

As a recovering Catholic, I definitely have some mixed feelings about it. From what I remember of my Sunday School teachings, even if you do confess ... if you don't repent and promise not to repeat them, then the priest is not supposed to provide absolution. So what's the point of confessing if you're not ready to face the consequences? Besides, confession is to set your soul right with God, not to get you out of secular justice. (Wow, if only religion was really that simple!)

There's also the fact that no other religious denomination (to my knowledge) provides this kind of protection to individuals who confess to crimes.

I do agree that conversations between a lawyer and client should remain private/protected. If the lawyer does not feel that he/she can defend the individual, then they can always quit.

What are the rules with regards to a psychiatrist/psychologist? If someone has confessed to hurting someone/hurting themselves ... is the doctor/therapist obligated to report it? I would agree that a priest should be held to the same rules.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

What are the rules with regards to a psychiatrist/psychologist? If someone has confessed to hurting someone/hurting themselves ... is the doctor/therapist obligated to report it? I would agree that a priest should be held to the same rules.

psychologists and psychiatrists ARE mandatory reporters...

 

[Weird Harold]

Confidentiality of information with your preist has long been held to be protected by secular law.

I've never really been able to wrap my head around it. It seems to put a preist in the unenviable position of knowing someone is a danger to his flock and or society, but being unable to do anyting about it. I guess that's something they are taught to deal with.

I don't think the "Seal of the Confessional" -- which does apply to denominations and religions other than Roman Catholics -- is as ironclad as you think it is in secular law.

There have always been things, like serial murder, that neither the Church nor secular law protect under the Seal of the Confessional -- but it's always been a matter of the priest's assessment of the information, not a requirement for reporting every crime they learn of in the confessional.

 

[rgraham666]

Going to sound strange coming from an agnostic, but I don't think the law should force priests to reveal things said in confession.

It's strictly between the priest, the person confessing and God. Who already knows.

I much agree with Jefferson that the wall between Church and State should be high and wide, for both sides.

 

[3113]

I think it's silly--if the priest is really a good and faithful priest. I'm not Catholic, but I'm guessing that priest is going to hold God's law above man's. That being the case, it's going to be far more important to him to hold sacred the confessional. He's only going to report what he's heard IF the Pope sends down the word that, like serial murders, the seal of the confessional does not apply in this or that case.

I really don't see how a secular law is going to do anything except put priests in jail IF the molester tells the police that he went to confession and told the priest everything. And how does said molester prove he really did that if the priest decides to deny it? Unless the molester taped the confession....?

Now, of course, I rather think it would be a GOOD idea on the part of the church to maintain trust with the faithful and so require priests to report such things. I know that if I were a parent, I'd be pretty upset if a neighbor confessed to a priest that he molested my daughter (or was thinking about it) and the priest did nothing.

The really sticky part is the part about "suspected" crimes rather than actually confessed crime. For example: a guy saying, "I've been having unpure thoughts about my next door neighbor's daughter...." Does the priest report this because the guy might have done something or is planning to but is hedging around in his confession? Or does the priest wait till the guy actually does come to him and says, "I molested this girl"? And is there a statute of limitations on this? If a 90 year old man, afraid of dying and wanting to cleanse himself of all his sins, confesses that 40 years ago he abused a kid...should the priest report it?

I understand the reason and purpose of the law, but I suspect that it'll be impossible to enforce unless the church goes along with it and the church doesn't seem to want to do that.

 

[elsol]

It won't put them in jail... unless the prosecutor is smart enough to ask any catholic on the jury...

"Can you find a priest guilty of a crime if he held to the Seal of the Confessional?"

My reply... "No."

"It's your duty."

"Actually, as a society it's YOUR duty not to push me too far... I was baptized, communioned and had thoughts about becoming a priest before I became an American Citizen... you need to back off in a fucking hurry, asswipe!"

Then you have to eliminate every Catholic from the jury... which means you're picking the jury based on religious affiliation when religion is a protected class.

Ooooh... why don't you just go ahead and push this moderate over to the loony fundamentalist side.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Stella_Omega]

For many people, the confessional is the only place they can talk about anything. I would not want to see that trust violated.
And I'm an atheist.
but, I have to wonder how a preist would deal with some of the confessions I'm imagining- say how many Hail Marys? What authority does, say, a Catholic priest have, when someone tells him about molesting a two year old girl- or somthing like that?
How many modern Catholics would accede to his authority, in this day and age? The numbrs are shrinking, I'd imagine.

 

[3113]

Then you have to eliminate every Catholic from the jury... which means you're picking the jury based on religious affiliation when religion is a protected class.

Ah, but prosecutors do have a right to get rid of a certain number of potential jurors without saying why. And not all Catholics are in agreement with all the church says or does, so a prosecutor might find a few willing to consider this perspective.

Still, you make an excellent point. It's a waste of time and money to pass a law that's difficult to enforce or prosecute--and one that will likely not work anyway (i.e., a law that will not scare a priest into breaking his vows or going against his conscience). The only ones who might worry about it are molesters...which means they just won't confess that crime to priests any more.

Making the whole thing moot!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm with Rob. Separation of Church and State is important and shouldn't be infringed. The pastor or priest should have an avenue to voluntarily provide an anonymous link if they feel it is important and not at odds with their beliefs, but mandatory? No. That's infringing on the rights of the Church.

State should stay out of Church and Church should stay out of State. Otherwise, you corrupt both.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

I am a Buddhist, and I think that the law is a crock of shit.

The confessional at the church should not have a direct line to anywhere but God.

Granted, it would be a good idea for the priests to consoul someone to turn themselves in for the crime.

 

[wishfulthinking]

I guess I would like to know what the effect would be, rather than the intention eg:

a) a priest has information that could solve/prevent a crime, and would like to speak out, but is bound not to - now he can

or

b) an offender was known to attend confessional, and prosecutions want to subpoena the priest to find out where that dead body was buried...

If I was told by a person that they were going to kidnap their children, and the children would not be safe in their care, kidnapping aside, I can't say anything without the risk of being sued or kicked out of my profession. Legally I can't, but morally I want to.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

An Update

 

[thambok]

According to canonical law, a priest may not reveal anything that is said in a confession. However, strongly suggesting that the confessor come clean to the authorities is permitted, and absolution may be withheld from the penitent who refuses to do so.

Violating the Seal of the Confessional, is grounds for immediate, and automatic, excommunication of the priest.

The legal standard is determined at the state level, not federal. Wording varies, but nearly all state that a priest must maintain the confidentiality.

There are some offenses for which absolution can only be granted by an Archbishop or the Pope. In these circumstances, the priest may reveal the substance of the confession for purposes of receiving the absolution, but only with the permission of th confessor.

 

[Rope64]

psychologists and psychiatrists ARE mandatory reporters...

I'm kind of surprised at this.

Generally, it makes sense (I think) for a society to protect secrecy in relationships covered by "professionalism." This allows for society to adopt much more complex systems without victimizing non-experts -- it is probably true that all of the complications of our legal system allow more "fairness" in the system, but it is also true that the complexity is not fair to anyone who does not understand it. Thus, it makes sense to make available to non-experts advice that they legitimately need in order to navigate a complex system, without making a cost of it that we all get to listen in on what they are asking about.

When you make counselors, whether psychologists/psychiatrists or clergy (and without getting into whether "counsel" is something that non-experts have a legitimate need for expert help in), mandatory reporting of any sort of activity will necessarily suppress the seeking of counseling over it. We might think it's a good idea, in the short run, to have Dr. Smith report that Mr. Jones has fondled a child, but in the long run the standard that this is what should happen will just mean that future Mr. Joneses will refrain from seeking help in controlling their behavior, even if they recognize that it is wrong.

I tend to think that it's a better idea to err on the side of leaving professional confidence intact. There are other useful responses to admissions of terrible crimes beyond just reporting them to the authorities, but there is nothing to do about something that you never find out about.

 

[thambok]

psychologists and psychiatrists ARE mandatory reporters...

It varies by state.

Disclosure Laws by State

 

[Selena_Kitt]

When you make counselors, whether psychologists/psychiatrists or clergy (and without getting into whether "counsel" is something that non-experts have a legitimate need for expert help in), mandatory reporting of any sort of activity will necessarily suppress the seeking of counseling over it.

This is exactly what happens. The system isn't interested in healing, the system is punitive in nature, and at its core, it's really about money. The more mandatory reporters there are, the more abuse that is reported, the more cases there are, the more it justifies the existence and perpetuation of the system itself.

A man who has, say, sexually abused his daughter, who confesses what has happened to his wife, apologized to the daughter, they all go into therapy together to get help-- and the therapist has to report it. The family is torn apart from the get-go, CPS charges the father with abuse, the mother with "failure to protect" the child... now it is in the realm of the courts. There is no healing in situations like that.

 

[sophia jane]

This is exactly what happens. The system isn't interested in healing, the system is punitive in nature, and at its core, it's really about money. The more mandatory reporters there are, the more abuse that is reported, the more cases there are, the more it justifies the existence and perpetuation of the system itself.

A man who has, say, sexually abused his daughter, who confesses what has happened to his wife, apologized to the daughter, they all go into therapy together to get help-- and the therapist has to report it. The family is torn apart from the get-go, CPS charges the father with abuse, the mother with "failure to protect" the child... now it is in the realm of the courts. There is no healing in situations like that.

I can see the problem with this, with someone wanting to get help and not able to because of reporting.
But
an apology and family counseling does not undo the damage to that child. And whether he's sorry or not, he broke the law, he violated an innocent child, and he should be penalized for it.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It varies by state.

only by degrees.

I don't believe there's a state in the union that doesn't put psychologists/psychiatrists under the heading "mandatory reporter" at all. It would be a happy surprise

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is exactly what happens. The system isn't interested in healing, the system is punitive in nature, and at its core, it's really about money. The more mandatory reporters there are, the more abuse that is reported, the more cases there are, the more it justifies the existence and perpetuation of the system itself.

A man who has, say, sexually abused his daughter, who confesses what has happened to his wife, apologized to the daughter, they all go into therapy together to get help-- and the therapist has to report it. The family is torn apart from the get-go, CPS charges the father with abuse, the mother with "failure to protect" the child... now it is in the realm of the courts. There is no healing in situations like that.

I think you are making a huge assumption. I haven't seen any evidence that any form of counseling makes any difference to child predators.

While I do recognize that the clergy would be another line of defense of innocents, I also recognize that one reason they become informed of these things is because people believe they are speaking on confidence. If you remove the confidence, I think you by and large, remove access to the information. It looks to me to be an unwinable catch 22.

ETA: There is also this, laws are made to protect the public. If the guy next dor molested his own child, I don't care if god forgives him, I don't care if his wife forgives him, I don't care if the victim forgives him, I don't want him around my kids. I have a right to expect hte law enforcement in my town to put him away, for my protection and the protection of my children. This would of course assume I had kids.

 

[thambok]

only by degrees.

I don't believe there's a state in the union that doesn't put psychologists/psychiatrists under the heading "mandatory reporter" at all. It would be a happy surprise

Most states require disclosure where an injury to self or others has either occurred, or is imminent. Also, a majority of states require disclosure of communicable diseases that pose a significant risk to public health.

Beyond those requirements, the variance is huge.

 

[1337_G1RL]

...

I believe that the clergy should only be allowed to divulge what has been said in the confessional if somebody has admitted to:

a. murder
b. child molestation
c. rape

Beyond these three most heinous crimes, everything should remain confidential.

1337