The clergy loophole

[Jazzy]

Article-->Churches defend clergy loophole in child sex abuse reporting. “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics”

---

Do you think clergy ( of any denomination ) should be exempt from reporting child abuse if they learn about the crime in a confessional setting? Why or Why Not?

 

[tango]

This seems like a really thorny issue, as with a few things relating to people who have unhealthy attractions to children.

There's certainly a strong case for protecting the children who are almost invariably the innocent victims in situations like this. I say "almost invariably" because I'm not entirely convinced that someone who isn't quite legally adult but who is physically and sexually mature is necessarily an entirely innocent victim in sexual encounters with someone older.

That said if people who are attracted to children but who understand the attraction isn't appropriate and want to seek professional help are endlessly ostracized and threatened (by either legal or vigilante consequences) it seems they would be less likely to go forward for the help they understand they need. Of course as soon as they do have a sexual encounter with a child the dynamic changes substantially - while it is good to make sure they don't offend again there is now a need for a suitable punishment even if only to protect other children.

I don't imagine many of these cases are changed much by noting the yawning difference between an infant and someone who is a few days short of turning 18, but the fact both are technically considered a "child" does create some scope for ambiguity - the person who has sex with a 17-year-old believing they are 18 is a very different situation to the person who has sex with a 5-year-old.

Just for good measure, if a priest hears a confession of a serious crime and is required to keep quiet based on the sanctity of the confessional, is there any reason why child abuse should be reported if rape or murder should not? Perhaps it's not unreasonable for part of the repentance process to include facing secular consequences for a serious crime.

I wonder how many times priests actually hear confessions of crimes that would carry serious jail time. If I had anything like that lurking in my past I don't know that I'd tell anyone about it in a darkened box.

 

[Lees]

Article-->Churches defend clergy loophole in child sex abuse reporting. “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics”

---

Do you think clergy ( of any denomination ) should be exempt from reporting child abuse if they learn about the crime in a confessional setting? Why or Why Not?

I think if clergy are exempt from reporting then they should take care of the problem themselves.

In other words, they should tell the one confessing, we are going to check up on whoever is being abused. And, if there is further abuse, you will hear from us again....one night...when you least expect it. And it won't be pretty.

If they, the clergy, are unwilling to take care of the problem, then there should be no exemption for them reporting what they have heard. Meaning if they do know and fail to report it, they become accessory to the crime.

Lees

 

[Albion]

On the other hand, very few wrongdoers are likely to confess to a priest if they know he will report them to the police straightaway. So, altering the law to make priests agents of the state would most likely not produce significant change, especially since it is the teaching of the church that sins confessed to God privately--not in a confessional booth--will still be forgiven if sincerely repented of.

 

[tango]

On the other hand, very few wrongdoers are likely to confess to a priest if they know he will report them to the police straightaway.

Very true. I'd be curious to know how many people who have committed serious crimes would go to confess them to a priest anyway.

So, altering the law to make priests agents of the state would most likely not produce significant change, especially since it is the teaching of the church that sins confessed to God privately--not in a confessional booth--will still be forgiven if sincerely repented of.

Presumably the people who go to confessional believe they need to do something more than simply confess to God in private.

 

[Lees]

On the other hand, very few wrongdoers are likely to confess to a priest if they know he will report them to the police straightaway. So, altering the law to make priests agents of the state would most likely not produce significant change, especially since it is the teaching of the church that sins confessed to God privately--not in a confessional booth--will still be forgiven if sincerely repented of.

If they don't confess...who cares then? It's not an issue.

Sins confessed privately is not the subject. But, sins confessed privately to God may be forgiven by God but not the State. And God set up the State.

My point was/is, that if clergy are exempt from reporting the confessions, then they should take care of the problems concerning the confession. And, if they are unwilling to do that, and unwilling to report it, then they should be charged with accessory to the crime...whatever it is.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Very true. I'd be curious to know how many people who have committed serious crimes would go to confess them to a priest anyway.

I have heard of a few, but I would agree that the number of people who confess to a serious crime in the confessional booth right now when they know that he won't reveal it isn't very high.

Presumably the people who go to confessional believe they need to do something more than simply confess to God in private.

Well, the point is that they get the tangible reassurance that their sins have been forgiven. If a penitent goes into his own closet and confesses to God directly, he only can presume that the Bible assurance will hold up in his case. Apparently, there are some people--not a lot but some-- who cannot rest easy unless the priest absolves them and says to them that this is what he's doing.

 

[Albion]

If they don't confess...who cares then? It's not an issue.

It's one of those things that agitate certain people although we're talking about something that's more about theory than real life.

However, there are people who would say that even if a mere handful of criminals met justice this way, then doing away with the guaranteed privacy of the confessional is worth doing.

My point was/is, that if clergy are exempt from reporting the confessions, then they should take care of the problems concerning the confession.

We are talking about crimes already committed, so the ability of the priest to "take care of the problem" and rectify what was done is almost nil.

 

[tango]

I have heard of a few, but I would agree that the number of people who confess to a serious crime in the confessional booth right now when they know that he won't reveal it isn't very high.

It certainly isn't going to get any higher if they know the police will be involved.

Well, the point is that they get the tangible reassurance that their sins have been forgiven. If a penitent goes into his own closet and confesses to God directly, he only can presume that the Bible assurance will hold up in his case. Apparently, there are some people--not a log but some-- who cannot rest easy unless the priest absolves them and says to them that this is what he's doing.

That's the bit I don't really get. If you believe what the Bible says you don't need someone telling you that you are forgiven. If you don't believe what the Bible says I'm not sure how a priest saying you are forgiven is useful.

 

[Albion]

That's the bit I don't really get. If you believe what the Bible says you don't need someone telling you that you are forgiven. If you don't believe what the Bible says I'm not sure how a priest saying you are forgiven is useful.

It's because they believe that the priest has been given the authority by Jesus to forgive sin that having one of them say it to your face, as it were, puts them at ease.

Naturally, this is at least partially dependent upon believing that Jesus' words apply to today's priests and, also, there are some people who feel that their own sins are so terrible that God couldn't forgive them, even if the Bible suggests that God doesn't work that way. Look at all the posts we've read online created by people who are convinced that they've committed "the unforgivable sin."

 

[tango]

It's because they believe that the priest has been given the authority by Jesus to forgive sin that having one of them say it to your face, as it were, puts them at ease.

Sure, I just don't get that from the Bible. It seems to me that if you (generic you, not you personally!) believe the Bible you don't need the priest, and if you don't believe the Bible I wonder who it is that says the priest can forgive, if you believe that God cannot (or will not) forgive without the priest.

Naturally, this is at least partially dependent upon believing that Jesus' words apply to today's priests and, also, there are some people who feel that their own sins are so terrible that God couldn't forgive them, even if the Bible suggests that God doesn't work that way. Look at all the posts we've read online created by people who are convinced that they've committed "the unforgivable sin."

Sure, but if you believe God can't forgive you then logically the priest can't do much either, right?

 

[Lees]

It's one of those things that agitate certain people although we're talking about something that's more about theory than real life.

However, there are people who would say that even if a mere handful of criminals met justice this way, then doing away with the guaranteed privacy of the confessional is worth doing.


We are talking about crimes already committed, so the ability of the priest to "take care of the problem" and rectify what was done is almost nil.

The topic centered on child abuse. So there certainly is something that could be done. Even the State cannot rectify what was already done. It can bring one into judgement and punishment and insure it doesn't happen again.

If the priest does not report it, we are talking about the crime of continual future abuse. And, as I said, if the priest doesn't report it, he should be charged with accessory to a crime.

Makes one wonder how many millions of crimes have been committed due to the silence of the priests.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Sure, I just don't get that from the Bible. It seems to me that if you (generic you, not you personally!) believe the Bible you don't need the priest, and if you don't believe the Bible I wonder who it is that says the priest can forgive, if you believe that God cannot (or will not) forgive without the priest.

You do remember that Jesus told one or more of his Apostles to forgive sins and that "whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained," right? (Jn 20:21-23)

We're talking here about the teachings and use of the Roman Catholic Church, so if a member of that church goes to (sacramental) confession at all, he no doubt thinks that his church has this authority. And if we ask about other Christians, well, the issue (confessing to a priest and what he then does about it) doesn't apply.

Sure, but if you believe God can't forgive you then logically the priest can't do much either, right?

You and I agree on that. but the church does recognize that there are some members who cannot silence their consciences when praying to God, even when repenting of their sins, so speaking with a priest and having him absolve them in the name of and by the authority of God helps them.

This may sound overly practical when we're speaking of God's will, etc., but the Roman Church didn't even authorize priests to conduct private confessions in the way we're describing until many centuries after the founding of the Church. In other words, the need is what produced the practice that we've seen in countless movies.

 

[Albion]

The topic centered on child abuse. So there certainly is something that could be done.

...and you're of the opinion that the child abuser is going to 1) see the error of his ways in the first place, and then 2) seek the forgiveness of a priest for actions that he intends to continue doing?

Only a very rare criminal would reveal his guilt if he knew or even suspected that he'd be turned in by the priest for arrest and prosecution.

Some people will say that "anything is better than nothing," meaning that even a few wrongdoers being caught this way is better than the present situation, but they need also to consider the encroachment upon the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion that would be necessitated in order to trap that rare criminal who would put himself in jeopardy in the way you are suggesting.

This is not a simple, uncomplicated issue, although I know that many people, particularly Evangelicals and people who have no religious affiliation, imagine that it is.

If the priest does not report it, we are talking about the crime of continual future abuse. And, as I said, if the priest doesn't report it, he should be charged with accessory to a crime.

Then we'll take note of that. Lees favors the change.

 

[Lees]

...and you're of the opinion that the child abuser is going to 1) see the error of his ways in the first place, and then 2) seek the forgiveness of a priest for actions that he intends to continue doing?

Only a very rare criminal would reveal his guilt if he knew or even suspected that he'd be turned in by the priest for arrest and prosecution.

Some people will say that "anything is better than nothing," meaning that even a few wrongdoers being caught this way is better than the present situation, but they need also to consider the encroachment upon the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion that would be necessitated in order to trap that rare criminal who would put himself in jeopardy in the way you are suggesting.

This is not a simple, uncomplicated issue, although I know that many people, particularly Evangelicals and people who have no religious affiliation, imagine that it is.



Then we'll take note of that. Lees favors the change.

No, I am not of that opinion. Where in the world did you get that? Where did I ever imply that? No where. You just set up a strawman and then start to reply to your strawman.

I don't care if the abuser sees the error of his ways. He just needs to know the error of his ways is going to cost him, either in blood or freedom.

God set up the State also as a resistance to evil. Didn't He? (Rom. 13:1-4) Ones freedom of religion doesn't give anyone the right to do wrong. What a perverted sense of justice that is.

Lees

 

[Albion]

No, I am not of that opinion. Where in the world did you get that? Where did I ever imply that?

It's what we have been discussing here--the idea that if a priest in the confessional learns of crimes committed, he would have a legal obligation to report them and, with your own twist on that topic, also make himself responsible for correcting the damage done by the penitent.

I explained why that's not realistic, because the offender isn't likely to reveal any criminal actions in the confessional after he knows that it'll be taken to the police by the priest, and that fact means that any rosy projections about how things will go if and when the suggested change is made are not credible.

I don't care if the abuser sees the error of his ways. He just needs to know the error of his ways is going to cost him, either in blood or freedom.

...and you imagine that THAT realization is going to induce him to tell all the details to the priest in the confessional booth? LOL. Think again.

 

[Lees]

...and you imagine that THAT realization is going to induce him to tell all the details to the priest in the confessional booth? LOL. Think again.

If one is guilty of child abuse and confesses only to a priest and not the law, he doesn't have any desire to change.

Whether he confesses to a priest or not is immaterial to me. But, if he does, and it is a crime, the priest should report it. And if he doesn't report it, and it's abuse, and the abuse continues, then the priest is accessory to the abuse. My opinion.

Lees

 

[Albion]

If one is guilty of child abuse and confesses only to a priest and not the law, he doesn't have any desire to change.

That's not necessarily true.

People, particularly those who would go to a priest in confession, who have repented of some wrongdoing usually think that stopping whatever it is and finding God's forgiveness is important.

They don't also have to want to go to jail for things done in the past that they've since repented of and which they cannot undo now.

 

[Lees]

That's not necessarily true.

People, particularly those who would go to a priest in confession, who have repented of some wrongdoing usually think that stopping whatever it is and finding God's forgiveness is important.

They don't also have to want to go to jail for things done in the past that they've since repented of and which they cannot undo now.

And they keep coming back again and again and again confessing thier continual child abuse. Which salves their guilt. But it doesn't help the child.

So, dream on.

Lees

 

[Albion]

And they keep coming back again and again and again confessing thier continual child abuse.

Well, you don't have any idea whether that's true or not. And even if it is true of some people, you don't know what the percentage is.

Yet you made a blanket statement and then reiterated it rather than admit to the weakness of your proposition.