• TheRealKuni@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Separation of church and state goes both ways.

    Confession is a religious rite. Try to legislate that rite is a violation of that separation.

    Priests are bound by their office to maintain absolute confidentiality of confessed sins. Otherwise people are not likely to confess their sins.

    It doesn’t matter how you, personally, feel about this or their religion or the value of confession as a sacrament, that’s their religion. The state doesn’t get to intervene.

    The church should stay out of state affairs, and the state should stay out of church affairs. Exceptions exist, like when practices are outright criminal in themselves. But the state cannot compel a priest to violate their office. This is long accepted. You cannot compel a priest to testify about confession, for example.

    Priests can encourage people to go to the police, but that’s it. Their role in confession is between the sinner and their god.

    • Caedarai@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      You act like excommunication is only a slight matter. For someone who is not religious, being kicked out of a religion might not sound like a big deal, but compare it with citizenship/nationality. Crimes have punishments, so something like murder might involve decades in prison. In the Catholic Church, a priest who murders (or rapes or whatever) might be defrocked, or alternatively sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prayer and solitude, but part of the essence of Christianity is the belief in forgiveness. Excommunication is more akin to stripping citizenship. The US (despite what some people currently im power might want) doesn’t allow stripping citizenship from people who commit regular crimes, even serious ones like murder or rape. Imagine if every murderer or rapist in the US got their citizenship revoked and not only permanently lost all rights (from voting to housing) but could then be deported. Well, I’m sure the uproar that would be caused by even suggesting that. Well excommunication is like that. It is only permissible in certain very tight circumstances where something that fundamentally goes against the entire Church takes place knowingly and intentionally. It would be akin to something like high treason or whatever if I had to draw a comparison, which many countries do have an exception for the absoluteness of citizenship/nationality. There are few instances of excommunication that I can think of in this day and age, but a few would be breaking the seal of confession, breaking the secrecy of papal conclaves, attempting ordination outside of what of permissible while disobeying local bishops, and heretical schisms attempts I guess and all of these mostly for priests and bishops since they have a higher standard and pastoral/leadership responsibilities.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they suspect child abuse. The church thinks it is above secular law and only answers to God, not to mention the protection it offers to its own child abusers. It’s complete nonsense and a good example of why religious tolerance has limits.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don’t confess to things that haven’t happened yet. You’re more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.

      If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that’s when a confession should become reportable, if we’re want the law to be secular and equitable.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        What’s your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don’t have to report cases of child abuse.

        I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).

          To be clear, it’s the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):

          What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?

          At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

          The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that’s pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[1:1] is summarised as:

          When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department


          1. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) ↩︎ ↩︎

          2. https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/ ↩︎

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Technically everything you’ve done is in the past, unless you’re doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they’re confessing, it’s in the past, they’re repentant–not an ongoing risk–therefore I don’t have to report. But that’s obviously bullshit.

    • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it’s not.

      A mandated reporter is a person who is required by law to report crimes, typically if they know or suspect a child or vulnerable adult has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected

      Mandated reporters have to report child abuse. Full goddamn stop. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past, why the fuck would that change anything?

      These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?

      You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?

        So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.

        You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?

        Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It’s always a balancing act and from what I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.

        Mandatory reporting doesn’t solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There’s a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.

        • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.

          There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit. Without mandated reporting, we can literally never know what happened.

          There is very little evidence of societal benefits or needs when it comes to secrecy in confession. There are benefits and needs when it comes to secrecy with mental health professionals, and yet they often are mandated to report these crimes anyway, because the risks of not reporting far outweigh the benefits of secrecy.

          Germany is behind the times and most of the EU on this one:

          In 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) reporting obligations are in place for all professionals.

          In 10 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia) existing obligations only address certain professional groups such as social workers or teachers.

          In Germany, Malta and the Netherlands, no reporting obligations were in place in March 2014.

          This isn’t “the US is the exception” for once.

          I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.

          Source? I have literally never heard that.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Source? I have literally never heard that.

            Don’t know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/

            But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.

            So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say “I can convince this guy to be more mindful”. That alone wouldn’t be that bad, but if you’re in a downward spiral, “causing harm to yourself”, they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.

            There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.

            [citation needed]

            I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting – but not when it comes to confession. “See something, do something”, yes, but not “Take confession, do something”.

            It’s that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for – somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don’t turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won’t do anything to institutional rot. You’re focussing on the wrong thing.

            • medgremlin@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m a medical student in America and we’re required to know some of the legal cases that define our standards and practices. The legal precedent that requires the breach of confidentiality to report a patient for being a danger to themselves or others is the Tarasoff case.

              A patient has to be a direct threat to themselves or others in terms of suicide, self-harm, assault, or murder (i.e. meaningful bodily harm) to justify the breach of confidentiality.

              The TL;DR of the Tarasoff case was a patient was talking to his physician about wanting to kill his stalking target and then he did so. The precedent means that a physician is required to notify the potential victim and/or the police if a direct threat is made.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Remember that episode of South Park where the Catholic priest saw child rape and exploration as a kind of perks of the job. Whelp they hit the nail right on the head 10 years ago with that one and it’s still relevant to this day.

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I read the headline and was prepared to support the church on this one (for once). Then I read the first paragraph of the article. I have never made a 180 on an opinion so fast. The fuck is wrong with the Catholic church and child abuse? Why is this a constant problem with them?

    • Photuris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Imagine if any other type of organization had this sort of systemic problem with child abuse.

      “Wow, there sure are a lot of pedophile employees at Apple Computer abusing their customers’ children.”

      “Dang, the US Department of Transportation sure does have a kiddie diddler problem.”

      “Holy shit, what’s the deal with all the abusive perverts working at Ronald McDonald House?”

      Sounds absolutely bonkers, right‽

      If any secular organization was having this kind of problem at scale, we’d all be calling for their blood. Yet the church gets a pass somehow. A few complaints, a few lawsuits, some big scandals, some negative press, but fundamentally nothing ever changes.

      To hell with the church.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.

      This is not actually about child abuse per se. It’s also not about “warning” priests.

      This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.

      I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.

        No, you just don’t like their conclusion. The article explains what confessional is, which only alters your opinion of the case if you care more about the religious ‘right’ of a child fucker to talk about their child fucking in secret with someone who promised to not tell than you care about the wellbeing of the child victim.

        Your lawyer line of reasoning is also based on a misconception: that attorney-client privilege universally extends to knowledge of child abuse, outside representing a client specifically on child abuse. This isn’t the case, there are states where attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply in this scenario. Bar associations in general also allow breaking confidentiality if they have reasonable belief that someone is going to be seriously harmed or killed.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Who cares?

        This is a simple and factual reminder: you’re arguing to protect child abuse. Shut the fuck up.

        • Ooops@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, I am arguing for a church law established nearly 1000 years ago and upheld ever since that indiscriminately protects all confessions. If you want to argue for changing this (as you should) go along.

          But pretending that this is about protecting child abuse or even -as multiple comments here do- hallucinating how the catholic church “goes out of its way” (by doing exactly the same aus in the last ~900 years) is insane.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Doesn’t the bible say to obey the emperor and follow the law? So reporting abuse to the authorities shouldn’t be a sin since there’s a law compelling priests to violate the confessional for specific issues.

        1 Peter 2:13-17

        Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

        Romans 3:31

        Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

      • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        What an unbelievably stupid take.

        A) Do you actually know what excommunication means? It’s not a permanent sentence to Hell. It’s a temporary separation from the Church that can be reversed after penance. Do you think a “time-out” is so unbelievably painful that it warrants protecting child abusers? If so, you are fucking disgusting.

        B) You analogy ALREADY HAS agreed upon laws about violating confidentiality, including when the lawyer believes an extreme crime might be committed in the future. So no, we would not be reacting with outrage because we are not psychopaths.

        It’s hard to state how stupid your post is.

  • aaron@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The Catholic church is hardly going to allow priests to be forced to go to the police and admit crimes.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    A curious question. Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?

  • mattbnr@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wow literally threatening people who report child abuse…this is why people have no faith in religion