News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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?
The entire religion is based on shame and fear. The clergy take advantage of both.
This isn't just Catholic church thing. It's rampant in any religion, organization, hierarchy, etc. where the person on top of the totem pole demand obedience, they are insulated from outside accountability, and there is a culture of secrecy.
Go probe Ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish community, Quranic Schools. It's rife with sexual abuse.
It's a constant problem because its a cult that wants to protect its cult members. It finds no issue with indoctrinating kids, to the point where nobody batted an eye when they recently (like, in the past 10 years) decreased the age at which children go through the sacrament of Confirmation. The same sacrament that is meant to affirm your adulthood in the church, where you say, "I may have been told to practice this by my parents before, but now I'm an adult now and choose to practice it of my own volition."
They do this when children are thirteen years old. Thirteen.
When I was fifteen I did not have the capacity to make this decision for myself. Now I have to live with the fact I'm on a list somewhere as an adult in the church. The Catholic Church is an evil institution that uses trauma for the purpose of coercion.
For a century now, the option has been at some point between 7 and 16, at the diocese's discretion. I received mine around 16; 13 sounds like an outlier, to me.
I truly wonder what's going through someone's head when they downvote purely factual statements. I didn't even give an opinion here.
I can explain what's going through my head for you. I downvoted you because your purely factual statement seems to completely miss and is entirely irrelevant to my point -- that coercing a child to declare themselves an adult in the eyes of a particular social group, to declare that they have the agency to consider such a thing that is supposed to be a LIFE LONG decision, is straight up wrong.
Doesn't matter if it has been in place for a century, if age 13 is an outlier, or if you think 16 is old enough because that's when you had to do it. It's whack, and your justification is whack. I downvoted you instead of engaging because most of the time it's not worth entertaining someone who justifies the cult I was indoctrinated into as a child, from which I had to spend many years deconstructing the hate for others -- often the lowliest groups of individuals -- that Catholicism had fomented in my child and adolescent heart. Forgive my harshness, but I'm not going to act like this thing that made me into a spiteful hateful kid -- towards the exact groups of people that Jesus tells us to love the most -- is a good thing.
Oh yeah, my bad for not including what it's about. I'll edit that back into the post.
Personally, I think it goes back to the Catholic Church's special status as its own sovereign country. They didnt just elect a Pope this week. They elected an absolute monarch. Even though that monarch's territory is only .5 sqkm, it used to be much larger, and the Church literally has outposts everywhere indirectly subject to its rule.
And a key thing to understand is that the Church doesn't use confession to hide crimes from just anyone. If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
The Church was always super arrogant when it came to transgressions by its own people. To them, subjecting a priest to civil law makes just as much sense as subjecting an Italian to Australian law. When a priest confessed he was diddling kids, they would handle it in their own manner, without getting the local authorities involved.
That's the real reason why this law is written the way it is. It's to keep the Church from hiding its own people. The Church, as an institution, has proven over the years that it can't be trusted on that front.
I haven't read the law, but it would be interesting if it explicitly allowed a "mandatory reporter" to satisfy the requirement by facilitating the transgressor to turn themselves in. That is a clear way out of this problem, keeping the confidentiality intact while keeping the local government's jurisdiction over crimes as well.
This is the thing that's bugging me. People are taking the Catholic church's history with priests committing child abuse, then making a blind logical leap that Catholics in general are child abusers (or a significant number of them). It's twisting the feelings about Catholic priests and targeting them at a wider group. What's happening here is insidious.
How many Catholics are child molesters, and how many of them are confessing in church, and what penance were they given?
Here's a link to the law as passed.
It doesn't seem to explicitly allow what you are suggesting but I supposed the "or cause a report to be made" clause could be interpreted that way.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn't the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be "saved from God", and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.
I don't know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it's true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I'm too skeptical of the state to trust it'll always be a good thing.
It is not the opposite direction. It's the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn't only between you and the clergy.
I don't think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they're required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there's no reason it shouldn't expand to more/all crimes.
No, they only don't have to report confessions. They'd still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It'd only be things said in the confession box that are safe.
I don't like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people's lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?
Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn't fallacious always.
'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:
“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”
The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A'
(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)
Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.
That's just blatantly incorrect. They're not required to report on stuff they're told in confessionals and that's all. They're still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it'd be the same for the clergy. It's not an issue for lawyers, so I don't see an issue for the clergy.
In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I'm sure this won't always happen, but it may. If they're required to report it, they'll never be told, so can't act on it.
I don't like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it's way into people's lives that I don't like.
Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.
An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.
Sure, I'd advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.
I feel like it’s fair to say that if you want god’s forgiveness you must accept mans judgement in cases of abuse. If their god’s salvation is worth less than however many years of prison they’d get, then that’s their choice. I don’t want them to be able to shrug off the guilt and continue the abuse with peace of mind just so they may also escape the punishment they think would otherwise await them after death.
I agree and I agree. However, as a being that was indoctrinated and abused by the church, I still have to point to the ”Sacrament of Confession”, which… yeah… evil bastards.
Is it a constant problem? How many child molesters are confessing in church? How many Catholics are child molesters?
The Catholic church's history with child abuse is to do with Priests and the church covering for them. This is new spin, suggesting that Catholics as a whole contains a lot of child molesters, but I've not seen any evidence showing that.
Because that is what they are.
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.
If the Bar Association told their lawyers not to report child abuse from their clients you would have a point. And confidentiality agreements are not going to protect child abuse. The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers in order to maintain their "reputation".
Nearly 1000 years of a confession's confidentiality being absolute and the punishment for violating it being excommunication, is the exact opposite of "going out of its way".
Ah, yes... tradition! Because the way things have been done is the way they must, should, will be done! Something being wrong is still wrong despite any length of time it has been done.
No, that just means they've been going out of their way to protect abusers for nearly 1000 years
Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent? Why the fuck do you think any policy that hides child abuse is okay?
If you know a kid is getting hurt and you don't say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. If you defend those that don't say anything, you are a giant piece of shit. I hope you reflect on that before putting some imaginary sky daddy rules before a living and breathing child. The same ones he told you guys to protect and you decided to rape them instead.
No I'm arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that's what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.
But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.
I'd argue, and this isn't easy, the church can continue to use the rule. After all, it is from "God". Who are we to define the rules. But any priest (and above) that doesn't report it, is an awful human being. Stick to dogma, but accept the consequences of being a human. If a child is abused and you can stop it, pay the price to make it stop. Child is safe; you go to hell - fair deal. No mater what, someone is going to suffer. Make the "saintly" call. And make it known!
Then don't? There is absolutely no reason society needs to obey objectively evil arcane rules because some dude who has absolutely no say in how we run society says we should.
I still have absolutely no idea why people would jump in to defend the churches right to keep CHILD ABUSE secret. It seems like you would either be afraid of getting discovered, or you have so little faith in your church that you're afraid they're going to get discovered.
I'm not afraid nor am I a member of any church. I am firm in my stance that there is no god. Small or little G. If you read my post again you will see that my point is, even if you are going to go to hell, you are obliged to report abuse. Again, report it. Fucking report it. If the cost is your eternal salvation, you will fucking report it.
They is my point. There is a cost to everything. No matter what you believe, be ready to pay it.
Next time, please read what someone says and not what you want to believe they say. The world would be much better that way.
The rule of shielding child molesters. I read exactly what you said and quoted it. Now I'm going to enjoy my weekend and not give you any more time to defend child molesters, because what the fuck.
Are you serious? I'm not defending them. I'm saying, if you have a religion based on stone-age ideas that are not allowed to change (because it's a religion and God doesn't really exist so he can't talk to you) there is no coherent way you can change the rules. It's not like a sports group. Only "God" can change the rules. Don't change the rules. BREAK them. Ignore "God".
I'm not sure why you are so insistent that I defend child molesters. You accused me of belonging to a church. I get the feeling this might be more true of you. Again, I believe in no god. I belong to no church. I defend no molester (child or otherwise).
I hope you have a nice weekend. I hold no animosity towards you. We are on the same side. We only disagree about semantics and human behaviour. Don't be angry.
I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.
But when a "remember that the confession's confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god's/church laws first an foremost" (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.
Confidentiality agreements do not cover illegal acts. Since you brought up the bar association, fun fact about that is that if you admit to say abusing a child to your lawyer not only is that not covered by attorney-client privilege the lawyer is obligated to inform law enforcement or face punishment by the bar association for failing to do so.
Small correction, a lawyer is only obligated if they believe there is a specific ongoing risk. It's the difference between saying you committed a crime in the past and saying that you are going to commit one in future.
No.
If I tell my lawyer about a child I abused years ago he can do exactly nothing as there is no imminent crime to prevent that would allow him breaking confidality.
If I tell my priest the same applies.
If you want to change that, change the laws binding those people. But don't pretend that the church is going out of its way to protect child abuse by in reality doing nothing and applying the same rule indiscriminately exactly like they did for a millenium.
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.
Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.
While this is true it turns out that the United States isn't bound by Catholic dogma. And the Church's methods for handling this sort of problem have thus far been... questionable at best.
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.
Who cares?
This is a simple and factual reminder: you're arguing to protect child abuse. Shut the fuck up.
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.
And nobody cares about church law. It's entirely irrelevant.
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.