Louisiana Judge Rules That Priests Don’t Have to Report Abuse if They Hear It During Confession

[trotsky]

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/louisiana-judge-rules-that-priests-dont-have-to-report-abuse-if-they-hear-it-during-confession-2/

A Louisiana judge has struck down a state requirement that clergy members report suspected child abuse even if they learn about it during a private confessional.

State District Judge Mike Caldwell ruled Friday that the requirement — a Louisiana Children’s Code provision — violates the constitutionally protected religious freedom rights of a Roman Catholic priest accused of neglecting his duty to report a teenager’s abuse allegations to authorities.

The victim, Rebecca Mayeaux, had confided to Jeff Bayhi during confession that she was being molested by a sixty-four-year-old parishioner. Not only did Bayhi not report the abuse, but, according to Mayeaux, he offered appalling advice as well:

In court, Judge Caldwell ruled Bayhi’s religious freedom rights would be violated if he was forced to talk about the alleged confession.

After the ruling, Bayhi called this "a victory for religious liberty."

[StandingInLeftField]

1. Does that work for a terrorist plot? a plan to blow up churches?

"religious liberty" don't'cha know.

[hollysmom]

102. I think so.

that is what we were taught about he confessional. what can I say?

[arely staircase]

157. I am pretty sure it would.

The case in question was about child abuse but the ruling doesn't limit the 'freedom' to confessions of that.

[Brettongarcia]

161. I'm sure it should. But?

In actual practice I've seen and heard things that would suggest otherwise.

[Kalidurga]

2. Different laws for religions is never ever a good idea.

And this is why.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Unbelievable:

In a move that hardly inspires the trust Bayhi claims to be so keen to protect, not only did Bayhi refuse to discuss what happened, but the church tried to prevent Rebecca from discussing their conversation on the stand:

Earlier in the day, the Diocese tried to prohibit Mayeux from testifying about what she told Father Bayhi during that alleged confession. A judge ruled she could testify about what she told him, but her attorney can’t argue that Bayhi was mandated to report that.

[onecaliberal]

4. W.O.W.

[JFKDem62]

5. I would think religious people would want to fight evil, not enable it.

So a man of God would let children continue to be raped and terrorized.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. This is so fucking stupid.

Let's say I'm a therapist. Almost anything a patient says to me is filed under doctor-patient confidentiality.

Almost.

If they tell me they like to spread peanut butter on their genitals and whistle the the libretto to HMS Pinafore while reading back issues of Guns & Ammo, I can't tell single soul.

If, however, they tell me they hurt a kid, and I have reason to suspect they pose a danger to themselves or others, I am not only allowed, but obligated, to alert the authorities.

For being God's moral authority here on planet fucking earth, the Catholic Church sure has a difficult time wrapping its head around what amounts to simple fucking ethics.

[edhopper]

7. That was my question

is this different than laws for lawyers and therapists?
Is so, shit is fucked up.

[nichomachus]

8. Yes, it is different

Therapists and lawyers have an ongoing relationship with the person. They know who the person is.

Most confessions are anonymous. The priest doesn't know who is on the other side of the screen. What is he supposed to do? Go to the police and say, "Gee, some guy, on Saturday -- I don't know who he is or anything about him -- confessed to abuse."

By saying priests have to report what they hear in confession, you're placing a legal obligation on them that they can't fulfill.

[trotsky]

9. Oh bullshit.

In this particular case (and I suspect in the vast majority of them), both the girl and the abuser were members of the priest's church. He knew who they were, as most priests know their parishioners of their own damn church.

In the rare case where they don't know the person, they can at least report the fact. If the police already have information about abuse occurring in the area, it might be useful to them in their investigation at least.

Don't make excuses for this horrid nonsense.

[nichomachus]

10. Well, maybe we could just put cameras in every home

Then, we could solve all crimes. We could stop a lot of horrid nonsense.

[trotsky]

11. And the jump to slippery slope!

Care to actually argue about why priests shouldn't have to report child rapes, or do you just want to fling logical fallacies because you know you can't?

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. Making priests report crimes is morally equivalent to domestic spying?

[mr blur]

21. I'd stop digging if I were you - the deeper you go,

the more ridiculous (not to mention objectionable) you seem.

[Lordquinton]

47. You mean something like "God is always watching"?

[Angry Dragon]

94. +41,124

[Dorian Gray]

46. Let's say for the sake of argument

that I fully agree with you…

In this case he did know the confessor and the accused. In this case he may have lived up to his legal obligation, but not his moral or ethical obligation. In this case, he failed his parish and his flock.

[struggle4progress]

56. How can you be sure about the facts here?

The young woman says she was afraid to talk to her parents about it at the time; and if that's the case, what's the reason to assume she was clear and forthright in her statements to the priest? The Appeals Court decision indicates that there were some parishioner concerns expressed; that the priest then met with the alleged abuser and wife; that the girl's parents then met with the alleged abuser and wife; and that the girl's parents only then confronted the girl. That doesn't sound like nobody cared: it sounds like a community trying to figure out what's up

I don't know how to sort out the priest's moral or ethical obligations without knowing what he was told, what he actually knew at various times, or what he should reasonably have suspected

[Dorian Gray]

66. I understand

why people feel the need to support the church. They have lawyers to do it for them.

The legalese really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though.

And I find it unlikely that the parents would pursue charges if there wasn't something amiss. (Of course I could be wrong.)

At the very least, the priest should have spoken with the parents and social services to protect this child. And the advice (he gave her) as stated in the original article is beyond the pale. If that is true, it's worse than negligent.

[Brettongarcia]

150. Why is Progress always citing need for more information

Always asserting not all the facts are in?

In coming to a decision, the Supreme Court itself weeds out all other considerations except the specific matter to be decided.

In day to day law, all relevant facts need to be heard of course. But the principle in situations like DU is more like SCOTUS: allowing for purposes of argument that all other considerations might be temporarily suspended, then what do we say about the single point of the case being isolated for purposes of discussion.

Yes, in a real court trial, and in a real case before us in court, many details must always be considered. But when isolating a single element or principle for purposes of discussion, often we assume by a convention that other factors might, for the moment at least, be set aside.

For purposes of theoretical discussion only. Later of course, fuller discussion of all relevant issues is important.

This is known and allowed in many fields. So why does Struggle-4-Progress repeatedly seek to call for Discovery, if not to continually deflect discussion of Principle?

[struggle4progress]

159. "Fuggin facts! Who needs em?"

[Brettongarcia]

162. Even in courts of law....

Practicality unfortunately dictates that at some point the search for ever more evidence largely ends. And judgement is entered.

It is unfortunate that this is necessary due to simple human inability to endlessly investigate every little thing in life. Hopefully in time we get more and more accurate in our investigations and jury decisions.

At the same time, learning to discern overall patterns in the literally endless, literally infinite stream of information, facts, has its pragmatic usefulness.

Philosophers have literally spent 3,000 years debating whether that loaf of bread in front of our eyes was real. And if we wait for a final determination whether it was real or not, we'd all starve to death.

[Jim Lane]

60. Such a privilege is traditionally considered that of the client/patient/parishioner

I'm a lawyer. If a client tells me something in the course of the representation, I'm not allowed to communicate it and I can't be compelled by subpoena to disclose it. BUT the privilege is my client's to waive. My client can testify about our conversation and can authorize me to do so. One really striking thing about this case is that the church tried to prevent the abuse victim from testifying about what she told the priest. That's outlandish.

Any rule that excludes certain evidence will, to some extent, impair the ability of courts to get at the truth. In the case of a privilege like this one, that's considered an acceptable price to pay in order to encourage totally open communications in certain situations where that's deemed to have a social value. To achieve that purpose, however, it's not necessary to give the priest or lawyer or doctor a right that can be asserted independently. The purpose is to protect the person making the communication. If that person is OK with the disclosure, then there's no logical basis for the priest to refuse to testify.

[edhopper]

63. Does this apply

even when the person says they are going to commit a crime?

[Jim Lane]

64. No, that's one of the exceptions.

Suppose I tell my client that it looks bad for us because the State found a witness who saw my client commit the murder. The client says to me, "Well, tonight I have to go to my kid's school play, but tomorrow night I'll kill that witness, so don't worry about the trial." The interest in preventing a future crime overrides the privilege. As soon as he leaves my office, I call the cops.

Suppose, instead, that the client merely nods glumly at the news, then a couple days later the witness turns up dead, and the client thereafter tells me, "I killed him, that's two murders this month, my personal record" -- the privilege still applies and I can't disclose these conversations.

One can imagine some in-between scenarios. The client doesn't expressly state that he'll kill the dangerous witness, but he glowers, pounds his fist into his palm, and says, "This is bad. Very bad." Or he says "I'll tell Johnny to do something about this" and I know Johnny is his hit man. At what point does inchoate discontent become sufficiently specific to trigger the exception? In real life I don't do criminal law so I generally avoid such harrowing decisions.

[edhopper]

65. Thanks

My feeling was their privilege should not exceed that of a lawyer or therapist.

[whatthehey]

13. He actually has a point here

Yes it's stupid to say that religious liberty includes not having to pay for health insurance or bake cakes for gays, but confession actually is central to and an integral part of Catholicism in a way bigotry is not (it's just an incidental byproduct).

The beliefs, that confession is both necessary and effective when performed before the clergy, are ludicrous and unsupported obviously, but they are long established, of unquestioned provenance in the magisterium, and theologically centered, again unlike paying for contraception etc.

If you say priests must report crimes revealed in confession, you essentially prevent a religiously necessary sacrament for any Catholic with any meaningful sins who wishes to remain free. That really IS interfering with religious liberty. How to balance religious liberty with law enforcement is a question worth asking, but it's a very real conflict and I suspect unless we want to shred 1A completely for LEO convenience, we'll have to rely on the confessor's ability to balance future risk to others against the sacraments. There is after all a big difference between "Father I intend to rape little Johnny tonight after the service" and "Father I touched little Johnny's clothed behind last week and am afraid I felt a frisson of pleasure"

Oh and the above post is incorrect, thanks to Hollywood and TV. The dark curtained confessional booth is a rare relic outside the silver screen. Far more likely to be done face to face in a quiet room.

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Well, that settles it, then.

A rapist's right to receive confession trumps a child's right not to be raped.

Makes sense.

[whatthehey]

15. Well no

If a rapist is confessing a child has already been raped and no act can change that. What is the question is should a priest be forced to give information received under a sacrament so that the rapist is punished for it. It's easy and tempting to say yes, but in doing so you essentially make a central part of Catholicism impossible for anyone who has broken laws and wishes to remain free. That's certainly a major impact to religious liberty. Now I personally couldn't give a rat's, but I personally did not write the free exercise clause. Since the latter is still in effect and this is a legal question, that's what we have to address.

[edhopper]

16. Right

it's not like they will ever rape again.

[whatthehey]

23. Which still does not address the legal issue

You seem to think I support the idea of confessional sacraments. I think it's a silly superstition like all religious rituals. I'm addressing the legality and both judge and Bayh are correct. As long as we have free exercise as a bedrock principle you will not be able to force priests to break the confessional seal that has been around for centuries.

Emotions are one thing. The law is another. If we outlaw religious liberty it will make us feel good about forcing priests to play stoolie, but what then stops other religious liberties, including the right to have none, from being ignored?

Actually that raises a question. I understand perjury laws but outside a courtroom can any random individual be forced by law to provide information he knows about a crime?

[edhopper]

28. There are plenty of ways the law requires people, even the clergy

to go against their religious percepts.

Christian Science for minors, animal sacrifice is another. Many civil right areas would appy.


And no, you don't have to rewrite the 1st Amend. for this.

How far should this go. A priest shouldn't report a confession of an ongoing crime?

Father, I have a young girl tied up in my basement. Cause the canocal law says confession is sacrosanct.

That covered?

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Look, this is absurd.

Every right has limitations. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover threats, slander, or libel. The Right to Bear Arms doesn't apply to aircraft carriers and ICBM's. Freedom of Religion doesn't exempt polygamists from federal law.

The right to practice your religion as you see fit should not supercede the immediate safety of your neighbors. If confession is an integral component of your identity as a Catholic, then 1) don't fucking rape children, or 2) get used to the idea of giving confession in a prison cell.

[whatthehey]

25. Unless that "you" is generic you are laughably off base

Assuming it is, you have the wrong legal angle. It's not the guilty person making the confession who is compelled. It is the (hopefully; I'm sure there still are some) innocent priest, who would be forced to literally excommunicate himself by breaking the seal of the confessional. There is no excuse and no loophole in Canon law, settled for centuries. Priests cannot even imply or suggest or indirectly communicate things learned in confession, and the automatic penalty is said excommunication. In their eyes they are taking the confession as a mediator to God, according to rules of penance at least as old as the 13th Century. Yep it's pretty central to the religion and pretty integral to being a priest.

The only legal way to get past this is to get rid of 1A entirely. I'm not a fan of that idea.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. Yes, it is generic.

Here, let me explain what's wrong with your argument:

Assuming it is, you have the wrong legal angle

I don't have a legal angle, I have an ethical angle. What is law is not always ethical, and vice versa.

It is the (hopefully; I'm sure there still are some) innocent priest, who would be forced to literally excommunicate himself by breaking the seal of the confessional. There is no excuse and no loophole in Canon law, settled for centuries. Priests cannot even imply or suggest or indirectly communicate things learned in confession, and the automatic penalty is said excommunication. In their eyes they are taking the confession as a mediator to God, according to rules of penance at least as old as the 13th Century. Yep it's pretty central to the religion and pretty integral to being a priest.

And I give approximately zero fucks about any of this.

If this priest can casually shrug off his responsibility to the health and safety of his parishioners because a thousand years ago, some short sighted dipshit in a funny hat decided anyone who didn't hold any confession, no matter the content, in absolute confidence had to turn in his cassock, then that priest is an asshole, and he'll be getting no sympathy from me.

[whatthehey]

33. OK, but even if you prefer the ethical angle, about which I agree FWIW

we must still consider the legal one.

You could not possibly give fewer fucks about the reason for Catholic doctrine than I do, but it's an incontrovertible fact that the sanctity of confession, its impoortance in canon law, and its vital nature for the purpose of the clergy is a considerable part of the free exercise of Catholicism, and if we say that can be overridden for legal convenience then it's goodbye 1A, which is the ONLY thing preventing us from being a theocracy. There is no other country where the populace is as religiously credulous and fundamentalist as this one which is NOT governed as a theocratic state. The nation as a whole wants to be one which is the main reason we had to win the rights to abortion and equal marriage in the courts not the ballot box. You really think the 78% Christian supermajority wouldn't vote for enforced Christianity, and that the 90%+ Christian GOP wouldn't put it before them if they thought it aould not be struck down?


The same thing that prevents that prevents us telling Catholics they can stick their Canon Law and sacrament of penance where the sun don't shine or go to jail.

[trotsky]

34. We prosecute faith-healing parents when they fail to provide medical care to their children.

Does that mean we're already an OMG THEOCRATIC STATE? We violated someone's religious beliefs which are vital and important for members of a religion!

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. Traditionally, celestial marriage was necessary for Mormons to enter the highest heaven.

And polygamy is against the law.

A hundred years ago, the okipa rite was no doubt of great importance to the Mandan tribe (or else they wouldn't have fucking done it), but I wager anyone who tries to suspend their adolescent child from the ceiling by skewers driven into the muscles of their chest and shoulders will find themselves adjusting to the feel of DoJ sleepwear.

[trotsky]

40. Oh noes!

Polygamy is against the law! That must make us a theocratic state, since we restricted someone's right to practice a key element of their religion!

[trotsky]

31. But excommunication can be undone.

The rape of a child can't.

I notice you haven't addressed the other limitations on our first amendment rights that have been brought up. Are you against those as well? Would Donald Trump have the right to incite violence?

[whatthehey]

36. I'll take your word that it can

I am unsure it would. This is a really big deal to Catholics.

Not that you've addressed every point I've made either, but since you ask, in my decidely IANAL opinion, the difference is, if you'll excuse the language of theology, between omission and comission. Trump saying "beat up protestors" is being an ethical agent furthering a violent act. He's causing violence. The priest, we surely must assume, is hardly likely to be encouraging child abuse in the confessional (even those who might be guilty of it themselves). We can also safely assume he will speak up strongly against doing it. What he's doing is NOT reporting it. His ethical agency is directed towards the mumbo-jumbo about sin and atonement he and the abuser take seriously, not towards the abuse itself.

Shorn of that mumbo jumbo and put into your own analogy, the priest is not Trump using his massive influence to incite violence. He's not the moron committing the violence either. He's not even the guy standing next to the moron who could have held him up. He's the drinking buddy who recognized the moron at the bar the next day and said "Jeez you moron you shouldn't have done that. I could call the cops but I won't". That guy isn't culpable for not calling the cops, and he's not even protected by religious free esercise. How can a priest who is so protected be culpable, legally, for acting the same way?

[trotsky]

38. Nope, you can't go that route.

The basis of your argument is that our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion is, well, sacrosanct and that no limit can be placed upon it lest we become a "theocratic state."

We have limits on our first amendment rights of speech, yet that has not turned us into a totalitarian state.

So your logic just simply does not hold.

[trotsky]

17. If a guilty Catholic refuses to confess actual crimes in confessional,

they have only their conscience to live with. And given the behavior of many Catholics I've interacted with, I don't really think that is much of a problem.

Sorry but I'm having a really tough time accepting this as some kind of religious liberty issue. As with all rights, they have to be weighed against the consequences. Such as the classic example of the right to free speech not including the incitement of violence, or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The right to practice your religion should not include the right to tell someone about a crime you committed - especially a crime of sexual violence - and not have that someone tell the appropriate authorities.

[whatthehey]

26. Sure, but the compulsion is on the priest

If he breaks the seal of the confessional, he excommunicates himself. Silly nonsense, but silly nonsense that is central to the clergy and the faith.

And remember, there is also equal protection. I am under no legal compulsion to report any crime I have knowledge of. I can be guilty of perjury if I give false testimony. In some cases I can be charged if I do not report a crime when asked by cops, but if I know Joe murdered Steve, let alone abused him, I am not legally bound to call the cops and tell them voluntarily (I surely would in 99.9999% of cases). This law would change that not for me, but for priests under a sacramental seal. How the hell can they be forced to report and everyone else not?

[trotsky]

29. Trying to argue for "equal protection" is really not appropriate here.

A more apt comparison for a priest are people serving in similar capacities - and by and large, those individuals (teachers, etc.) are covered by mandatory reporting laws. The church is arguing for a special exception for their "professionals" simply because of a rule that they could easily change if they wanted to.

If it means one less child rapist on the street, well to me that's more important than "religious freedom" in this case. Same with one less death by trampling because someone isn't allowed to yell "Fire!" Boo freaking hoo.

[whatthehey]

41. Sorry. I will not be a hypocrite

If we want religious liberty it has to be universal and there is no question whatsoever that the seal of the confessional is central to religious liberty for Catholic priests. I cannot with one breath say that I should be able to ignore mandatory confession of mortal sins and with the next breath say that they cannot maintain it.

[trotsky]

44. "If we want religious liberty it has to be universal"

Then you have already lost your battle - we don't have religious liberty, because Mormons aren't allowed to be polygamists and faith-healers aren't allowed to deny their children medical care.

Unless you want to argue that some religions are more "valid" and deserve more protection than others.

Now THAT would sound more like a theocratic state.

[whatthehey]

144. Universal as in to all religions. Clearly things like Aztec sacrifice are not and should not be ok

I specifically DON'T want any government deciding what religions are valid because I know in that case in this zeitgeist "none of the above" would be first under the bus. But what does that leave as options? Either all religions then must be universally protected or none. Without an official validity test there can be no other choice. Clearly 1A supports the former.

Yes there are unsavory aspects of many religions which should be forbidden. Human sacrifice at one extreme. Withholding medical care should be but isn't in many states at least. Polygamy theoretically I could see as permissible with protections but it is not right now. Strangely the government is stronger there than on letting kids die with easily treatable conditions God can't manage as well as doctors for some reason.

But even if we were consistent and banned all these things, there is a difference. These actions directly cause harm. The state thus has a compelling interest in overriding free exercise, a long standing exception to pretty much all constitutional rights (felons can't have guns, we can't use free speech to plot a massacre,etc). Confessional inviolability per se harms nobody. Even in extremely fanciful scenarios where a priest is told of a planned crime, we have to imagine a criminal who cares enough about the sacraments to offer this in confession but not enough to be dissuaded by the priest's presumptive dissuasion and threat of withheld absolution. I'm no priest but I'm fairly confident in assuming absolution depends on contrition and repentance, both of which are kind of tricky to grant when we are talking about a crime in the future. If the parishioner goes ahead and plants the bomb, it's pretty clear he didn't repent of his plans. Bad prognosis then for his putative immortal soul. Anybody who took confession as a sacrament seriously enough to reveal murder would take it seriously enough to wait until after the murder took place before revealing actionable details.

Restriction of free exercise is obviously possible and should be taken as granted. If it were not we'd have no murders as every would be killer would be an ardent devotee of sacrificial faiths. That does not mean religious freedom is not universal (applied to all religions) but that it is not unlimited (applied to every aspect of all religions) it should depend on, and does, a compelling interest in avoiding a direct and integral harm caused by an aspect of that exercise, and be applied again universally just like free exercise. So no religion gets to do human sacrifice because it kills people per se (I have no idea how many worshippers of Quetzalcoatl are out there, but I bet it's not zero and I want them to have free exercise too, sacrifice excepted). Sealed confession doesn't kill people per se, any more than drinking beer kills people per se or overeating kills people per se. They are legal too for the exact same reason. MADD and health nuts may squawk that they enable and exacerbate deaths with far far far more merit than we could say for confessional secrecy, but they should not be banned either, should they? And we don't even have an ennumerated right to them. So how can we sensibly deny the confessional seal?

[trotsky]

145. "Clearly" - why, because murder would be involved in that?

It is strange then that having secular law acknowledge the Catholic seal of confessional that murderers could go free. All religions treated equally, but what about all the religions that DON'T have an official sacred right of confession?

Your logic is shockingly sloppy. At first you claim religion freedom can't be restricted lest we become a theocratic state. Now when confronted with direct evidence showing that religion CAN be restricted without that happening, you're attempting to shift the goalposts.

Confessional inviolability per se harms nobody.

It allows individuals claiming religious freedom the right not to be encumbered by laws that affect others.

BTW, you left many other unanswered items in this thread.

[whatthehey]

146. Not at all

You are simply inferring statements I never made, and ignoring ones I did make explicitly.

Let's try and put both together in one statement.

Religious fredom must be universal in that it applies to all religions, from mainstream ones to weird ones to none. That universal freedom must include free exercise of any religious belief or practise which does not cause direct harm. No contradictions, sloppy logic or shifting goalposts.

It's really that simple. If you and I are to be free to avoid church services and call prayer a waste of time, others need to be free to value those things. We'd lose and they would win if this were not so.

Religions that don't have confessional secrecy, to my knowledge, don't have a dogmatic expectation of confession (I'm assuming Orthodox priests are treated as Catholic priests are under law). A Hindu is under no obligation to tell a priest he did anything wrong, a devout Catholic is. Might as well say it's a problem with religious freedom that Catholics can eat beef. We wouldn't mandate beef eating, so why mandate an open confesion?

Who is encumbered by laws Catholics are free from? There are quite a few privileged communications apart from confession, and the guilty obviously need not incriminate himself. Because confession of mortal sins is mandatory for Catholics, you force a person to incriminate themselves by unsealing confessions, if they want to exercise that religion. Wouldn't that be encumbering Catholics with a law others are free from, ironically enough?

Could you do a quick link or precis of what youthink I've missed. It's not like you are addressing every point either, or anybody else, but if you want answers to specific points I will oblige.

[trotsky]

147. It is one thing to state that rights should be universal as applied to *people*.

It's quite another to state they should be universal as applied to *religion*.

Religions are ideas. They hold different things sacred. In the case of the Aztecs, human sacrifice was indeed sacred. You can't really say they wouldn't be allowed to sacrifice people if you're going to declare items that are special "enough" in a religion to be protected, and given special accommodations in secular law, as you are arguing in the case of confessional. Your logic forces you to accept all acts done under the guise of sincere religious belief, no matter how illegal they would otherwise be.

A Hindu is under no obligation to tell a priest he did anything wrong, a devout Catholic is.

Do you think every Catholic who has ever lived, has declared every sin they ever committed to a priest? Does every Catholic follow every dictate of the church? I think we both know the answers to those questions.

Who is encumbered by laws Catholics are free from?

I am a little taken aback by how unfamiliar you are with the specifics of this situation. But then again that could explain your simple, blanket statements here. Mandatory reporters, people in virtually the same situation as the confessional priest, who become aware of a crime - particularly as it applies to young children - are required to report it. Catholic priests are not. A special accommodation has been made simply because a certain religious practice is privileged. I don't believe this accommodation is warranted. You do, but you still haven't been able to come up with a consistent, logical justification.

Not my job to do your homework, either.

[whatthehey]

148. Again, false inference

Rights are valid only until they harm others. That includes the right to free religious practise. It's nothing, legally, to do with how sacred those practises are thought to be. Sure the confessional is central to Catholics, but that's a question of why they impose the absolute seal, a doctrinal issue separate from any legal concern. If Mormons decided tomorrow to institute sealed confessions just for fun, the legal argument would be the same because it's concerned with free exercise not with theological prominence. When would free exercise then become a problem? Sacrifice kills people. Confessions don't. How is that not distinction consistent and logical? You are free to carry on what ever ritual or belief you want, just not hurt anyone. Both logical and consistent. Confessions at the very worst Hollywood drivel fantasy only involve talking about killing people.

I have no doubt at all there is a pretty low rate of full and honest confessions from Catholics on the whole, and likely much lower from vicious criminal Catholics. But what does that say about the utility of forcing disclosure?

Spouses cannot be forced to incriminate either. That's a much much larger group than priests, and much more likely to have incriminating info. Is that an equal problem for you? Much greater because of numbers? Much less because it's not priests?

Either tell me what you want me to answer or quit complaining that I haven't. I'm not a believer in mind reading either so I can't guess. For my part you never seem willing to address what happens if we start chipping away at free exercise because it may, in some extremely rare fantasy scenario, result in indirect harm. Surely you realize the vast majority of our fellow citizens believe we will burn in hell for eternity for not believing. Is that not a harm (imaginary, but not to them) far greater than any priest heard in confession? A harm that they believe, in their delusion but nonetheless believe, is far far more certain than any risk that has been heard in confession? If we can override free exercise in re confession because of the highly unlikely indirect risk to any future victim of a failed penitent, they have a voting supermajority that could much more easily be concerned with "saving" us from the to-them certain risk of damnation by overriding our free exercise of non-belief. That's one reason why I am an absolutist for the right to non-harmful free exercise, because I know damn well it will be my free exercise that disappears first once we start carving out exceptions.

Outside that, while I am no more Wiccan than Catholic, I kind of agree with that Rede thingy. Can we imagine some fanciful chain of events where a sealed confession results in harm? Sure, but if I give money to a beggar they could buy drugs and enrich a crime syndicate. If I pay my taxes the government can afford more drones. The list is endless. Worrying about indirect harm is a sure route to paralysis, and remember that confessions if taken seriously involve both penitence and satisfaction for sins; they are intended to reduce harm. I doubt they do so to any great extent much like I doubt they cause much harm either, but if we are concerned at all with motivation, the motivation is beneficent. If we try to specifically attack the confessional seal because it might cause harm, to retain your vaunted consistency we'd have to attack a crapload of other practices, religious or not, that pose far greater risk first.

[trotsky]

149. But who gets to define "harm"? You and you alone?

Some people have religious beliefs that a fetus is a full human being, and that abortion is therefore murder. In their eyes, no one has a right to an abortion because it harms someone else. Or let's return to the Aztecs - what if the intended victim WANTS to be sacrificed, again because of their deep and sincere religious beliefs? Why do you think it's OK to interfere with their religion, but not Catholicism?

Your entire argument then becomes special pleading for the religious beliefs you think are valid "enough."

I've been quite clear what I want you to answer: why should a religious group get exemption from a secular law that is designed to help protect children? You agree that faith-healing parents can't harm their children by withholding medical care, right? Same deal. And the case in question in the OP didn't even deal with someone who had confessed to harming a child - it was from a child who HAD been abused. So all the appeals you've made for giving special legal protection to an abuser who happens to be Catholic are completely misguided anyway.

Rights come into conflict ALL THE TIME. We have to weigh the rights and come to a reasonable conclusion as to which is more important. That's why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or own a nuclear weapon. But what you are asking for is the "right" of someone who practices a particular ritual in particular religion to be exempted from a law that applies to others in the same situation. A law passed to help the rights of victims to, ya know, not be raped or otherwise abused.

I just run that calculation a little differently than you do, apparently. And yeah, I think consistency when it comes to protecting children is a good thing - I will always side with the rights of children over the rights of the religious, so I see absolutely no value in continuing this conversation. Feel free to have the last word.

[mr blur]

22. "meaningful sins"? Say no more!

WTF is a "meaningful" sin? You obviously live in a different world where bullshit magically achieves some kind of truth just because lots of deluded people pretend to believe in it.

[whatthehey]

27. Christ when will people read...

I am addressing the legal issue. I no more believe this claptrap than I believe in midnight rides to Jerusalem or that a cow is my reincarnated ancestor. I just know that the same 1A that protects them protects me from having that bullshit you're worried about forced on me. Ever think of that?

[struggle4progress]

18. Good. The inviolability of the confessional seal is ancient catholic doctrine.

It simply does not apply to absolutely every comment made under any circumstances whatsoever, and in particular not to everything that might be colloquially described as a "confession," but rather to the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation

If I understand correctly, Mayeaux's suit seeks damages, alleging that she raised certain issues during confession, on which issues the priest Bayhi did not act, while the priest takes the traditional stand that inviolability of the confessional seal prevents him from even discussing whether she had undertaken confession and a fortiori any contents thereof

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication ...

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Right. Wouldn't want child abuse getting in the way of ancient Catholic doctrine.

[struggle4progress]

24. A suit was originally filed in 2009 by the parents on behalf of the minor, alleging that in 2008,

when approximately twelve years of age, she had used a confessional context to inform the priest that a third-party, now deceased, had sexually abused her. The suit sought damages on various grounds, including that the priest had a duty under law as a mandatory reporter. The suit was filed about a year after the alleged confessions. The actual alleged perpetrator died in early 2009, several months before the suit was filed

The 2013 decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, decision says:

... According to the allegations in the petition and the deposition testimony in the record subsequent meetings were had -- one between the priest and Mr and Mrs Charlet and another between the Charlets and the minor child's parents (the plaintiffs) -- concerning the obsessive number of emails and phone calls between Mr Charlet and the minor child, and the seeming inappropriate closeness between the two that had been observed by various parishioners. Again, according to the allegations in the petition, after these meetings Mr Charlet contacted the minor child to let her know about the meetings .He informed her that he told them their relationship was mutual and appropriate; that he did not know if they believed him, but he assured her he would take care of making sure everyone believed their relationship was appropriate and mutual, and that she just needed to play the game

However shortly thereafter the parents confronted their minor daughter about the emails and phone calls, at which time, she confessed to the true nature of the relationship with Mr Charlet including details of the inappropriate sexual contacts. The plaintiffs immediately contacted Mr Charlet ordering him to cease contact with their daughter. According to the petition, however, on a subsequent Sunday, the plaintiffs witnessed Mr Charlet approach their daughter after church and her openly against her will. They then filed a formal complaint against Mr Charlet with the East Feliciana Parish
Sheriff's Department. According to the petition, the investigation was ongoing when, on February 9, 2009, Mr Charlet died unexpectedly after suffering a massive heart attack ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the case. The Louisiana Supreme Court in 2014 reversed the dismissal, on the grounds that material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report

There is no question that Louisiana law properly protects the confessional. And the purpose of the catholic confessional rite is not to aid the authorities through better crime reporting -- but to provide a context in which individual persons may examine their own behavior critically, may regret their past behavior, and may resolve to behave better in the future. You are, of course, free to assume that self-examination, a consequent disappointment in one's own history, and the resulting intent to change course are meaningless -- but many of us will disagree with you. The catholics are unlikely to abandon this view of the confessional rites: outside of confession, and similarly-confidential communications, of course, it is a different matter

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Wow. That's really interesting.

For a second there, it totally looked like you were making excuses for a fucking abuse-enabling coward, but now that you've quoted legal precedent, it looks like you're only making excuses for a law-abiding fucking abuse-enabling coward.

[struggle4progress]

35. And here I'd thought I'd nicely explained some legal issues and context. Ah, well.

I think if you had bothered to do a little reading, you might have found you liked parts of Judge Caldwell's rulings -- but perhaps it's just easier to call people names

My own view is that disagreements can be useful, as long as we're learning something: that suggests to me that there might be benefits into looking more closely at such cases, and posting a bit about what one learns, but I understand that view is not uniformly popular

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. Fuck legality.

I'd say I'm surprised you're having a difficult time sussing out the legal from the ethical, but... I'm not.

I am glad to see you're getting some mileage out of your library card, though. Keep on truckin.

[struggle4progress]

71. William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

A Man for All Seasons

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. Oh, boy! Quotes!

Here, I have one:

"A profusion of quotes is no substitute for a substantive argument. Also, you're still wrong, and your position is patently detestable. There's probably a word in German for 'A series of actions so embarrassing that one no longer feels pity or anger towards the acting agent, but feelings of profound personal discomfort, akin to indigestion.' I should look that up."

- Me

[rug]

77. You're np Rpbert Bolt.

Sir Thomas More: I trust I make myself obscure.

He defined with seven words.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. You neglected to mention, only 6 states protect that end of the confession.

26 protect the confessor, but only 6 protect the priest from mandatory reporting requirements under that scenario.

Funny how selective you are in your searchings.

[struggle4progress]

52. Actually, in many states, clergy are listed as mandatory reporters BUT

there are still pastoral communication exceptions. This holds in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin

In a number of other states, clergy are not listed as mandatory reporters: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, New York, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I don't know about the rest of your list

but in WA, no one is. What is required by federal law rules. So it's not like clergy are exempted.

[Lordquinton]

50. "Good."

That was your first response to hearing a child was raped and the court denied her justice on someone who enabled it.

[truebrit71]

58. I cannot believe I read that on DU....

Un-fucking-believable....

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. Sadly, I knew from the get-go the apologists would minimize this.

My grandfather was the same way. A strident Roosevelt-era Democrat, he fought Nazism in Normandy and the Bulge, marched for civil rights, and protested the Vietnam War... but when it came to the church, he was totally off his nut. He defended them until his dying day, routinely crying bigotry against the church's critics, while maintaining sexual abuse wasn't really "all that bad" of a thing anyway.

[struggle4progress]

68. Some precision is appropriate. According to the appeals court decision:

The actual reports made by the minor child were that on several occasions Mr Charlet kissed her aggressively sticking his tongue down her throat and fondled her breasts underneath her shirt and bra

That would be indecent behavior with a juvenile and/or molestation of a juvenile but not rape under Louisiana law

[Goblinmonger]

42. So therapists are mandatory reporters, but not so much priests?

Because church doctrine?

That has a funny smell.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Hell, I'm a mandatory reporter.

I'm sure you are, as well.

[struggle4progress]

54. We could make everybody mandatory reporters of everything, y'know:

Suspect something? Call the cops on your neighbor or go to jail!

There must be some reason we don't do that

Laws balance competing interests. The situation with attorney-client privilege and mandatory reporting, for example, is convoluted and not all at uniform. You can't effectively represent clients if you could be called at any moment to testify about anything a client ever said to you

Just as lawyers can't claim attorney-client privilege for just any old conversation with anyone whatsoever, Catholic priests can't claim seal-of-the-confessional for just any old conversation with anyone whatsoever: these are claimed as limited exceptions

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Misprision of a Felony.

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Raping a child is a federal felony.

Fuck the clergy for even pretending they should have special dispensation on this.

Apologists can fuck right off too.

[struggle4progress]

121. Misprision of felony is typically charged when there is inadequate evidence to charge

someone suspected of actual participation in the crime -- and the common use is to induce a plea. The charging threshold is probably high: to witness a federal felony but not to report is misprision; but under any sane theory, merely to hear, as third party, from a second party that some first party committed a felony, and then to fail to report, cannot be misprision

I suspect priests seldom if ever actually witness federal crimes being actively committed in the course of hearing confession

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Uh, no, it's not two steps removed, it's one step removed.

merely to hear, as third party, from a second party that some first party committed a felony, and then to fail to report, cannot be misprision

Wrong. In the case of confession, as it is currently exempted, a first party admitting the direct crime to the second party (priest) is also exempted under the law.

But that's not even the issue. If a CHILD tells you 'I was raped', that's enough to trigger a report, or should be. Even if the child doesn't say who did it. If they do, then that's hearsay that can be passed on to the police as well, which might help them target their investigation, but it is not necessary. At the very least, the police need to know that X child was raped, so they can proceed to interview the child/parents, etc.

Gears of justice turn slow, but they need to BE turned at all to produce anything.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Special pleading bullshit.

The confessional isn't related in any way to due process or self-incrimination or even medical privacy, so it has ZERO legal standing as a protected conversation between any two people.

"There is no question that Louisiana law properly protects the confessional. And the purpose of the catholic confessional rite is not to aid the authorities through better crime reporting -- but to provide a context in which individual persons may examine their own behavior critically, may regret their past behavior, and may resolve to behave better in the future. You are, of course, free to assume that self-examination, a consequent disappointment in one's own history, and the resulting intent to change course are meaningless -- but many of us will disagree with you. The catholics are unlikely to abandon this view of the confessional rites: outside of confession, and similarly-confidential communications, of course, it is a different matter "

Fuck them, and fuck that noise. Whether Catholics 'abandon that view' is uninteresting. How the courts interpret it is the only relevant condition, and he absolutely should have been thrown in jail for failure to report. Confessional isn't a magical protected thing that exists, and means anything at ALL to anyone outside the catholic faith.

Ecclesiastical privilege is not a thing that has any value to society whatever. It doesn't even have the weight or standing of a non-disclosure contract.

We're lagging behind Ireland in putting a torpedo through this privilege. It's coming though, and for the same reason; priests raping children and getting away with it. The UK, with a STATE CHURCH (Anglican even), doesn't have this 'privilege'.

Only six states protect a priest from mandatory reporting for this sort of felony. We should reduce that to 0.

[struggle4progress]

55. I already quoted the Louisiana Supreme Court on Louisiana law:

the case involves material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Confession shouldn't carry special protected status.

It's a conversation between two people. It is no more 'important', than client/physician priv. Certainly not more so, and I would argue, much less.

Their state supreme court is full of shit. Which happens from time to time.

[Skittles]

152. Passing the Plate for Pedophiles

[skepticscott]

59. So it's "ancient catholic doctrine"

So what? Why does that grant it any special status? What principle is it based on that should trump civil law, ethics and morality?

[Jim Lane]

61. Question about Catholic doctrine

I note that your excerpt tells a priest not to "betray in any way a penitent...." That would clearly apply if the penitent tells the priest, "I molested my stepdaughter yesterday." In the actual case, however, the person making the communication to the priest wasn't the abuser; it was the victim. If this were a communication to me, as a lawyer, that would make a big difference with regard to the attorney-client privilege.

Certainly a priest wouldn't be betraying a penitent if he said, "What was done to you was terrible. You should notify the authorities. If you're scared of that whole process, I'll go to them on your behalf, and do all I can to minimize the trauma. At some point you'll have to confirm what I tell them, but, to start, please authorize me to report this." That wouldn't get him excommunicated, would it?

If the priest didn't even do that much, to comply with the legal requirement of reporting without violating the sanctity of the confessional, then I don't have much sympathy for his position.

[struggle4progress]

62. Let me say first that I entirely agree with your comment upthread

that the effort to prevent the woman's own testimony regarding what she told the priest was outlandish: I cannot see how any court could accept such an argument; and IMO it was quite properly quashed

It would also seem to me that, if the allegations in the suit are correct, there must be some proper route for the priest to suggest the woman go to the authorities or that she repeat this to him outside of the confessional context, thereby allowing him to make the report himself

As for the rest, I think I will try to explain the context, so far as I understand it, and so far as I can explain it, with a minimal amount of theology and more emphasis on philosophy and psychology. The ancient teaching of the church is that other humans are the closest thing we have to any divine image; and that true religion consists in our radical love of them despite their imperfections, which we should recall rather resemble our own imperfections: the logic then involves the question of how we might improve ourselves to love them better and how we might teach them similarly to improve themselves. Confession is, in a certain sense, a version of the modern talking-cure: people are encouraged see themselves clearly, with their faults; to accept themselves and others; and to try to cultivate the habits that will improve their ability to love. Lying to ourselves is one of the most common of human psychological illnesses; and it often springs from the fear that we will accidentally betray our secrets to others, and then suffer the consequences, which leads to a psychic rot. The confessional provides a context in which this dishonest veil can be torn away; it does so by guaranteeing that the matters revealed will not be disclosed by the person hearing the confession, no matter how grave the offense; but the teaching is also that the confession is not merely a formal ritual but rather a kind of cleansing act that has effect only if the penitent be genuinely contrite and genuinely intending to amend. Without the guarantee of complete confidence, the psychology has little chance, because the fear of betrayal of our secrets is a strong incentive to cover them with further layers of lies. We have little chance of reforming ourselves, if we cannot even admit aloud that we have been wrong; but, as in much of the rest of life, one step in the right direction can lead to another. The confession is not a magic act, that permits one to wrong others willfully and walk away with a clear conscience thereafter: it is supposed to function as an exercise in continuing growth of our ability to love our neighbor, by forcing us to take into account our habits of thought, word, and deed that undermine that. The idea that there are crimes so grave, that sincere contrition becomes meaningless, is fundamentally contrary to this enterprise; and to allow the carving out of exceptions to the seal-of-confession undermines in every way the assumptions that underlie the practice

[skepticscott]

67. Sorry, but that's pretty much all theology

If you're trying to whitewash the goddish parts and paint catholic confession as mainly psychological catharsis, then there is no justification for not holding priests to the same reporting standards as any other psychologist/therapist/counselor.

[Dorian Gray]

45. Oh God

It wasn't even the molester confessing his crime bc he felt it was a problem. It was a child who came to him for advice. And the advice he gave her was abhorrent.

The court got this one wrong.

Very wrong.

(And obviously that priest did too! He enabled molester.)

[trotsky]

51. Seriously, if there is a god...

don't you think she would be a little more upset about not doing something to protect a child versus breaking a totally man-made rule of your church? I mean, Jesus didn't lay down the rules for confessional, did he?

[truebrit71]

57. That's despicable. Absolutely despicable.

Hopefully it will be appealed and overturned by a body that understands the law, and not some idiot that believes in the sanctity of 'Our Lady of Covering up for child-rapists'...

[Iggo]

73. Catholics.

[trotsky]

74. The RCC has always considered itself above secular authorities.

That's one of the things making its problems so much worse.

[rug]

75. That's a very poor understanding of history.

[trotsky]

78. Whatever you say, rug.

Congrats on the unexpected pardon. How nice to see you back a month ahead of schedule. I hope, in the spirit of Skinner's pardon, that you can ratchet down the behavior that led to your timeout.

Any neutral observer can look at how your church sheltered and covered up for the vast number of child rapists in its ranks and see how they believed the church - and no secular institution - should decide how to handle those crimes. That's what made the rampant child rape problem in your church far worse than it should have been.

But if you want to try and argue otherwise, so you can defend the rape-enablers, please proceed.

[rug]

79. Whatever will you talk about now, trotsky?

Maybe you should just stick to the topic.

Which, btw, concerns the relationship of the organized religion and the various states under which it has existed. That requires examining the RCC before Constantine, after Constantine, and after 1870. None of which includes the current sex abuse scandals you believe defines the institution.

As to Caldwell's decision, you really should read it. It has quite a bit of information about the priest-penitent privilege (yes it is called a privilege) and its relation to civil law. Information which your richarddawkins.net link, unsurprisingly, ignores.

[Goblinmonger]

80. OK. Let's assume for a second that priests should be different than therapists

Because if a person comes to a therapist and tells them they raped a child, the therapist is a mandatory reporter. But, hey, let's put priests above that for the purpose of argument.

Priests shouldn't have to be mandatory reporters in this instance because then the child rapist won't come to confession and get their sins forgiven and will rot in hell for eternity (though, frankly, I don't see a down side to that but since if Catholics are right and I'll be in hell, I'd rather the child rapist be up in heaven with you lot. But that's a different discussion). Fine. That's the argument.

So why, when a child comes in and says they've been raped shouldn't the priest be a mandatory reporter? Because the kids won't confess it? Have any proof of that? Because I have mandatory reported on a good deal of things kids come in to tell me and guess what? They still come in and talk to me and tell me things? Know why? Because they know I care.

So why not be required to be a mandatory reporter in that instance?

[rug]

81. Because at that point every thing the confessor says in confession becomes open to examination.

It's the same reason one can not partially invoke the Fifth Amendment.

[Goblinmonger]

85. So why should priests be different than therapists at this point?

[rug]

88. They have significantly different functions.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Yeah, one is real, and one is imaginary.

[rug]

105. Some posts are informed and others are simply uninformed.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Can't be informed by non-existent entities.

[rug]

108. Of course you can.

Can you learn nothing at all from mythology?

[AtheistCrusader]

109. I can learn lots of things from mythology. Not sure what that has to do with being Informed though.

Nor would I be informed BY those non-existent entities. I'd know, at best, what humans made up about those alleged entities.

[skepticscott]

99. So do teachers and doctors

Why would that justify exempting one from being a mandatory reporter?

[rug]

106. Because of their different functions, they have different mandating triggers.

[skepticscott]

114. And how is a priest's function more important

in any way that justifies giving them a special exemption from reporting?

[rug]

115. Read the decision, scottie.

I'm not your schoolmaster.

[skepticscott]

117. The decision is just

boilerplate religious deference, of the kind that governments are obliged to mouth, not a fundamentally sound argument.

Try again.

[rug]

118. In that case, you'll be able to quote the holding.

Go ahead.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. Would the same apply if the confessor said that they may molest a kid again?

Would the Priest then be obligated to go to the authorities, or would they keep the seal of confession?

[rug]

91. No, the seal is absolute.

There are other steps the priest could take but he cannot identify the person or the actual contents of the confession.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/12/04/can-a-priest-ever-reveal-what-is-said-in-confession/

It is very much a big deal.

[Humanist_Activist]

92. Ugh, why the fuck is that even legal? Such a morally repugnant practice...

honestly the State shouldn't allow the confessional to be used as cover for criminal activity.

[rug]

93. How do you feel about evidentiary privileges in general?

[Humanist_Activist]

95. In general I'm neutral on the idea, but they always come with limits, which aren't...

present with confessionals. For example, if I tell my psychiatrist I'm going to kill someone and they have a reasonable belief I may actually commit such a crime, they are legally obligated to report that to the authorities. If they fail to do so, they may be charged with a crime.

Yet, if I confess to a priest that I beat my kids, give penance, and promise not to do it again, every week, the priest is under no obligation to report me to child services, or do anything about it. That's wrong, period.

[rug]

97. A psychiatrist knows his patient. The confessional is, by design, anonymous.

A psychiatrist has a basis to form an opinion as to whether the patient is making a specific, imminent threat. A priest in the confessional does not have that basis.

Even then, the Tarasoff duty to warn is limited to certain, definite circumstances. If any mental health worker improperly violates patient confidentiality, he or she is subject to a massive malpractice action and loss of license.

Now, if the priest was acting in the role of a counselor outside the confessional, the seal does not apply and he has a more reliable basis to opine whether the person he's counseling is a threart to himself or another.

Priests aside, confidentiality is an extremely important value to maintain and is based on solid policy rationales.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. Its not always anonymous, and you have yet to justify why they shouldn't follow...

The same rules as doctors. What makes priests different than other mandatory reporters?

[rug]

111. First, I don't have to justify a thing; the court decision's done that.

Second, anonymity is the default norm. Few are not.

The answer to your last question is in the court decision.

[skepticscott]

101. Medical care and legal services are real

"godly" care has no facts to back it up. It's entirely a matter of programming and indoctrination.

[rug]

103. That post is entirely a matter of opinion

no facts to back it up.

[skepticscott]

100. The "big deal" is entirely invented

Nothing actually bad would happen if priests were not allowed to plead "doctrine" when they fail to report child rape.

[rug]

104. That big deal has been examined, accepted, and applied strictly for a thousands years

for eminently sensible reasons under all sorts of civil governments.

You clearly have a peculiar understanding of the nature of the prosecution of child sexual offenses. You assume, first, that a child rape occurred. Next you assume the priest has sufficient reliable information to conclude a child rape happened. Finally, you smugly and recklessly demand he run to a police station and divulge his information, along with his opinion.

If, in his zeal to follow your instructions, his information is wrong, or his conclusion is wrong, there is now on record a false, or inaccurate, or misleading accusation, vicariously made, of rape by a child. I doubt you appreciate how devastating that fact is to a prosecution regarding a child who may in fact have been raped. Especially when there is no corroborating physical evidence. Do you consider that as "Nothing actually bad"?

How about a false prosecution of a person based on this testimony of a vigilant, if incorrect, priest? "Nothing actually bad"?

How about if people stopped going to confession lest a priest feel compelled to divulge what was told him, at his conscientious discretion? Oh, wait. I expect you'd find that to be "something actually good". Is that right? Isn't it your opinion that the sooner people stop setting feet in churches, let alone confessional booths, the better? Feel free to answer no.

Read the court's decision. The prosecution of child sexual offenses is not the realm of amateurs.

[skepticscott]

112. Nothing but blather

That big deal has been examined, accepted, and applied strictly for a thousands years for eminently sensible reasons under all sorts of civil governments.

We haven't had "civil governments" examining religious privilege for a thousand years. Most of the governments dealing with this for the last millennium have been under the control of religion, particularly the catholic church.

You clearly have a peculiar understanding of the nature of the prosecution of child sexual offenses. You assume, first, that a child rape occurred. Next you assume the priest has sufficient reliable information to conclude a child rape happened. Finally, you smugly and recklessly demand he run to a police station and divulge his information, along with his opinion.

I assume nothing, other than that if an allegation of child rape has been made, it should be reported to the proper authorities so that the truth of the matter can actually be investigated, rather than being hidden behind bogus religious privilege. This is all just shit you made up. Priests make judgements about what has actually occurred every time they hear a confession. Unless you're going to argue that they just hand out penance willy-nilly, instead of for real "sins". And no one is calling for priests to make any more difficult judgements than teachers or doctors who are required to report child abuse.

If, in his zeal to follow your instructions, his information is wrong, or his conclusion is wrong, there is now on record a false, or inaccurate, or misleading accusation, vicariously made, of rape by a child. I doubt you appreciate how devastating that fact is to a prosecution regarding a child who may in fact have been raped. Especially when there is no corroborating physical evidence. Do you consider that as "Nothing actually bad"? Again, none of this calls for priests to do any more than other first reporters, and in no way justifies an exemption for "confession". The report of a priest is never going to be the last word on the subject, so you're just flinging silly straw men because you know you have nothing else.

How about a false prosecution of a person based on this testimony of a vigilant, if incorrect, priest? "Nothing actually bad"? Still, nothing that calls for priests to do anything different than doctors or teachers are very reasonably required to do. Nothing that justifies special status for "confession".

How about if people stopped going to confession lest a priest feel compelled to divulge what was told him, at his conscientious discretion? Oh, wait. I expect you'd find that to be "something actually good". Is that right? Isn't it your opinion that the sooner people stop setting feet in churches, let alone confessional booths, the better? Feel free to answer no. Yes, you need to put words in my mouth, because you have no actual argument. If people stopped going to see doctors lest a doctor feel compelled to divulge what was told him, actual, physical harm might result, and despite that, doctor-patient confidentiality is not absolute. No similar harm would result if people stopped going to confession, so why should the confidentiality of confession be held in any higher regard?

Read the court's decision. The prosecution of child sexual offenses is not the realm of amateurs. That must be why the catholic church has taken it on themselves to deal with such matter internally, and has consistently resisted turning evidence of child rape over to the proper authorities for investigation. Your church is certainly the expert when it comes to child rape.

[rug]

113. Nothing but ignorance.

It was codified in 1151 and became binding on civil governments after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1251. How's your medieval history, scottie? Have you heard of "Christendom"?

The only thing noteworthy in your next paragraph is your misspelling of judgment.

Your next paragraph demonstrates quite clearly your abysmal cluelessness about criminal prosecution, evidence and the power of cross-examination. Seriously, you haven't even provided the straw to fling.

As to the duties of mandated reporters, you have as little knowledge of the different duties and requirements of statutory reporters as you do of the difference between religions. Your statements on the subject are as flat as Kansas.

Next paragraph, I have not heard you say "no". The answer, then, is I have accurately described your position.

Finally, you clearly still have not read the decision.

Next time, don't waste my time.

[rug]

119. "you've been punked"

[trotsky]

82. The steadfast defense of the behavior of your church and its hierarchy is impressive.

Predictable, disappointing, repulsive, but yes, impressive.

Enjoy your reprieve.

[rug]

83. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Let me know when you have something substantial to say on the topic other that "steadfast defense" bullshit.

One day you will realize disagreement with you is hardly "predictable, disappointing, repulsive" and steadfast defense of anything - except reality.

I shall enjoy my reprieve and strive not to emulate your behaviour.

[trotsky]

84. That's cute.

But my behavior didn't earn me any timeouts.

[rug]

86. See #79.

I see I was prescient.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. A priest who leaked Vatican documents is in a Vatican jail.

A cardinal who enabled decades of child molestation lives there in regal splendor.

[trotsky]

89. I suppose it's good that they make their priorities so abundantly clear.

Helps everyone but the most despicable enablers to see the organization for what it is.

[edhopper]

76. So true

a very good reading of history trots.

[Angry Dragon]

96. Everything will work out in the end

The catholics are free to believe as they wish and all of them will end up in HELL

[goldent]

123. I'm surprised that the requirement to report what was said in a

confessional ever made it into the code in the first place.

[trotsky]

124. Don't you just love religious privilege?

Pretty sweet gig you guys have there.

[goldent]

125. Yeah, the two little words "free exercise" are huge.

[trotsky]

126. Especially great when that "free exercise" grants privileges no one else enjoys.

That's pretty damn sweet.

[goldent]

129. I think there are plenty of rights for everyone in the constituation

and their scope is expanding. I wouldn't worry too much about "free exercise."

[trotsky]

132. I don't know that the "constituation" grants anyone rights.

But I do know that we are supposed to get equal treatment under the law. Unless you're religious, then you get special treatment. You can deny your employees health care coverage, etc. You appear to support such special treatment, but I do not.

[goldent]

133. Having rights listed in the constitution is pretty important

and the author of the bill of rights chose to put religious rights in there, and bundled them with the most fundamental of rights.

I completely understand that people don't like to see other people, especially people who are different from them, get "more" rights. That's human nature and a big part of politics.

[trotsky]

134. LOLOLOL

You've really got to try better than that. In this particular case, special rights are granted to a Catholic priest that other professionals in a similar position do not have. All because of religion. I can tell you can't argue that point, because all you have left is petty personal attacks on me.

[goldent]

135. Hmm, what are the very first words of the bill of rights....

let's see...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nicely spotted, State District Judge Mike Caldwell!

I think all professionals in a similar position as Father Bayhi, i.e. a religious in a confessional, would get the same "special" rights.

You know, the constitution is chockablock with special rights like this. What will we do?

[trotsky]

136. And yet by granting a certain religion special rights (to protect child rapists)because of its dogma

it is entirely reasonable to see that it is now law to respect that establishment of religion.

Thanks for the cite of the constitution. Really helped make my case!

[goldent]

137. OK, you are back to free exercise

aka special rights. I get it, you don't like it. That's fine, there are things I don't like either.

Free exercise is part of our history, our culture, and our law, including being the very first sentence of our bill of rights. As long as you don't go writing codes or laws that violate it, everyone is happy.

[trotsky]

138. The bottom line is,

granting a special exception to the laws mandating the reporting of child abuse results in a Catholic child rapist being less likely to be caught and stopped.

I am quite pleased with my position that the field be leveled for these criminals. Raped children are never happy.

[goldent]

139. Your problem is you don't think big enough

OK, so you want to ignore the first part of the 1st amendment, in order to enhance law enforcement - I understand your argument. But there is so much more! Double jeopardy, self-incrimination, unreasonable searches, equal protection under the law, they are all ripe for the picking. Why give suspected people all of these privileges? IT'S NOT FAIR! "Reforming" these rights would be HUGE compared to what the police get from conversations in confessionals.

Personally, I am good with honoring all parts of our bill of rights, and I couldn't be happier that our judges, like State District Judge Mike Caldwell, agree with me. Warms and fuzzies all around!

[Act_of_Reparation]

140. You're good with it unrestricted freedom to practice religion, eh?

You're good with fundamentalist Mormons taking multiple, underage wives? You'd be fine with Muslim shopkeepers slicing the hands off shoplifters? You'd be cool with the Mandan bringing back the Okipa ceremony? Say neo-Nahuatl types want to start skinning people alive to honor Xipe Totec. You down with that?

Your problem is you don't seem to be thinking at all.

[trotsky]

141. Yeah, preventing the rape of children is more important to me. Sorry about that.

Given that you are now resorting to ridiculous straw men (at no point did I suggest we "ignore" the 1st amendment, only recognize that it does have reasonable limits, like the old "fire in a crowded theater" example, or not allowing parents to deny their children medical care), it is clear you have nothing left.

You're the one who has staked out the extremist position - the one that enables the Hobby Lobbys of the world to scream "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" while denying insurance to employees, because you think the practice of one's religion supersedes other rights. Congratulations.

[goldent]

142. You are right, you didn't suggest we ignore the 1st amendment.

Just the parts you don't like.

[trotsky]

143. Thank you for your admission of error.

Too bad you followed it up with another mistake.

Please address my actual argument. There are limits to religious freedom, I listed just a couple. Do you disagree with them? The freedom of religion is not absolute. Why, in the interest of preventing children from being sexually abused, should "religious freedom" take precedence?

[cpwm17]

160. "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Even when that includes prohibiting criminal behavior? I don't think so. The religious can't engage in criminal behavior since that violates other people's rights,

The religious do not have a special right to violate other people's rights. There is no such special privilege.

To knowingly allow a child to be raped is evil. No one has that right.

[Act_of_Reparation]

127. You sound like the gun nuts hammering away at "shall not be infringed".

Your right to own an AR-15 doesn't supercede my right not to be shot to shit in a crowded theater. Your right to be a shitty confidant doesn't supercede a child's right to not be abused.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

[goldent]

128. People become frustrated when they see those they hate having rights.

But the constitution is the law of the land and so in this case the correct ruling was obvious.

[Act_of_Reparation]

130. When morality fails you, fall back on the law.

Congratulations. You failed just as hard as everyone else defending this detestable prick.

[goldent]

131. A nation of laws and not men.

It sounds nice, but I understand it is hard to support that unconditionally.

[Brettongarcia]

151. Or a backward, Napoleonic Lousiana?

The Louisiana decision has gotten national attention precisely because it obviously cries out for appeal, and reversal.

[rug]

156. It has been appealed and not reversed.

[Brettongarcia]

158. But other states have different laws on disclosure

So clearly there's some inconsistency here.

[Skittles]

154. honestly, I'm sure we really want to know what the fuck is wrong with them

sick, sick, sick

[Cartoonist]

153. The ultimate failure of religion

My opposition to religion is based simply on its lack of credibility. You can't have reasonable thoughts and actions when they are based on made-up stuff. It's like running your car on a mixture of gas and water.

The girl in this case was taught that priests are representatives of God, and that Jesus loves her. When faced with a problem, she sought divine guidance. In a secular world, she would have gone to authorities that would have actually helped her instead of the Church. A church that cares more for its rituals than the safety of a teenage girl.

[RKP5637]

155. I'm so F'en fed up with religious freedom in this country. It's a total cop out for anything. n/t