Violates freedom of religion.
Lawyers are also exempt from
reporting privileged communications.
And a priest will not absolve someone of a sin - which is the whole reason for confession - unless the person agrees to take action to resolve and repent the action, which would typically involve them informing law enforcement.
This is a constitutional issue, and has been through the courts numerous times for hundreds of years. Regardless of how I feel about archaic religious practices I do revere and defend our constitutional civil liberties.

from the same place I got my Medical
degree - from Google.

...and is not analogous to the confessional. And "freedom from religion", like any right, is not absolute. You can't, for example, flay the skin from a man you've kidnapped to honor Xipe Totec.

The idea that freedom of religion extends to harboring child rapists is ridiculous. Any constitutional right you care to name has limits.

Comparing priests to lawyers is even more ridiculous. Lawyers work within the framework of our legal system and as such have a particularized need for privileged communication. They are also accountable to independent organizations which license them and work to protect society against unethical behavior. Even then there are specific limits to their privileged communication when it comes to illegal activity. None of this applies toward ordained ministers which anyone can become for the small fee necessary to mail them the certificate.

The idea we are somehow wrapping ourselves up with the flag and Constitution in order to derive at the pretzel logic required to defend an organization which has been engaged in a culture of child rape just isn't that great.

It is based on 200+ years of jurisprudence and court decisions.

However, you are free to name one court decision in the last "200+ years of jurisprudence and court decisions" which has overturned clergy mandatory reporting laws.

Whatever you favor or don't is irrelevant. What you are trying to defend is.

Just Google it, or read the Wikipedia entry on priests being required to reveal to civil authorities what they hear in confession.

Then when called on your assertion you can’t do any better than waving a folded piece of paper.

petitioner’s future actions. The priest will strongly advise, but absolution of sins, including murder, is a central tenet of Catholic faith.

The absolution is dependent on three factors: a sincere sorrow for committing the act; a firm resolution to not commit the sin again; and performance of the penance as given by the priest. And very often the penance will include a requirement that the penetant inform civil authorities of a crime that has been committed and seek counseling for it.
I am not a Catholic, but had a close friend once who became a priest and he and I discussed this and other subjects in detail.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2019, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, the penitent must show contrition, and does so in the words he or she says to the priest in the confessional, “father......” I am sorry for my sins and will sin no more. The priest can ask are you truly sorry, but confessing comes with a presumption that the person confessing is indeed sorry. Go and sin no more says the priest, but he does not follow the person around.
The priest can try to ascertain that a person is not actively continuing a sin. Let’s say not still having an affair. The priest can deny absolution if he pursues an avowal of contrition with “but are you continuing the affair? “ and the person says yes. Also if a person refuses to say Father I am sorry for my sins or when Father says Go forth and sin no more says oh, I am going back to the bank to rob it again.
This denial of absolution upon proof-seeking is rare because again there is presumption of being sincere and a recognition of imperfect contrition, that we grow to fuller, more perfect contrition as we grow in faith and redemptive actions.
As to conditions to confess to civil authority, no. Nothing in Catholic literature, on the books so to speak, makes any condition but that the confessing party is contrite, will sin no more, and presumably do the penance suggested. It is not a case of you see the police first, come back to the box with proof you did, and I will absolve you.
If an individual priest is conducting confession with this condition, then that behavior is not according to church doctrine, but perhaps a course of action decided upon within a parish, perhaps in dealing with priest to priest situations.
Doubtful though, since the Vatican has stipulated that if clergy suspects abuse they must report it only to church authorities, not to law enforcement. And this new guidance is not a stipulation applying to what is heard under seal of the confessional.
,

So it’s a good bet the know by heart the magic words that will lead them into absolution. Meanwhile so long as the RCC is able to hide behind exemptions to mandatory reporting, it also is a good way to insure secrecy from their superiors, which they would also be well aware.

This sounds as if it will fit in that category.

A bad solution to a serious problem.

How many of your Constitutional rights are you willing to give up?

And it might fit into that category, but we won't know until it is tested in court.

When two principles come into conflict with each other, as they often do, it's always a question of which principle will prevail.

When the rights of the individual are in conflict with the rights of an organization, only the courts can decide.

Children are a special case. They have rights, but cannot defend themselves. Everyone recognizes that. If an organization systematically infringes on those rights and covers up that infringement, then, perhaps the state has a responsibility to put an end to such infringements.

The Constitution does not include language to cover all possible situations. That is why we have courts.

Some religions have included human sacrifice as part of their doctrine. Such a church could not operate in our society, despite the First Amendment protection of religious practices. Every right in the Constitution is subject to limitations imposed by our laws.

Goodbye, now.

That was also torpedoed because of the same "but muh religious privilege" justification that you are using.

Very telling how the religious water some are carrying is in lock step with the right wing of the SCOTUS.

That's why he attacks liberal atheists, and embraces right-wing religious nuts like the president of the SBC.

Considering atheists vote D at about the same rate evangelicals vote R. If you didn't know any better you might think someone is carrying the far right's water into DU.

religious dogma/procedural bullshit.

Make the reporting mandatory if any penetration is reported by a child 13 or under with/by someone 18+.

Make the reporting mandatory if an adult reports penetration of/with a child 13 or under.

Obviously that's not 'the limit' of what would be optimal, but let's see the church go out and TRY to defend themselves against that limitation. Put 'em on record saying this is too egregious of restrictions for them.

After a few minutes, I went and got my chainsaw, and was done in a few seconds.

Here's the thing, as I see it. Children are a special case. Unable to advocate for themselves when presented with an adult who seeks to abuse them, they need society to protect them from such harm.

For me, that overrides the doctrine that protects the abuser from being identified and punished.

Everyone has rights under the Constitution. Everyone. The Constitution was not written to protect those who would harm others. There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that protects religion over children when the safety and well-being of those children is concerned.

in a courtroom on first pass.

I think it'd be smarter and more likely to succeed in the end if tackled in steps, starting with rules that are so OBVIOUSLY 'right', that the Church will be unlikely to WANT to go to Court to fight them. That means, to me ... start with more egregious acts against little kids. NOBODY wants to defend that.

Get that on the books, go from there. Just MHO.

Suffer little children to come unto me

No, that ain't it.

You know, I don't know the scriptural argument for the "seal of the confessional." I should look that up.

Here's a scriptural argument against the seal of the confessional, though, from a common protestant point of view:

https://www.gotquestions.org/confession-sin-priest.html

Apparently there is no direct support for it in scripture. It appears to be a specific doctrinal issue.

Canons 983 and 984,

There is not a priest on the planet who would violate the seal of confession.

That's remarkable!

It is what it is.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8L.HTM#34

IV. Respect for the Truth

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. the good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

2490 The secret of the sacrament of reconciliation is sacred, and cannot be violated under any pretext. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason.

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

2492 Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

So the idea that all priests aren't going to go against their moral convictions isn't a very good one. Even if it were the law is relevant for a number of reasons. One it puts the RCC authority in the difficult position of placing religious law above secular ones, and I'm pretty sure they ain't gonna go there. Another is it gives prosecutors another tool to go against religious officials who harbor child rapists. Lie or refuse to answer questions in front of the Grand Jury? Go to jail, deservedly so.

It would, of course, be better for them to be prosecuted and convicted, rather than sent for contempt of court.

Yes it would, although I'm trying to figure out how they get "caught". But faith isn't supposed to rely upon the support of the law. If their faith instructs them to maintain the seal, then do so and accept the results.

exposes the priest to excommunication. That’s how serious the Catholic Church is about the sanctity of the confessional.
I believe we will see the law tested at the highest level.
If the law changes, it will be interesting to see if priests serve time for contempt or if the church blinks.
If the law changes and the church complies, no one is going to confess to abusing a child.

That is something I miserably failed to do.

Instead they work with local law enforcement to never investigate them, move them to countries with lax enforcement of child molestation laws, and if that doesn't work they pay their legal bills and provide them with a retirement check after they get out of prison. Very telling that.

Believe it or not, many priests do confess to raping children to even law enforcement, so the idea they will simply stop confessing isn't a very good one. Absolution from guilt is really big with most Catholics. Unless they are complete sociopaths, and no doubt some are, that guilt is going to catch up with them sooner or later. No reason to give them a convenient outlet from which they can seek absolution without consequence.

drawing sex offenders to the confessional despite the outcome that they will be reported is a good one.
However, nothing to stop them from receiving communion, waiting until their deathbed, and from using prayer to have a one to one with God and the Virgin Mary. “Forgive us our sins now and at the hour of our death” and “forgive us our trespasses” are in prayers that assume forgiveness, again a central theme in Catholicism.
I am not lobbying one way or another. Generally, I have reservations about legal systems within legal systems, whether that’s religious laws, including Sharia courts, or cultural, as in the case of
Native American courts.
I think church laws should best accord with the law of the land in many cases, but acknowledge that this is a very tricky and slippery slope.

The "worst case" scenario you mention means no change - nothing happens.

If there's even ONE creep who is compelled to confess, that's an improvement over today's situation.

I think that's worth it.