|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2023 16:32:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 16, 2023 17:19:18 GMT
This could be tricky. If the clergy is the only one that gets the information, and that information is given via confession or in a way in which the information is only given because the guilty party thinks he or she is protected, then it could be counterproductive.
While the clergy may not speak out on guilt, the clergy may still be able to provide protection for the victim, put up a safeguard to prevent future attacks, hint for another party to be a bodyguard for a victim.
Also, it is common for "vindictive mothers" to falsely accuse innocent men of actions, and these mothers feel safest in telling the clergy when they make false accusations. I've seen it. False accusers feel that the clergy won't be astute enough to know the accusations are false.
I don't know. Kind of tricky, but it is because of that third paragraph, which people on the streets know to be what really occurs, that the clergy instead not relay misinformation to authorities. VERY RARELY DO PEOPLE TELL THE TRUTH TO THE CLERGY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 16, 2023 17:47:58 GMT
Freedom of religion means freedom of the individual to worship the religion they choose, it doesn't mean religion gets to do whatever they choose. IMO priests should have to follow the same rules as doctors, if they believe someone is a danger, they have to report it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2023 18:00:43 GMT
This could be tricky. If the clergy is the only one that gets the information, and that information is given via confession or in a way in which the information is only given because the guilty party thinks he or she is protected, then it could be counterproductive .
While the clergy may not speak out on guilt, the clergy may still be able to provide protection for the victim, put up a safeguard to prevent future attacks, hint for another party to be a bodyguard for a victim. This, I think, is the one useful argument for maintaining the exemption. The problem is that, without any data on priests who hear these confessions and take protective steps that they couldn't take if abusers didn't confess, we don't know if that argument really holds up. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 16, 2023 18:06:40 GMT
And I daresay the only Catholics still going to confession on a regular basis are other Catholic priests.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 16, 2023 18:08:57 GMT
Freedom of religion means freedom of the individual to worship the religion they choose, it doesn't mean religion gets to do whatever they choose. IMO priests should have to follow the same rules as doctors, if they believe someone is a danger, they have to report it. Psychiatrists and doctors do not have this exemption to being compelled to testify in court. The only person who cannot is the accused’s spouse. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2023 18:13:45 GMT
Freedom of religion means freedom of the individual to worship the religion they choose, it doesn't mean religion gets to do whatever they choose. IMO priests should have to follow the same rules as doctors, if they believe someone is a danger, they have to report it. Psychiatrists and doctors do not have this exemption to being compelled to testify in court. The only person who cannot is the accused’s spouse. Let's not forget that the lawyer for the accused can keep a confession confidential. But that's an exemption we should keep. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 16, 2023 18:17:58 GMT
Freedom of religion means freedom of the individual to worship the religion they choose, it doesn't mean religion gets to do whatever they choose. IMO priests should have to follow the same rules as doctors, if they believe someone is a danger, they have to report it. Psychiatrists and doctors do not have this exemption to being compelled to testify in court. The only person who cannot is the accused’s spouse. a) Doctors have to report it if they believe someone is a danger to themselves or others, priests should be under the same obligation. b) Spouses can't be forced to testify, but they can choose to testify. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 16, 2023 18:25:34 GMT
Psychiatrists and doctors do not have this exemption to being compelled to testify in court. The only person who cannot is the accused’s spouse. Let's not forget that the lawyer for the accused can keep a confession confidential. But that's an exemption we should keep. It's attorney/client privilege, completely different issue. An attorney is not allowed to reveal a confession without his client's permission. However, if the client is a danger to themselves or others, the attorney may be required to report it. If the abuser threatens to abuse another child, the attorney may be required to report it to the police. Generally, preservation of life trumps other concerns. But that is getting into areas of the law where you should talk to attorney. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 16, 2023 18:32:11 GMT
Psychiatrists and doctors do not have this exemption to being compelled to testify in court. The only person who cannot is the accused’s spouse. Let's not forget that the lawyer for the accused can keep a confession confidential. But that's an exemption we should keep. That’s part of the job. A priest only has jurisdiction over human souls. And we don’t put souls on trial. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 16, 2023 18:41:43 GMT
This could be tricky. If the clergy is the only one that gets the information, and that information is given via confession or in a way in which the information is only given because the guilty party thinks he or she is protected, then it could be counterproductive .
While the clergy may not speak out on guilt, the clergy may still be able to provide protection for the victim, put up a safeguard to prevent future attacks, hint for another party to be a bodyguard for a victim. This, I think, is the one useful argument for maintaining the exemption. The problem is that, without any data on priests who hear these confessions and take protective steps that they couldn't take if abusers didn't confess, we don't know if that argument really holds up. Yeah, that's the tricky part. About 350,000,000 people in the U.S., and if 1% are first world sadists with plenty of time to plan every move, there is always that's over three million sadists abusing people in the U.S., and if one third of them are so comfortably well off that this is all they do, just plan sadistic acts, that's still a million sadists feeling safe from capture. So there is a scenario quite often where a sadist wants to stay hidden, but also enlarge his sadism by tormenting someone who can't prevent his actions, with a confession. Let's be conservative, and say there's only a thousand such sadists in the U.S. who may do this. That's a lot, and if they find that the priest doesn't have to conform to privacy of confession, a thousand sadists may go on without any protection for their victims. I don't know if that's worth it or not. I'm open to suggestions either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 16, 2023 18:49:22 GMT
Let's not forget that the lawyer for the accused can keep a confession confidential. But that's an exemption we should keep. That’s part of the job. A priest only has jurisdiction over human souls. And we don’t put souls on trial. Yes, it's integral to our justice system. So, that's an exemption we must keep. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 16, 2023 19:53:17 GMT
No. We have many instances in other professions where the 'sanctity' of the information is confidential until such time as someone is in danger. Trying to pretend that not reporting abuse is in any way honouring some moral stance is simply abhorrent. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 16, 2023 19:59:58 GMT
No. We have many instances in other professions where the 'sanctity' of the information is confidential until such time as someone is in danger. Trying to pretend that not reporting abuse is in any way honouring some moral stance is simply abhorrent. And it’s not like they don’t blab about what they hear in the confessional to each other. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 16, 2023 21:28:05 GMT
No. We have many instances in other professions where the 'sanctity' of the information is confidential until such time as someone is in danger. Trying to pretend that not reporting abuse is in any way honouring some moral stance is simply abhorrent. And it’s not like they don’t blab about what they hear in the confessional to each other. Well yeah yes and no, I guess you get that in all professions with some confidentiality to an extent, for example I just took a screenshot of a students work and sent it to some friends for humour value. What I am not doing is associating that work with a person, most priests (and to be fair the majority I have relations with are Anglican) would do the same, talk about the content but do it in a way that meant I had no idea about who the content applied to. Sadly though I suspect you are right, there may be some gossip and if real danger is not reported then that is even more abhorrent, especially so in light of the fact that priests are supposed to be paragons of morality and virtuousness |
|
