Why making clergy mandatory reporters won't solve the Catholic abuse crisis

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Covering confession under mandatory reporting rules would have little effect even if priests did report. Few would confess such a sin if they thought their confidences were not secure. Many pedophiles, anyway, are so delusional that they do not think what they are doing is wrong, and therefore do not confess.
Finally, it’s not often that a priest can identify who is confessing to him. A penitent could find a priest who does not know him and confess in a confessional box where there is an opaque screen between him and the priest, which would ensure anonymity.

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/01/14/why-making-clergy-mandatory-reporters-wont-solve-the-catholic-abuse-crisis/

No matter the institution, predators will continue to prey, and even more unfortunate, institutions will continue to cover up the crimes committed by members of the institutions.

[Voltaire2]

1. Best to just keep sweeping it under the rug.

[guillaumeb]

2. Your solution?

Obviously not, but noting how difficult it is to change human behavior, and the behavior of a dangerous few, is not sweeping anything under the rug. It is identifying barriers.

[Voltaire2]

3. First the problem is an institution that

has for decades, probably for centuries, deliberately protected its pedophile clergy. That has to stop. And every bit of institutional knowledge of who has done what needs to be turned over to the relevant local authorities.

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed 100%.

But this behavior, sexual predation, is a human behavioral characteristic.

[Voltaire2]

5. Sure. So what?

Is anyone claiming that the rcc is the sole source of pedophelia?

[guillaumeb]

6. Not my point.

My point is, how do we change behavior to make this predation unacceptable?

And I confess that I have no idea.

The ever-present conflict between expressed ideals and actual behavior.

[Major Nikon]

9. You have no idea...

But you post an opinion that says mandatory reporting requirements won’t work, and you try to give the RCC a pass by saying it happens everywhere anyway.

[guillaumeb]

11. A repeat.

A failed repeat that ignores actual human behavior that exists everywhere.

[Major Nikon]

15. Nobody is saying otherwise

Nobody is saying you have to be a priest to rape children. It just makes it a lot easier when you have a built in support network. Meanwhile you think that support network can’t do anything about it because it’s just “human behavior”. That’s pretty fucked up.

[guillaumeb]

20. It is a fact that institutions cover up for their members.

And in families, the source of much predation, the family often covers it up.

[Major Nikon]

45. Diversion

From your own OP no less.

[guillaumeb]

47. Reality.

Ignore it at your peril.

[Major Nikon]

61. I'm not saying your diversion isn't real

[guillaumeb]

64. Ignore reality at your peril.

That is why it is called reality. Because it actually happens.

[Major Nikon]

65. Yeah whatabout all those other child rapists?

[niyad]

145. did you read the whole piece?

[Major Nikon]

146. Yes

[Major Nikon]

7. Kinda fucked up to suggest religion has no role to play

They enabled the priests and actively engaged in the cover up and now you are posting an opinion that forcing them to do what they have refused to do themselves just won’t work so why bother.

Child rape apologia has no place here. Not anywhere else for that matter.

[guillaumeb]

8. You missed the point.

But you prefer to argue this straw man instead.

I suggested, here and in other posts, that this behavior is seen in every institution.


So the actual point is, how do we change human behavior?

Do you have an idea about this, or would you prefer to build with straw?

[Major Nikon]

10. Your point is to deflect responsibility from those responsible

[guillaumeb]

12. Have fun with your straw. eom

[Major Nikon]

13. You don't get to have it both ways

Either religion bears some of the responsibility for this epidemic of child rape or it doesn’t.

So far you’ve made it quite clear that it doesn’t. If you want to walk that shit back, be my guest. Somehow I think you won’t.

[guillaumeb]

14. Every institution bears a responsibility for the behavior of its members.

Something that I have said numerous times.

Keep building with the straw. It is quite inexpensive.

From my original post:

No matter the institution, predators will continue to prey, and even more unfortunate, institutions will continue to cover up the crimes committed by members of the institutions.

Perhaps you missed it?

[Major Nikon]

16. Sure Gil, kinda funny how you keep reminding us how it happens everywhere

Then when the same solution is implemented for the RCC, you think it’s a bad idea.

Very telling that.

[Major Nikon]

17. But you think actually holding them responsible is a bad idea

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

21. Your responses tell me something.

That you prefer to ascribe motivation to others so you can attack a position that was never taken.

[Major Nikon]

44. You mean like the "choir"?

Calling people in this group “intolerant”?

“11th commandment”?

What should that tell us, Gil?

What pattern of behavior can we derive from that, Gil. Or is judgement the sole purview of the self-righteous?

[guillaumeb]

46. Not "people in this group".

Some people. Some is not synonymous with all.

[Major Nikon]

58. Didn't say "all" either

I’m quite aware it’s only certain types of posters, just like you admit. That’s the whole point of your hate.

[trotsky]

68. #Whataboutism n/t

[Cuthbert Allgood]

85. So should I, as a teacher, be a mandatory reporter?

I mean, if it's not going to change anything, what's the point?

[guillaumeb]

96. Are you not?

I was in my career.

I do not know how to stop predation, or if it can be stopped. I feel that the author's point is that there is no easy solution to this, NOT to excuse it.

[trotsky]

118. We might never stop it. But mandatory reporter laws HELP.

EVERYONE who has information about a possible instance of abuse should be required to report it.

Do you agree? Do you agree that there should be NO EXCEPTIONS, not even when a clergy member receives that information in a confessional session?

I bet you won't answer, because you know your answer is deplorable.

[trotsky]

75. ...

[Eko]

18. WOW! suprised you went that far.

On a side note wouldn't someone have a legal responsibility to report it or is the clergy exempt from that law?

[guillaumeb]

22. Why would my repeating a point that I have previously made surprise you?

The law in the US is clear, as is the evasion of that law that some in the RCC engaged in.

[Eko]

24. Whats the law?

[guillaumeb]

25. And my first point?

I will answer in order.

[Eko]

26. I dont recall seeing you make this point before.

So whats the law?? Thinking about it I did block you for a while.

[guillaumeb]

27. But I have made it more than once.

There is no state where predation is legal, and many types of individuals are legally required to report it.

It varies on a state by state basis.

[Eko]

28. It might suprise you

But Im not on here all day every day and I certainly don't follow all of your posts. "many types of individuals are legally required to report it. " is the clergy exempt from this?

[guillaumeb]

30. It varies by state.

I was surprised to read this when I researched it before, but who is covered by mandatory reporting laws varies.

My wife and I are volunteer leaders in a youth organization. We had to undergo a background check.


But to your question about clergy:

Although every state has a statute aimed at preventing and punishing child abuse,
most states' statutes regarding child abuse do not classify clergy as mandated reporters. In the Midwest, only Illinois currently includes clergy as those professionals specifically mandated to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect. With a recent amendment to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, Illinois joins approximately 21 states in making clergy mandated reporters. The statute does not specify whether the information must have come through a confession, counseling session or through a third party.

https://www.isba.org/committees/minorities/newsletter/2004/03/illinoisclergyasmandatedreporters

Surprised? I was.

[Eko]

32. Suprised?

Not really. I'm outright disgusted. And do you think this is ok??

[guillaumeb]

35. I think it is horrible.

And why this is not a national issue escapes me.

[Eko]

36. I get that you think it might not solve anything

but how can you think laws for 2 different types of people is ok or right?

[guillaumeb]

38. Why is it not a national level issue?

Why is sexual violence not governed by national law?

And I admit that I have no idea how we stop predators from preying.

Do you?

[Eko]

40. That wasnt my question.

Answer it and we can proceed.

[Eko]

48. Will you not answer my question?

[guillaumeb]

49. I did. We need one national standard.

Not 50 different standards.

[Eko]

51. No you didnt at all.

The national standard could also exempt clergy. Do you think that would be ok?

[guillaumeb]

53. No, there should be no exemption for clergy. eom

[marylandblue]

52. Federal system limits what we can do nationally

But all 50 states have a mandatory reporting law. They just vary in certain particulars. The expectations for clergy are sure to change with recent revelations.

[guillaumeb]

54. True, but as I posted,

Illinois is the exception in the Midwest in mandating clergy as required reporters.

[marylandblue]

56. I think that more states will add clergy to the list.

[guillaumeb]

59. I hope you are correct.

SNAP, the organization of survivors, is part of this conversation.

[trotsky]

69. "many types of individuals are legally required to report it"

But never priests, because they enjoy religious privilege.

Religious privilege helps protect abusers, and endangers children.

And you are A-OK with that, evidently.

[guillaumeb]

89. You are incorrect.

I posted about Illinois law that specifically mandates reporting by clergy. So your first point is factually incorrect. Requirements vary by state.

As to your ending, that is your framing and unsupported by anything that I have actually posted. But setting up a straw man and arguing with it is your right.

[trotsky]

95. No, YOU'RE incorrect. And defending religious privilege over the ability to catch predators.

The mandatory reporter law in Illinois specifically excludes confessional-revealed situations, in accordance with Catholic religious dogma.

THAT is what makes the abuse problem WORSE, gil. And you are defending it. No straw needed. You have to own this disgusting shit with your constant, steadfast support of religious privilege.

https://www.isba.org/committees/minorities/newsletter/2004/03/illinoisclergyasmandatedreporters

Although Illinois specifically identifies clergy as mandated reporters, it also allows them to claim that the communication is privileged under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Claiming the privilege effectively protects them from having to disclose to any administrative body or agency a confession or admission of child abuse obtained through a confession or counseling session.

[guillaumeb]

100. Change the law.

But, as the article notes, and as I argue, the mere existence of a law does not stop criminal behavior.

And again, more straw as you construct your preferred opponent.

[trotsky]

101. Weak, weak sauce from a weak, weak position.

State, here and now, that you don't believe information received in confessional should be excluded from mandatory reporting laws.

If you can state that, I will retract what I have said.

Ball's in your court now.

[guillaumeb]

102. Change the law.

And the, much harder, change human behavior.

The solution is there for you.

Ball's in your court now.

[trotsky]

105. I'd LOVE to change the law, but religious privilege won't let us.

The religious privilege that YOU defend.

YOU are helping make it so we can't change the law.

YOU won't help me change the law.

This is a ridiculous attempt at reframing and you very well know it, because you've been caught admitting you support exceptions for clergy being mandated reporters.

[guillaumeb]

107. Utter nonsense.

Civil rights were extended by people who advocated for change.

The organization SNAP is trying to change the laws.

I have marched for abortion rights, and in front of clinics to defend patients.

Have you?

[trotsky]

108. Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

THAT'S the question.

You don't get to dodge that.

[guillaumeb]

109. I will not answer misframing. It is pointless.

And you avoided what I said.

[trotsky]

110. Pointless?? It's the TOPIC OF YOUR OP, gil.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

[guillaumeb]

111. Well done.

Demonstrating excellent copy and paste skills.

But I will not answer any "question" based on mis-framing. That tactic would earn you a failed grade in any debate class.

[trotsky]

112. There is no mis-framing. I am asking you a simple question.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

[guillaumeb]

113. Misframing.

You failed the test.

[trotsky]

114. At least I reject religious privilege when it comes to mandatory reporting laws.

You don't. You embrace it and wish to perpetuate it.

Which one of us has truly failed, gil?

[guillaumeb]

115. Post an example.

[trotsky]

116. Oh don't you try that fucking weasely trick.

If you don't support religious exceptions for mandatory reporting laws, then just state so. I asked you to. Specifically. But you have refused to answer.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

[guillaumeb]

121. It is a "trick" to ask that you substantiate your claims?

That explains much.

[trotsky]

123. Nope.

I asked you a very straightforward question.

Your refusal to answer is itself an answer, and that's the substantiation.

You can dispute my evidence by simply answering the question.

But you won't, because you know how deplorable your stance is on this issue.

You believe clergy should be able to exempt information from mandatory reporting laws.

If I'm wrong, say so. And as I have previously stated, I'll retract my claim.

Ball's still in your court, gil. Try another weasely trick if you want - you aren't fooling anyone.

[guillaumeb]

125. Tricks and such can be tricky things.

Especially when a person makes a direct claim, and says asking for proof is a trick.

Good one, but it would fail in a debate class.

[trotsky]

126. Answer the question, and dismiss my claim.

You won't, because you can't.

QED

[guillaumeb]

127. Stop the tactics, and engage in actual dialogue.

Will you?

[trotsky]

128. There is no tactic. I asked you a question.

Answer the question, and engage in dialog.

I'm trying. Why won't you reciprocate?

[guillaumeb]

131. "Have you stopped beating your..." is also a question in form.

It is also called a failure in actual debate.

You made a claim that you will not provide evidence for.

A claim that this article constitutes an example of rape apologia.

It is that simple.

[trotsky]

134. Here again is my question for everyone to read, and come to their own conclusion:

Do you support exempting information received in confessional from mandatory reporting laws?

Yes or no.

I can answer the question. I answer No. I do NOT support exemptions for information received in confessional.

If this were a "have you stopped beating" question, I wouldn't want to answer it either.

But I did.

Now engage in this "actual dialog" you always CLAIM you want, and answer the question.

I'll bet you a million dollars you won't.

[guillaumeb]

136. More diversion from your, so far, unsupported accusation.

Shall I also bet a million figurative dollars that your claim will never be answered?

[trotsky]

137. I win!

I'll accept your payment in the form of gold bars or gemstones.

Why won't you answer my question? Answer it and I promise I'll answer ANYTHING you ask in return.

[guillaumeb]

141. Yes, you won.

Something.

[trotsky]

143. I sure did!

I won proof that you want information received in a confessional booth exempted from mandatory reporting laws.

[trotsky]

138. Answer the question, and dismiss my claim.

Why won't you?

[trotsky]

139. Answer the question, and dismiss my claim.

I bet I know why you won't.

[trotsky]

140. Answer the question, and dismiss my claim.

It would be SO EASY for you to shut me completely up. Makes one really wonder why you won't do it.

[trotsky]

142. Answer the question, and dismiss my claim.

Are you ashamed of your answer? That's what I think.

[trotsky]

144. Hey and this is a bonus item JUST FOR YOU.

I rescind any claim that this article is an example of rape apologia.

I never made such a claim, but I rescind it anyway.

NOW will you answer my question?

[Major Nikon]

19. Sounds like he is suggesting lack of absolution is no deterrent

Probably not such good news for the RCC.

[guillaumeb]

23. What would be a deterrent?

Predators engage in their behavior even thought it is illegal. Other than being caught, and incarcerated, how does anyone stop these predators?

And stop them before the prey?

[Major Nikon]

37. Prohibit priests from being alone with children

Zero tolerance for child rapists on the payroll

Loss of retirement

No paid legal defense for those accused

Zero tolerance for those who fail to report

Turning over all relevant records to law enforcement

Report known child rapists to law enforcement

Establish transparency rules that lets the public know how many have been accused and what was done about it

The RCC could have been doing lots of things, but they haven’t. And now that the authorities have no choice but to start taking action directly, your only answer is it won’t work.

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

39. And do that for every institution?

Yes, this might be a partial solution for one institution, but what about families?

The larger question is how do we stop predation in every setting?

[Major Nikon]

42. Yeah, whatabout everywhere else?

[guillaumeb]

43. The larger question is how do we stop predation in every setting? eom

[marylandblue]

55. One size fits all is not going to work

The Catholic Church is unique in many ways, so it may require special handling. Certainly your OP is suggesting that, since only Catholics have confession.

[guillaumeb]

57. Confession is one part of the message of Jesus.

He also told the sinner to go and sin no more. But predators see confession as wiping the slate clear, only to blacken it again.

[marylandblue]

60. It's issue unique to Catholics since only they confess to priests

everyone else confesses directly to God.

[guillaumeb]

62. But either way, to confess with no intention of changing is meaningless. eom

[trotsky]

71. Who gives a shit about that, gil?

You need to explain why, when an adult learns about the sexual abuse of a child, they SHOULDN'T have to report it to the authorities simply because they are part of the RCC's hierarchy.

Explain.

Now.

[guillaumeb]

90. Put down the straw.

Right now.

[trotsky]

97. Again, NO STRAW.

https://www.isba.org/committees/minorities/newsletter/2004/03/illinoisclergyasmandatedreporters

Although Illinois specifically identifies clergy as mandated reporters, it also allows them to claim that the communication is privileged under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Claiming the privilege effectively protects them from having to disclose to any administrative body or agency a confession or admission of child abuse obtained through a confession or counseling session.

Defend that shit, gil. You have its stink all over you.

[Major Nikon]

63. You should go back and read the OP

Because you obviously didn’t understand it.

It ain’t talking about everywhere, Gil.

[trotsky]

70. His favorite defense about RCC abuse is whataboutism.

Of course, that's been a common defense of it, because it also serves the purpose of ignoring the specific features about the Catholic Church that make the problem WORSE.

Instead of talking about those features and how to deal with it, g demands answers on how to stop the sexual abuse of children EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW. When you can't propose something on the spot, then you need to stop talking about the abuse done by the church.

Classic gil.

[Major Nikon]

76. Looks a bit like...

[marylandblue]

66. Families present a whole different problem from institutions

Really, there is just an entirely different set of tools that would be needed and that are mostly not related to religion.

[guillaumeb]

88. The behavior is the same.

The victims suffer in the same way.

Are families the incubators for abusers?

[tulipsandroses]

29. They absolutely need to be mandatory reporters

Anyone that has the awesome responsibility of children in their care needs to be a mandatory reporter.
Period! I didn't even read the article to come to that conclusion. No excuses.

[guillaumeb]

31. Please read my #30

It shocked me when I read it.

[tulipsandroses]

83. I went back and read it. I'm a psych nurse- therefore a mandated reporter

Therefore I'm already skewed in that direction. I've had to make the call myself to CPS or call one of our social workers to come to the unit to speak with a client that does not feel safe to return home.

I'm really not shocked after reading the article. Reason has never been the strong point of some religious folks.

I work on the detox unit. We had a guy last year- Confessed to molesting his grand daughter he left in hand cuffs- He came to detox then he went to jail. Its a no brainer for me. I would guess that the church knows of abusers outside of confessions as well. They need to be Mandated reporters and not look the other way like they have been doing all these years and move these monsters around.

[guillaumeb]

94. Agreed.

In my over 30 years as a Union Representative, I told people that if they admitted criminal behavior to me, I was mandated to report it.


I dealt with one client in that entire time who had admitted in a plea deal to molesting a family member. The client was placed in a non-pay status pending removal.

I interviewed the client, and the client's spouse separately during the process. My impression of the client, who I did not know, was that he exhibited no emotion when describing the situation. Almost as if the situation was separate from him.

When interviewing his spouse, she explained that the family really needed the income and for that reason only, they were staying together. I gave her information on family counseling resources, and strongly suggested that she and the victim make use of them.

My job was to represent the client and enforce his contractual rights, which I did, but even thought he was returned to work, it made me very uncomfortable. What a horrible situation for a family to be in, where the victim and parent were financial and emotional hostages.

[trotsky]

130. Except you believe that information received in confessional should be exempted from reporting laws.

That's pretty disgusting.

[The Genealogist]

33. "institutions will continue to cover up the crimes committed by members of the institutions."

And so, what, we just throw our hands up in the air and say "oh well?"

The RCC has set itself up as a moral arbiter for the people of the world. Further, its catechism states "outside the Church there is no salvation.”

The RCC It is hardly just another institution.

[guillaumeb]

34. No, the point is not to excuse predation,

the point is how do we stop it.

[Major Nikon]

41. Not making excuses is a good start

[guillaumeb]

91. And not engaging in logical fallacies is another.

[Major Nikon]

92. Yeah, whatabout those logical fallacies?

[trotsky]

72. Start a thread in GD if that's what you really want to discuss.

But it isn't.

You DON'T want people discussing the sex abuse scandals of the RCC and how its dogma enables the abusers and perpetuates the abuse.

You CAN'T STAND people talking about that, here in the Religion forum.

So instead you're trying to pretend there's nothing unique about the RCC's abuse scandal, that abuse is everywhere, and everyone needs to shut up about it unless they can solve the abuse problem universally.

That is despicable, gil. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[rurallib]

50. confession isn't the only place where predators out themselves

from someone with experience.

[trotsky]

73. But it is the only place where an adult is forever exempted from having to report it...

because of religious privilege.

For the RCC and those who defend it, like guillaumeb, their dogma is more important than stopping the rape of children. Period.

[trotsky]

67. Fucking wow, g.

Why do you keep going to bat for this organization and its abusers?

Disgusting.

[MineralMan]

74. Here's the thing, Guy:

Exempting one group of people from the mandatory reporting law does have a definite impact. If almost everyone involved with people who interact with children is a mandated reporter, the exempt group makes no sense at all. My state exempts priests and other clergy members, too.

No, it won't "solve the Catholic abuse problem," but it could and would help to reduce the number of crimes against children that go unreported. I strongly favor making ALL people who work in areas where they come into contact with people who are around children be mandatory reporters, including clergy.


There should be no exemptions for one group on the basis of religion. Period. In fact, religion should never be a cause to exempt anyone from any legal responsibility.

Nothing will stop all instances of child sexual abuse. Mandatory reporters, however, do reduce the number of instances and help law enforcement find offenders.

Make the clergy mandatory reporters. Just do it!

[trotsky]

77. That's exactly right.

Making clergy mandatory reporters won't SOLVE the problem.

But if it can bring just ONE predator to justice that would have otherwise escaped it, it could save a child.

Isn't that worth it?

guillaumeb, and other defenders of the RCC's policies, don't think so.

[MineralMan]

78. That's the whole idea of manadory reporting.

It works to help find and prosecute sex offenders who prey on children. Why would anyone not support such a thing?

The article at the link in the OP is nothing more than an apologia for the RCC's insistence that its priests be exempted from laws everyone else has to follow.

Disgustingly illogical, in my opinion.

Anything that helps reduce the number of children who are harmed by sexual abusers is a good thing. Anything that allows such abuse to continue is a bad thing. Pretty simple, I think.

[trotsky]

79. "Why would anyone not support such a thing?"

Simple. They believe that religious privilege is more important that stopping even ONE child from being abused.

[MineralMan]

80. Apparently so. That attitude appears to be backfiring

on the RCC, though, doesn't it?

[trotsky]

81. I suspect it is a battle they will eventually lose, but only in some countries.

That's been true for a number of things lately concerning the RCC.

[MineralMan]

82. Yes. All that is left is for formerly faithful parishioners to move to

other churches, really. When enough people abandon the RCC for other denominations, it will reform or die. I suspect it will do the latter, but very slowly. I suggest an ELCA Lutheran church to such people. The actual liturgy won't seem that unfamiliar, but the attitudes are distinctly different.

ETA: One cautionary note for RCC leavers who choose an ELCA church as a replacement: You'll find women as pastors in many such churches. They're very good that that job, too. Give them a chance and you'll see why the RCC is stupid and misogynistic to bar women from pastoral roles. It will open your eyes.

[Major Nikon]

84. The OP he posted was written by a RCC priest

The reality is it would save many children and it just isn't that hard to figure out it's a much safer environment for children where child rapists know they will be turned into the cops if discovered vs the RCC sweeping it under the rug like they have for centuries.

But yeah, we can't save those children because whatabout all the others.

[trotsky]

87. Plus we should definitely talk about the universal problem of child abuse in the Religion group...

rather than talk about the specific issues with religions that make the problem unique or more troublesome.

[zipplewrath]

86. A few observations

A Roman Catholic priest will feel governed by Cannon Law, not civil law and as such won't violate his oath despite changing of the laws.

If there is something to be changed in Cannon Law, it is at least that clergy that confess these things are not covered by the oath. That would address the vast majority of abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.

And, yes, priests generally know who the penitent is when it is another member of the clergy.

If there is something that should be mandatory, it should be that absolution should be contingent upon self reporting of the crime.

The church teaches that there are steps to forgiveness and one of those is admitting the sin. Another is committing to not sinning again. And the last step is something akin the the alcoholic anonymous "amends" thing. I've often thought that a simple solution to all of this is merely to insist that the penitent go and self report to the police in order to receive absolution.

[guillaumeb]

98. I agree.

In one past article, I argued this point, and in another article, noted that RCC Canon Law is a problem.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218293149

[Major Nikon]

120. Another article from the exact same RCC sponsored child rape apologist

Who is arguing all the RCC needs to do to regain credibility is to be more transparent in showing how effective they are in dealing with child rape accusations.

So it looks like you are at least 2 for 2 in cheering on child rape apologists, Gil. Good job.

[guillaumeb]

122. An excellent job of demonstrating your tactics.

As if we needed more.

[Major Nikon]

124. Yeah, my tactic is to call out child rape apologia when I see it

While yours is to regurgitate and defend it.

And yes, Gil. We do need more at least so long as the child rape apologists continue to rush to the defense of child rapists and their enablers. Very telling you'd think otherwise.

[MineralMan]

132. Uh...

This kind of cannon can sometimes be used to enforce Canon Law:


Like this:

[zipplewrath]

133. Ha

Well, there is precedent for that!

[MineralMan]

135. Indeed there is.

[Act_of_Reparation]

93. Making murder illegal won't rid the world of murder...

...so I guess why bother?

I can't believe I'm seeing this shit on DU.

[guillaumeb]

99. More straw man arguing.

And that is not conducive to actual dialogue when some prefer to frame others in this way.

[Act_of_Reparation]

103. Cool story bruh.

[guillaumeb]

104. Very convincing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. If you want the last word so badly, you can have it.

I mean, it's kinda hard to top the part where you sided with the Church over children.

[Major Nikon]

119. Unquestionably worse than the time he sided with a MAGA loon over the Boston Atheists

[trotsky]

129. Oh yeah, a Trump loon getting booted from an atheist club shows atheistic intolerance.

Helping to keep abusers from getting caught, why that's just good church policy.

[Major Nikon]

117. ...