There is a tendency to argue in favor of Roman Catholic practices,

[MineralMan]

even when they are destructive and patently immoral. Even some people who do not claim to be Catholics sometimes do that. We see it when the roles of women in the church are discussed. We see it in discussions of reproductive choice, including contraception and abortion. We see it in apologias for priests not reporting known child sexual abusers to civil authorities.

Why do people do this? Because they see religion as separate from civil society, and not subject to all of the rules the rest of us must follow. Because, see...God. We argue for social justice, equality, safety of our children from predators, and many other things, on the basis of our progressive viewpoints. So, why do we offer excuses for a religious group when they flout their failure to honor those values?

Because God. But that makes no sense at all. Why should one group be exempt from the laws the rest of us must follow, just because they adhere to a particular branch of a religion and think they are not subject to those laws? Why do we allow that? Why do we argue for such exemptions, despite not even being part of that particular religious group?

That's a question for which I have no good answer. It makes no sense. If we support women's rights, reproductive choice, and the rights of children not to be sexually abused by people in positions of trust, how can we justify not applying that support equally, across the board?

That puzzles me. I can find no logical argument to excuse one group from the laws the rest of us must follow. Can you? If so, please explain how you manage that.

[Major Nikon]

1. Even worse when the laws in question would stop children from getting raped

That's a whole nother level of apologia when you place your theology over children who face the worst form of abuse imaginable.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. How can anyone justify continuation of such a thing, even in part?

[Major Nikon]

7. Perhaps because they are indoctrinated from birth to protect the institution

Other than that I don't really have a good answer, but it most certainly is deplorable behavior regardless.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. I can see that for people who consider themselves to be Catholics.

But what of others, who still tend to support the religious exemptions from laws, even though they are not members of that church? I don't get that at all.

[marylandblue]

63. We still have a certain deference to clergy of all types

We have this idea that they are more moral than everybody else. Even when some clergy get caught in criminal behavior, we think they are the exception. But as more evidence comes out, that deference seems to be declining, but social attitudes don't change overnight.

[marylandblue]

2. The Catholic Church has gotten special treatment since the Middle Ages

In return they support the civil authorities. As a large, wealthy and ancient institution, they have become adept at working the referees.

Trump is good at working the referees too.

[MineralMan]

4. You're right, of course.

I say we should stop coddling that organization in any way. Everyone should be subject to the same laws, in my opinion. Religions should get no exemptions, from my point of view.

[zipplewrath]

12. The Catholic Church WAS the civil authority

For many reasons far too many to list, the Catholic Church WAS the civil authority in much of Europe during much of that time. They "owned" much of the land. They provided a central authority for the resolution of disputes. And they provided the context for various rituals from birth through death.

To the OP's point, we incorporate and accept some remnants of Catholic teaching, not because of "god" but because virtually our entire culture emanates from the Catholic Church such that it is in many ways the underpinnings of our culture. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church formed much of its structure from the governmental structures that proceeded it, so much of it is not a creation of the church, even more so separating it from any concept of "god", at least the christian god.

[MineralMan]

46. Ah, a nice, well-considered apologia, indeed.

What has that to do with the United States of America and its deliberately secular government? In fact, what does it have to do with my original post at all?

[zipplewrath]

48. The US

US culture is basically western european culture. That culture extends from its history of being basically governed by the RCC. As such, integrated into its laws and traditions are features drawn from the RCC. The RCC wasn't the creator of much of it as it was inherited from cultures and governments out of which it grew. God was merely the edifice around which they wrapped most of this. It existed prior to their god and will continue long after their god dominates our culture.

[MineralMan]

51. The United States was founded, in part, because of the excesses of

the religion/government interface that existed. Perhaps you should read our founding documents once again.

With that, I end my participation in this subthread.

[zipplewrath]

55. Maybe you should

The founding of this country happened for a tremendous number of reasons, most of them economic. They brought their culture with them. That culture derived from western european traditions. Most of our judicial system was modeled on the european/british system. The founding documents did not create our culture, they reflected the enlightenment concepts of Europe that were brought here. (They did incorporate some concepts from the Native Americans).

Howard Zinn's book goes into much of this. You'd probably do well to read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen as he dispels much of the history you seem to have learned.

[Voltaire2]

75. Wait what?

“That culture extends from its history of being basically governed by the RCC”

Outside of a fairly small part of Italy that never happened.

[zipplewrath]

76. Oh, yes it did

Probably not what you think of as governing today, but there was a time in europe when there was few real "national" governments. Various rulers existed, but their "authority" to rule came from the Catholic Church and the pope. In some areas, the catholic bishop was a ruling authority and would settle disputes. The church, whether it be monasteries or otherwise, owned large areas and were the local economic engines. The crusades were conducted under the auspices of the church. So was the spanish inquisition. The church was the structure under which much of Europe operated. It had a gigantic corrupting influence on Canon law and the structure of the church itself. It's one of many reasons that the cardinals are still secluded during the election of popes, so as to avoid external influences on their voting.

[Voltaire2]

78. Authority to rule is not ruling.

Characterizing Europe as being ruled by the RCC is, well, “unusual”.

[marylandblue]

79. It's more complicated than that.

There were civil and church authorities. Kings were crowned by bishops, but they did not answer directly to the bishops or the Pope. Bishops did not choose kings, they crowned whoever succeeded to the throne or won a war. Kings sometimes chose bishops and always had influence over them. Kings themselves had trouble controlling their vassals. The Pope was far away and had no army to impose his will. Church and state sometimes cooperated and sometimes clashed.

It was a complex and changing system, not the static church-controlled dark age often portrayed. That view was promoted by Rennaissance humanists who wanted to revive classical culture and broaden scholarship and the arts.

[marylandblue]

74. Well, for purposes of this discussion, there were two parallel law systems

Laypersons who committed crimes were under civil law and tried in civil courts. Clergy were exempt from civil law, they fell under canon law and tried in ecclesiastical courts. Ecclesiastical courts were often more lenient than civil courts, so this was a valuable privilege. In England, this system ended with the Reformation, when the church was made subordinate to the King. By the time the United States was founded, the clergy exemption was long gone and was no longer part of the legal tradition we inherited from England. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church maintained its internal legal system.

In the 19th century, large numbers of Catholics came to the United States and they were viewed with suspicion. The Church began a long-term PR campaign to improve their image, even as Protestant churches were preaching against them. The Catholic campaign was successful and they became fully integrated into American society. Priests and bishops were given great respect. Unfortunately, at least after 1950 or so, they used that respect to shield child abusers and their internal legal system failed to prevent abuse.

A medieval holdover that died out in the British/American tradition came back in through Catholic Church and it has harmed our children.

[zipplewrath]

77. Above the law

Any group that perceives itself above the law, or exempt from the law, become dangerous people. When the law or society starts to agree with them, it becomes a dangerous society.

[marylandblue]

80. Yes.

[guillaumeb]

5. My tendency is to note what is bad about any institution.

This is never intended to excuse the bad, but to note that this propensity to bad behavior, and the impulse to cover up that behavior, is universal.

I do not see anyone here at DU arguing that religious institutions should be above civil law.

[MineralMan]

6. Is that your tendency? I hadn't noticed that.

Odd, isn't it?

[Major Nikon]

8. Yeah, whatabout that?

[MineralMan]

10. Yeah. What about fixing what is wrong, without using

the "But everyone's doing it, Mom" excuse? Weakest argument ever, as every mother learns very quickly.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Probably misplaced it. Look next to "I'll praise him for the good, condemn him for the bad"...

...I think rug left it by the door on his way out.

[guillaumeb]

13. Perhaps a vision test is in order.

Perhaps cognitive bias is a factor. We all must deal with it.

[MineralMan]

16. ..

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Maybe you could share with us your strategies for "dealing with it".

Seeing as they are so effective.

[guillaumeb]

31. Do you have it?

If you say no, a vision test is in order. We all have it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

60. So, you won't be answering the question, then.

You can have the last word here, too, if you think it'll help.

It won't... but hey, knock yourself out.

[sprinkleeninow]

61. Truth be told I had peace for a time not reading and posting on here.

What is said, all these wordy sentiments and and where's the action backing these words up?

Damn do something concrete about all this abuse. Have any of you? Outside of being on the sidelines. Oh that's right. There's a personal protest going on by not being churched in one of these so-called traditions of faith that condone abuse.

We live in a fallen sinful world. And that doesn't exempt even 'sacred' institutions from wrong doing. Filth dirty wrong doing.

I'm done except for this--
Guillaume,

See ya l8r, bye.

[guillaumeb]

64. Some here may be acting as well as posting.

Posting serves a useful psychological purpose by allowing people to vent.

[sprinkleeninow]

66. My words were not directed at you,

Mon frère, mon ami. Je tiens à toi.

[trotsky]

11. You are arguing that.

You are arguing that Catholic theology is more important than requiring priests to be mandatory reporters of child abuse.

As disturbing as that truth should be, you are doing EXACTLY that.

[guillaumeb]

14. And you are misframing what I actually say,

so you can insert your preferred narrative.

It is called the straw man fallacy.

[trotsky]

17. Wrong.

Your position is so ugly, your only recourse when someone calls you out on it is to gaslight.

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]

19. More attempts at calling misframing dialogue.

Have a nice day.

[trotsky]

23. I KNEW IT.

You don't think the clergy should be subject to mandatory reporting laws.

And now everyone knows you've admitted it.

[Major Nikon]

26. Who could ever imagined Gil wouldn't respond?

[guillaumeb]

27. Post this in the humor section.

[trotsky]

28. Why on earth would I do that, gil? It's NOT FUNNY.

There is NO JOKE here.

To you, it's more important to protect religious privilege than it is to help prevent child abuse.

That is the plain, simple, and outrageously UGLY truth.

You just got caught and are desperate to wriggle off the hook.

Too late, gil. You're busted.

[Major Nikon]

29. ...again

[guillaumeb]

34. No, it is actually nonsense.

Not humor. And your accusations are unsupported and unsupportable.

[trotsky]

36. Not true at all. And you could shut me up in an instant. All you have to do is:

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.

But you won't. Because you support religious privilege. FACT.

[guillaumeb]

37. There is one fact here.

[trotsky]

40. 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?

[MineralMan]

47. Yes, just one. You have refused to make a clear statement

regarding the church's exemption from mandatory reporting laws. That is the fact. After being asked more than once, you continue to divert from the question, deferring your answer.

That does not work. You have answered through not answering.

[guillaumeb]

57. Nonsense.

I have refused to respond to a clear diversion.

And you have demonstrated your commitment to dialogue as well.

[MineralMan]

58. ..

[Major Nikon]

59. Diversion? Is that your idea of a joke?

It's the sole subject of the OP you posted yourself.

[guillaumeb]

65. No, diversion is your attempt to change the subject.

Some have called that article an apologia, but no one can point to any specifics to back up this claim.

[Major Nikon]

67. You sound like Giuliani when he claims what was said wasn't what was said

Meanwhile your OP from a paid RCC spokesman criticizing an effort to hold the RCC criminally responsible for their crimes still stands.

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

68. Ironic that you responded.

Considering you made the claim 3 times.

[Major Nikon]

69. As have others

And so far your best excuse for child rape apologia is to pretend what your OP says isn’t what it says.

Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

70. Again, with your unsupported accusations.

I suggest that you google the term and read it.

[Major Nikon]

71. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean I didn't support it

As I said you sound just like Giuliani’s gaslighting. Because you refuse to admit the obvious, doesn’t make it any less obvious.

[guillaumeb]

72. No one agrees.

But I made a demand that you could not support because the actual article refutes your claims.

Funny that you would bring up gaslighting. Or not so funny.

[Major Nikon]

73. ...

[trotsky]

62. The topic of YOUR OP was how mandatory reporting laws should apply to clergy.

My question was about how mandatory reporting laws apply to clergy.

How the actual fuck is that a diversion? You are desperate and it shows.

[Major Nikon]

24. Yet you are the one who posted an OP from a RCC priest telling us what won't stop RCC child rape

..and then proceeded to make a particular effort to defend that deplorable garbage, even to the extent of throwing your own trademarked Whataboutism®.

But yeah, you are just being misframed, Gil. Just like the other countless times you claimed to be misframed when called out on your apologia. At some point people wise up to that tactic, Gil. You know, like after the first time.

[guillaumeb]

30. Incorrect.

Post one example from the article of the author defending it.

Do you understand the difference between describing obstacles to stopping behavior and defending the behavior? I ask that in all sincerity.

There are laws against murder. Do these laws mean that murder does not happen?

[Major Nikon]

41. Just exactly how the fuck is it not correct that you posted the OP, Gil?

Did someone steal your password and post this garbage for you? Did someone break into your house while you were in the shower and regurgitate a RCC priest's obstructionist filth on your behalf?

Assuming you are the one who actually posted this shit, and I'm pretty sure you are. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe it wasn't because you aren't endorsing his child rape apologia?

[guillaumeb]

43. You made a claim.

Defend it with actual evidence from the article, or my replies.

If you feel that the author is an apologist, prove it from the article.

Or, continue with your narrative. But if you cannot give an actual example from the article to support what you claim, what some call proof if intent, why are you writing this?

[Major Nikon]

45. The author is an RCC priest who is saying secular laws on child rape shouldn't apply to the RCC

You know, the one YOU posted and YOU made a particular effort to underscore the most deplorable part.

I don't really expect you to admit to the apologia, Gil. You'll just keep defending it like always.

[Major Nikon]

15. Interestingly enough that's exactly what the RCC does

And instead of listening to prosecutors whose job it is to prosecute child rapists, we should instead listen to a representative of the organization that's been covering up child rape for as long as anyone can remember.

It's almost as if they are in harmony. You know, kinda like a choir.

[trotsky]

20. Gaslight. Obstruct. Project.

It's not just the motto of the Republican party, it's the motto of everyone who defends privilege.

[MineralMan]

18. It's not just the child sexual abuse, either.

It's also abusive treatment of women by withholding their right to control their reproduction both through denial of contraception and through bans on abortions. Neither are available through most Catholic-run health care organizations, and the RCC fights to make such restrictions apply to non-Catholics, as well. They seek exemptions from the law, because God.

[trotsky]

22. And there are DUers who are OK with this.

They want to make sure religious privilege continues.

[Major Nikon]

33. Rest assured we will be dismissed as the "intolerant" "choir"

Because as we all know the best example of intolerance is the refusal to tolerate gross intolerance, or even child rape.

[trotsky]

38. Undoubtedly.

Because wanting everyone subject to the same laws, equally, is somehow intolerant.

[Major Nikon]

44. Not just intolerant,

but uncaring about all the other children outside the RCC who are getting raped, because of reasons.

[MineralMan]

49. There are. Which led to my post.

So far, I've seen no explanation of it, though, from anyone who supports such religious exemptions from our laws.

Remarkable, isn't it? So I remarked about it. Objections and diversions ensued, I noticed.

[trotsky]

50. "Misframing!!"

Amazing how desperate some become when their horrific beliefs are brought to light.

[MineralMan]

52. Religion has a strong hold on many people.

Sometimes, they aren't even aware of how strong that hold actually is. Other times, they know but try to find ways to divert from it. When the latter occurs, it's painfully obvious.

There is no way to sweep this scandal under any rug. It will still be visible as a sizable lump.

[Major Nikon]

56. Which is ironically the same pathetic excuse which is used in a variety of other situations

And when that inevitably doesn't work, there's always Whataboutism® and ad hominem "choir" argle-bargle.

[AlexSFCA]

32. the whole organization is absolutely disgusting

and criminal. It’s time to remove bias and investigate RCC practices and in every state and prosecute accordingly, not just the abusers but the accomplices who covered up children rape. Through civil lawsuits, there is a great potential to finally bankrupt this morally bancrupt ‘institution’ and move on. We are talking about an organization with a widespread rape of children, including filming children porn on its premises, massive suppression of women rights and extreme homophobia that leads to violence.

[MineralMan]

35. I agree with you about its behavior in several areas.

Already, several dioceses and archdioceses have had to file for bankruptcy due to their cover-up of child sexual abuse. On such is here in the Minneapolis St. Paul area. It has had to sell properties, etc. to cover the awards to its victims.

I agree that civil proceedings against such organizations are one approach, but I also believe laws that give privileges to religious organizations and allow them not to obey laws others must obey should be changed to put them on equal ground with other organizations.

[AlexSFCA]

39. yes, they are exempt from taxes not the law

any non-religious organization with such practices would have been shut down years ago and banned in most places.

[MineralMan]

42. In the case of child sexual abuse, most states exempt the clergy

from mandatory reporter status. They are not required to report knowledge of sexual abuse cases to the authorities.

In the case of contraception, religious organizations are exempt from providing contraceptive services if they choose not to.

The church and other religious organizations are exempt from a number of laws. It is my belief that they should not be exempt from any laws, including tax laws. I see no benefit to society from any of those exemptions.

[vlyons]

53. No matter what the priests and nuns do or say,

we are supposed to use our own discriminating awareness to decide about appropriate behavior and misconduct. We are supposed to decide for ourselves, after gathering evidence, contemplating, and using logic to make the right decisions that will have the best, most helpful outcomes for the most people.

[MineralMan]

54. It can be extraordinarily difficult to examine evidence

when that evidence is carefully concealed by an organization that is not subject to certain laws. That is the source of the problem, really. Eventually, such evidence can come to light, but often decades later. In the meanwhile, the same behavior continues unabated, and is further covered up.

Since we are not allowed to observe what happens behind closed doors, misbehavior, even the most obscene, harmful behavior, often goes unnoticed by outsiders. This is what has occurred in the case of child sexual abuse, and even murder of children by people who are able to conceal their crimes. Consider the Irish Laundry cases. Consider the cases of abuse in Boys Choirs in Europe that occurred over 50 years ago and were not revealed until most of the criminals were already dead.

We can only prosecute crimes of which we are aware. If they can be concealed by a highly secretive religious hierarchy, we might not know of them in time to prevent more crimes from happening behind closed doors. More's the pity, don't you think?