Catholic church refuses call to reveal Confessed sex abusers

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/australia/australia-catholic-church-response-intl/index.html

Well, this is an interesting one. Do we gain anything from priests who take confession, and know the identities of sex abusers, not coming forward and calling them out? I imagine it would discourage people form coming forward if they didn't believe they were safe from prosecution doing so, but all I see is them gaining a less guilty conscience, and why should they have that?

At law, at least in the commonwealth countries (not sure about USA), priests can be compelled and ordered to testify what they know. Should the courts order that?

PS: I fully expect somebody to go off topic and make some mad accusation against me for posting this.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/australia/australia-catholic-church-response-intl/index.html

Well, this is an interesting one. Do we gain anything from priests who take confession, and know the identities of sex abusers, not coming forward and calling them out? I imagine it would discourage people form coming forward if they didn't believe they were safe from prosecution doing so, but all I see is them gaining a less guilty conscience, and why should they have that?

At law, at least in the commonwealth countries (not sure about USA), priests can be compelled and ordered to testify what they know. Should the courts order that?

PS: I fully expect somebody to go off topic and make some mad accusation against me for posting this.

I'm also with the Catholic church on this one.

I think it's good for peadphiles to be able to talk to people, other than other peadophiles on line. It's a destructive pattern that needs to be broken somehow, and only talking with other's who re-enforce the behaviour is probably the worst possible option.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think it's good for peadphiles to be able to talk to people, other than other peadophiles on line. It's a destructive pattern that needs to be broken somehow, and only talking with other's who re-enforce the behaviour is probably the worst possible option.

I agree with you about pedophiles generally. If they haven't acted on it and haven't raped anybody, then yes, they should have the ability to talk about it and not out themselves. It may help them control it and avoid turning into a rapist. Bur really even then, they should get actual competent and professional psychologists helping them.

But if they DO actually rape a kid, and confess that to a priest, and the priest hides behind "confidentiality", I think that's a problem.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's good for peadphiles to be able to talk to people, other than other peadophiles on line. It's a destructive pattern that needs to be broken somehow, and only talking with other's who re-enforce the behaviour is probably the worst possible option.

I agree with you about pedophiles generally. If they haven't acted on it and haven't raped anybody, then yes, they should have the ability to talk about it and not out themselves. It may help them control it and avoid turning into a rapist. Bur really even then, they should get actual competent and professional psychologists helping them.

We can't chose who these people feel safe to approach. In many countries psychologists have a legal obligation to report criminal confessions. Preists don't. I think it's valuable to have this window open for them.

But if they DO actually rape a kid, and confess that to a priest, and the priest hides behind "confidentiality", I think that's a problem.

I don't. At least they're talking to somebody. Which is better than nothing. Those are your options. If the preists have to report it, then the peadophiles will stop talking. And you've gained nothing.

 

[Rhea]

I don't. At least they're talking to somebody. Which is better than nothing. Those are your options. If the preists have to report it, then the peadophiles will stop talking. And you've gained nothing.

What have we lost? That a pedophile has someone to talk to about pedophelia? What does society gain from that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't. At least they're talking to somebody. Which is better than nothing. Those are your options. If the preists have to report it, then the peadophiles will stop talking. And you've gained nothing.

What have we lost? That a pedophile has someone to talk to about pedophelia? What does society gain from that?

Exactly. It isn't even like confession makes people less likely to reoffend. It only serves to ease their guilty mind. One tin soldier rides away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would take a slightly different position--treat them as we do psychiatrists. Privacy for past actions, disclose likely future actions.

Thus saying "I molested a child" is kept confidential, but "I molested a child and I think I'll do it again" is disclosed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't. At least they're talking to somebody. Which is better than nothing. Those are your options. If the preists have to report it, then the peadophiles will stop talking. And you've gained nothing.

What have we lost? That a pedophile has someone to talk to about pedophelia? What does society gain from that?

That they're talking to somebody. Human psychology isn't a straight line. Just the fact that they're talking to somebody who doesn't re-enforce it I think is enough to perhaps start the healing required.

And again... we'll lose nothing, since we gain even less if they won't talk to anyone

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't. At least they're talking to somebody. Which is better than nothing. Those are your options. If the preists have to report it, then the peadophiles will stop talking. And you've gained nothing.

What have we lost? That a pedophile has someone to talk to about pedophelia? What does society gain from that?

Exactly. It isn't even like confession makes people less likely to reoffend. It only serves to ease their guilty mind. One tin soldier rides away.

I don't think that is how it works. The fact that they bring it up at all means that they think it's wrong. That's what is being re-affirmed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would take a slightly different position--treat them as we do psychiatrists. Privacy for past actions, disclose likely future actions.

Thus saying "I molested a child" is kept confidential, but "I molested a child and I think I'll do it again" is disclosed.

Is that really how it works? Does anybody here know for a fact what the rules are? And are they globally accepted?

 

[Lion IRC]

Lawyers should lead by example and give up their attorney/client privilege.

That would send a powerful message on behalf of secular society that this isn't just an attack on religion.

Anything said by a suspected pedophile to their defence lawyer should be admissible as evidence ...WAIT! scratch that...MUST be recorded and presented to the police jury.

Oh yeah, and there should be a reverse burden of proof on any suspected of pedophilia - to disprove their guilt.

 

[Lion IRC]

While we're on the topic of mandatory reporting...
I think we have to also consider charging parents with failing to report a crime. (Yes! They knew.)
So many parents (typically fathers) who for some unknown reason didn't want police asking their children awkward questions about what the naughty man did...where did he touch you...did anyone else ever touch you like that???

Hmmm.

 

[bilby]

While we're on the topic of mandatory reporting...
I think we have to also consider charging parents with failing to report a crime. (Yes! They knew.)
So many parents (typically fathers) who for some unknown reason didn't want police asking their children awkward questions about what the naughty man did...where did he touch you...did anyone else ever touch you like that???

Hmmm.

Yup. Everyone is at fault (except, perhaps the perpetrators of the crimes, who are no more blameworthy than anyone else). Right?

We are ALL sinners, so the victims, their parents, their school teachers, and everyone else is equally to blame, and picking on those poor put upon criminals is completely unfair. (Unless we can declare them to be atheists, of course).

^This is how religion gets everything backwards. And how these horrors can continue unchecked for so long.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think we're risking a false dichotomy. It's like with abortions. The abortion issue isn't whether or not women should get abortions or not. The choice is whether the abortions women get, should they be legal or illegal. The abortions will continue.

This is similar. The choice isn't between arresting a bunch of pedophiles or not. The choice is between having these people talk to somebody or nobody about their problem. The moment pedophiles start getting arrested for talking with priests, they'll just stop talking. And then we're all worse off, because there's no way the non-pedophile society can get to them anymore.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/australia/australia-catholic-church-response-intl/index.html

Well, this is an interesting one. Do we gain anything from priests who take confession, and know the identities of sex abusers, not coming forward and calling them out? I imagine it would discourage people form coming forward if they didn't believe they were safe from prosecution doing so, but all I see is them gaining a less guilty conscience, and why should they have that?

At law, at least in the commonwealth countries (not sure about USA), priests can be compelled and ordered to testify what they know. Should the courts order that?

PS: I fully expect somebody to go off topic and make some mad accusation against me for posting this.

I had to laugh when I read the article and it mentioned "the sanctity of confession." Is it just me or is someone missing the elephant in the room?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Lawyers should lead by example and give up their attorney/client privilege.

That would send a powerful message on behalf of secular society that this isn't just an attack on religion.

Anything said by a suspected pedophile to their defence lawyer should be admissible as evidence ...WAIT! scratch that...MUST be recorded and presented to the police jury.

Oh yeah, and there should be a reverse burden of proof on any suspected of pedophilia - to disprove their guilt.

Uh-oh! I think that you must be coming over to the dark side! There is no attorney/client privilege to cover criminal acts. You must be channeling your inner "secular society" beliefs!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Exactly. It isn't even like confession makes people less likely to reoffend. It only serves to ease their guilty mind. One tin soldier rides away.

I don't think that is how it works. The fact that they bring it up at all means that they think it's wrong. That's what is being re-affirmed.

Yes, they think it is wrong. But the whole point of confessing it and asking forgiveness from God, is to get forgiveness from God for it. So they feel less guilty, forgiven, and move on with their lives, despite having done nothing for the actual victim(s).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Lawyers should lead by example and give up their attorney/client privilege.

That would send a powerful message on behalf of secular society that this isn't just an attack on religion.

Anything said by a suspected pedophile to their defence lawyer should be admissible as evidence ...WAIT! scratch that...MUST be recorded and presented to the police jury.

Oh yeah, and there should be a reverse burden of proof on any suspected of pedophilia - to disprove their guilt.

Lawyers are actually the only people in commonwealth countries (other than secret service type personnel I suppose) who actually can't be compelled to come forward or breach confidientiality. It used to be that priests and spouses had this right as well. That was justly done away with.

It isn't about somebody being blameworthy for not coming forward with what they know, by the way. It is about whether or not a court can force them to do so. Priests CAN be forced to do so, at least in commonwealth countries, which is a good thing. Same with spouses. Lawyers are the exception, because the commonwealth counties have adversarial based legal systems. Being lawyer for an accused who you suspect is guilty is a difficult position to be in. Being a lawyer for one that you KNOW is guilty is even harder. In the latter case you can't say he didn't do it, but you also can't say he did. All you can do is put the crown to the strictest test to prove he did. And in doing so, you have to try to not give any indication that he is guilty. Try doing this. Its quite the pretzel to find oneself in.

Long ago, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was still in law school, we had the lawyer who acted for Paul Bernardo come speak with us. It was a fascinating look into this. This lawyer knew of video tape evidence of the torture and murder of two victims, and he knew where this evidence was hidden. Bernardo and his girlfriend, Karla Homolka did the deed. What the tape showed was that Homolka was very much pushing and leading Bernardo through doing it. Without the tapes, Homolka got a plea deal she wouldn't have gotten without it and Bernardo took nearly full blame for the crime. Homolka played into the male/female gender role bias to save her neck and it worked, as Bernardo went along with it and told his lawyer not to tell anyone about the tape.

What would you have done in that lawyer's place? Had he revealed the existence of the tape, he would have been disbarred. But is he to blame now for the light sentence that Homolka walked away with? He talked us through his predicament and it was very eye opening. Many of us decided not to practice criminal law due to this.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Exactly. It isn't even like confession makes people less likely to reoffend. It only serves to ease their guilty mind. One tin soldier rides away.

I don't think that is how it works. The fact that they bring it up at all means that they think it's wrong. That's what is being re-affirmed.

All evidence to the contrary. Confessions of pedophilia and sex offenses inside of the catholic church has only served to expand the ring of offenders and the magnitude of the cover-up.

aa

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think we're risking a false dichotomy. It's like with abortions. The abortion issue isn't whether or not women should get abortions or not. The choice is whether the abortions women get, should they be legal or illegal. The abortions will continue.

This is similar. The choice isn't between arresting a bunch of pedophiles or not. The choice is between having these people talk to somebody or nobody about their problem. The moment pedophiles start getting arrested for talking with priests, they'll just stop talking. And then we're all worse off, because there's no way the non-pedophile society can get to them anymore.

Or they could put in policies and procedures to reduce the ability of pedophiles to target children and report them to the police if they do. You know, like how pretty much every single other organization on the planet which deals with children has managed to put into place. There is a dichotomy in place here and it's one where the Church has a choice between acting to protect children or acting to protect those who abuse children. They have chosen the latter.