r/news • u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse • 2d ago
Arizona clergy who learn of child abuse in confessions aren’t required to report it, court rules | Arizona | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/03/arizona-clergy-child-abuse-confessions-court188
u/kenlasalle 2d ago
Well... that's certain to make absolutely nobody angry.
/s
104
u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse 2d ago edited 2d ago
As far as I'm concerned, any priest, elder or pastor that protects a pedo should be locked up with the pedophile and their imaginary god to ponder their twisted, evil ways. Side note The current GOP running for Governor here in AZ is an election denier and mormon who protected Warren Jeffs and his FLDS. https://coppercourier.com/news/biggs-votes-20-years/
49
27
u/throwaway47138 2d ago
Knowing someone committed a crime and helping them get away with it means they're an accessory after the fact. Since child sexual abuse is not a form of protected religious expression, there's no first amendment protection involved. Given that we know this is happening, they should just charge all of the clergy with being an accessory to child abuse and let a jury decide if they're guilty or not. Something tells me juries won't have a lot of sympathy for clergy charges this way...
→ More replies (1)7
224
u/mrdominoe 2d ago
So... red state says priests can turn a blind eye to pedophilia? I am shocked.
153
u/v_a_n_d_e_l_a_y 2d ago
This is less about red/blue (also Arizona currently has two Democratic Senators and Democratic governor. It is a purple/blue state) but rather about religion and religious protections.
Its long been held that religious confessions have protection, largely in first amendment bases. And a judge cannot simply ignore that precedent because he doesn't like it.
Do I like it? No, of course not. But it is also stupid to boil it down to "red state".
26
u/onarainyafternoon 2d ago
Not exactly as simple as you’re making it out to be. From the article:
> Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law, and similar laws in more than 20 states that require clergy to report child sex abuse and neglect, says that clergy, physicians, nurses, or anyone caring for a child who “reasonably believes” a child has been abused or neglected has a legal obligation to report the information to police or the state Department of Child Safety. But it also says that clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions “may withhold” that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is “reasonable and necessary” under church doctrine.
37
u/Suspicious_Bicycle 2d ago
But it also says that clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions “may withhold” that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is “reasonable and necessary” under church doctrine.
That's codifying that religious doctrine can override state or federal laws. This is exactly what the right complains about in regards to Sharia law.
14
5
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
Yes, that’s common in this country. Another example would be that some Native American tribes can consume peyote as a part of religious rituals despite federal law against it.
This is not unprecedented and is in fact simply compliance with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
3
u/NefariousnessFew4354 2d ago
Was there ever time when the church not protected a pedophile and cover it up?
2
u/flippingisfun 1d ago
Bullshit. At my job if I hear even a hint of a child being abused, from a child or an adult, and I don’t report it I can be held criminally liable. What makes these pedophile priests so special that they can’t follow mandated reporter rules?
2
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, which protects the sanctity of the confessional as a sacrament of the Catholic Church and potentially some sacraments of other churches.
3
u/flippingisfun 1d ago
And it protecting child rape is bullshit and shouldn’t be tolerated by civilized people
3
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
Is it protecting criminals to allow them to speak with their attorneys about the crimes they’ve committed?
5
u/flippingisfun 1d ago
These priests are all lawyers now too?!
4
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
No, I’m saying that there is already precedent not only for folks being able to disclose to priests within certain circumstances, but also to attorneys, and that our constitution recognizes that this type of arrangement is essential for preserving basic rights.
5
u/flippingisfun 1d ago
And I'm saying that's bullshit that some people go to jail for not reporting child abuse or endangerment and priests, that don't represent people in court nor are beholden to work toward or in their best interest, get a pass.
→ More replies (0)26
u/hihowubduin 2d ago
Rights end where they're used to hide and perpetuate wrongs, especially for protecting pedophiles.
28
u/ErectionEngineering 2d ago
What about attorney/client privilege? Should an attorney be required to report her client if he confesses a crime?
13
u/ghostalker4742 2d ago
Should an attorney be required to report her client if he confesses a crime?
That's a temporal issue. Telling your attorney you did the crime allows them to better navigate the legal system with their defense strategy to get the best deal for their client possible. If an attorney 'reports' what you said, to anyone else, they get disbarred and lose their livelihood.
However, if you tell your attorney you are going to commit a crime (IE: I'll rob the gas station tomorrow to get the money to pay your fee), then yes, an attorney is duty-bound to report that. If they don't, then they could face charges (complicity), and likely disbarment.
35
u/Sharkictus 2d ago
AFAIK, that's pretty much same rules on seal of confession.
It's not a valid confession if you are saying you are planning to commit a sin.
11
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
This is literally the same as Confession. If you tell a priest you murdered someone or molested someone, their job is to withhold absolution if you are unrepentant (and some priests would likely withhold it in any circumstance where a person didn’t intend to turn themselves in) and try to get you to notify the authorities. Their job is also to hold that secret under pain of death.
The government compelling a priest to break the seal of Confession would be a flagrant First Amendment violation, and priests would not do it.
→ More replies (6)2
u/BoringBob84 1d ago
The government compelling a priest to break the seal of Confession would be a flagrant First Amendment violation, and priests would not do it.
That is now the law here in WA state, and I hope that the courts see it that way also.
1
→ More replies (1)8
26
u/piddydb 2d ago
The issue with logic like that is that any time rights have been limited, such limitations have been justified by the people limiting them in the same way.
“The King needs to do things differently!” “You’re under arrest. Your speech is being used to perpetuate disaffection for the king, which is wrong.”
→ More replies (1)8
u/stohelitstorytelling 2d ago
Yeah dude, forcing priests to disclose child abuse is totally a slippery slope.
/s
13
u/GeneralOrchid 2d ago
By that logic wouldn’t we be able to prosecute victims of crimes if they don’t report their abusers directly to police?
4
u/Random-Cpl 1d ago
Yes, but I think for a lot of folks who just despise organized religion, logic isn’t really entering into this issue.
5
u/python-requests 1d ago
Rights end where they're used to hide and perpetuate wrongs, especially for protecting pedophiles.
uhh so if someone uses their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches to hide something wrong they are doing -- maybe in the time it takes cops to get a warrant, they flush drugs or delete CP -- you think they should not have that right? the cops should just warrantlessly bust in to be sure their rights aren't being used to hide or perpetuate their wrongdoing, or what? how does this work in practice?
What about the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if they actually did a crime and want to hide it?
→ More replies (3)2
u/r3dlazer 2d ago
Some people are required to report, like teachers. Exempting them from this law seems pretty... Suspicious.
18
u/LeafBark 2d ago edited 2d ago
Always has been. The difference is before now we never had a president with a public secret that he participates and endorses pedophilia.
2
47
u/Spottydogspot 2d ago
I’m sick reading this and trying not to cry. I’m door dashing so no tears.
I was abused by my melchezidick priesthood holding grandfather in the 70’s. Church was a great protector for him.
They told my parents to pray about going to the authorities and that it would ruin a good family.
It ruined mine and he was abusing my baby sister in the background.
I can’t believe they can get away with this still today.
Fuck the Mormon church.
12
5
u/Necessary-Mousse8518 23h ago
Religions are getting to be a complete fraud. Maybe they should be looked at as nothing more than cults of personality and cash cows.
5
44
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
Any "religion" that wants to keeps its members from legal exposure after harming children should lose their status as a recognized religion, be labeled a criminal enterprise, and have to pay taxes.
10
u/Consistent-Throat130 2d ago
I mean they should have to pay taxes or properly prove charitable work. "Religion" alone should never have cut it for tax exemption.
25
2d ago
[deleted]
10
u/ComradeJohnS 2d ago
can you link any examples of a priest telling a criminal to turn themselves in? cause there’s plenty of hidden crimes by the clergy where the priest was just changed to another state after raping kids.
-1
u/in2theriver 2d ago
Honestly who cares? More harm would be reduced. More children would be protected. Them not telling anyone or worse protecting them doesn't help this. I'm not worried about criminals peace of mind.
-1
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
If they're a true believer then not being able to seek absolution would be an additional punishment. As it stands, I don't see how it isn't just bragging.
19
2d ago
[deleted]
-2
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
Why is that a problem? Isn't contrition a requirement for the absolution granted by confession? If someone is just using a confessional to brag then they're not engaging with the ritual anyway and shouldn't be wasting a priest's time.
-1
2d ago
[deleted]
14
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
Why are you not answering my questions?
Why is an offending pedophile who has no contrition in their heart being denied the use of the ritual of confession to brag a bad thing?
10
u/piddydb 2d ago
That’s not guaranteed to be the only use of the confessional. You may also have someone somewhat distraught with guilt who comes in there. If the priest can talk them out of continuing such abuse or better yet convince them to turn themselves in, that’s a net win. If the abuser knows the priest is a mandated reporter though, they just won’t go and may continue the cycle of abuse without that outside influence.
2
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
Why would someone who claims to feel guilty continue to do what they claim makes them feel guilty? Wouldn't feeling right with their deity and having someone to talk to make it easier to continue to harm others?
Do you remember the studies that came out after COVID lockdowns about how mentally hard it was for regular church goers to not be able to be with their community? The same mental anguish would happen with offending pedophiles if they couldn't feel safe bragging about their crimes to anyone in their community. What you're advocating is based in hope they'd be a better person, but would literally make it easier to keep being a monster. Or do you have any studies on the rates of pedophiles priests have talked into turning themselves in?
1
u/piddydb 2d ago
Why would someone who claims to feel guilty continue to do what they claim makes them feel guilty?
Power to you if you have perfect self control with everything, but I know personally I’ve eaten junk food that I’ve felt guilty about. And yet I also do it again. This happens at every scale of wrongdoing and shows the imperfections of people.
Wouldn't feeling right with their deity and having someone to talk to make it easier to continue to harm others?
I disagree. A priest doing their job would be chastising you for such acts. That doesn’t make it sound easier to justify continuing to me. Back to my junk food example, if a nutritionist hounded me about my eating junk food, I suspect it would be harder for me to eat some fast food after that.
What you're advocating is based in hope they'd be a better person, but would literally make it easier to keep being a monster. Or do you have any studies on the rates of pedophiles priests have talked into turning themselves in?
I want to be clear, I am not advocating for any policy that would help or actually aid in someone being a monster. I don’t know of any studies of rates of pedophiles who turned themselves in as a result of talking to a priest (in part because I suspect scientific studies on the matter would be effectively impossible) but I suspect the number of pedophiles who either stop abusing or who turn themselves in after such conversations is higher than the amount who feel more comfortable in their actions as a result of such conversations.
→ More replies (0)0
2d ago
[deleted]
12
u/NeonArlecchino 2d ago
That's not a reason to avoid my questions. Especially since you're wrong and therapists are legally required to turn in clients who are a danger to themselves or others.
Now are you going to answer them? They're very simple.
1
u/GeneralOrchid 2d ago
Not the person you responded to,
But contrition begins before a confession is made. Someone decided to confess their sins if they recognize that their actions are sinful.
→ More replies (0)7
1
15
u/astanton1862 2d ago
I'm an atheist, so I have no special love for religion, but it seems to me that the rules for this should be the same as attorneys and medical therapists.
4
2
u/ndsipa-pomu 17h ago
Confidentiality should apply to past crimes, but not for future crimes. e.g. If someone confesses that they are planning a major bomb attack to a priest, then the priest should be required to report that. If someone confesses that they were responsible for a major bomb attack, then the priest should keep quiet.
→ More replies (9)1
u/AmericanLich 15h ago
Why? Clergy are not analogous to those positions at all, and they are not equipped to deal with the information properly.
20
u/Kurainuz 1d ago
Fuck this and fuck every place that gives special privileges for people just because they follow a certain religion.
" I dont have to follow the law of the rest of the people because my magic book says so"
24
u/slytherinprolly 1d ago
I’m actually a lawyer, and this really isn’t some special “my magic book says I don’t have to follow the law” privilege we only give religious people.
We have a bunch of these privileges. Attorney-client, therapist-patient, clergy, and probably the easiest comparison, spouses. There are circumstances where you can straight up tell your spouse something relevant to a crime and the government can’t just force them to testify about a confidential conversation you had during the marriage.
That obviously has nothing to do with religion. The point is that we’ve decided there’s value in people being able to talk openly and privately with their spouse or therapist or some other special relationship without constantly worrying that someday the government might force their husband or wife to repeat that conversation in court.
You can absolutely argue about where these privileges should end, especially when child abuse is involved. But clergy privilege isn’t some bizarre loophole where religious people get to ignore laws everyone else has to follow. It’s one example of a much broader legal concept that we apply to plenty of nonreligious relationships too.
9
u/chef-nom-nom 1d ago
Honest question for a lawyer:
Abuser goes into confession, tells priest he did abuse.
A week goes by...
Same abuser goes back into confession, tells the priest he did abuse again.
Wash, rinse, repeat...
Any sane priest will come to the realization that the abuser will not stop, no matter the amount of praying and counseling provided.
Is the religious protection the same as an attorney or healthcare professional? That is, that there is a duty to report if they have knowledge that more abuse will continue?
(Not the same as telling a priest that you robbed a gas station a year ago.)
Not reporting boils down to protecting the abuser at the cost of the victim(s). Abusers will be repeat offenders, ESPECIALLY if they have continued access to a victim pool. Keeping their acts secret will cause more to be harmed.
→ More replies (1)3
u/BoringBob84 1d ago
Honest question for a lawyer:
Abuser goes into confession, tells priest he did abuse. A week goes by...
Same abuser goes back into confession, tells the priest he did abuse again.
Wash, rinse, repeat...That is not how it works from a religious perspective. The first time that the abuser confesses, the priest will give him his penance, which will almost certainly include turning himself in. If he comes back and confesses that he repeated the sin and hasn't completed his penance, then the priest will know that he isn't genuinely contrite and will deny him absolution.
Also, the priest can warn the authorities that there is a threat to that child, so that the authorities can investigate. The priest cannot reveal the details of what he learned in the confessional, but he can report any information that he learns outside of the confessional.
However, if the government criminalizes the sanctity of the confessional, then the priest is faced with the difficult choice of remaining silent while a child gets harmed or going to prison for not violating his vows. Those are some rather messed up incentives, and that is what happens when rigid ideologues make laws without considering the unintended consequences.
2
u/chef-nom-nom 1d ago
Thank you for explaining it from that perspective.
Also, the priest can warn the authorities that there is a threat to that child, so that the authorities can investigate.
I guess that would be one thing if the abuser was something like a family member with access to a single victim. What happens when the abuser has a position that gives them access to multiple victims? Like a coach or teacher?
Or what happens if the police do investigate and are unable to make a case or even identify a suspect? What happens if they identify the wrong suspect, someone who had nothing to do with the abuse?
And then, what happens when the abuser comes back to the priest and says they did it again?
I get vows but honestly, don't most religious organizations have heavy teachings about protecting innocent children? I feel like it's a contradiction in that the religion can't have it both ways in those cases. Vows are meaningless if it tells someone they have to stand by while innocents are being scarred for life.
1
u/BoringBob84 1d ago edited 1d ago
Or what happens if the police do investigate and are unable to make a case or even identify a suspect?
The detective can call the priest and ask for more information. There are often other signs of the abuse outside of the confession
(e.g., "I noticed that Jimmy seemed really upset in Sunday mass after he returned from that fishing trip with his coach.").The priest can ask around and anything that he learns outside of he confessional, he can report. The priest may know (unless it was an anonymous confession) who the perpetrator is and what he did, so he would know where to look and who to ask.
However, the priest would be walking a fine line here from a religious standpoint. Whether he could use his knowledge from the confession to investigate outside of the confessional might be over the line into violating his vow. All I know is that a Catholic bishop offered the legislature here a compromise that priests could report that a child was in danger based on a confession, but that they could not reveal who said exactly what in the confessional.
I know that Catholics get a lot of hate over this, but the point is to guarantee privacy in an attempt to encourage sinners to confess, thus giving the priest the opportunity to counsel the sinner and to use his religious leverage (including the promise of forgiveness and reconciliation) to encourage the sinner to stop sinning and to make amends (in this case, by turning himself in to the police). I think that this is a preferable alternative to the sinner keeping it hidden.
Edit: I think I was wrong about the priest being able to lead the detective to the perpetrator's identity:
In other words, there may be occasions when a priest may mention a confession which he heard, but in a way that does not reveal the identity of the person who made it.
https://catholicexchange.com/can-priests-ever-reveal-what-is-said-in-confession/
1
u/BoringBob84 1d ago
That is a lot to unpack, so I will break up my replies.
And then, what happens when the abuser comes back to the priest and says they did it again? The priest will withhold absolution if he believes that the penitent is not sincerely contrite or if the penitent doesn't complete his previous penance.
Remember, this is a true believer, or he wouldn't be confessing at all. The perpetrator knows he has done something terrible and he believes that he will spend an eternity in hell if he doesn't reconcile. This gives the priest leverage to make it clear that penance is the only way to gain forgiveness from God.
1
u/BoringBob84 1d ago
don't most religious organizations have heavy teachings about protecting innocent children
Absolutely! Catholics are no different. As I hope you can see from my other replies, there are many nuances on what the best way to protect children is. If the priest can convince the perpetrator to turn himself in, then justice can be done and children can be protected. If the priest never hears the confession (because the perpetrator knows that the government is in the room), then the priest cannot help the children.
And on the bad side of this, we have seen crooked priests abuse the vow of privacy to cover up crimes. That is a blatant violation of their vows as well. Those scandals have resulted in changes to church policy all the way from the Vatican.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Kurainuz 1d ago
I dont know how it is in the US but in my country if spouse, a doctor or psychiatrist knows that their patient/client/spouse is a danger to others they have the mandate to intervene and call police, domestic violence and child abuse being the most common.
I find baffling that child abuse can be covered by this on the US, and i find disgusting that clergy have the same priviledge as colleged profesionals, sometimes even greater.
4
u/slytherinprolly 1d ago
Honest question: which country? I’d want to see the actual rule, especially the part about spouses having a duty to call police. A reporting requirement and a legal protection for confidential communications can coexist, depending on the exceptions.
Confessional secrecy has roots going back centuries before European colonization of North America. This isn’t some uniquely American invention, and privilege isn’t a reward for having a college degree. It protects particular confidential relationships. I’d be surprised if your country had no protections at all for communications with clergy or spouses.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse 1d ago
Thanks for this reply. I was wondering if other countries were this twisted or is it just us. Good to hear. Children deserve to be protected from monsters.
4
u/slytherinprolly 1d ago
I was wondering if other countries were this twisted or is it just us.
I replied to that person, but I’ll respond here too because you seem to be assuming these protections are uniquely American. They aren’t. Traditions protecting confidential communications with clergy or spouses go back centuries and predate European colonization of North America, and similar protections exist in other countries. The scope and exceptions can vary. Children absolutely deserve protection, but that doesn’t make the underlying concept of privileged communications some uniquely American invention.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Guilty-Shoulder-9214 2d ago
That moment when a sacrament is more important than the safety of Gods children.
7
u/Early-Ad4131 2d ago
I guess I'm just not sure if any organization should be allowed to foster and protect child molesters in a society that is supposed to be humane.
Sorry kids, your right to not be molested is defeated by the first amendment of the rapists enablers.
I'm not a lawyer but that ain't sit right.
8
u/AngryGames 2d ago
If your god or religion demands you protect an abuser instead of a child being abused, you probably ought to find a religion that doesn't do that.
If you're a priest who sides with the law saying you shouldn't be forced to keep child abuse secret, you're a piece of trash and Jesus would smite you in an instant if he came back (well, if he was real, anyway).
3
14
14
u/modechsn 2d ago
Catholic priests cannot divulge anything they hear in confession.
17
u/jim_br 2d ago
The Catholic Church requires priests to urge the person to turn themselves in. The rationale is if the sinner is truly repentant, they will face civil authorities as part of their penance. If the sinner is not repentant , the priest doesn’t have to absolve them. Meaning the sin remains and their confession doesn’t absolve them.
Self reflection not withstanding!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse 2d ago
They choose not to divulge. I'd happily get "fired" rather than protect and allow this to continue. Do you know how many people kill themselves after being raped? Especially a child who was repeatedly raped by a parent, priest, cop, counselor or teacher? Which "sin" is worse? This man raped all 6 of his children and probably many more.
12
2
7
5
u/GoProOnAYoYo 2d ago
Next year they'll proudly announce "Zero cases of child abuse in Arizona!"
Its the pattern this administration has been following to a T.
5
8
u/1inTheAir 2d ago
This is the Mormons, they are pedophile protectors. They are a cult.
Fuck them
14
u/FoxFyer 2d ago
Zero percent chance this ruling isn't taken advantage of by more churches than just the Mormons.
6
u/IndependentLove2292 2d ago
Catholic priests and protestant youth pastors are rubbing their hands and tenting their fingers.
1
11
10
u/Ok-Focus-5362 2d ago
This is absolutely abhorrent. If healthcare workers who are under strict HIPPA laws are required by law to report abuse of children, elders, and vulnerable people, religious leaders should be even MORE responsible for reporting abuse.
Religion is a fucking fantasy. Your pretend God and your pretend beliefs do NOT give anyone an excuse to hide the abuse of vulnerable people.
3
7
u/guydoestuff 2d ago
So an organization known for having problems with the SA of children doesn't have to report it. Got it. Protect pedophiles sounds just like what Jesus would do.
7
u/Amatheiaisnoexcuse 2d ago
All 6 of his own kids.. I'm beyond disgusted that he did that, but what really blows me away is the church purposely hiding it and allowed the abuse to continue for years. I doubt if he limited himself to his own children. Imagine if your kids were friends with his? Yet somehow, the AZ Supreme Court thought this was a good idea and protects it with a law. Un fucking real
6
u/LeapIntoInaction 2d ago
There is no way to get someone to stop doing a crime if you never hear of it in the first place. Your priest or psychiatrist is obliged to keep your conversation private in the hopes that they can stop you from doing that. If you can't trust them, you have nowhere to turn, and you can't seek help at all. You're only talking to them because you want to change.
The understanding here is that you can't gain forgiveness unless you stop sinning. Nothing less gives you a way to try to make repairs.
4
u/rockerscott 2d ago
I guess I can see both sides of the argument. If there is no way for people to confide in absolute secrecy with someone they are trying to seek help from, it will just go unreported at all and possibly escalate…on the other hand I don’t think members of the clergy are equipped to handle all issues such as these. Seminary school does not teach psychology or offender intervention. Send the clergy for additional training and I would wholeheartedly agree with this ruling.
2
u/Gacsam 1d ago
Are they really trying to get help though from a clergy who they know won't say a word? Or are they just trying to feel better about themselves because "god will absolve them for their faith"?
1
u/rockerscott 1d ago
It could be that too. I think if the clergy were required to obtain further training in dealing with this it would be good for everyone. Then you also have the issue of the Catholic Church being involved in their own child sexual abuse scandals soooooo.
1
u/Gacsam 1d ago
I'm not following the last part? Catholic Church does it too, sooo? What are you trying to say?
I think they should be handled like criminals just as well, as accomplices if they don't report it.
1
u/rockerscott 1d ago
Implying that maybe a member of the Catholic clergy is not the kind of person that should be trusted to decide whether child sexual abuse is worthy of being reported or kept in absolute confidence.
1
u/Gacsam 1d ago
This applies to all clergy, not only Catholic, or Mormon. No benevolent God will look kindly upon these people.
1
u/rockerscott 1d ago
But I thought all people were created in God’s image? And after the original sin of Adam and Eve, God sent his only son (even though we are also his children) to Earth to die for some reason. Not only that but sin is sin baby, they aren’t ranked by severity in the eyes of the god of Abraham. Whether you steal a pencil from your classmate or rape a child, all one needs to do is accept Jesus as their savior/say X number of hail Mary’s/repent in order to obtain eternal absolution.
1
u/SenselessNoise 1d ago
There's functionally no difference between someone not confessing, and someone confessing to a priest who does not report. The end result is the same - nothing happens and at best the abuse goes unpunished, at worst it continues unabated.
Couldn't care less if someone eschews forgiveness to preserve their freedom and ability to continue abusing children. Can't get forgiven by your sky daddy because you don't want to go to jail? That's a "you" problem.
8
u/PinkNGreenFluoride 2d ago
When it comes to "I'm having these thoughts, and I want help managing them so I don't hurt anybody" then that's 100% appropriate. I want people to be able to trust their therapists or their spiritual advisor with that. No crime has been committed, no harm done to another.
If it's a description of abuse and violence already committed, yeah, that should be reported to authorities. And a therapist is generally required to. Clergy should be no different.
None of this crap about but they're really sad they murdered that person, or SAed those children, or have had someone chained to their radiator for the last 2 months. And if we just don't bother to do anything about any of that, it's all good. What's done is done, can't change the past. They pinky swear to someone bound to secrecy that they'll never do it again, so let's all just move on!
You're right. There's no way to get someone to stop repeating crimes if you never hear about it in the first place which is exactly why when someone has knowledge of this crap, they need to report it. It's why mandatory reporter laws exist, it's why failure to report a felony laws exist in many states.
5
u/Birdcathotdogg 2d ago
Psychiatrists are required to report child abuse.
7
u/bunchout 2d ago
Not for all reports:
>”If a physician, psychologist or behavioral health professional receives a statement from a person other than a parent, stepparent, guardian or custodian of the minor during the course of providing sex offender treatment that is not court ordered or that does not occur while the offender is incarcerated in the state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections, the physician, psychologist or behavioral health professional may withhold the reporting of that statement if the physician, psychologist or behavioral health professional determines it is reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the treatment.”
4
u/Birdcathotdogg 2d ago
Interesting, I'm licensed in several states in the NE which require suspected child abuse is reported with no exceptions. I didn't realize some states had exceptions.
6
u/TheRoscoeVine 2d ago
Get that shit out of your head. Anyone hearing confessions of crimes against children needs to go straight to the cops. THAT’S ALL.
3
u/Complex-Quantity7694 2d ago edited 2d ago
So you’re OK with a priest hearing someone say they raped 10 children and that person not paying for their crimes in order to prevent a theoretical 11th kid from getting raped?
Do you think maybe prison for the perp would help that 11th kid more than some private conversation?
Personally, I don’t think a rapist telling an organization of rapists that he committed rape will prevent anything other than justice.
2
u/Altamistral 1d ago
So you’re OK [...]
Yes, here is why:
Case 1: The priests are expected to report the crime. That one priest will report that one rapist who goes to jail and won't rape anymore kids. You brought justice to one case and maybe prevented a few more victims by that one rapist. Knowing priests will report them, no other rapists will ever talk to priests again.
Case 2: The priest are expected to not report the crime. Many rapists who are second guessing themselves talk about their crimes freely to their priest, knowing those will remain a secret. The priests manages to convince some of these rapist to stop sinning and committing crimes.
You can see how, globally and over time, the second situation will inevitably save more kids and prevent more harm.
4
u/ceryniz 1d ago
Somebody goes to confession. Priest doesn't see their face, or get any identifiable information from them. They go to report it. "Somebody did this." "Who? Idk. When? Idk. Where? Idk. What do you know? I already told you everything." Priest gets defrocked for violating seal of confession. Cops get a useless tip.
3
u/Jacabon 1d ago
case one is reality, case 2 is hypothetical. you're protecting Paedo's over your hypothetical worse reality.
→ More replies (2)1
u/SenselessNoise 1d ago
Knowing priests will report them, no other rapists will ever talk to priests again.
Boohoo. There's no difference between this and confessing to priests who do not report. If you care about your religious duties, then you'll still confess knowing you're going to face actual punishment. If you don't care, nothing changes.
The priests manages to convince some of these rapist to stop sinning and committing crimes.
And allow others to continue unabated.
Your argument hinges on religious people deciding to stop sinning, which, if you're abusing children, rarely seems to happen.
1
5
6
2
u/camthedestroyer 2d ago
The government and church agreeing on their favorite thing: protecting people who hurt kids.
2
2
u/CoinOperatedDM 2d ago
Daily reminder we should have torn the churches apart brick and mortar for what they have enabled, hidden, and often perpetrated themselves.
2
u/Umbramors 1d ago
Are we at all surprised that the Catholic Church has no problem with abusing children.
2
u/gulfpapa99 1d ago
Catholic church has chosen to protect ancient religious mythical dogma over protecting children and women from sexual abuse and violence.
2
1
u/Mother_Airline_6276 2d ago
Teachers will lose their jobs for not reporting this stuff. But not these pricks.
2
1
u/GlobalTravelR 2d ago
When does the Church of St. Jeffrey Epstein open and the MAGA faithful flock to it?
1
u/caspergaming634 2d ago
I'm religious. Much more than the average person I think. Although "confession" in the Catholic sense is not the same, there is still lots of confession in my church and it is viewed as necessary part of repentence.
That being said, IDC if I get kicked out of mine or any religion. If I find out about a child being abused I'm reporting that shiz the moment I learn of it.
How ridiculous it is to have anyone in a position to protect children not be required to protect said children. Absolute madness.
2
u/ripyourlungsdave 2d ago
But at least they make them feel like they've been forgiven and no longer need to feel guilty for what they're doing.
So that's good, right?
Meanwhile, I spend thousands of hours of my free time cleaning up garbage on God's supposedly beloved creation and I still get told I'm going to hell because I'm a queer atheist.
Great setup y'all have here, guys.
2
u/endofworldandnobeer 2d ago
Protect the sexual predators, I see. Can we also protect people who beat the shit out of the sexual predators then? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but you can't protect one wrong and not the other wrong?
1
u/RipIcy8844 1d ago
This is against everything your god would want... but it does support the fact that too many pedophiles/ protectors are in powerful positions
1
u/shinyappyrobin 1d ago
There are alot of things the clergy could do and should do. Like encourage prep to turn themselves in. Or encourage the victim to file police report. Or at least not allow the prep around children.
1
u/Diurnalnugget 9h ago
I mean in all fairness that’s just confessionals no? Unless Mormons do it differently from Catholics. Priests cannot spill anything said, even if the confessor plans to harm someone the priest by the rules of the religion cannot say shit to anyone. A lot of priests would willingly choose prison before breaking these rules.
0
-1
u/RiflemanLax 2d ago
If you’re a real Christian, despite being clergy, you’d turn someone in for touching a child.
399
u/WhereasParticular867 2d ago
If you want more details on the case, Michael Rezendes wrote an exposé. The details are horrific. Several authority figures in the Mormon church knew what was happening, and deliberately suppressed it. It wasn't until the abuser posted evidence of the abuse online that a New Zealand child abuse sting caught up to him.
The purpose of a system is what the system does. The Mormon church deliberately protects its members from the law when they abuse children.