Catholic Church To Excommunicate Priests for Following New US State Law

I read the headline and was prepared to support the church on this one (for once). Then I read the first paragraph of the article. I have never made a 180 on an opinion so fast. The fuck is wrong with the Catholic church and child abuse? Why is this a constant problem with them?

Imagine if any other type of organization had this sort of systemic problem with child abuse.
“Wow, there sure are a lot of pedophile employees at Apple Computer abusing their customers’ children.”
“Dang, the US Department of Transportation sure does have a kiddie diddler problem.”
“Holy shit, what’s the deal with all the abusive perverts working at Ronald McDonald House?”
Sounds absolutely bonkers, right‽
If any secular organization was having this kind of problem at scale, we’d all be calling for their blood. Yet the church gets a pass somehow. A few complaints, a few lawsuits, some big scandals, some negative press, but fundamentally nothing ever changes.
To hell with the church.
- You mean like the Boy Scouts?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases
- I don't want to derail the discussion, but Churches aren't the only organisation attracting/raising child sexual abusers. Sports clubs are an example for secular organisations facing a similar problem.
  Sports clubs on the other hand don't have this kind of power and history as organised religion.
  Sports clubs would simply be banned, but try to ban the Catholic Church in a place with a Catholic majority.
- I mean, you joke, kind of, but a massive, MASSIVE amount of QAnon bullshit that drives current rightwingers in the US is literally nothing but inventing fake demonic pedophile cults and putting anyone they don't like in these made up cults...
  All so that they can demonize others, and what this functionally does is give these nutjobs an infinite well of whataboutisms to either shift a conversation about pederasty and child abuse in any christian church/sect ... over to 'the even worserer badderer people'...
  ...or just do something akin to a 'no true scotsman' and claim that anyone in any church who is a pedo or child abuser... well actually they're not a real christian, they're a secret demonic cult member who is embedded in the organization to both commit evil and also to discredit the church when they are exposed.
  The purpose of a system is what it does, not what it claims to do.
  These people invented what is essentially their own new religion, a religion dlc, which entirely serves as a mechanism to avoid and make impossible discussions of actual child sa, abuse, going on in the institutions they revere.
- What about the CIA and the pentagon?
The entire religion is based on shame and fear. The clergy take advantage of both.
- This isn't just Catholic church thing. It's rampant in any religion, organization, hierarchy, etc. where the person on top of the totem pole demand obedience, they are insulated from outside accountability, and there is a culture of secrecy.
  Go probe Ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish community, Quranic Schools. It's rife with sexual abuse.
It's a constant problem because its a cult that wants to protect its cult members. It finds no issue with indoctrinating kids, to the point where nobody batted an eye when they recently (like, in the past 10 years) decreased the age at which children go through the sacrament of Confirmation. The same sacrament that is meant to affirm your adulthood in the church, where you say, "I may have been told to practice this by my parents before, but now I'm an adult now and choose to practice it of my own volition."
They do this when children are thirteen years old. Thirteen.
When I was fifteen I did not have the capacity to make this decision for myself. Now I have to live with the fact I'm on a list somewhere as an adult in the church. The Catholic Church is an evil institution that uses trauma for the purpose of coercion.
- For a century now, the option has been at some point between 7 and 16, at the diocese's discretion. I received mine around 16; 13 sounds like an outlier, to me.
Oh yeah, my bad for not including what it's about. I'll edit that back into the post.
Personally, I think it goes back to the Catholic Church's special status as its own sovereign country. They didnt just elect a Pope this week. They elected an absolute monarch. Even though that monarch's territory is only .5 sqkm, it used to be much larger, and the Church literally has outposts everywhere indirectly subject to its rule.
And a key thing to understand is that the Church doesn't use confession to hide crimes from just anyone. If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
The Church was always super arrogant when it came to transgressions by its own people. To them, subjecting a priest to civil law makes just as much sense as subjecting an Italian to Australian law. When a priest confessed he was diddling kids, they would handle it in their own manner, without getting the local authorities involved.
That's the real reason why this law is written the way it is. It's to keep the Church from hiding its own people. The Church, as an institution, has proven over the years that it can't be trusted on that front.
I haven't read the law, but it would be interesting if it explicitly allowed a "mandatory reporter" to satisfy the requirement by facilitating the transgressor to turn themselves in. That is a clear way out of this problem, keeping the confidentiality intact while keeping the local government's jurisdiction over crimes as well.
- If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
  This is the thing that's bugging me. People are taking the Catholic church's history with priests committing child abuse, then making a blind logical leap that Catholics in general are child abusers (or a significant number of them). It's twisting the feelings about Catholic priests and targeting them at a wider group. What's happening here is insidious.
  How many Catholics are child molesters, and how many of them are confessing in church, and what penance were they given?
- I haven’t read the law, but it would be interesting if it explicitly allowed a “mandatory reporter” to satisfy the requirement by facilitating the transgressor to turn themselves in.
  Here's a link to the law as passed.
  It doesn't seem to explicitly allow what you are suggesting but I supposed the "or cause a report to be made" clause could be interpreted that way.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn't the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be "saved from God", and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.
I don't know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it's true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I'm too skeptical of the state to trust it'll always be a good thing.
- I feel like it’s fair to say that if you want god’s forgiveness you must accept mans judgement in cases of abuse. If their god’s salvation is worth less than however many years of prison they’d get, then that’s their choice. I don’t want them to be able to shrug off the guilt and continue the abuse with peace of mind just so they may also escape the punishment they think would otherwise await them after death.
I agree and I agree. However, as a being that was indoctrinated and abused by the church, I still have to point to the ”Sacrament of Confession”, which… yeah… evil bastards.
Is it a constant problem? How many child molesters are confessing in church? How many Catholics are child molesters?
The Catholic church's history with child abuse is to do with Priests and the church covering for them. This is new spin, suggesting that Catholics as a whole contains a lot of child molesters, but I've not seen any evidence showing that.
Because that is what they are.
Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.
This is not actually about child abuse per se. It's also not about "warning" priests.
This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.
I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.
- I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.
  If the Bar Association told their lawyers not to report child abuse from their clients you would have a point. And confidentiality agreements are not going to protect child abuse. The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers in order to maintain their "reputation".
- Confidentiality agreements do not cover illegal acts. Since you brought up the bar association, fun fact about that is that if you admit to say abusing a child to your lawyer not only is that not covered by attorney-client privilege the lawyer is obligated to inform law enforcement or face punishment by the bar association for failing to do so.
- Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.
  No, you just don’t like their conclusion. The article explains what confessional is, which only alters your opinion of the case if you care more about the religious ‘right’ of a child fucker to talk about their child fucking in secret with someone who promised to not tell than you care about the wellbeing of the child victim.
  Your lawyer line of reasoning is also based on a misconception: that attorney-client privilege universally extends to knowledge of child abuse, outside representing a client specifically on child abuse. This isn’t the case, there are states where attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply in this scenario. Bar associations in general also allow breaking confidentiality if they have reasonable belief that someone is going to be seriously harmed or killed.
- Sorry, no amount of secret handshakes gets you out of being a terrible person for not reporting child abuse that you are aware of.
- This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.
  While this is true it turns out that the United States isn't bound by Catholic dogma. And the Church's methods for handling this sort of problem have thus far been... questionable at best.
- Doesn't the bible say to obey the emperor and follow the law? So reporting abuse to the authorities shouldn't be a sin since there's a law compelling priests to violate the confessional for specific issues.
  1 Peter 2:13-17
  Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
  Romans 3:31
  Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
- Who cares?
  This is a simple and factual reminder: you're arguing to protect child abuse. Shut the fuck up.
- What an unbelievably stupid take.
  A) Do you actually know what excommunication means? It's not a permanent sentence to Hell. It's a temporary separation from the Church that can be reversed after penance. Do you think a "time-out" is so unbelievably painful that it warrants protecting child abusers? If so, you are fucking disgusting.
  B) You analogy ALREADY HAS agreed upon laws about violating confidentiality, including when the lawyer believes an extreme crime might be committed in the future. So no, we would not be reacting with outrage because we are not psychopaths.
  It's hard to state how stupid your post is.

Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they suspect child abuse. The church thinks it is above secular law and only answers to God, not to mention the protection it offers to its own child abusers. It's complete nonsense and a good example of why religious tolerance has limits.

That's not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don't confess to things that haven't happened yet. You're more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that's when a confession should become reportable, if we're want the law to be secular and equitable.
- Technically everything you've done is in the past, unless you're doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they're confessing, it's in the past, they're repentant--not an ongoing risk--therefore I don't have to report. But that's obviously bullshit.
- What's your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don't have to report cases of child abuse.
  I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.
- These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
  So that paedophiles don't stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
  You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
  Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It's always a balancing act and from what I've heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
  Mandatory reporting doesn't solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There's a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.
Remember that episode of South Park where the Catholic priest saw child rape and exploration as a kind of perks of the job. Whelp they hit the nail right on the head 10 years ago with that one and it's still relevant to this day.
Shit like this is why it is explicitly written that Baha'is must follow the law of the land before the laws of god.
This is not true. A therapist would be required to break confidentially if they became aware that their Client is going to harm themselves or others, or if they are mandated by law.
What someone already did in the past generally isn't reported.
- I find zero sources that agree with your claim.
  I find several sources that indicate that therapists in all US states are required to break confidentiality when child abuse has occurred.
  https://psychcentral.com/health/what-do-therapists-have-to-report
  https://www.remnantcounselorcollective.com/resources/86536/the-ultimate-guide-to-mandated-reporting-laws-in-all-50-us-states-child-adult-abuse-neglect
  https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-must-a-therapist-file-a-report
  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-therapists-report-confidentiality_l_5d2cf063e4b0bca603641a62
  https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/exceptions-to-confidentiality-in-counseling
  So either you're talking about another country's laws (in which case I'd like to know which country), or you're just incorrect.
  I'm in Colombia, where psychologists are required to report "human rights violations, mistreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions of confinement of which any person is a victim and of which they become aware in the exercise of their profession."

Why aren't all the preists who diddle kids excommunicated?

Catholic Church = Child Molester Haven.
Pretty simple.
- Oh, it's most churches. And the GOP.
- I’m going to describe a joke from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (since I can’t find a clip).
Because that's the whole point of the church. It's just one big sham so they can diddle kids
The oughta write a song about it
They’d have no priests left
Because they get to keep stuff like that secret.
You act like excommunication is only a slight matter. For someone who is not religious, being kicked out of a religion might not sound like a big deal, but compare it with citizenship/nationality. Crimes have punishments, so something like murder might involve decades in prison. In the Catholic Church, a priest who murders (or rapes or whatever) might be defrocked, or alternatively sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prayer and solitude, but part of the essence of Christianity is the belief in forgiveness. Excommunication is more akin to stripping citizenship. The US (despite what some people currently im power might want) doesn't allow stripping citizenship from people who commit regular crimes, even serious ones like murder or rape. Imagine if every murderer or rapist in the US got their citizenship revoked and not only permanently lost all rights (from voting to housing) but could then be deported. Well, I'm sure the uproar that would be caused by even suggesting that. Well excommunication is like that. It is only permissible in certain very tight circumstances where something that fundamentally goes against the entire Church takes place knowingly and intentionally. It would be akin to something like high treason or whatever if I had to draw a comparison, which many countries do have an exception for the absoluteness of citizenship/nationality. There are few instances of excommunication that I can think of in this day and age, but a few would be breaking the seal of confession, breaking the secrecy of papal conclaves, attempting ordination outside of what of permissible while disobeying local bishops, and heretical schisms attempts I guess and all of these mostly for priests and bishops since they have a higher standard and pastoral/leadership responsibilities.
No one would go to church if they thought their kids wouldn’t get experience

And for extra reading, learn about how the new pope covered up for priests that abused kids when he was a bishop:

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-853274

*Edit: removed the bad source. The Jpost article is good and includes several additional sources. For more: https://www.qwant.com/?q=+Robert+Prevost+abuse+cover+up

If you're gonna bash the guy, at least use a credible source for christ's sake.
Edit: 👍
the Will County Gazette is an imposter site, lacks transparency, and publishes false information. As a result, we rate them right-center, biased, and Questionable.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/will-county-gazette-bias/
- Right you are, updated accordingly. Thanks for the tip.
Fucking… of course he did 🤦‍♂️

The worlds largest pedophile ring doing gods work I guess.

Teaching has the most pedophiles, followed by music tutor, and priests/clerics are 3rd.
- Teaching might have the most reported pedophiles. (Might because there's no citations)
  This comment below the post about how the Catholic Church will excommunicate those who report pedophiles may be... not as supportive for your argument as you might think.
- Yeah but is there a central leader for for teachers?
  There is for Catholics. They’re all pederasts. Or at least comfortable with pederasts
- Is parenting no longer a job? Because that's top by far.

The U.S. Department of Justice said it is investigating whether the law infringes on First Amendment religious protections.

Looks like I'm going to continue not being catholic.

Wait a sec. What the fuck? So reporting child rape is now BAD???

Note for the internet: I am just clarifying the Catholic stance. I am not Catholic and not defending them.
Priests cannot reveal what someone tells them in confession. It's a lot like attorney-client privilege, as your priest is supposed to be your advocate before God. Breaking the seal of confession is a big deal (to them) because, just like criminals deserve representation, sinners need to be able to confess.
- Sinners should be allowed to confess, but not be absolved of consequence or even just be allowed to continue.
They hold confession to be inviolate, which is fucking bullshit. Doctors, including psychiatrists, who aren't allowed to share that shit do have to report certain criminal acts to police.
Unfortunately all too often freedom of religion translates to freedom from consequences. Fuck the Catholic church (and all churches) in general, but in particular for shit like this. Three Catholic church isn't unique in this, it's just got the most rigidly hierarchical, top-down structure of them all.
- If lawyers had to report the worst types of crimes committed by their clients, or ones they suspect them of having committed, don't you think that would break down the legal system? So too with confession. For it to work, there has to be absolute secrecy. Punishments can apply anywhere else, investigations, reporting, whatever. But there fundamentally must be at least that one avenue for an individual to get legal help that is there for them and only them, or to have a priest hear their sins on behalf of God and offer absolution. Without secrecy, both structures would break down and a fundamental part of the legal system is the right of everyone to defend themselves, and a fundamental part of Catholicism is the availability of God's forgiveness of sins.
Now?
It's always been this way. There are a few states that require a priest to report child aduse but most don't require it.
It's always been this way.
- Yah but now there's an american pope who is against trump so crank up the smear machine
It’s just catholic canon for „snitches get stitches“.

Fuck. Religion.

Agreed its a cancer on humanity. Fake ass shit.

And there goes any hope of Ameripope not being a piece of shit. Delightful.

This article is from 2 days ago before he was elected the pope.
- How could they possibly have known?! /s
Being a piece of shit is a prerequisite to be a religious leader, full stop.
- Eh, there are absolutely religious leaders who aren't pieces of shit, but there are very, very few of them.
That ship sailed when they elected a Catholic. What else could have happened?
- You… uh… realize that the pope is the head of the Catholic Church, right…?
you don't get to a place where you're eligible to become pope without some skeletons in your closet

Separation of church and state goes both ways.

Confession is a religious rite. Try to legislate that rite is a violation of that separation.

Priests are bound by their office to maintain absolute confidentiality of confessed sins. Otherwise people are not likely to confess their sins.

It doesn’t matter how you, personally, feel about this or their religion or the value of confession as a sacrament, that’s their religion. The state doesn’t get to intervene.

The church should stay out of state affairs, and the state should stay out of church affairs. Exceptions exist, like when practices are outright criminal in themselves. But the state cannot compel a priest to violate their office. This is long accepted. You cannot compel a priest to testify about confession, for example.

Priests can encourage people to go to the police, but that’s it. Their role in confession is between the sinner and their god.

Yeah religion is a great cover for abusing kids.
- This isn't about priests abusing kids (though that's definitely a recurring issue as well), it's about people who have done so confessing such to a priest.
  I'm not religious so don't really have any stake in this, but it's interesting that it is specifically about child sex abuse and not other major crimes such as rape, murder etc. That makes me worried as "for children" is often used as a testing ground for stuff that will be expanded upon later, and there's a lot of stuff people likely confess - supposedly under strict confidence - to their religious figures.
This is disgusting, doctors need to report the same thing. Its child abuse its basically saying you support pedofilia. Unless that's what you're covering up in your thinly veiled argument. The Catholic church should not be a safe haven for pedophiles.
- This is disgusting, doctors need to report the same thing.
  Doctors are not religious figures. Doctor patient confidentiality is not an absolute protected by the first amendment (with legal precedent).
  Its child abuse its basically saying you support pedofilia. Unless that's what you're covering up in your thinly veiled argument.
  That’s a nice false equivalence. I’m impressed that you managed to get from “priests cannot be compelled by the state to violate their religious office” to supporting pedophilia.
  The Catholic church should not be a safe haven for pedophiles.
  I agree. That’s a larger problem though.
- Therapists are allowed to maintain confidentiality.
Exceptions exist, like when practices are outright criminal in themselves
Aiding and abetting criminals is a crime.
- How does receiving a confession aid or abet the perpetrator?
- Cool, break that down for us.
You know what that's fair. This is the "just" thing to do.
I still do hope priests will try to fix it in their own communities tho.
There's a Christian duty to follow laws that are just as well. From a very Christian perspective, the right thing to do would be convincing them to confess outright at least.
I'm no priest and I was definitely never catholic, but that's how I see it as someone who grew up in a protestant house.
- I can tell you that that's also what I got. The way confessions work, the priest gives you... "penance" is what it might be called? What you need to do to repent for your sins and be absolved of them. Usually that's some prayer, but they can tell you that you have to turn yourself in and admit to your crimes to the police.
  I have no idea if priests actually do that, and I imagine with the secrecy it'd be hard to get any information.
- Secular law takes precedent. For example, a religion practicing human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape or slavery would be shut down, and rightly so.
  I do cover that in a later comment.
  Confession and its confidentiality has already been upheld in legal precedent.

There's all this talk about how this will automatically excommunicate priests who violate the confessional and how it's a grave sin and how the law is forcing them to sin and all that. I would understand the extreme pushback on this if this made a priest go to hell.

Here's the thing: Excommunication is TEMPORARY!! The penalty for a priest violating the confessional and potentially saving the lives of many children is a temporary separation from the Church that can readmit the priest after a penance. They care more about themselves being away from the Church for a short period of time than for the lifetime of health and happiness of children. They make it sound like it's the worst punishment you can give to a priest, on par with the punishment this gives to a kid who is harmed. It's fucking sickening.

readmit the priest after a penance
The priest actually has to repent - if he still thinks he did the right thing, he isn't forgiven.
- He could just lie. Priests are great at it.
- Agreed, and right now they are fighting tooth and nail against having to say something, so it sounds like they are repenting it already. They are being compelled by law, not by their own desire to be, you know, good people.
Arguably a priest who really cared would be morally obligated to speak up about a situation like the one being described, even if the consequence is excommunication.
I would understand the extreme pushback on this if this made a priest go to hell.
I wouldn't. Religion shouldn't get a fucking hall pass for arbitrarily bad shit because "we don't want to go to the scary place we made up."

I was really hoping they'd be refusing to comply with unjust laws. If they wanted ways to look like the good guys, these days we've got plenty.

: reads headline

Woo! Good for them! Stick it to The Man!

: reads article body

ahhhh fuck these guys

A curious question. Why isn't everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?

You've touched on a key point, I think. Doctors and other professionals have mandatory reporting because a) they are in positions of respect and trust within the community, and b) they are professionals, as defined in law, and have standards to uphold.
Priests definitely meet the definition of a), however b) is a bit of a sticking point: their role isn't defined by law, but by the church. Furthermore, a court can order you to go to therapy sessions, but they can't order you to go to confession - it's completely voluntary. A therapist could tease out previous abuse, but a priest will only hear what the confessor wants to tell them about.
I'm in line with you in thinking that everyone should report abuse, but I think that a priest has more in common with an average person in this regard compared to a person working in a legally protected profession. There would be legal consequences for impersonating a therapist, but not for impersonating a priest.
It has to do with professional training and responsibility (duty of care), coupled with kids trusting them more and they are considered to have some para-custodial responsibility for children.
Priests aren't entirely in that category, but they probably should be, the question is the relationship of the priests, ie a random priest who heard a rumor is very different from one who heard confession or tends the victim or abuser directly.
Also, you don't want to empower random-ass people too much, people are absolute fucking morons and media will incite them to do something more moronic:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Inbred rednecks just danger incarnate, empowering them in any way is insane and will guarantee needess innocent victims.

They've always had this policy. A priest would be excommunicated for revealing even a murderer, if they knew about it from a confession.

Geez... I never thought I would see so much support for religious bullshit on this site. I'd rather see fewer children harmed than preserve the "sanctity" of confession, and every excommunicated priest is a priest with actual integrity.

Oh, I thought maybe this had to do with standing up against some regressive anti-immigration law, but nope, it's just the Catholic church being weird about sexual abuse. Again.

Imagine thinking you could sin recklessly, tell it to some dude in a funny hat/robe and that God is somehow okay with it. Imagine keeping the identities of child abusers secret because of that stupid line of thought (or because you can relate to the person touching kids).

In Catholicism, presumption makes a confession invalid
- Confession is invalid.* (respectfully)

I support this state law, though I think it's unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.

I don't think people with a guilty conscience should have a way to clear their conscience other than behaving better and making up for their wrongs with better behavior.

At the same time, I get why the Catholic Church opposes the state law. And it's one of the biggest reasons I'm against all Christian religions, Evangelicalism included: they're more concerned about power than about people. And yeah, I think the Catholic Church's stance on this issue is fucked up, just like most Christian stances on political moral issues are fucked up these days.

But the timing of this article, and the right wing motivations against Catholicism make it clear that this article is also more concerned about power than about people. The state law doesn't stop child abuse or result in any more reporting of child abuse.

The way I see it, this article is actually right wing propaganda targeting the Pope because he supports Europe and Ukraine against Russia.

though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.
That's the thing, if you violate the confidentiality of confessionals then people simply won't confess, and then you lose the avenue for a priest to try and convince someone to address their behaviour. Maybe that's not very effective, but it's more effective than not having it.
In line with your assessment of the article's agenda, I have to question how much of an issue this even is. Like, the Catholic church has a long history with child abuse, but wasn't that primarily about Priests abusing children in their parish, and the church protecting its priests? This is an accusation that Catholics themselves are a bunch of child molesters, which is not something I've seen any evidence in support of.
- The same line of reasoning applies to mental health professionals. But even more so since a judge can order mental health care, but not confession. So why is it considered in one case to keep the avenue open, but not the other?
I also wonder logistically how it would work with the confessional booth. The church allows you to confess without the priest ever seeing your face or knowing your name. Would they be required to perform citizens arrests upon hearing of a crime?

A priest is substantially closer to a therapist in function than to a lawyer.

Mixed feelings

Obviously the clergy have absolute values which they believe come from god, so obviously they're not equipped to make exceptions such as this as individuals. You would have to appeal the to pope and cardinals directly to change the rules.

How does the state intend to enforce this? Is there a priest registry in washington state, and does it account for all recognized religions for tax purposes? Are they going to take away peoples license to preach?

During the investigation of child sexual abuse, if the perpetrator is a Catholic, they'll ask if the abuser confessed. If so, the priest is liable to be prosecuted.
Honestly, my biggest problem with the law is how unlikely it is to ever be prosecuted. Proving that an abuser confessed would be impossible. They are infringing on the First Amendment and ensuring that no abuser ever talks to their priest, but in practice priests probably won't follow the law and if they don't the state is unlikely to actually enforce the law.
- If they only ask Catholics that sounds like it also infringes freedom of religion first amendment rights. They either have to ask every perp which church/temple/mosque/etc they go to and if they ever told a clergy member or none of the perps.

We also need a law that requires news sources to provide links to law(s) being discussed in their articles!

If anyone would like to read this law here you go.

To be fair and if we consider Catholic lore and dogma technically any kind of breach of the confessional seal is a major breach in Catholic law or whatever. So I understand this from a faith based perspective.

On the other hand, I'm an atheist so fuck the confessional seal and report major crimes. Especially fucking child abuse! Any kind of child abuse!

Catholics and all christians by extension are also bound to do good and protect those who can't defend themselves.
I'm going to risk that denouncing and delivering to secular authoroties those who practice one of the most heinous acts we can think of falls under that responsibility.
Or because the church has lost its power to deliver "justice" of their accord (read inquisition and the follow up torture and mutilation) it has also lost the will to persecute evil deeds?

We'll kick you out of our kiddy diddler club

Is quite the threat

Priest: I’d like to report child abuse because that’s the law. Church: You’re out! Go to hell, dickbag.

asdf

- Yeah presumably not other priests confessing to crimes involving abusing children.

It's funny, the post above this one on my feed is a bunch of people crowing about how you'd have to be a "tankie" to not support the new head of this organization.

I do think it's funny that Republicans are attacking the Pope for being "woke" and other nonsense, but are leaving out calling him a pedo. They do it for just about everyone else they call "woke".
Gee, I wonder why this one is different. Lol.
- From what I've heard he doesn't like Trump, and the tankie label is commonly and incorrectly equated with MAGA.

requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities

So they aren't blatantly evil at least. Confessions remaining private is the foundation of how they work. Either way, the church loses on this one.

Client-therapist privilege is foundational to how therapy works, but most states have laws saying a therapist must report admissions of abuse. I don't see doctors rallying against those laws.
Still blatantly evil. Telling someone your crimes in confidence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card.
requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities
The actual law isn't about confessions nor is it solely about CSAM. What Washington State has done is amend their mandatory report law by removing the exemption for Clergy.
"...has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040."
So yes, if a Priest (Catholic or not) hears a confession about CSAM they will be required to report. However if they hear about child *neglect *in a confession they have to report that as well.
Likely more meaningfully they ALSO now have to report those same things even if it isn't during a Confession. For example if they witness a parent smacking their kid around in the parking lot.
It's a necessary and correct change but it reaches a lot further than just the confessional.
- It would seem the church is looking at it from the opposite direction: it reaches all the way into the confessional. Anything outside it should be fair game, it's just the violation of the sacrament they object to - though I guess "go ~~confess~~ turn your self in" could count as "cause a report to be made".

Excommunicated vs Imprisoned. The choice is yours.

Imprisoned for what? I can't see how any jury could ever convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" or what not on someone saying something. Most prosecutors would likely say you'd need more evidence to even start building a case. Now if the person went to the police and reported being sexually assaulted and then the priest came forward it might go somewhere, but even then it may not go anywhere if there wasn't evidence. They have to prove someone performed an illegal act, which someone's word counts for shit. We could get 1,000,000 people to say pdiddy raped Selina Gomez, but without any other evidence, it shouldn't go anywhere with the way our justice system is set up.
Public Defender: "were you there?" Priest: "No"
- It is illegal to be complicit in child sex abuse.
  "Oh but the rapist must be comfortable in knowing their confession is scared knowledge"
  Rights never are allowed to harm others so gravely. Will this law flush it all out? Doubt it, but the duty to protect children has nothing to do with religion.
  I find it hard to believe this is controversial.
It's not yours, though. It is the choice of the state/federal prosecutors. And that's where this gets hairy.
Because the modern political order is dripping with pedophiles and rapists and accomplices to the same. They go about openly admitting to their crimes, while silencing their critics and avoiding any kind of punishment. Meanwhile, they unleash the fully-unchecked power of the police, in defiance of court order and legislative statute, to arrest and remove suspects without trial or even serious investigation.
A legal system operating in this capacity - one in which a donation to Trump's bitcoin fund matters more than the contents of a case file or a jury's verdict - cannot deliver anything resembling justice.
- Found the bot.

So it was unclear to me from the article if it simply made priests mandatory reporters or if it went further. My understanding is that mandatory reporters don't have to report past occurrences specifically. They only havecto report if it is currently happening or they suspect going to happen. If that is the case, it should be fine. Confession isn't about what you are going to do.

Priests are being made into mandatory reporters in Washington state. In Washington state, the mandatory reporting law appears to require reporting of all past events of abuse - it does not make reference to recent acts or imminent risk.
Sec. 2. (1) (a) When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025
It would be fine as long as it didn't apply to confession where the seal of confession applies to all information. Any other time the priest can and should use any information available to him properly, and that could include that sort of reporting. But the seal is absolute. And honestly it's protected by law, by the constitution and case law, so the Washington law is a hassle but completely toothless as it'll be struck down the moment any challenges to it get brought to the right courts. The authors had to have known it was unconstitutional, so it was basically just them doing this for show, and to antagonize Catholics.
- I agree it was for show. But question. You say the seal is absolute and protected by law and the constitution. That seems odd. Any source on that. I totally buy that case law has upheld it. But plenty of case law is beyond the actual written law. And since the constitution covered the separation of church and state, guaranteeing a specific part of a specific religion like confession seems out of place. Though it was common to all the religions they cared about, so they might have.

It means the law works.

If they truly believe in their faith, then they will serve their sentences faithfully, as a show if their devotion to their god.

Protecting child abuse should have a cost regardless of the motivation.

Pedophiles protecting pedophiles? Who would have thunk!

This isn’t really news. This has always been their stance. Priests will always urge the person to turn them self in for true repentance but they won’t ever break the confidentiality of confession.

So the new pope is off to a GREAT start, I guess 🤷

Well, glad I'm not catholic. Fuck these assholes

Let's do the thought experiment where this is about muslims instead of christians...
How does that play out?
- Call me crazy, but I don't think any religion should be molesting children or hiding it for others.

Holy fuck that’s awful

K, so, maybe an unpopular opinion, but given the current administration and local governments of some states... would you have the same reaction if Texas passed a law that priests have to report confessions about being trans, or gay?
- I would argue that being trans or gay isn’t actively harming anyone else just like being cis or straight isn’t. There’s no difference.

Bro it's breaking Catholic canon. They can change that shit that's what the Pope is for.

Maybe God would be chill with revealing child abuse even if it comes from confession. Just carve a little exception out there. Crazy that the clergy would rather protect pedophiles than reinterpreting some doctrine.

First off, adapting religion to secular laws is not how that works. There's the separation of church an state and the state should have no say in any religion. The country was based on religious freedom and escaping what the English kings were trying to do to Christianity in their realms (controlling religion).
But second you shouldn't take that way since you don't seem to grasp the role reconciliation has for Catholics and Orthodox (and others). It's a sacrament (or sacred mystery for Orthodox). That's dogma and the practice/form is in large part a matter of unchangeable doctrine. That kind of doctrine never gets changed, ever, and never has. It's an essential part of Catholics' beliefs. Parts of format are just regular teaching which can get changed, but that's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of practice (in this case canon law) guided by the foundatinal dogma and unchanging doctrine. The seal of confessing is so fundamental, so sacred that there have been numerous martyrs whose status comes from having been willing to die rather than break it. It's would be less grave to lie about believing in Christ to save your life than to break the seal (and most martyrs died for refusing to reject their faith when Christianity was prohibited).
- Oh, well my bad, I didn't realize mumbo jumbo God land gets a fucking wave off for protecting pedophiles because it's been that way for a long time.
  The state saying, "hey you can't hide behind the veil of religion to protect the people doing horrible things to children," is definitely something to argue in court regarding the first amendment.
  I'd argue it's not a restriction of the practice of religion to compell someone with knowledge of child abuse or similarly heinous crimes to share that with an authority (the state) that can take action to protect people.
  Setting all that aside. How is it not just wrong on some fundamental level to have the power to halt but still let abuse and pedophilia occur? It just seems wrong.
  Maybe that's why religious participation has been declining. Because they're busy telling you that it's sacred to protect pedophiles.
  Quick edit:
  That's dogma and the practice/form is in large part a matter of unchangeable doctrine
  Emphasis mine. Ok so you're saying that there is a possibility that dogma and the practice/form can change and has changed. So... Let's do that.

Any priest who complies with a new law requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities will be excommunicated.

Oh, are we going to play that game?

Why does the Catholic Church have to be so fucking evil?

It was founded on lies and for political reasons. Remember: Jesus was a Jew, a God fearing man in the vein of Abraham and Solomon, he never meant to create a new religion ("I didn't come to change the law, I came to enforce it") but Rome had to ride the Jesus wave or get trampled underneath it so they added their semi OG anthropomorphic polytheism to make it palatable to the European masses and bam, Catholicism was born.

Take away their tax exempt status and tax them as the huge profitable businesses that they are.

The legit response. And continue to arrest members of this self aggrandized gang for the crimes they commit.

Holy Shit!

The holiest of shits

There is no absolute confidentiality even with therapists and lawyers, they're both obligated to report anything said to them that they believe indicates you're planning to commit a crime or do harm to yourself or others. You can't just walk into your lawyers office and go "so I was molesting this eight year old" and expect them not to report that.
- In the US there isn't but as far as I can tell, over here in Germany lawyers and doctors are not permitted to report past crimes. The damage has been done and there is no harm to prevent anymore, as such keeping confidentiality has a higher priority than the state's desire to prosecute crimes.
  Even if these groups become aware of future planned crimes, they are not obligated to report anything if they genuinely attempt to prevent the person from comitting the crime (except for murder, manslaughter, kidnapping/taking hostages, genocide or war crimes).
  How does the nonexistant confidentiality of lawyers prevent them from deciding to stop being your lawyer and become a witness against you? I.e. you are accused of a crime, admit said crime to your lawyer, your lawyer then becomes a witness stating you admitted to the crime.

Just make a new tax called the "Molestation Enablers Tax" that all institutions will pay if they opt out of reporting.

Double win! Child abuse gets reported, and the catholic church gets less influence.

Priests for jail! So many of them should be there for their own pedophile anyway.

Wow literally threatening people who report child abuse…this is why people have no faith in religion

Confession is a sacrament of the Catholic Church - pretty much the definition of "religion" in Europe for two thousand years. It's clearly something the first amendment is intended to protect and this law is well over the line into unconstitutional.

You know what, you're right. We should definitely not protect children from a lifetime of trauma because of tradition. What was I thinking?
And this is clearly not something the first amendment is intended to protect. The first amendment is about government punishment for private speech and allowing religion to be practiced. This doesn't stop the religion from being practiced, it just says priests have a choice between a temporary time out from the church and a temporary time out from society if they choose to protect child abusers. And even if it were about this, we ALREADY have laws compelling people to report crimes. You think because it is a priest they get a special pass that lawyers, therapists, and doctors don't get?
That catholics should practice confession is a religious belief. But the confidentiality part is from canon law - i.e. in terminology of most other organisations, it is a policy. It is a long-standing policy to punish priests for breaking it, dating back to at least the 12th century, but nonetheless the confidentiality is only a policy within a religious organisation, and not a religious belief.
Many organisations punish individuals who break their policy. But if an organisation has a policy, and insist that it be followed even when following it is contrary to the law, and would do immense harm to vulnerable individuals, then I think it is fair to call that organisation evil - and to hold them culpable for harm resulting from that policy.
Even if the confidentiality itself was a core part of the religious belief itself, religious freedom does not generally extend to violating the rights of others, even if the religion demands it. Engaging in violent jihad, for example, is not a protected right even in places where religious freedom cannot be limited, even if the person adheres to a sect that requires it.
Honestly I agree with you here. Either confessions are protected from being used as evidence or they aren't there cannot be specific carve outs for this even for child abuse. Its all or nothing here.
- So, all. Obviously. Why should there be any protection for admitting your crimes because a special club you're part of has a tradition of keeping secrets?