What First Amendment Freedom of Religion right would be violated? The right to abuse minors, or the right to cover it up.... too mean? That's an easy shot to take, and it's partly a mean joke and partly an angry response.

As an outsider, this has to be one of the more frustrating thing about Catholicism. Exceptions exist to attorney-privileges if the client has the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud. Exceptions exist for doctors if the patient is considered a harm to themselves or others. Lawyers and Doctors can and do face consequences for not breaking confidence when required. Should there be exceptions and requirements for priests? I think definitely.

The problems about confidentiality you bring up are easily solved by many ways: hidden mirrors, log book, hidden camera, etc. You'd think at some point Catholics would want transparency and an ability to absolve themselves of covering things up.

Solving confidentiality also solves "Prove it." The person committing the crime could also admit that they confessed it, and the priests did nothing.

What kinds of things would you want an Imam to divulge in the Muslim equivalent of confession?

Quote:

---

Based on these, I believe such legislation is nothing more than a blatant, but ineffective, attack on Catholicism.

---

Good. This isn't an attack on Catholicism. This is an attack on priests, abusers, and those that covered it up. Based on recent, and ancient history, they deserve to be attacked.

The only confessions I've ever seen are in TV and movies. The priest always seems to know the confessor by voice, sins, and shape of body. It doesn't look that confidential anyways. Is it more confidential in real life?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What First Amendment Freedom of Religion right would be violated? The right to abuse minors, or the right to cover it up.... too mean? That's an easy shot to take, and it's partly a mean joke and partly an angry response.

---

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Confessions for Catholics are confidential and a matter of worship. Forcing them to not be confidential would prohibit the free exercise.

The law is a solution looking for a problem. Is it known that pedophiles confess their abuse of children to priests? I doubt it. If by some chance it happens, make the absolution dependent on confessing to the police instead of saying 57 Hail Mary's or whatever.

---

Quote:

---

In addition, most Priests will tell you that they literally do not remember most confessions after they are heard. They may hear hundreds of confessions on a monthly, and sometimes weekly basis. They don't "take notes".

You would have to talk to an actual Priest to determine how he would respond to a confession of some heinous act such as abuse of a child. I suspect that most will try to counsel the penitent to turn themselves in and seek help.

---

I like to think they'd be able to remember something heinous.
Reading a little bit more about this outside the thread priests face the choice between allowing a heinous act to be committed and excommunication for breaking the seal. I would think you'd want to empower your priests to find a better third option.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

In addition, most Priests will tell you that they literally do not remember most confessions after they are heard. They may hear hundreds of confessions on a monthly, and sometimes weekly basis. They don't "take notes".

You would have to talk to an actual Priest to determine how he would respond to a confession of some heinous act such as abuse of a child. I suspect that most will try to counsel the penitent to turn themselves in and seek help.

---

I like to think they'd be able to remember something heinous.
Reading a little bit more about this outside the thread priests face the choice between allowing a heinous act to be committed and excommunication for breaking the seal. I would think you'd want to empower your priests to find a better third option.

---

Sure, they may remember that someone had confessed something so heinous, but who was it? when?

You might be surprised at the creativity of some priests. Depending upon the priest's skill as a counselor, they could convince the penitent to turn themselves in. There are so many different "what ifs" that are so highly variable that trying to legislate the Priest in the confessional is a lost cause that serves no other purpose than to attack Catholicism.

It may be a feel good, "something's gotta be done" action, but the only effect it would have would be to prevent people from confessing such an act to a priest at all, which removes an opportunity for them to seek confidential counseling to possibly prevent future acts and perhaps even give an opportunity for justice to be served.

If Joe Pedophile is feeling guilty for his acts and wants to confess to a Priest, but he believes that the Priest will turn him in, Mr. Pedophile will refrain from such a one-on-one confession.

Bottom line, the legislation, even if passed, would in the end do more harm than good.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Based on these, I believe such legislation is nothing more than a blatant, but ineffective, attack on Catholicism.

---

Maybe semantics. . . but I would say it is an attempt to defend children. And from your perspective, a consequence of this attempted defense of children is a violation of religious liberties of Catholics.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Based on these, I believe such legislation is nothing more than a blatant, but ineffective, attack on Catholicism.

---

Maybe semantics. . . but I would say it is an attempt to defend children. And from your perspective, a consequence of this attempted defense of children is a violation of religious liberties of Catholics.

---

As is so common with knee jerk reactions, it is a futile effort which will do more harm than good.

No children will be protected, and those who prey on them will be less likely to get help.

On top of that, it is a violation of religious liberty. That being the attempt to eliminate the sanctity of the confessional.

Not a Catholic so bear with me. Is the confessional supposed to be secret? I get that it's confidential, but I never thought the priests didn't know who the confesser was. Doesn't that make the confesser less accountable if it's anonymous? Not to be flippant, but in that case it seems like a 1-800-Confession number would work just as well.

In regards to breaking confidentiality, I don't think it would do much good. It would certainly do no good at all if the confessions are anonymous. I also don't think there is a huge problem with the Church protecting lay pedophiles. If a pedophile feels guilty enough to confess to a priest, then IMHO the priest could probably use that to make the person surrender themselves to justice. As was said above, I'd be surprised if priests are recommend Hail Marys or a day of fasting for absolution from such serious crimes.

The problem seems to be clergy predation, and I don't see how mandatory reporting fixes that problem. If an insular club is already covering up crimes from the rest of the Church, then they are not going to have any trouble covering up crimes from the state.

Reconciliation CAN be secret/anonymous, but it is not required. It is the decision of the penitent.

It varies by Parish, but in most Parishes the penitent can choose either "face-to-face" reconciliation, or behind a screen.

Depending upon the Priest and his relationship with the penitent, the amount of dialog between the Priest and Penitent can be very minimal, or very extensive.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Based on these, I believe such legislation is nothing more than a blatant, but ineffective, attack on Catholicism.

---

Maybe semantics. . . but I would say it is an attempt to defend children. And from your perspective, a consequence of this attempted defense of children is a violation of religious liberties of Catholics.

---

As is so common with knee jerk reactions, it is a futile effort which will do more harm than good.

No children will be protected, and those who prey on them will be less likely to get help.

On top of that, it is a violation of religious liberty. That being the attempt to eliminate the sanctity of the confessional.

---

I'm not comfortable with forcing priests to divulge what they hear in the confessional. But, I also don't know if this is a limitless right. Is there a situation whereby a priest could be legally negligent by not acting on something they hear in a confession? I don't know the answer, but I see both sides.

Also, given the volume of sexual abuse and cover up, I don't think its at all correct to see these laws as 'knee jerk'. Protecting the rights of citizens (especially children) is the job of the state. A religious organization that repeatedly and knowingly hides sexual abuse of children and protects its predators should be the concern of the state. That doesn't mean that I agree with this law. I'd rather see stiffer penalties for the priests and for the organizations that are complicit in these acts.

Thanks for the info. It just seems to me that anonymous confession wouldn't accomplish much, but maybe I spend too much time on the anonymous internet

The problem is not in the confessional. Legislation compelling priests to violate the seal of the confessional would be absolutely ineffective for several reasons.

1) the guilty parties will be unlikely to confess if they think they'll be reported
2) anonymity within the confessional - the priest may hear a "reportable" crime, but they usually won't know who the person is.
3) people lie
4) it would be impossible to prove that a priest knew and didn't report
5) priests would rather go to jail than be excommunicated.

already the law in Texas for priests to report abuse.

But how would you even go about forcing the priest to do it? It assumes that the person confessed the name of the person they molested.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

The problem is not in the confessional. Legislation compelling priests to violate the seal of the confessional would be absolutely ineffective for several reasons.

1) the guilty parties will be unlikely to confess if they think they'll be reported
2) anonymity within the confessional - the priest may hear a "reportable" crime, but they usually won't know who the person is.
3) people lie
4) it would be impossible to prove that a priest knew and didn't report
5) priests would rather go to jail than be excommunicated.

---

Approaching this as an outsider. I've got rebuttals to your reasons:
1)Guilty parties aren't likely to confess now out of guilt/shame. Right now if someone confesses nothing happens. To society at large confessing a sin that a priest doesn't report and not confessing are the same thing.
2)Anonymity is easily solvable if you want it to be. You're just choosing anonymity over protection
3)People lie to everyone, especially cops. but cops still investigate those lies
4) If you solve 2) this is provable. And a convicted abuser can tell the cops they confessed to a priest
4)A priest would choose allowing a terrible act to be committed and to go to jail for not breaking the seal over being excommunicated and preventing that act? I made this point earlier, but what a terrible position to put priests in: the only way to prevent a terrible act is to be excommunicated. There's probably an even larger morality discussion about this topic: Is it morally right for a priest to follow the laws of his religion and do nothing about someone committing a terrible act? Or should they choose their duty to mankind over the rules of their religion?

Quad Dog said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

The problem is not in the confessional. Legislation compelling priests to violate the seal of the confessional would be absolutely ineffective for several reasons.

1) the guilty parties will be unlikely to confess if they think they'll be reported
2) anonymity within the confessional - the priest may hear a "reportable" crime, but they usually won't know who the person is.
3) people lie
4) it would be impossible to prove that a priest knew and didn't report
5) priests would rather go to jail than be excommunicated.

---

Approaching this as an outsider. I've got rebuttals to your reasons:
1)Guilty parties aren't likely to confess now out of guilt/shame. Right now if someone confesses nothing happens. To society at large confessing a sin that a priest doesn't report and not confessing are the same thing.
2)Anonymity is easily solvable if you want it to be. You're just choosing anonymity over protection
3)People lie to everyone, especially cops. but cops still investigate those lies
4) If you solve 2) this is provable. And a convicted abuser can tell the cops they confessed to a priest
4)A priest would choose allowing a terrible act to be committed and to go to jail for not breaking the seal over being excommunicated and preventing that act? I made this point earlier, but what a terrible position to put priests in: the only way to prevent a terrible act is to be excommunicated. There's probably an even larger morality discussion about this topic: Is it morally right for a priest to follow the laws of his religion and do nothing about someone committing a terrible act? Or should they choose their duty to mankind over the rules of their religion?

---

1) you obviously have no understanding of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not a confession of lawbreaking, but a confession of sins. There are various levels of detail which may be provided. What happens now if it is a valid confession, is the person is absolved / forgiven for the sin. There may still be some action that is required as a level of "restitution". This legislation is not about confessing "to society at large".

2) I am not sure what you are proposing with regard to eliminating anonymity. Do you really think government should setup some bureaucratic requirements for how the Sacrament of Reconciliation is done in the Catholic Church? Require that they be recorded and logged? If so, that has to be in the top 10 of most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard.

3) are you implying that the Priest and by extension, the Catholic Church should become investigators?

4) People don't confess what they are going to do. They confess what they have done. In which case, the priest isn't "allowing" anything to be done. It has already happened. Forcing them to report won't "prevent" anything.

A good priest will definitely choose his duty to God over any duty to "mankind". In truth, his service to God IS service to humanity.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

The problem is not in the confessional. Legislation compelling priests to violate the seal of the confessional would be absolutely ineffective for several reasons.

1) the guilty parties will be unlikely to confess if they think they'll be reported
2) anonymity within the confessional - the priest may hear a "reportable" crime, but they usually won't know who the person is.
3) people lie
4) it would be impossible to prove that a priest knew and didn't report
5) priests would rather go to jail than be excommunicated.

---

Approaching this as an outsider. I've got rebuttals to your reasons:
1)Guilty parties aren't likely to confess now out of guilt/shame. Right now if someone confesses nothing happens. To society at large confessing a sin that a priest doesn't report and not confessing are the same thing.
2)Anonymity is easily solvable if you want it to be. You're just choosing anonymity over protection
3)People lie to everyone, especially cops. but cops still investigate those lies
4) If you solve 2) this is provable. And a convicted abuser can tell the cops they confessed to a priest
4)A priest would choose allowing a terrible act to be committed and to go to jail for not breaking the seal over being excommunicated and preventing that act? I made this point earlier, but what a terrible position to put priests in: the only way to prevent a terrible act is to be excommunicated. There's probably an even larger morality discussion about this topic: Is it morally right for a priest to follow the laws of his religion and do nothing about someone committing a terrible act? Or should they choose their duty to mankind over the rules of their religion?

---

1) you obviously have no understanding of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not a confession of lawbreaking, but a confession of sins. There are various levels of detail which may be provided. What happens now if it is a valid confession, is the person is absolved / forgiven for the sin. There may still be some action that is required as a level of "restitution". This legislation is not about confessing "to society at large".

2) I am not sure what you are proposing with regard to eliminating anonymity. Do you really think government should setup some bureaucratic requirements for how the Sacrament of Reconciliation is done in the Catholic Church? Require that they be recorded and logged? If so, that has to be in the top 10 of most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard.

3) are you implying that the Priest and by extension, the Catholic Church should become investigators?

4) People don't confess what they are going to do. They confess what they have done. In which case, the priest isn't "allowing" anything to be done. It has already happened. Forcing them to report won't "prevent" anything.

A good priest will definitely choose his duty to God over any duty to "mankind". In truth, his service to God IS service to humanity.

---

1)You're right. And I've learned some today. The sins we are talking about are ones that break laws. The Government should have not role in sins that don't break laws.
2)Yup, I sure am. It will protect priests that hear terrible things,a nd provide accountability. Reading more history of confession outside this thread it looks like it has gone through many forms through the centuries. I've read it was a public thing until 1200s. It's changed before, it can change again.
3)No, they've proven to be terrible at policing and investigating themselves. They report things to the police, and let the police sort the lies from truth.
4)If they are confessing to something in the past, they can be charged with those past crimes. If they are confessing to something in the past, it's highly likely they are going to do it again, probably repeatedly.

The thought of a priest choosing the rules of confession (duty to God) over reporting a repeat sex offender (duty to mankind) makes me sick. And probably turns me away from organized religion more than anything else.

I don't know what you mean by "protects priests who hear terrible things"

You act as if they are culpable for the actions of others.

Which would you prefer:
1) guilty person confesses to a trained counselor (Priest) who may be able to convince the person to seek help and submit himself to the justice system voluntarily

or

2) guilty person feels guilt, but is not willing to talk to anyone about it for fear of being turned in.

All this type of legislation will do is reduce or eliminate the opportunities for 1).

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

I don't know what you mean by "protects priests who hear terrible things"

You act as if they are culpable for the actions of others.

Which would you prefer:
1) guilty person confesses to a trained counselor (Priest) who may be able to convince the person to seek help and submit himself to the justice system voluntarily

or

2) guilty person feels guilt, but is not willing to talk to anyone about it for fear of being turned in.

All this type of legislation will do is reduce or eliminate the opportunities for 1).

---

If a priest heard a confession about a terrible action they are put in a position to choose between two bad options: not report it, let a criminal go unpunished, perhaps let a victim be hurt again, and face criminal punishments; or report them and be excommunicated. They need to be empowered to find a better option and be protected from being in that position.
In my opinion, and the legislation you are talking about, if a priest knows about a repeat offender and does not report them, then yes they are culpable for the actions of others.

It might reduce the number of criminal confessions to priests. But again, a crime not reported by a priest and a crime not confessed to a priest is the same thing to the law and non Catholics. So no loss or gain. Besides what's been going on so far hasn't been working, but go ahead keep doing it.

What kind of training and experience does a priest get in psychiatry or law or other fields to be able to deal with these types of extreme confessions? From movies and TV it seams like something the new guy would get stuck doing.

Quad Dog said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

I don't know what you mean by "protects priests who hear terrible things"

You act as if they are culpable for the actions of others.

Which would you prefer:
1) guilty person confesses to a trained counselor (Priest) who may be able to convince the person to seek help and submit himself to the justice system voluntarily

or

2) guilty person feels guilt, but is not willing to talk to anyone about it for fear of being turned in.

All this type of legislation will do is reduce or eliminate the opportunities for 1).

---

If a priest heard a confession about a terrible action they are put in a position to choose between two bad options: not report it, let a criminal go unpunished, perhaps let a victim be hurt again, and face criminal punishments; or report them and be excommunicated. They need to be empowered to find a better option and be protected from being in that position.
In my opinion, and the legislation you are talking about, if a priest knows about a repeat offender and does not report them, then yes they are culpable for the actions of others.

It might reduce the number of criminal confessions to priests. But again, a crime not reported by a priest and a crime not confessed to a priest is the same thing to the law and non Catholics. So no loss or gain. Besides what's been going on so far hasn't been working, but go ahead keep doing it.

---

This is a bad path to go down, period. Is there anyone that the state shouldn't be able to co-opt or turn into an informant? What limitations would you put on this? What if someone confesses not supporting their kid's transition? Or spanking them? Or teaching them that abortion is wrong? Or that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Okay, when a priest is in a confessional they'll spend an hour or more hearing confessions, and you want them to remember who exactly it was and what exactly they said (assuming they gave any details, I'll get to that in a minute)?

I usually go to a different parish because I'm good friends with my priest and I find it awkward when he is my confessor. This means that if I were to confess something illegal the priest wouldn't know who I was and would have no way of reporting me.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/penance/examinations-of-conscience.cfm

This is a form of an examination of conscience, and when you go into the confessional a priest doesn't need to nor do they want to hear the details of your sins. They want number and kind, so in the case of molestation it would be the 6th commandment x number of times and it would be up to the penitent as to whether they give anymore detail than that.

And the likelihood of this being divulged, let alone details of any crime, would be greatly reduced if people knew the priest had to report what they heard.

I'm not sure if this is an attempt to clean up the clergy of the Catholic Church or if it's to find pedophilic laypeople, but 1) don't you think either the priests that are/were predators would go to someone they knew was hiding the same secret for Reconciliation or they wouldn't confess to it at all? 2) have they not looked at any of the reports that have come out lately showing the incidence of sexual assault since the Bishop's Conference in Dallas in ~2001 has significantly decreased and what we're dealing with now is uncovering abusers/abuses that happened many years ago. I'm not excusing the crimes, or diminishing what the abused suffered, but the current problem is largely dealing with previous transgressions.

All of this to say the Catholic Church isn't perfect, nor are it's leaders, but California needs to find a different way to investigate sexual abuse crimes.

AstroAg17 said:

---

This isn't a question of what things should be subject mandatory reporting. It's a question of who should be subject to mandatory reporting. You're attempting to claim it's a slippery slope, but this is the end of the slope if everyone is subject to mandatory reporting. There's nowhere else to go.

What must be reported is an independent topic.

---

He went from, 'its for the children' to 'criminal action' pretty quickly. I didn't make the slope slippery, reality did because that's how it functions. We also live in a world where courts are taking kids whose parents don't support transitioning in Canada. So I ask, if you compel reporting for repeat child molestation, why stop? Aren't there other bad crimes with habitual offenders that we could stop, like domestic abuse or neglect or drug usage?

Just a thought but if the organization of the church hadn't sought to cover the whole thing up and find ways for the prolific number of offenders to escape justice this would be a nonissue.

And I really hate to put a damper on those die hard Catholics on here but Jesus was very clear in his parables that if we commit a sin against someone we are to submit ourselves to justice here on this earth as part of our attempt to atone for the sin we committed.

The church by trying to use religion as a shield to elude justice on earth has been committing the worst kind of blasphemy. No sympathy here.

Zero.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

And I really hate to put a damper on those die hard Catholics on here but Jesus was very clear in his parables that if we commit a sin against someone we are to submit ourselves to justice here on this earth as part of our attempt to atone for the sin we committed.

---

Which parables?

Quote:

---

The church by trying to use religion as a shield to elude justice on earth has been committing the worst kind of blasphemy. No sympathy here.

---

literally no one is advocating for this. Stupid comment.

---

1) Matthew 22:17-21
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Csar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Csar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Csar the things which are Csar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Here Jesus directly states that there is an earthly law and a heavenly law. You should obey the earthly law and the heavenly law. Jesus understood that in order to have a functional society you had to have both. And that both needed to be followed.

Romans 13 enumerates that the laws of men should be obeyed because they are there to prevent evil works. Specifically 1-6.

But the best examples of this Jesus gives us is in Matthew 5:40-41

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Verse 40- enumerates that if you have wronged someone then in order to fully repent you are required to not only submit to to the law to make recompense and repent you must do everything your conscience demands in order to make it right- if earthly law demands you recompense with your coat, do not ONLY offer your coat, offer up your cloak also.

Some people seem to think asking for repentance from God is good enough. It is not. Submitting yourself to punishment, recompense, and earthly justice is also required as evidenced in not only this but the next verse.

There was a common practice the Romans used in which they conscripted locals to guide or be messengers for official Roman purposes. Locals detested this practice and Romans were forbidden from requiring the locals they conscripted to go more than a Roman mile. The locals detested and hated this practice and tried to find every excuse to avoid it. Here Jesus is saying that not only should you submit yourself to earthly law but you should go above and beyond your duties to submit to earthly law.

2) The church has been doing this regarding the child abuse cases since they first happened. If you want to use your religion as a means to allow criminals to continue to commit crimes or seek to use your religion as a shield to protect offenders (illegal aliens, child molesters, rapists) then your religion deserves to be heavily regulated and slapped on the wrist. Period.

My intention was not to say y'all were advocating for child molestation. What I was saying was that if you Don't like it the government feeling the need to get entangled in religious affairs Then maybe don't allow child molestors to operate freely in your ranks. This goes for fundamentalist Mormons, cults, AND the Catholic Church.

LOL I would like to see how many of y'all on here would advocate for letting fundamentalist Mormons practice outright polygamy again because not allowing them to do so violates their first amendment right to practice religion.....or Muslims to operate sharia courts outside the bounds of our civil courts....neither of those are allowed because the practice is usually used to allow individuals to prey upon vulnerable individuals- child brides, honor killings, abhorrent punishment for Muslim women, etc....

Well now the Catholic Church is using secret confessionals and the excuse of secret religious repentance to allow priests to become repeat offenders and avoid justice.... tomato tomahto

The fact that the Catholic Church leadership refuses to come clean and fix this problem and that church members are not banging down the doors of the Vatican to correct obviously unchristian, immoral, and EVIL practices led to the government getting involved. The church has had years to Get their house in order and has refused to do it.

So like I said zero sympathy. There are plenty of other religions who have taken hits to their 1st amendment rights because of practices the US government and society deem unseemly and immoral. The church had plenty of chances and operated with impunity enabling this sick and twisted behavior and now we as a society are sick of it.

The human conscience belongs not to Caesar

Also, in the United States, Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Constitution.

You just quoted scripture, not one of those are a parable.

No one is advocating criminals getting off without due punishment. You and the California government don't seem to understand Reconciliation doesn't happen the way you see in movies.

The reason you don't see a large portion of the laity beating down the doors of the Vatican is because the bishops of the United States have worked diligently since the scandal became public to make sure it doesn't happen again. The facts state the incidences have significantly decreased since the early 2000's. Is one sexual abuse too many? Without question, YES! But I don't see anyone calling for the Boy Scouts to be disbanded or public schools to be burned down for their transgressions.

And yes, I get it, there have been EVIL people commit and cover up unspeakable crimes within the Church, but again, those crimes belong to those people not the Church. It's sad they used their religious positions to take advantage of people, and I sincerely hope every last one of them are eradicated from the Church.

Neither of those quotes of Christ has anything to do with submitting ourselves to justice. And neither of them are parables. That's just bad, and you should feel bad. I mean, simply terrible.

And the church is not using "secret confessionals" to allow priests to be repeat offenders. This is a stupid, stupid argument.