Science Denier said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

---

How can a priest provide evidence of a confession if he doesn't know who is confessing?

Maybe all dioceses in Washington St should just ban all face to face confessions to remove all doubt.

---

I guess he says something along the lines of "some guy came into confession and confessed to raping a 4 year old. I don't know who it was because identity is sealed"

I bet reports made due to information learned through the sacrament of Penance and convictions for lack of the former will be like convictions for Posse Commitatis.

Quote:

---

How can a priest provide evidence of a confession if he doesn't know who is confessing?

---

In that situation, there is no reporting requirement unless he knows who the child is.

Even if he doesn't have the molesting criminal's name, couldn't he report it with whatever details the asshat gave him. Especially if he gives a name for the innocent child.

Why stop at child abuse? If you're going to be consistent, we should make them report every crime they hear.

If he has the name of a child, he must report.

Remember, the purpose of the law is to protect children, not to catch bad guys. That's an added bonus.

The reporting allows protective services to intervene and help the child. So if a nane is given by anonymous person, cps can confine that child.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Even if he doesn't have the molesting criminal's name, couldn't he report it with whatever details the asshat gave him. Especially if he gives a name for the innocent child.

---

Report

I heard 14 confessions today. One reported ____crime. I think he was like 5th, or maybe 10th in line but can't be sure. Since confessions are behind a barrier where I can't see the other person , I have no idea who it was.

Do you realize how dumb this is?

Captain Pablo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

---

How can a priest provide evidence of a confession if he doesn't know who is confessing?

Maybe all dioceses in Washington St should just ban all face to face confessions to remove all doubt.

---

I guess he says something along the lines of "some guy came into confession and confessed to raping a 4 year old. I don't know who it was because identity is sealed"

---

It's got nothing to do with being sealed. The priest is behind a barrier and literally can't see who is confessing.

Science Denier said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

---

How can a priest provide evidence of a confession if he doesn't know who is confessing?

Maybe all dioceses in Washington St should just ban all face to face confessions to remove all doubt.

---

I guess he says something along the lines of "some guy came into confession and confessed to raping a 4 year old. I don't know who it was because identity is sealed"

---

It's got nothing to do with being sealed. The priest is behind a barrier and literally can't see who is confessing.

---

That was supposed to say "concealed"

And I'm not sure what the priest is supposed to do when the identity is unknown. BMX addressed it above and i assume he is correct

I assume if there is barrier, but the priest knows who it is because he either recognizes the voice to a certainty, or catches a glimpse, the priest must report it

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If one feels badly enough about abusing a child they need to confess to a priest, they should be equally moved enough to confess to the police.

To argue anything other than that is frankly bizarre.

---

you are exactly right

---

Not justifying any child abuse but neither of your statements confirm you understand the purpose of confession.

I thought if the guy comes on a regular schedule, cops can arrest them then because reporting the schedule doesn't release a name.

And thank you to everyone for all the prayers as my life seriously changes soon.

This reminds me of the time Hunter Bidens therapist warned him that she would have to report his sexual abuse of his niece. Hunter then threatened to kill himself.

Yes, this happened.

I guess attorney/client privledge is no longer a good thing if it protects a certain type of criminal.

Well, unless you are Trump and the Feds just raid your attorney's place. That's OK.

Confidentially in a confessional has been around a long time.

Quote:

---

It's got nothing to do with being sealed. The priest is behind a barrier and literally can't see who is confessing.

---

This is not as common as it was in the past. The church encourages face-to-face confessions.

Quote:

---

guess attorney/client privledge is no longer a good thing if it protects a certain type of criminal.

---

An attorney is also a mandatory reporter in Texas. (Everyone is)

If you're an attorney, and your client Herbert tells you he's molesting Chris, you were obligated to make a report that Chris is being molested.

So these laws just make people clam up, which is not a positive in child abuse.

That's my view as well.

Personally, I think this law is unconstitutional as it applies to clergy. But as others have said, it's unlikely to ever be challenged because they aren't out there arresting priests for not reporting.

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's my view as well.

Personally, I think this law is unconstitutional as it applies to clergy. But as others have said, it's unlikely to ever be challenged because they aren't out there arresting priests for not reporting.

---

This is Washington state...give it time.

No kidding. As a policy standpoint, I always look at "who is proposing this".

Seeing the history of the Washington governor, it's clear his side is not the side I ever want to be on

BMX Bandit said:

---

That's my view as well.

Personally, I think this law is unconstitutional as it applies to clergy. But as others have said, it's unlikely to ever be challenged because they aren't out there arresting priests for not reporting.

---

Legal question:

Could a Catholic challenge the law based on the fact that they are afraid to make confession due to this law? Technically, they'd be harmed by not feeling able to do it...

I guess in theory they could try, but by filing such a case, they'd be admitting they are a molestor. Defeats the purpose doesn't it?

If they aren't a molestor, then they have no harm so no claim.

The way that exception is specific to the clergy would seem to present a problem. But the solution for Washington may be to just go the way of Texas and expand it to all peoples and any privileges (attorney, clergy or otherwise) can be set side.

It is interesting to note that the laws do not prevent someone from confessing to their priest / clergy. So they can still freely exercise from a parishioner perspective.

Question from a purely first amendment perspective would be, as pointed out by others earlier in the thread, whether the clergy has a unique place in not reporting if their religion requires the confession to be secret and invalidating that essentially results in the clergy being in violation of their religious tenements.

For better or worse, allowing for anonymous confession would overcome the issue for the priest but would undermine the purpose of the law, but I think that would be acceptable from a religious and legal perspective.

No easy answers. But if someone wants to confess to a CRIME, then they should lose any concept of privilege. May be worth a separate discussion regarding attorney-client privilege as many folk who have never dealt with the issue think it works like Matlock which is not how it works in real-life.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

guess attorney/client privledge is no longer a good thing if it protects a certain type of criminal.

---

An attorney is also a mandatory reporter in Texas. (Everyone is)

If you're an attorney, and your client Herbert tells you he's molesting Chris, you were obligated to make a report that Chris is being molested.

---

When you start as legal representation for a client, you don't turn over conversations to police.

Nothing you posted changes the truth of what I wrote regarding mandatory reporting laws

BMX Bandit said:

---

Nothing you posted changes the truth of what I wrote regarding mandatory reporting laws

---

Some random dude comes up to a lawyer, yes he has to report.

When a random dude comes up to a lawyer and he becomes the lawyer's client, attorney/client confidentiality gives conversations protection.

If you read my post, I specifically cited attorney/client confidentiality.

When some random guy comes up to a priest, that's the same as what you are referring.

When some random guy comes to a confessional, that is the situation that is what is similar to what I am referring to. God/repentant privledge should be as protected as attorney/client privilege.

You are incorrect about what Texas law requires for any attorney to report.

261.101(c) of the family code specifically says the reporting duty is without exception to any privilege. That includes attorney-client, clergy etc.

The difference is that at trial, you can't use information that wouid be protected by attorney client privilege as evidence. 261.202. You can use information that would otherwise protected by other privileges.


So to FIFY:

When a random dude comes up to a lawyer and he becomes the lawyer's client, attorney/client confidentiality gives conversations protection, but the attorney still has is required to report child abuse as set forth on chapter 261 of the family code

BMX Bandit said:

---

You are incorrect about what Texas law requires for any attorney to report.

261.101(c) of the family code specifically says the reporting duty is without exception to any privilege. That includes attorney-client, clergy etc.

The difference is that at trial, you can't use information that wouid be protected by attorney client privilege as evidence. 261.202. You can use information that would otherwise protected by other privileges.


So to FIFY:

When a random dude comes up to a lawyer and he becomes the lawyer's client, attorney/client confidentiality gives conversations protection, but the attorney still has is required to report child abuse as set forth on chapter 261 of the family code

---

LMAO. Thought it was clear we were talking about conversations.

Well, I agree that if a guy brings a kid to a confessional and assaults him in front of the priest, then, yea. The priest should report that.

But conversations should be confidential.

We are taking about conversations.
No one said anything about assaulting someine in the confessional.


In Texas, attorneys and priests cannot get out of the mandatory reporting requirements because of privilege. That is the law in this state regardless of what you or I think it should be.

BMX Bandit said:

---

We are taking about conversations.
No one said anything about assaulting someine in the confessional.


In Texas, attorneys and priests cannot get out of the mandatory reporting requirements because of privilege. That is the law in this state regardless of what you or I think it should be.

---

According to the interweb,

Quote:

---

Attorney-client privilege is a legal rule that protects the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and their client especially those made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice.

---

According to the actual law:

Quote:

---

c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, an employee or member of a board that licenses or certifies a professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

---

https://www.smu.edu/ola/briefingpapers/dutytoreportsuspectedchildabuseinthestateoftexas

The way I read the SMU summary is that are not only lawyers required to report but as they are licensed by the State of Texas then they would be subject to the report within 48 hours rule, no?

flown-the-coop said:

---

https://www.smu.edu/ola/briefingpapers/dutytoreportsuspectedchildabuseinthestateoftexas

The way I read the SMU summary is that are not only lawyers required to report but as they are licensed by the State of Texas then they would be subject to the report within 48 hours rule, no?

---

They are required to report in general, but when the individual is talking as a client when his discussions are under attorney/client privilege about an incident that already happened and the client is looking for advice. Unless there is knowledge of a future crime that is likely to be committed.

Attorneys are not "professionals" under 261.101(b), so don't fall in the 48 hour rule.




For Big Rob: Attorneys are not "professionals"

RAB91 said:

---

Why stop at child abuse? If you're going to be consistent, we should make them report every crime they hear.

---

But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Good! Protecting a child from sexual abuse is more important than confessions your sins to some other person.

---

If you really think this is about sexual abuse, you're nuts. That's typical government fluffy language to make it seem like a good thing.