How is that any different from saying (x person) may be approached and able to give help so (y crime) shouldn't have to be reported to give them incentive for doing so? That's a pretty broadly applying statement.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Report Child Abuse? You're a Priest? Then No need to Bother
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
You're taking the abuse as a given.
An environment where abuse will not be tolerated will help to discourage abuse from happening in the first place, while an environment where abuse will be met with silence and where abusers will be shielded will tend to encourage abuse.
Part of what's going on with the law is inculcation: with mandatory reporting, the message is "abuse of the most vulnerable members of our flock is so heinous that stopping it is even more important than the seal of confession." The message of a priestly exception is "child abuse is a sin on par with missing Mass or consensual sex out of wedlock."
I think for many their dislikes will not let them even hear the point I have had to make three of four times already.
I am saying perpetrators would not go for any confessional counseling if they knew they could be reported. A priest may help the individual to do the right things to straighten his life out. People need someone they can talk to.
Priests are not perfect and may sometimes give bad advice. But all things considered, confessional privacy, is a good thing for the law to respect.
You don't think in the vast majority of cases, priests will give good advice to a troubled person. Then we disagree. A troubled person often needs someone to talk to.
I am saying there would be no approach in the first place without confidentiality! The discussion is often way better than nothing at all. Troubled people are often helped by talk which wouldn't occur without confidentiality.
Yes. It is already after the fact! Of course it is then a given.
How does any of that refute my main point:
I am saying perpetrators would not go for any confessional counseling if they knew they could be reported. A priest may help the individual to do the right things to straighten his life out. People need someone they can talk to.
Actually, you don't seem to be hearing what I'm saying.
Psychiatrists, doctors, and lawyers are all relied on as counsellors, too. The perpetrator of a crime might get benefit from talking to any of them. When we've decided as a society that this potential benefit is outweighed by the benefit of mandatory reporting, why make a special exception for one type of "counsellor" and not the others? Even lawyers can violate their clients' confidentiality under certain conditions.
When it comes to counselling, a priest is often an amateur. Knowing church doctrine doesn't necessarily mean that one knows how to help a criminal stop victimizing people.
Even a trained, experienced psychiatrist or psychologist has a network of other professionals to lean on an collaborate with. I don't think it's reasonable to expect one person with minimal training to do a better job than a whole team of trained, experienced people.
I get that's what you're saying. But that doesn't change that I am opposed to using confidentiality to harbor criminals, which is why crimes or suspected crimes like child abuse, rape, domestic abuse, murder, etc must be reported by actual counselors, and should be reported by anyone attempting to fill that role as well.
Just because someone won't approach someone for help unless they can also evade the law doesn't mean I approve of allowing them to evade the law to find someone to approach. And we understand that in terms of murder and domestic abuse, child abuse should be no different.
Well, perhaps there should be allowance for confidential psychiatric services too. That may be good for society.
Remember my point. A person would not go to this team of professionals in the first place if he knew he would get reported. A priest may be his only safe haven to have a talk that might help his future.
What I'm hearing then is that you think it is better for society that he talks to no one as opposed to talking with his priest.
The policy of the seal of confession was put in place long before any specific case we might be talking about. Changes in policy can create changes in the whole environment.
Your main point ignores the larger context.
I'm more interested in preventing child abuse than providing a safe haven for child abusers.
So am I!
No, what you're hearing is that you shouldn't be able to harbor criminals because you think you can help. And considering priests have a long history of excusing and harboring child molesters, I am especially suspicious of their ability to aid them. And even though I believe counselors of a professional caliber are way better suited for aiding them, even they shouldn't be allowed to harbor criminals, because the legal system works to protect the victim with more than just giving aid to the criminal and should not be substituted.
This, to me, is like the age old 'if you can't stop the law from being broken then why have laws?'
OK, then your answer to my question is that you think it is better for society if he can talk to no one.
I think it's better for society if laws aren't ignored just because you think you can help someone. If someone's truly interested in turning their life around, they can submit to the justice system and not just punishment but actual, reputable aid for turning one's life around. Plus, the rest of the justice system can make sure the victims get reparations and get removed from dangerous situations.
And stop trying to play the reduction to the absurd card. This is like me saying you think it's better that criminals get aid while getting off scott free.
From my perspective, it's more that someone who sees countless times over his life that child abuse is unacceptable and intolerable - which includes mandatory reporting of abuse - is less likely to commit abuse in the first place.
Likewise, someone who sees abuse tolerated with silence is more likely to consider abuse acceptable.
By advocating a position that would result in many more abusers never answering for their crimes?
Love the way you twisted that.......
Skwim
Veteran Member
It isn't that no sexual predator can change, but your claim that all of them who repent do stop abusing.
"And if they are repenting then they will stop the abuse."
.
.
It isn't twisting; it's just an implication you aren't willing to acknowledge.
An environment where, when child abusers are found out, they sometimes get punished and sometimes don't encourages child abuse in a way that an environment where abusers are consistently and immediately turned over to the authorities doesn't.