Report Child Abuse? You're a Priest? Then No need to Bother

[columbus]

OK, then your answer to my question is that you think it is better for society if he can talk to no one.

No.
I think it more likely that a perp confesses in the hope that someone else will take responsibility for the situation and do the right thing. The "right thing" being the involvement of psychiatric help and the judiciary and all the other people who are trained to get results.
I doubt that any significant number of abusers would confess if they didn't want help far beyond the abilities of a generic clergyman.

And if the confession is that of the victim, there isn't the tiniest shred of doubt that the only right thing to do is take them directly to the authorities and insist that they tell the truth.
Tom

 

[Aštra’el]

I do not worship the law as some here do so its reasonable to assume my thoughts on the matter are biased... and to some extent they may be. However, the mathematics speak volumes. If priests were somehow mandated by law to snitch out criminals based on what information is acquired through confessions, almost nobody with any sense of self-preservation would admit to crimes during confession and their chances at experiencing repentence, deliverance, etc would greatly diminish. As a result, far many more people get hurt and suffer.... victims and perpetrators alike. Sure, turning priests into snitches could help a small fraction of people, but far many more people are helped in the long run when the confidentiality of confessions is ensured and trust is maintained.

It's like chess. Some of you look at things from a few angles and only see one or two moves ahead. I study the entire board and see many moves into the future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, the mathematics speak volumes. If priests are somehow mandated by law to snitch out criminals based on what information is acquired through confessions, almost nobody with any sense of self-preservation would admit to crimes during confession and their chances at experiencing repentence, recompense, deliverance, etc would greatly diminish.

So you think that confession causes repentance?

One factor you're ignoring: if a potential abuser knows that priests will be compelled to report abuse, they'll be less willing to abuse children in situations where word of the abuse might get back to a priest in the confessional. This reduces their opportunity to commit abuse.

 

[Aštra’el]

So you think that confession causes repentance?

Throughout the course of this topic you've demonstrated an inclination towards twisting people's words to support your argument, a perspective that appears to be distorted by personal feelings about the subject.

To answer your question and to clear up any misconceptions about what was inaccurately implied, no, I wouldn't really say that confession causes repentance, but that Will causes repentence. Confession, however, does offer a significant opportunity for one's Will to become more clear and focused so that it might manifest into something more, often to the benefit of the others in one's life.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not worship the law as some here do

Save the strawman. Observing that churches have little to no success in rehabilitating criminals, and not wishing to leave clear loopholes for abuse is not 'worshipping the law.'

the mathematics speak volumes

The mathematics that confessions or any kind of religious counseling doesn't have any evidence of reducing repeat crimes or the mathematics that churches have been known to continuously hide repeat offenders, meaning it absolutely does not reduce further harm to victims and offenders?

 

[Aštra’el]

The mathematics that confessions or any kind of religious counseling doesn't have any evidence of reducing repeat crimes

Is it ignorance or a deliberate denial of reality that compels one to make the claim of "no evidence"?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is it ignorance or denial that compels one to make the claim of "no evidence"?

If you have evidence by all means present it. Should I link the documentaries and interviews showing various churches from Catholic to Baptist to Jehovah's Witnesses harboring repeat child abusers? Because we could go that route too if you wanted.

 

[Aštra’el]

The mathematics that confessions or any kind of religious counseling doesn't have any evidence of reducing repeat crimes.

If you have any evidence by all means present it

Remember that phrase, "I can only show you the door, it is you who has to walk through it"? Confession is the not the grand solution, Will is, but confession offers an opportunity for one's Will to become more clear and focused so that it might manifest into a more positive course of action, often to the benefit of those most at risk of suffering the consequences of one's choices.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Remember that phrase, "I can only show you the door, it is you who has to walk through it"? Confession is the not the grand solution, Will is, but confession offers an opportunity for one's Will to become more clear and focused so that it might manifest into a more positive course of action, often to the benefit of those most at risk of suffering the consequences of one's choices.

They already know where the door is. If all they're interested in is unburdening to a priest and not actually owning up to the consequences of their action, that shows a lack of will or commitment on their part, and it's no wonder the church constantly has to cycle and protect repeat offenders. Meanwhile holding priests to some lofty immunity to reporting dangerous behavior, unlike the psychiatric community, shows a clear favoritism where there shouldn't be one. This isn't because they're ignoring some noble 'give them a chance to come clean' incentive, it's because there shouldn't be a tolerance to dangerous behavior for the sake of the community, and corrective action (Be it imprisonment or reformative therapy) shouldn't be optional or on their own time..

 

[Aštra’el]

"Owning up to the consequences" lol. I think you mean "potential consequences". Prison, fines, arrests, marks on one's criminal record... these may be perceived by some as forms of what you described as "corrective action", but there are many ways for one to repent or atone for their "sins" or "crimes". They do not all require one to submit before the Law for whatever punishment it deems fit... especially when one has a choice in the matter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you have evidence by all means present it. Should I link the documentaries and interviews showing various churches from Catholic to Baptist to Jehovah's Witnesses harboring repeat child abusers? Because we could go that route too if you wanted.

There is also the fact that "the flesh is weak." So if someone is abusing their child, they may legitimately feel bad when they confess to a priest, but seeking confession from a priest isn't addressing the issue. So it likely will happen again. And again. And again until this person is found out. Personally, not only do I think priests should most definitely not get a law excusing them from mandatory reporting child abuse, if they don't report it they should be charged as being an accessory. It's also kind of disturbing that they apparently don't think Jesus would get a bull whip cracking on them to get them moving to protect a child in danger. Nietzsche and Jesus both agree that children are wonderful, however, the Vatican, and many others, apparently do not agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They do not all require one to submit before the Law for whatever punishment it deems fit...

It's far from perfect, but historically, I'd have to say what we have today is one of the better systems we've had since we began to settle down in permanent settlements. In theory at least, it begins with the assumption of innocence, is set up to be disinterested towards all parties involved, and it's a justice "of the people" instead of the whims of a crown. Certainly much better than

especially when one has a choice in the matter.

"Justice" works best when everyone has to go through the same system. And, clearly, the Vatican is not doing enough to amend their own situation. Really, things are more stable and secure when you have one social institution for "justice" and "law enforcement." And having just "the law" is complicated enough without adding in a myriad of extraneous external factors.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"Owning up to the consequences" lol. I think you mean "potential consequences". Prison, fines, arrests, marks on one's criminal record... these may be perceived by some as forms of what you described as "corrective action", but there are many ways for one to atone for their "sins" or "crimes". They do not all require one to submit before the law for whatever punishment it deems fit.

Yeah I'm not buying that. I'm no authoritarian and I believe in analyzing the law to see its consequential benefit, but there's no benefit in coddling and creating a safe haven for criminals unwilling to get professional help (and yes, that includes calling child services, and legally removing the criminal from the child and sure, jail or court ordered therapy) especially where repeat offense is so high and people are in active danger. If you think illegal action should be ignored for the sake of self-discovery then we won't have much to talk about.

 

[Aštra’el]

It's far from perfect, but historically, I'd have to say what we have today is one of the better systems we've had since we began to settle down in permanent settlements. In theory at least, it begins with the assumption of innocence, is set up to be disinterested towards all parties involved, and it's a justice "of the people" instead of the whims of a crown.

"Justice" works best when everyone has to go through the same system.

Not once did I use the word "justice". I did, however, use words like "repentance" and "deliverance".

 

[Thanda]

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 is logical. From religious perspective to repent is to turn away from evil. So if he is repenting of abusing then by implication he is turning away from it. The important thing is if he doesn't think the priest will keep it secret he may choose not to start the process of repentance at all. That will mean that instead of children potentially becoming safer (through the predators repentance) they will be even more in harms way since the predator sees no way out for himself other than to continue with what he is doing.

What I'm basically saying is that even if only 10% of those who go and confess to their priests eventually fully stop their abuse, that is still more people than would be stopped if the protection was not there. This is because if there was no confidentiality protection, 99% of them wouldn't tell their priests anything and would simply continue with their criminal ways.

 

[Skwim]

It is logical. From religious perspective to repent is to turn away from evil. So if he is repenting of abusing then by implication he is turning away from it.

And by your former statement, that all of them will: none will ever sexually abuse anyone again. This is the naive part.


.

 

[Thanda]

There is also the fact that "the flesh is weak." So if someone is abusing their child, they may legitimately feel bad when they confess to a priest, but seeking confession from a priest isn't addressing the issue. So it likely will happen again. And again. And again until this person is found out. Personally, not only do I think priests should most definitely not get a law excusing them from mandatory reporting child abuse, if they don't report it they should be charged as being an accessory. It's also kind of disturbing that they apparently don't think Jesus would get a bull whip cracking on them to get them moving to protect a child in danger. Nietzsche and Jesus both agree that children are wonderful, however, the Vatican, and many others, apparently do not agree.

I like these people who know exactly what Jesus would do (while not believing in him and not living his commandments). Tell me shadow wolf - who did Jesus ever report to the authorities (and I'm sure he witnessed many crimes in his 33 years)?

 

[Thanda]

And by your former statement, that all of them will: none will ever sexually abuse anyone again. This is the naive part.


.

I said if he is repenting he will. The word will is a term that pertains to the future. Now you may say, but what about the abuse he is doing in the meantime. But I remind you that if he chooses not to confess to the priest - that future date will likely be further away in the future. There are many child abusers who are not confessing to priests and they are certainly aren't any closer to stopping their crimes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like these people who know exactly what Jesus would do (while not believing in him and not living his commandments).

You don't have to believe the story to read it or understand it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think you are addressing the gist of my argument with those comments. Spiritual counselling by a priest to get a wayward person to choose to do the right thing is better than receiving no such advise. If there was no confidentiality law the criminally wayward would not get this counselling in the first place (they'd be afraid of getting reported if a priest was forced to report)! Get my point?

Someone who was afraid of being reported to the authorities by a priest would be more reluctant to abuse children in situations where a priest might find out.

And you continue to ignore the fact that often (maybe most of the time), it's the victims' confessions that lead to the priest knowing the abuse took place. In these situations, the seal of confession prevents the priest from taking steps to get the accused into "spiritual counselling" (which you still haven't explained, BTW) or take other measures directed toward the accused.