# Concerning mandatory reporting for Catholic priests. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412 "2011-07-26T18:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wood\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Wood\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wood_Man)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/21 "2011-07-26T20:13:54Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I see, well I’ll take you at your word and it only goes to further diminish the church hierarchy in my eyes. > why? does the size of a religion have a bearing on its veracity? or will they do “bad things” to me? and what is considered a “rash” statement? > > So if you are that well read tell me, what do you think about a doctrinal position that says excommunication is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person? Try reading what people write. I am not a catholic. The reason is I was encouraged by my teachers to read every thing under the sun.I agree that size has no bearing on veracity. It is obviously different making a statement about a religion of over 1 billion followers to a statement about a religion of 2 followers. That is my only point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/22 "2011-07-26T20:14:17Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > My wife is a Licensed Professional Counselor in Texas, and I know that she is required to report crimes, as part of her licensure. I also knew of the attorney-client privilege, that an attorney is _not_ required to report. But I wasn’t sure about the status of somebody like me, the private shlub. > > So it seems like you’re saying that the attorney-client privilege is not really anything different from any regular person-to-shlub conversation in this regard? Maybe the difference is that an attorney is acting unethical if he _does_ report it? Also, the private schlub can be required to disclose it. If I tell you one day that I’ve made millions last month in the kiddie porn business, you don’t have to report that (assuming no state law says otherwise). But if you’re called as a witness, you must testify truthfully that this is what I said. If I tell my lawyer, or my priest, that same fact, neither one may be compelled to disclose it. > [@](#): > > About the OP, I’m against giving the clergy any special status. If a shlub is not required to report a crime, I don’t think a priest should be either. On the other hand, any person who knows of an ongoing crime like child rape and does nothing is an evil scum. Any respectable organization would support internal rules that would eject people who do that from its ranks. So lawyers who learn of such things should be disabarred? How can defendants receive an effective defense if, in addition to the array of prosecutorial might levied against them, thier own lawyer must either report them or face the loss of his job? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/23 "2011-07-26T20:17:47Z")
What if the lawyer is told, “I have killed in the immediate past, and I will kill in the immediate future-I cannot stop killing.” Is the lawyer under any obligations then? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/24 "2011-07-26T20:19:02Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > I’m not sure the Cathlic church can claim that child abuse is their issue alone. It is possible for members of other religions, even people with no religion at all, to abuse children. But other organizations don’t have a history of systematically aiding and shielding pedophiles. > [@Wood\_Man](#): > > I agree that size has no bearing on veracity. It is obviously different making a statement about a religion of over 1 billion followers to a statement about a religion of 2 followers. That is my only point. What, that they have the numbers to do more damage? And what does that have to do with the silly idea that excommunication is worse than rape? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/25 "2011-07-26T20:22:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But other organizations don’t have a history of systematically aiding and shielding pedophiles. > > What, that they have the numbers to do more damage? And what does that have to do with the silly idea that excommunication is worse than rape? I think the implication is that if you mess with the Catholics, they will do to you what they already do to their own. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/26 "2011-07-26T20:23:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I tell you one day that I’ve made millions last month in the kiddie porn business, you don’t have to report that (assuming no state law says otherwise). But if you’re called as a witness, you must testify truthfully that this is what I said. > > If I tell my lawyer, or my priest, that same fact, neither one may be compelled to disclose it. Again, if you tell your therapist that, you’re in the clink. So why is a priest more like a lawyer than a therapist? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/27 "2011-07-26T20:26:32Z")
> [@Wood\_Man](#): > > Try reading what people write. I am not a catholic. Where did I make the assumption that you were? I only make the assumption that you consider yourself well read on catholic doctrine (and I base that on your own claims) > [@](#): > > It is obviously different making a statement about a religion of over 1 billion followers to a statement about a religion of 2 followers. That is my only point. “obviously different”…why do you say that? I’m struggling to understand why you are bringing numbers into the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/28 "2011-07-26T20:29:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How can defendants receive an effective defense if, in addition to the array of prosecutorial might levied against them, thier own lawyer must either report them or face the loss of his job? If someone actually committed the crime, what makes you think I _want_ them to mount an effective defense? ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/29 "2011-07-26T20:33:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I understand this discussion, we’re talking about priests who hear confession of a crime and then do not report the crime to anyone. This is the extent of “helping to cover it up.” Yes? > > If so, then (while state laws can very dramatically) as a general rule the same thing is true for you: if you, as a private shlub, become aware of a crime, there is no penalty for you if you fail to report it. > [@Bricker](#): > > Also, the private schlub can be required to disclose it. If I tell you one day that I’ve made millions last month in the kiddie porn business, you don’t have to report that (assuming no state law says otherwise). But if you’re called as a witness, you must testify truthfully that this is what I said. > > If I tell my lawyer, or my priest, that same fact, neither one may be compelled to disclose it. This is a mighty fine line. Are you saying there is a law that says Priests can not be compelled to disclose but other citizens can be? I would be very interested in learning what kinds of people are allowed to tell the court no. I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with anything in this situation or how you are lumping them together with Catholic priests. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/30 "2011-07-26T20:50:05Z")
**Grumman** , everyone gets a right to have an effective defense, or no one does. Courts are not omniscient. > [@shiftless](#): > > This is a mighty fine line. Are you saying there is a law that says Priests can not be compelled to disclose but other citizens can be? I would be very interested in learning what kinds of people are allowed to tell the court no. > > I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with anything in this situation or how you are lumping them together with Catholic priests. He does so as to provide an example of professional categories that the law makes explicitly privileged to that effect. And it’s not just RCC priests and confessions, the privilege applies to clergy in general. Just that the Catholic/Orthodox churches also make a really, really big deal of it internally. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/31 "2011-07-26T20:58:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What if the lawyer is told, “I have killed in the immediate past, and I will kill in the immediate future-I cannot stop killing.” Is the lawyer under any obligations then? Think that’s going to vary by state. My state follows the Model Rules of Professional Conduct on point. [Model Rule 1.6](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information.html) allows, but does not require, me to disclose information in that situation. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/32 "2011-07-26T21:03:34Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > This is a mighty fine line. Are you saying there is a law that says Priests can not be compelled to disclose but other citizens can be? I would be very interested in learning what kinds of people are allowed to tell the court no. > > I’m not sure what lawyers have to do with anything in this situation or how you are lumping them together with Catholic priests. Because in the U.S., the Priest-Penitent privilege is widely recognized, as is the Attorney Client privilege. [Other privileges listed here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28evidence%29). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/33 "2011-07-26T21:03:46Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Think that’s going to vary by state. My state follows the Model Rules of Professional Conduct on point. [Model Rule 1.6](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information.html) allows, but does not require, me to disclose information in that situation. Can a law firm legally require their lawyers not to disclose such information? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/34 "2011-07-26T21:47:27Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > **Grumman** , everyone gets a right to have an effective defense, or no one does. Courts are not omniscient. You don’t need to be omniscient to respond to an _admission_ by the defendant that he committed a crime. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/35 "2011-07-26T21:47:56Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Won’t happen in the U.S., clear violation of the First Amendment. Shouldn’t happen anywhere else, either. Horrible idea. I don’t think this is the case. There is obviously a privilege for priest-penitent communications but I don’t believe it is founded on a constitutional basis. If that privilege was abolished for certain crimes (or indeed for all crimes), as long as the law were one of general applicability, I think it could pass constitutional muster under current First Amendment jurisprudence. Now, the next question is whether religious ministers could be added to a list of required reporters. That’s a tougher call, because it is less a generally applicable rule. But I think a legitimate argument could be made for it. Now, whether it should happen or not is a different question. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/36 "2011-07-26T22:16:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not aware of one either, although in Canada it seems to me that about ten years ago the Supreme Court carved out an exemption, although not an absolute one. But I have enough to do keeping track of the US Supremes, so I could be mistaken. This website suggests that it doesn’t exist in the UK, exists in Federal Australian law and the law of New South Wales, but not the rest of Australia, and exists in Ireland, France, Germany, and Austria: > **[Caslon Analytics Home Page](http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide17.html)** In Canada, it seems like there’s statutory protection in Quebec and Newfoundland. Nationally, though, I think the most recent case was the 1991 Supreme Court Case R v Gruenke, which said that even though Canada doesn’t, as a matter of law, recognize it, whether or not privilege exists needs to be determined on a case by case basis, using the Wigmore test, The Wigmore test, if anyone is curious: > [@](#): > > 1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. > > 2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties. > > 3.The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered. > > 4The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation. Chief Justice Lamer, in his decision, lays out the rationale as to why people believe minister-penitent privilege should exist: > [@](#): > > The first is utilitarian. Religious confidentiality is vitally important not only to the maintenance of religious organizations but also to their individual members. Without it, individuals would be disinclined to confide in their religious leaders. Its value is the value to society of religion and religious organizations generally. Second, the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion indicates that a legal privilege for confidential religious communications is commensurate with Canadian values. The third rationale relates to privacy, where the emphasis is placed on the benefit to the individual as opposed to society as a whole. The religious element in the pastor-penitent relationship promotes special values of privacy characteristic of that relationship, and makes the privacy rationale a possible justification towards the recognition of the privilege. As well, it would be impractical and futile to attempt to force the clergy to testify because often the cleric would refuse. Compelling disclosure, or charging a cleric with contempt, could bring disrepute to the system of justice. Indeed, admitting such evidence has been compared to admitting confessions made under duress to police. . . > > A human need for a spiritual counsellor exists and, in a system of religious freedom and freedom of thought and belief, must be recognized. While serving a number of other policy interests, the value to society of disclosure to and guidance from a spiritual counsellor, in total and absolute confidence, must supercede the truth‑searching policy. An ad hoc approach may overshadow the long-term interest served by the recognition of the privilege since the relationship of the confidence between pastor and penitent may not develop in the absence of an assurance that communications will be protected. Not every religious communication will be protected. The creation of the category simply acknowledges that our society recognizes that the relationship should be fostered, and that disclosure of communications will generally do more harm than good. ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/37 "2011-07-26T22:28:57Z")
I think the mandatory reporting issue is most valid in the instances where the superiors of a priest knew or had reason to know he was abusing children and did not report it. Instead, they moved him to another location and allowed him to continue to have access to children. All of the abuse that has been reported has caused a number of non-Catholics to think harshly of the Catholic Church and its policies. I do believe the superiors of an abusing priest should be legally required to report him. I just don’t see that many people going into confession and saying “Forgive me, Father, I like to diddle little boys”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/38 "2011-07-26T23:26:47Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If someone actually committed the crime, what makes you think I _want_ them to mount an effective defense? Good question. Because our system of justice includes the assumption of zealous advocacy? Because the individual may be accused, falsely, of a more serious crime, and revealing this crime to his attorney may assist him in defending himself against that more serious crime? Because it’s a fundamental proposition of our system that a man should not be forced to accuse himself? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/39 "2011-07-26T23:52:46Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Again, if you tell your therapist that, you’re in the clink. So why is a priest more like a lawyer than a therapist? Presumably because the decision to tell the priest results from a desire for absolution, and the priest presumably will withhold absolution until the penitent comes forward publicly, thus encouraging the revelation of the abuse. A therapist, in contrast, does not withhold therapy until the patient agrees to confess publicly - so far as I know, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/40 "2011-07-26T23:54:03Z")
> [@SnakesCatLady](#): > > I think the mandatory reporting issue is most valid in the instances where the superiors of a priest knew or had reason to know he was abusing children and did not report it. Instead, they moved him to another location and allowed him to continue to have access to children. > > All of the abuse that has been reported has caused a number of non-Catholics to think harshly of the Catholic Church and its policies. I do believe the superiors of an abusing priest should be legally required to report him. I just don’t see that many people going into confession and saying “Forgive me, Father, I like to diddle little boys”. Right. The superiors of an abusing priest do not generally learn of the problem via the confessional. They learn from reports and complaints, and those are not privileged in the slightest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=3)