The issue with the Church is quite different because they are an employer and the crime is being committed on their property. I can see that an employer has an obligation keep the workplace safe. But if I meet someone at a party, and they tell me they are a child molester, I will certainly contact the authorities, but I shouldn’t be legally required to do so.
This (notwithstanding the fact that I think the whole idea of clergy-as-counselor is silly).
That is not to say that a bishop who finds out one of his subordinates is a kiddy-diddler should be immune from civil or criminal liability.
Changing secular law on priest-penitent privilege isn’t going to change the Church’s insistence on the confidentiality of the confessional. Requiring priests to testify as to what they heard in the booth will, in practice, just cause a lot of priests to be jailed for contempt, while yielding little to no additional information.
The Church coverups of sexual abuse took place as part of the Church’s general operations, which aren’t privileged. It wasn’t a question of abusers shielding themselves with the confessional.
Devil’s advocate:
The Catholic Church should have all of it’s buildings/churches/cathedrals closed by the UN until they can get their pedophile priests in check. People are free to practice and observe their faith in private, but until all of the guilty parties are outed, and a vetting system for future priests is in place, they do not deserve the privilege of acting as the heads of faith communities. If the Pope doesn’t play ball, put him on house arrest in the Vatican.
Realistic? No, obviously not, but it would probably be a good idea.
I think a line has to be drawn between reporting the commission of a crime, and preventing an impending one form becoming an actuality.
David Cash, while an unpleasantly extreme example, is still a clear-cut and useful one. It’s impossible for most of us to imagine standing by and feeling no sense of responsibility in his position. It is likewise difficult to imagine a priest of good conscience, not rejoicing in being freed to act should a confession reveal to him a child or other innocent victim living in peril.
The argument that bad people would stop confessing to priestss is a compelling one. But then, I can not see how the current state of affairs is any improvement upon it.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
The logic is (and this is what I remember from 13 years of Catholic primary and secondary school) is that you’re not actually confessing to the priest, you’re confessing your sins to the almighty; the priest is simply there as a conduit. Theologically speaking, he’s the Holy rabbit ears, if you will.
I don’t think anyone should be compelled to cough up a confessional, unless they have reason to believe that the perpetrator is going to go out and kill/steal/whatever again. Obviously that’s a judgement call. But it’s a trust relationship, and changing the law would simply mean that no one would want to confess to a priest their really bad shit anymore. Which I think is already the norm, anyway.
I mean, outside of pedophile priests (which sounds to me like the square aim of this), is this really an issue in 2012? How many of us Papists are going around committing felonies, only to scurry off to Church to get spiritual catharsis?
The UN?
This. And since people tend to confess past sins, rather than future sins they intend to commit (and if you’re intending to commit more sins, you hardly qualify as repentant anyway), the only time I can see that a priest should be required to report a crime is if it is a serial crime that the confessing individual is likely to repeat, regardless of the sincerity of their repentance. Child molesters and serial rapists would certainly qualify.
The other thing is if the Church is taking actions of its own outside of the confessional booth on the basis of sins it knows about, e.g. arranging for therapy for the molesting priest or moving him to another parish, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be required to also report to the civil authorities. Anything that the Church itself doesn’t keep in the confessional is fair game, IMHO.
I believe therapists are required to report suspected abuse (at least in the US).
The laws on mandatory reporting on suspected child abuse by clergy are more subtle, it is one thing to require clergy to report child abuse admitted by the perpetrator during confession and quite another if suspicions of child abuse are based on observations or reports experienced outside of the ‘clergy-penitent-privilege’ role.
It would seem that a clear and narrow definition of what constitutes ‘clergy-penitent privilege’ would be helpful, as clergy members play many different roles and not all of them should be privileged. Admissions made in the confession booth are privileged, admissions, reports or observations made outside of it are not and should be subject to mandatory reporting laws.
For example,this Bishop was convicted for failing to report suspected child abuse and I believe it is these types of cases that are more at issue, where clergy observe or are privy to reports of abuse outside of the confession booth and try to cover it up in house rather than informing the authorities. Of course, the challenge is finding evidence of knowledge and cover-up. Though, I do think a lot of abuse has been swept under the rug under too broad a definition of clergy privilege.
I have no problems with making priests mandatory reporters as we do with teachers, therapists, and the like regardless of confessional seals.
In this country, if I admitted to my friend BOB I had stolen a pear, would he be legally obligated to inform the proper authorities?
Assuming “this country” is the US: no, assuming he was not employed in some profession defined as a mandatory reporter under the law of the relevant jurisdiction, and/or you didn’t tell him as a function of his employment.
Frankly, it doesn’t much matter what you want. It ain’t gonna happen no matter what laws you pass and how much hot air you blow.
I meant the country in question. Whatever country the Original Poster is referring to. It didn’t seem as if he was speaking about the US.
Who said anything about wanting?
ANYWAY, now that I received no answer, it should only be required legally only if it is required for any other regular citizen.
God forbid nobody in Australia responds to your question within half an hour. It’s 6 in the morning there.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound hostile. I didn’t realize the country in question was actually Australia. I didn’t think there would be too many Catholic Churches in Australia. Then again, ignorance exists everywhere, hmm?
According to the CIA factbook, proportionally, catholics make up a larger chunk of the australian population than they do the US population.
You know that the Vatican is sovereign, right?