Should the "confessional" be held "sacred"?

[Darat]

Should the "confessional" be held "sacred" at the cost of children being raped?

I'm posting in the Social Issues... section rather than the Religious... section as I believe that secular should trump the sacred when it comes to child safety.

Thread was started after reading this story: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...id=socialshare

Which is about a 5 year old and a 6 week old baby being raped by their father who confessed it to his Bishop, and these rapes went on for many years. This is the Mormon church which is why I've put "confessional" into quotes as I'm not sure what their dogma calls such confessions. Apparently the church is happy that they knew this was happening and that they had no duty to inform anyone because as the judge in a case trying to sue the church put it:

...Church defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe 1 by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception..

Whilst that might be the law it is very wrong, a 6 week old baby was being raped by a member of the church and the Bishop who knew about it did nothing. He literally let a 6 week old baby and a 5 year old be raped over many years. Sadly even in the 21st century we are still reluctant to make religions act as responsible members of society.

[JoeMorgue]

No.

[theprestige]

The confessional is a philosophical construct based on certain axioms about the existence and nature of the divine that atheists see as irrational superstition. Makes the discussion of such things with atheists pointless, since the result of such discussion is entirely predictable and arrived at almost immediately.

---

As I understand Catholicism, the act of confession is an act of intimate relation between the believer and their god. Their god might in one way or another urge them to turn themselves in to the authorities for their crimes, but their god doesn't pick up the phone and call the police themselves. That's entirely up to the person to choose good or evil themselves.

The confessor, in this process, does not exist in the secular world. He's just a conduit between the believer and their god. Not a conduit between the believer and earthly authorities.

I don't think it makes sense, and I don't think it's a good idea. I do think confession is "good for the soul" in some sense. And I do think we should consider whether it's good for society for people to have a safe place to unburden their conscience without inviting retribution.

If we abolished the secrecy of the confessional, would these criminals confess to the police instead? Probably not. They might confess to someone they thought they could trust, to not betray their confidence in the name of a greater good, but that seems like it would be a rare occurrence. Meanwhile, such a policy would have a chilling effect on everyone else whose confessions are much more banal, and who get some relief from the practice of confession.

---

I don't know about Mormonism, but I do wonder if a Catholic priest should not include "turn yourself in" as a penance when receiving confession of a crime.

But I have no idea where it goes from there.

[Thermal]

No.

But...


Lawyer's confidentiality shouldn't be so damned holy either

The confessional thing would still raise concerns about how competent a legal investigator the priest is before giving him too much leash. And a repentant who confesses to crimes (in possibly hyperbolic religious terms) in hopes of magical absolution might not be the most reliable of people either.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Darat

Should the "confessional" be held "sacred" at the cost of children being raped?

No.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No.

But...


Lawyer's confidentiality shouldn't be so damned holy either.

On that point I disagree, but it's probably not the topic of this thread.

[Carrot Flower King]

Absolutely sodding well not!

All these spurious cop outs for religionists should be done away with, most especially when it covers allegations or evidence of this level of severity.

I still become annoyed when thinking about the behaviour of certain vicars and priests around some things I was involved with (we did manage to get one vicar investigated by his diocese, but that was only because our consultant was a personal friend of the local bishop...).

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

On that point I disagree, but it's probably not the topic of this thread.

And of course I get why, but at certain extremes I think the confidentiality is overridden by public concerns. Agreed though, not here and now.

[Norman Alexander]

Never if it involves confession of law-breaking. The clergy NOT reporting such heinous crimes as child abuse as described are fully complicit in concealing those crimes.

[sackett]

Among the cathliks, the priest can withhold absolution until the confessee turns himself in. So you see, their system is fully self-correcting!

You liberal atheists can just put yr objections where the sun don't shine.

ETA: Yeah, I coulda said Son don't shine, but then I'd have to own up to blasphemy. I still owe God 9,800 hail marys as it is. Later fer that ****, man.

[Orphia Nay]

I hope it's not a derail, but can an analogy or comparison be drawn with doctors or psychologists?

Do doctors and psychologists have to keep patients' confessed crimes secret? If not, why the exemption for clergy?

[Lplus]

If the secrecy of the confessional is no longer sacred then the idea of the confessional itself becomes an impossibility.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

No.

[/thread]

[catsmate]

No, of course not. The concept of sacerdotal privilege is nonsense.

[sackett]

It's simple. A priest hearing a confession of child rape can boot the sinner out of the box with extreme unction or cursing or belaboring with a brass candle stand, and report the sucker to the cops, violating the sanctimoniousism of the confessional in livid spades. Then all the priest has to do is confess the sin to his confessor, do his penance, get absolved, and keep groovin'.

Mormons don't have to do anything.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The confessional is a philosophical construct based on certain axioms about the existence and nature of the divine that atheists see as irrational superstition. Makes the discussion of such things with atheists pointless, since the result of such discussion is entirely predictable and arrived at almost immediately.
.

<snip>

I prefer the word "delusional" myself. And reason can win out. Where do you think all the atheists come from?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

Should the "confessional" be held "sacred" at the cost of children being raped?

Hell, no.

If someone confesses to a crime and the bishop, or whomever, does not push the person to go to the police or turn them in themselves, and the person continues to commit that crime, the bishop is a accessory to the crime I would think.

[sackett]

Not one speck of evidence to support anything supernatural has ever come to light, so using a supernatural excuse for concealing a crime is pretty feeble.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by catsmate

No, of course not. The concept of sacerdotal privilege is nonsense.

This really isn't about privilege but required reporting. Someone you confide in is not required to run to the cops. We make an expection for medical providers, social workers, teachers, etc. But generally if your friend Joe said he was going down to shoot his old lady, you're not legally obliged to do anything.

[TragicMonkey]

Confession in Catholicism is usually anonymous, btw.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Confession in Catholicism is usually anonymous, btw.

In theory. Assuming the priest doesn't know your voice or peek through the divider screen or anything like that.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Lplus

If the secrecy of the confessional is no longer sacred then the idea of the confessional itself becomes an impossibility.

I do not see that as absolutely true, as long as there remain acts that are sins but not crimes, and as long as there remains some rational way to distinguish the seriousness of crimes. If a religion facilitates the evasion of secular consequences for admitted secular crimes, of the sort that could reasonably be classed as crimes against humanity, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate whether that religion is intolerably harmful to civil order.

[Thermal]

For those who didn't read the OP article:

This all came to light because three of this guy's kids charged the Mormon church with negligence related to knowledge of the raping. The court ruled that the church officials had no legal duty to report it due to the exemption for pentinents.

The sicko was initially busted because he posted his rapings on the internet. Then they locked him up, and he died by suicide in jail.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I hope it's not a derail, but can an analogy or comparison be drawn with doctors or psychologists?

Do doctors and psychologists have to keep patients' confessed crimes secret? If not, why the exemption for clergy?

No. In Arizona where the lawsuit in the OP happened Drs are required to report such knowledge.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The confessional is a philosophical construct based on certain axioms about the existence and nature of the divine that atheists see as irrational superstition. Makes the discussion of such things with atheists pointless, since the result of such discussion is entirely predictable and arrived at almost immediately.

---

As I understand Catholicism, the act of confession is an act of intimate relation between the believer and their god. Their god might in one way or another urge them to turn themselves in to the authorities for their crimes, but their god doesn't pick up the phone and call the police themselves. That's entirely up to the person to choose good or evil themselves.

The confessor, in this process, does not exist in the secular world. He's just a conduit between the believer and their god. Not a conduit between the believer and earthly authorities.

I don't think it makes sense, and I don't think it's a good idea. I do think confession is "good for the soul" in some sense. And I do think we should consider whether it's good for society for people to have a safe place to unburden their conscience without inviting retribution.

If we abolished the secrecy of the confessional, would these criminals confess to the police instead? Probably not. They might confess to someone they thought they could trust, to not betray their confidence in the name of a greater good, but that seems like it would be a rare occurrence. Meanwhile, such a policy would have a chilling effect on everyone else whose confessions are much more banal, and who get some relief from the practice of confession.

---

I don't know about Mormonism, but I do wonder if a Catholic priest should not include "turn yourself in" as a penance when receiving confession of a crime.

But I have no idea where it goes from there.

Unburden yourself at the expense of a 6 week old baby being repeatedly raped?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Lplus

If the secrecy of the confessional is no longer sacred then the idea of the confessional itself becomes an impossibility.

Not sure what your point is? Are you saying, as in the instance in the opening post, that the "cost" of a 6 week old baby being raped is a price that should be paid for having a concept of the confessional?

[Lurch]

Why is a human, a fallible human, needed as an intermediary for confession? If Gawd sees and knows all, the penitent should be able to communicate directly with Sky Daddy Himself. After all, prayer is supposed to operate on the same level.

Oh, right. It's all just a ritual to reaffirm the power and control of the Church. And so it has no place in a society where laws exist to protect us in the corporeal realm. To indemnify silence for knowledge of crimes just because of a religious construct is tantamount to rejecting human justice, to adopt a worldview that the suffering of innocents must not be ameliorated.

On the other hand, if the confessional were not sacrosanct in this way, scum not wanting to deal with the Earthly consequences would not avail themselves of such a mental salve in the first place. And so in the end no real difference would obtain.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Lurch

On the other hand, if the confessional were not sacrosanct in this way, scum not wanting to deal with the Earthly consequences would not avail themselves of such a mental salve in the first place. And so in the end no real difference would obtain.

I can see such people not having a mental salve for their wrong doings as a good thing in itself. If they feel the need to confess they may do it anyway, in this context or another and if that entails a chance of being caught that's a net positive. If they don't and it means they don't get some measure of relief from their guilt, I'm fine with that too.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Darat

Should the "confessional" be held "sacred" at the cost of children being raped?

I'm posting in the Social Issues... section rather than the Religious... section as I believe that secular should trump the sacred when it comes to child safety.

Thread was started after reading this story: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...id=socialshare

Which is about a 5 year old and a 6 week old baby being raped by their father who confessed it to his Bishop, and these rapes went on for many years. This is the Mormon church which is why I've put "confessional" into quotes as I'm not sure what their dogma calls such confessions. Apparently the church is happy that they knew this was happening and that they had no duty to inform anyone because as the judge in a case trying to sue the church put it:

...Church defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe 1 by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception..

Whilst that might be the law it is very wrong, a 6 week old baby was being raped by a member of the church and the Bishop who knew about it did nothing. He literally let a 6 week old baby and a 5 year old be raped over many years. Sadly even in the 21st century we are still reluctant to make religions act as responsible members of society.

In a just society that bishop would have been convicetd of rape alongside the rapist. Because he knowingly aided and abetted in a long series of rapes against multiple children. He as good as held the victims down to ensure that they could be raped.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Lplus

If the secrecy of the confessional is no longer sacred then the idea of the confessional itself becomes an impossibility.

And that is a bad thing because?

[The Great Zaganza]

If the Confessional is Sacred, I'm sure the Guy Above can make sure that it stays confidential.
We humans can treat it like just another exchange.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

Unburden yourself at the expense of a 6 week old baby being repeatedly raped?

"Every time someone goes to confession, a baby gets raped."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Every time someone goes to confession, a baby gets raped."

[Thermal]

As I understand it, confession gets that special confidentiality treatment because of it didn't, no one would confess anything for fear of legal retribution. But the whole point of confessing out loud, to another human, is to take that first crucial step in coming clean and making amends. It gives a concreteness to the pentinence that praying in the comfort of your bathroom lacks. So while I get the need for confidentiality, there has to be a line. The Mormon Priest in the OP actually consulted the Bishop via a setup to deal with this kind of thing specifically, but the church lawyers recommended keeping it quiet. Those lawyers are the ones we should be looking hard at. The others (priest, Bishop, church) wanted to deal with it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

As I understand it, confession gets that special confidentiality treatment because of it didn't, no one would confess anything for fear of legal retribution.

That might have been the case when canon law (as an example) still existed but can't see how it can be case when the church can no longer pass any legal judgement on what you have done. And most of what, for instance the RCC would expect you to confess to are not illegal in most countries. I would have thought the confessions of actual illegal today crimes would be on the the rather low side?

Originally Posted by Thermal

But the whole point of confessing out loud, to another human, is to take that first crucial step in coming clean and making amends. It gives a concreteness to the pentinence that praying in the comfort of your bathroom lacks. So while I get the need for confidentiality, there has to be a line. The Mormon Priest in the OP actually consulted the Bishop via a setup to deal with this kind of thing specifically, but the church lawyers recommended keeping it quiet. Those lawyers are the ones we should be looking hard at. The others (priest, Bishop, church) wanted to deal with it.

To that specific case - any of them could have sent an anonymous message to the police with enough details to get him properly investigated.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

That might have been the case when canon law (as an example) still existed but can't see how it can be case when the church can no longer pass any legal judgement on what you have done.

Well yeah, but if the church could dime you out to secular authorities, no one would confess anything, lest something you confess to gets misconstrued and Mr Policeman comes a-knocking.

Quote:

And most of what, for instance the RCC would expect you to confess to are not illegal in most countries. I would have thought the confessions of actual illegal today crimes would be on the the rather low side?

Honestly, I'm not sure, but I assume that the pentinent is cleaning up spiritual offenses, yes. I've never done anything wrong so have never done confession.

Quote:

To that specific case - any of them could have sent an anonymous message to the police with enough details to get him properly investigated.

That's for sure what I'd have done, assuming I knew who the guy was. Not sure how invasive an investigation could be undertaken based on an anonymous tip, though. Police have enough leeway over here where I generally wouldn't encourage them to be publicly investigating citizens, claiming their invisible friend tipped them off.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

That might have been the case when canon law (as an example) still existed but can't see how it can be case when the church can no longer pass any legal judgement on what you have done.

I'm pretty sure Thermal is talking about priests choosing to report or being forced to report, and this having a chilling effect on the practice of confession.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

To that specific case - any of them could have sent an anonymous message to the police with enough details to get him properly investigated.

Only by violating their religious beliefs. Are people entitled to have those? Are people entitled to live by them?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Well yeah, but if the church could dime you out to secular authorities, no one would confess anything, lest something you confess to gets misconstrued and Mr Policeman comes a-knocking.

I know the USA has some weird laws but coveting the next-door neighbour's swimming pool or new car will get the police knocking on your door?

Originally Posted by Thermal

Honestly, I'm not sure, but I assume that the pentinent is cleaning up spiritual offenses, yes. I've never done anything wrong so have never done confession.

My lot are from a branch that believes god forgives you everything and it's not for us to judge one another so the idea of confession is rather strange to me even culturally. (Mind you the "not judge one another" did not seem to mean my elderly aunts and their friends couldn't tear the stuffing out of "Betty from number 39" because she'd been seen in a pub with a man not her husband.)

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's for sure what I'd have done, assuming I knew who the guy was. Not sure how invasive an investigation could be undertaken based on an anonymous tip, though. Police have enough leeway over here where I generally wouldn't encourage them to be publicly investigating citizens, claiming their invisible friend tipped them off.

It sounds like the original Bishop would have known who it was and would have had enough details to make any tip off highly informative.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Unburden yourself at the expense of a 6 week old baby being repeatedly raped?

Uh... what? Are you suggesting that if he did not confess, he would have stopped that behavior? That would be absurd. And yet, if that's not what you're suggesting, how is that outcome the "expense" of the confession?

Hard cases make for bad laws. This is a hard case, but it's not typical. Changing the law retroactively might have stopped this case, but 1) there's a reason retroactivity is generally avoided in laws, 2) this is still just one case, and 3) non-retroactive changes to the confidentiality of confessions might not stop any future cases, since people would likely just change their behavior in response and stop confessing any criminal activity. And in general I don't really see that as a step forward for society. I don't see how that reduces crime, or catches criminals, or rehabilitates offenders, or protects victims. The calculus seems solely focused on what you would like the law to be had the confession already taken place, without any consideration for whether or not that confession ever would have even taken place if the law were different.