Should the "confessional" be held "sacred"? - Page 5

theprestige · 26th November 2023, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Just a note "the" 1st amendment only applies to the USA, religious confessions happen in other countries....

Other countries probably have similar rules about the government not interfering in the practice of religion. And the ones that don't probably should.

But I still think the religious angle is a red herring. Most people in America aren't mandated reporters. Priests, falling into that group, are also not mandated reporters. And the lawyers in this situation have - in the amoral way that is proper to lawyers - a legitimate concern about not getting the church involved in a legal matter it doesn't strictly have to be involved in. Priests not being mandated reporters.

Ryan O'Dine · 26th November 2023, 11:48 AM

My google-fu is failing me, I can't find Biblical references to the inviolability of the seal of confession. Has anyone run across that?

mumblethrax · 26th November 2023, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I still maintain that if a person is fined for not doing something, then the doing of that something is a requirement, and as such would likely constitute a violation of the first Amendment.

Of course it's true that a required training is a requirement--that's just tautological. But people are still failing to grasp the distinction between "required in order to" and "required because". And that's an important distinction for the purposes of what could conceivably burden free expression.

Originally Posted by psion

I guess it comes down to whether imposing an obligation is in the same category as prohibiting an action. Given the current makeup of the SC, I doubt that they will view violating a "mandatory reporting" requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations) as equivalent to breaking a law (such as rape).

This isn't a "requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations)". It's a requirement for any mandated reporter.

And I don't see how it can be considered as anything other than "equivalent to breaking a law" when it is breaking a law. It's a class A misdemeanor in New York, for example, for a mandated reporter to fail to report.

bruto · 26th November 2023, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

My google-fu is failing me, I can't find Biblical references to the inviolability of the seal of confession. Has anyone run across that?

I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it.

In any case, in the Bible or not, the First Amendment must, by its very nature, be about all religions, including those that do not consider the Bible to be relevant at all.

The idea of inviolability of confession is an interpretive construct, an extrapolation from the idea of what freedom of religion should include. That is true, I think, whether you think it obvious or obscure, right or wrong. Whenever you are presented with a vague and general concept you need to decide how to put it into practice, and when rights conflict, there will always be a boundary to decide on.

Ryan O'Dine · 26th November 2023, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it.

In any case, in the Bible or not, the First Amendment must, by its very nature, be about all religions, including those that do not consider the Bible to be relevant at all.

The idea of inviolability of confession is an interpretive construct, an extrapolation from the idea of what freedom of religion should include. That is true, I think, whether you think it obvious or obscure, right or wrong. Whenever you are presented with a vague and general concept you need to decide how to put it into practice, and when rights conflict, there will always be a boundary to decide on.

Thanks bruto, I think I understand what you mean.

I just tried googling again was able to find justification for church leaders having the authority to absolve sins...

Quote:

After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

Catholic.com

As far as I can tell, the idea of inviolability of confession came later and was, as you say, "an interpretive construct."

That's curious to me because the punishment for violating the seal of confession, from what I've read, is excommunication in this life, and eternal damnation in the next. But that punishment appears to have been pronounced by people, not by God. I would've expected eternal damnation to be the sole province of God, but I guess that's not the case.

psionl0 · 26th November 2023, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This isn't a "requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations)". It's a requirement for any mandated reporter.

Calling a priest a "mandated reporter" so that they are required to undergo government approved training to perform certain church duties is just sophistry.

bruto · 26th November 2023, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Thanks bruto, I think I understand what you mean.

I just tried googling again was able to find justification for church leaders having the authority to absolve sins...

Catholic.com

As far as I can tell, the idea of inviolability of confession came later and was, as you say, "an interpretive construct."

That's curious to me because the punishment for violating the seal of confession, from what I've read, is excommunication in this life, and eternal damnation in the next. But that punishment appears to have been pronounced by people, not by God. I would've expected eternal damnation to be the sole province of God, but I guess that's not the case.

But do remember that a sin and a crime are also different things, though many deeds can be both.

I think in the case of the Catholic Church, the position of the Church as itself a sacred being makes it possible for the Church to make rules that are not explicit in the Bible. They're not fundamentalist anyway. But even the fundamentalists seem to be able to select their cherries and make stuff up as they go. If you try too hard to make sense of it all, I think you will have a hard time of it.

smartcooky · 26th November 2023, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it.

Of course! What do you expect!? Religious dogma demands rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. How else are they going to feel free to make **** up as they go along?

Religionists demand that the bible is literal (and must be followed to the letter) while at the same time demand that it is metaphorical (and therefore open to the interpretation of the clergy). How else do you think the church can reconcile its position on abortion, which is neither defined or even mentioned anywhere in either of the testaments, with the pronouncements of Leviticus...such as allowing slaves?

angrysoba · 27th November 2023, 12:25 AM

It's five pages, so this has probably already been said.

BUT... I think whether the confessional is sacred or not is a red herring.

I think the question is under what circumstances are people required to report crimes they hear about.

I expect police officers, and presumably in some cases teachers and medical staff are legally required if they have information.

I don't think that is generally required of people without such professional qualifications.

Maybe there is an ethical requirement, but not legal.

Should we make it an ethical requirement for priests to divulge the crimes they hear given that we can expect a fair number of criminals to confess their crimes to them? Well, it might work in the short term, but in the long term I would expect that criminals would soon learn not to tell their priest if the priest is required to inform the authorities. In other words, I doubt it would have any practical value.

mumblethrax · 27th November 2023, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Calling a priest a "mandated reporter" so that they are required to undergo government approved training to perform certain church duties is just sophistry.

Again, we're not calling just priests mandated reporters, but a long list of other professions, and the principle reason for doing so is not to subject them to mandatory training, but to compel them to report abuse. And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties". You're just inventing that.

What you're doing here isn't clever enough to be called sophistry. It's just ********.

psionl0 · 27th November 2023, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Nobody is suggesting that. There is no conditioning of any clerical duty on training. The training is just required.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties".

Ryan O'Dine · 27th November 2023, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

But do remember that a sin and a crime are also different things, though many deeds can be both.

I think in the case of the Catholic Church, the position of the Church as itself a sacred being makes it possible for the Church to make rules that are not explicit in the Bible. They're not fundamentalist anyway. But even the fundamentalists seem to be able to select their cherries and make stuff up as they go. If you try too hard to make sense of it all, I think you will have a hard time of it.

The highlighted is the crux of things for me. But I guess I see how this would be justified from Matthew 16:

Quote:

18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”…

To be snarky, I'd hate to think what loosing a pedophile ring on Earth has done to heaven.

Darat · 27th November 2023, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Of course! What do you expect!? Religious dogma demands rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. How else are they going to feel free to make **** up as they go along?

Religionists demand that the bible is literal (and must be followed to the letter) while at the same time demand that it is metaphorical (and therefore open to the interpretation of the clergy). How else do you think the church can reconcile its position on abortion, which is neither defined or even mentioned anywhere in either of the testaments, with the pronouncements of Leviticus...such as allowing slaves?

Only a small minority, granted they can be quite a vocal minority - especially in the "anglosphere" since those voices on the whole come out of the USA and their evangelical pushes into other countries.

Beelzebuddy · 27th November 2023, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It's five pages, so this has probably already been said.

BUT... I think whether the confessional is sacred or not is a red herring.

I think the question is under what circumstances are people required to report crimes they hear about.

I expect police officers, and presumably in some cases teachers and medical staff are legally required if they have information.

I don't think that is generally required of people without such professional qualifications.

Maybe there is an ethical requirement, but not legal.

Should we make it an ethical requirement for priests to divulge the crimes they hear given that we can expect a fair number of criminals to confess their crimes to them? Well, it might work in the short term, but in the long term I would expect that criminals would soon learn not to tell their priest if the priest is required to inform the authorities. In other words, I doubt it would have any practical value.

The red herring is the legal obligation to report.

The church officials weren't arrested, they were sued. Your bartender doesn't have any legal obligation to report crimes, but if you regularly confide in your bartender that you're raping a kid and he does nothing about it, when the truth comes out I hope we can all agree they're justified in suing the crap out of him for keeping silent and allowing it to go on. Yet the judge threw out the equivalent lawsuit against the church.

What's really at stake is the public perception of the confessional being sacred, to the point that any harm done through its invocation is so justifiable it never even needs to enter a civil courtroom. And again as to that, it wasn't the priests or the Angel Moroni defending the sacrosanct status here, the bishop was ready to turn the perp right in, it was the church's lawyers arguing for permitting the rape to continue to protect their courtroom argument. So yeah, **** them and their whole lot all the way out to whatever that Mormon Jesus planet is called.

Myriad · 27th November 2023, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Again, we're not calling just priests mandated reporters, but a long list of other professions, and the principle reason for doing so is not to subject them to mandatory training, but to compel them to report abuse. And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties". You're just inventing that.

What you're doing here isn't clever enough to be called sophistry. It's just ********.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of medicine.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of teaching.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of psychology.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of school bus driving.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of "a long list of other professions."

There is that thing about religion in it, though.

In U.S. governance, that's an important difference that makes your analogies to other professions irrelevant.

Now, as has been pointed out, the First Amendment is just words on paper. Actually parchment, but whatever.

Words on paper are also the reason my town's authorities can't imprison me for refusing to attend my town's preferred church services, the reason the local military base commander can't decide to force me to provide free room and board in my house for some of its personnel because it would be convenient to them, and the reason it would be at least a little bit inconvenient for the police should they attempt to search my bookshelves for forbidden tomes on science, comparative religion, occultism, or skepticism.

So, I would much prefer those words on paper to continue to be efficacious, rather than easily disregarded in the interest of this or that good cause.

theprestige · 27th November 2023, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The church officials weren't arrested, they were sued. Your bartender doesn't have any legal obligation to report crimes, but if you regularly confide in your bartender that you're raping a kid and he does nothing about it, when the truth comes out I hope we can all agree they're justified in suing the crap out of him for keeping silent and allowing it to go on. Yet the judge threw out the equivalent lawsuit against the church.

You're begging the question. The whole point of a lawsuit is to determine whether the complaint is justified, both in law and in the pattern of facts.

Of course people are justified in suing, whenever they think they have a justifiable grievance. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're entitled to win the lawsuit. Complaints must be judged on a case by case basis. One bartender might be found liable, another in a similar situation might be found not liable. Yet another in a third situation might be found to have no case to answer.

mumblethrax · 27th November 2023, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Are you really having this much difficulty understanding this?

If you have an income above the filing threshold, you are required to file federal income taxes in the US.

You are not required to file in order to do the things that generate income for you.

You are asserting that a requirement is always a prerequisite to the activity that creates the requirement, and that just isn't true.

Originally Posted by Myriad

In U.S. governance, that's an important difference that makes your analogies to other professions irrelevant.

I'm not making analogies to other professions. I'm pointing out that the fact that other professions are mandatory reporters refutes the idea that the clergy are being specifically targeted--that these laws exist to single out the clergy--which is one way that people are trying to find a free expression problem.

I'm also making analogies to other requirements (including training requirements) in order to demonstrate that if there is an unconstitutional burdening of free expression here, it has yet to be detected by the courts.

"But the clergy would be required to do something" is not a good argument against the constitutionality of a law, and the fact that people have to impute intentions beyond this in order to find a free expression problem is a pretty good reason to suppose that we all recognize this.

Beelzebuddy · 27th November 2023, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're begging the question. The whole point of a lawsuit is to determine whether the complaint is justified, both in law and in the pattern of facts.

Of course people are justified in suing, whenever they think they have a justifiable grievance. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're entitled to win the lawsuit. Complaints must be judged on a case by case basis. One bartender might be found liable, another in a similar situation might be found not liable. Yet another in a third situation might be found to have no case to answer.

Begging the question that the bartender would be found liable before a jury? Sure, I'll cop to that. But it would be heard. What actually happened here was the judge threw the suit out on principle, and explicitly cited confessional privilege in doing so. This is not about any obligation to report shared equally between bishops, barbers and bartenders. It's about a specific legal privilege which is very much in use to protect the church, even in scenarios such as this where the religious reasons for that privilege do not apply.

Incidentally, the histrionics of the opinion piece in the OP made me want to find another source before I believed anything it said:
https://thecrimewire.com/news/child-...-mormon-church

The buried lede:

Quote:

The AP investigation also uncovered instances where the church, through its attorneys, invoked attorney-client privilege to maintain secrecy surrounding serious cases of child sexual abuse.

arthwollipot · 27th November 2023, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I suspect that you already knew that this was about government mandated training (and not church mandated training) but you wanted to be disagreeable.

Only a little bit. My point was that the mandated reporter training could be a part of the training that priests already get in seminary, but it isn't.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The Catholic Church has said that they will not break the seal of confession regardless of the new laws. I haven't heard of any priest being charged over this however.

Certain priests have said that they would not break the seal of confession, but they would withhold absolution unless they turned themself in.

Chanakya · Yesterday, 10:41 AM

Have only read the first few posts, and maybe this has already been said in the four-and-a-half pages I've not yet read, but:This is completely obvious. It should be illegal abetment of crime, in this case rape, to be aware of it and yet keep quiet about it.

No one cares what a bunch of zombie worshiping fools thinks or feels about this. As far as the law, this should be illegal. Lock away the rapist father, and lock away the pandering priest as well. End of.

Ziggurat · Yesterday, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Have only read the first few posts, and maybe this has already been said in the four-and-a-half pages I've not yet read, but:This is completely obvious. It should be illegal abetment of crime, in this case rape, to be aware of it and yet keep quiet about it.

This position has already been covered. Making everyone a mandatory reporter is a very bad idea. It produces all sorts of problems regarding false accusations (and we're not even talking about maliciously false ones either). There's a reason nobody does this.

Ziggurat · Yesterday, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Only a little bit. My point was that the mandated reporter training could be a part of the training that priests already get in seminary, but it isn't.

Seminaries could voluntarily implement it, but the state cannot require it.

theprestige · Yesterday, 12:01 PM

All of which is moot, since the issue happened in Arizona, where priests receiving confession are not mandated reporters. All such training would accomplish is ensuring the priests there understand they have no legal obligation to report sod all.

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

Chanakya · Today, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This position has already been covered. Making everyone a mandatory reporter is a very bad idea. It produces all sorts of problems regarding false accusations (and we're not even talking about maliciously false ones either). There's a reason nobody does this.

Fair point. I guess I hadn't thought this through. Does the law require citizens to necessarily report a crime they're aware of? I don't know! I'd imagine not, and agreed, in principle that's a terrible idea.

It would be interesting to know what the law does say about this. (Still haven't read the thread. Since this has, as you say, been discussed here, no doubt the legal aspect has been covered already.)

...Beyond merely reporting, I'd say the lowlife priest is further culpable, in terms of making it easier for a rapist to deal with guilt, and thus enabling the ongoing rape. But I suppose that's too subtle, too ...insubstantial a thing for it to be an actual crime, in legal terms, as opposed to merely being a morally wanting and generally disgusting thing to have done.

26th November 2023, 08:15 AM	#161
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,130	Originally Posted by Darat Just a note "the" 1st amendment only applies to the USA, religious confessions happen in other countries.... Other countries probably have similar rules about the government not interfering in the practice of religion. And the ones that don't probably should. But I still think the religious angle is a red herring. Most people in America aren't mandated reporters. Priests, falling into that group, are also not mandated reporters. And the lawyers in this situation have - in the amoral way that is proper to lawyers - a legitimate concern about not getting the church involved in a legal matter it doesn't strictly have to be involved in. Priests not being mandated reporters.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

26th November 2023, 11:48 AM	#162
Ryan O'Dine OD’ing on Damitol Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you'll find me eventually Posts: 2,473	My google-fu is failing me, I can't find Biblical references to the inviolability of the seal of confession. Has anyone run across that?
	__________________ I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)

26th November 2023, 02:36 PM	#164
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 35,505	Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine My google-fu is failing me, I can't find Biblical references to the inviolability of the seal of confession. Has anyone run across that? I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it. In any case, in the Bible or not, the First Amendment must, by its very nature, be about all religions, including those that do not consider the Bible to be relevant at all. The idea of inviolability of confession is an interpretive construct, an extrapolation from the idea of what freedom of religion should include. That is true, I think, whether you think it obvious or obscure, right or wrong. Whenever you are presented with a vague and general concept you need to decide how to put it into practice, and when rights conflict, there will always be a boundary to decide on.
	__________________ Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)

26th November 2023, 04:46 PM	#165
Ryan O'Dine OD’ing on Damitol Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you'll find me eventually Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by bruto I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it. In any case, in the Bible or not, the First Amendment must, by its very nature, be about all religions, including those that do not consider the Bible to be relevant at all. The idea of inviolability of confession is an interpretive construct, an extrapolation from the idea of what freedom of religion should include. That is true, I think, whether you think it obvious or obscure, right or wrong. Whenever you are presented with a vague and general concept you need to decide how to put it into practice, and when rights conflict, there will always be a boundary to decide on. Thanks bruto, I think I understand what you mean. I just tried googling again was able to find justification for church leaders having the authority to absolve sins... Quote: After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23). Catholic.com As far as I can tell, the idea of inviolability of confession came later and was, as you say, "an interpretive construct." That's curious to me because the punishment for violating the seal of confession, from what I've read, is excommunication in this life, and eternal damnation in the next. But that punishment appears to have been pronounced by people, not by God. I would've expected eternal damnation to be the sole province of God, but I guess that's not the case.
	__________________ I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)

26th November 2023, 05:55 PM	#166
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,730	Originally Posted by mumblethrax This isn't a "requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations)". It's a requirement for any mandated reporter. Calling a priest a "mandated reporter" so that they are required to undergo government approved training to perform certain church duties is just sophistry.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

26th November 2023, 02:36 PM	#163
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,941	Originally Posted by bruto I still maintain that if a person is fined for not doing something, then the doing of that something is a requirement, and as such would likely constitute a violation of the first Amendment. Of course it's true that a required training is a requirement--that's just tautological. But people are still failing to grasp the distinction between "required in order to" and "required because". And that's an important distinction for the purposes of what could conceivably burden free expression. Originally Posted by psion I guess it comes down to whether imposing an obligation is in the same category as prohibiting an action. Given the current makeup of the SC, I doubt that they will view violating a "mandatory reporting" requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations) as equivalent to breaking a law (such as rape). This isn't a "requirement for priests (as distinct from other occupations)". It's a requirement for any mandated reporter. And I don't see how it can be considered as anything other than "equivalent to breaking a law" when it is breaking a law. It's a class A misdemeanor in New York, for example, for a mandated reporter to fail to report.

26th November 2023, 08:29 PM	#167
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 35,505	Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine Thanks bruto, I think I understand what you mean. I just tried googling again was able to find justification for church leaders having the authority to absolve sins... Catholic.com As far as I can tell, the idea of inviolability of confession came later and was, as you say, "an interpretive construct." That's curious to me because the punishment for violating the seal of confession, from what I've read, is excommunication in this life, and eternal damnation in the next. But that punishment appears to have been pronounced by people, not by God. I would've expected eternal damnation to be the sole province of God, but I guess that's not the case. But do remember that a sin and a crime are also different things, though many deeds can be both. I think in the case of the Catholic Church, the position of the Church as itself a sacred being makes it possible for the Church to make rules that are not explicit in the Bible. They're not fundamentalist anyway. But even the fundamentalists seem to be able to select their cherries and make stuff up as they go. If you try too hard to make sense of it all, I think you will have a hard time of it.
	__________________ Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)

26th November 2023, 10:27 PM	#168
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 24,811	Originally Posted by bruto I would not expect it there, nor would I have a reason to. Most church dogmas and policies come from things other than the Bible, which after all has little to say about Christian churches in the first place, and certainly does not reflect any experience of a Constitutional, democratic republic and how to live within it. Of course! What do you expect!? Religious dogma demands rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. How else are they going to feel free to make **** up as they go along? Religionists demand that the bible is literal (and must be followed to the letter) while at the same time demand that it is metaphorical (and therefore open to the interpretation of the clergy). How else do you think the church can reconcile its position on abortion, which is neither defined or even mentioned anywhere in either of the testaments, with the pronouncements of Leviticus...such as allowing slaves?
	__________________ Those who claim that something can't be done need to stop getting in the way of those who are actually doing it! - Anonymous Its TRE45ON season... indict the F45CIST!!

27th November 2023, 12:25 AM	#169
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 35,256	It's five pages, so this has probably already been said. BUT... I think whether the confessional is sacred or not is a red herring. I think the question is under what circumstances are people required to report crimes they hear about. I expect police officers, and presumably in some cases teachers and medical staff are legally required if they have information. I don't think that is generally required of people without such professional qualifications. Maybe there is an ethical requirement, but not legal. Should we make it an ethical requirement for priests to divulge the crimes they hear given that we can expect a fair number of criminals to confess their crimes to them? Well, it might work in the short term, but in the long term I would expect that criminals would soon learn not to tell their priest if the priest is required to inform the authorities. In other words, I doubt it would have any practical value.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

27th November 2023, 12:37 AM	#170
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,941	Originally Posted by psionl0 Calling a priest a "mandated reporter" so that they are required to undergo government approved training to perform certain church duties is just sophistry. Again, we're not calling just priests mandated reporters, but a long list of other professions, and the principle reason for doing so is not to subject them to mandatory training, but to compel them to report abuse. And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties". You're just inventing that. What you're doing here isn't clever enough to be called sophistry. It's just ********.

27th November 2023, 02:52 AM	#171
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,730	Originally Posted by mumblethrax Nobody is suggesting that. There is no conditioning of any clerical duty on training. The training is just required. Originally Posted by mumblethrax And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties".
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

27th November 2023, 05:58 AM	#172
Ryan O'Dine OD’ing on Damitol Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you'll find me eventually Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by bruto But do remember that a sin and a crime are also different things, though many deeds can be both. I think in the case of the Catholic Church, the position of the Church as itself a sacred being makes it possible for the Church to make rules that are not explicit in the Bible. They're not fundamentalist anyway. But even the fundamentalists seem to be able to select their cherries and make stuff up as they go. If you try too hard to make sense of it all, I think you will have a hard time of it. The highlighted is the crux of things for me. But I guess I see how this would be justified from Matthew 16: Quote: 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”… To be snarky, I'd hate to think what loosing a pedophile ring on Earth has done to heaven.
	__________________ I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)

27th November 2023, 06:30 AM	#173
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 112,544	Originally Posted by smartcooky Of course! What do you expect!? Religious dogma demands rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. How else are they going to feel free to make **** up as they go along? Religionists demand that the bible is literal (and must be followed to the letter) while at the same time demand that it is metaphorical (and therefore open to the interpretation of the clergy). How else do you think the church can reconcile its position on abortion, which is neither defined or even mentioned anywhere in either of the testaments, with the pronouncements of Leviticus...such as allowing slaves? Only a small minority, granted they can be quite a vocal minority - especially in the "anglosphere" since those voices on the whole come out of the USA and their evangelical pushes into other countries.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

27th November 2023, 11:15 AM	#174
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,640	Originally Posted by angrysoba It's five pages, so this has probably already been said. BUT... I think whether the confessional is sacred or not is a red herring. I think the question is under what circumstances are people required to report crimes they hear about. I expect police officers, and presumably in some cases teachers and medical staff are legally required if they have information. I don't think that is generally required of people without such professional qualifications. Maybe there is an ethical requirement, but not legal. Should we make it an ethical requirement for priests to divulge the crimes they hear given that we can expect a fair number of criminals to confess their crimes to them? Well, it might work in the short term, but in the long term I would expect that criminals would soon learn not to tell their priest if the priest is required to inform the authorities. In other words, I doubt it would have any practical value. The red herring is the legal obligation to report. The church officials weren't arrested, they were sued. Your bartender doesn't have any legal obligation to report crimes, but if you regularly confide in your bartender that you're raping a kid and he does nothing about it, when the truth comes out I hope we can all agree they're justified in suing the crap out of him for keeping silent and allowing it to go on. Yet the judge threw out the equivalent lawsuit against the church. What's really at stake is the public perception of the confessional being sacred, to the point that any harm done through its invocation is so justifiable it never even needs to enter a civil courtroom. And again as to that, it wasn't the priests or the Angel Moroni defending the sacrosanct status here, the bishop was ready to turn the perp right in, it was the church's lawyers arguing for permitting the rape to continue to protect their courtroom argument. So yeah, **** them and their whole lot all the way out to whatever that Mormon Jesus planet is called.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,640

27th November 2023, 11:43 AM	#175
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 20,703	Originally Posted by mumblethrax Again, we're not calling just priests mandated reporters, but a long list of other professions, and the principle reason for doing so is not to subject them to mandatory training, but to compel them to report abuse. And whatever training they undergo is not a requirement "to perform certain church duties". You're just inventing that. What you're doing here isn't clever enough to be called sophistry. It's just ********. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of medicine. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of teaching. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of psychology. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of school bus driving. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about not making laws regulating the practice of "a long list of other professions." There is that thing about religion in it, though. In U.S. governance, that's an important difference that makes your analogies to other professions irrelevant. Now, as has been pointed out, the First Amendment is just words on paper. Actually parchment, but whatever. Words on paper are also the reason my town's authorities can't imprison me for refusing to attend my town's preferred church services, the reason the local military base commander can't decide to force me to provide free room and board in my house for some of its personnel because it would be convenient to them, and the reason it would be at least a little bit inconvenient for the police should they attempt to search my bookshelves for forbidden tomes on science, comparative religion, occultism, or skepticism. So, I would much prefer those words on paper to continue to be efficacious, rather than easily disregarded in the interest of this or that good cause.
	__________________ "Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote Last edited by Myriad; 27th November 2023 at 11:45 AM.*

27th November 2023, 11:49 AM	#176
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,130	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy The church officials weren't arrested, they were sued. Your bartender doesn't have any legal obligation to report crimes, but if you regularly confide in your bartender that you're raping a kid and he does nothing about it, when the truth comes out I hope we can all agree they're justified in suing the crap out of him for keeping silent and allowing it to go on. Yet the judge threw out the equivalent lawsuit against the church. You're begging the question. The whole point of a lawsuit is to determine whether the complaint is justified, both in law and in the pattern of facts. Of course people are justified in suing, whenever they think they have a justifiable grievance. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're entitled to win the lawsuit. Complaints must be judged on a case by case basis. One bartender might be found liable, another in a similar situation might be found not liable. Yet another in a third situation might be found to have no case to answer.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th November 2023, 12:06 PM	#177
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,941	Originally Posted by psionl0 Are you really having this much difficulty understanding this? If you have an income above the filing threshold, you are required to file federal income taxes in the US. You are not required to file in order to do the things that generate income for you. You are asserting that a requirement is always a prerequisite to the activity that creates the requirement, and that just isn't true. Originally Posted by Myriad In U.S. governance, that's an important difference that makes your analogies to other professions irrelevant. I'm not making analogies to other professions. I'm pointing out that the fact that other professions are mandatory reporters refutes the idea that the clergy are being specifically targeted--that these laws exist to single out the clergy--which is one way that people are trying to find a free expression problem. I'm also making analogies to other requirements (including training requirements) in order to demonstrate that if there is an unconstitutional burdening of free expression here, it has yet to be detected by the courts. "But the clergy would be required to do something" is not a good argument against the constitutionality of a law, and the fact that people have to impute intentions beyond this in order to find a free expression problem is a pretty good reason to suppose that we all recognize this.
	Last edited by mumblethrax; 27th November 2023 at 12:31 PM.

27th November 2023, 12:29 PM	#178
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,640	Originally Posted by theprestige You're begging the question. The whole point of a lawsuit is to determine whether the complaint is justified, both in law and in the pattern of facts. Of course people are justified in suing, whenever they think they have a justifiable grievance. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're entitled to win the lawsuit. Complaints must be judged on a case by case basis. One bartender might be found liable, another in a similar situation might be found not liable. Yet another in a third situation might be found to have no case to answer. Begging the question that the bartender would be found liable before a jury? Sure, I'll cop to that. But it would be heard. What actually happened here was the judge threw the suit out on principle, and explicitly cited confessional privilege in doing so. This is not about any obligation to report shared equally between bishops, barbers and bartenders. It's about a specific legal privilege which is very much in use to protect the church, even in scenarios such as this where the religious reasons for that privilege do not apply. Incidentally, the histrionics of the opinion piece in the OP made me want to find another source before I believed anything it said: https://thecrimewire.com/news/child-...-mormon-church The buried lede: Quote: The AP investigation also uncovered instances where the church, through its attorneys, invoked attorney-client privilege to maintain secrecy surrounding serious cases of child sexual abuse.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,640

27th November 2023, 05:15 PM	#179
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,415	Originally Posted by psionl0 I suspect that you already knew that this was about government mandated training (and not church mandated training) but you wanted to be disagreeable. Only a little bit. My point was that the mandated reporter training could be a part of the training that priests already get in seminary, but it isn't. Originally Posted by psionl0 The Catholic Church has said that they will not break the seal of confession regardless of the new laws. I haven't heard of any priest being charged over this however. Certain priests have said that they would not break the seal of confession, but they would withhold absolution unless they turned themself in.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

Yesterday, 10:41 AM	#180
Chanakya Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,488	Have only read the first few posts, and maybe this has already been said in the four-and-a-half pages I've not yet read, but:This is completely obvious. It should be illegal abetment of crime, in this case rape, to be aware of it and yet keep quiet about it. No one cares what a bunch of zombie worshiping fools thinks or feels about this. As far as the law, this should be illegal. Lock away the rapist father, and lock away the pandering priest as well. End of.
Chanakya Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,488

Yesterday, 11:23 AM	#181
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by Chanakya Have only read the first few posts, and maybe this has already been said in the four-and-a-half pages I've not yet read, but:This is completely obvious. It should be illegal abetment of crime, in this case rape, to be aware of it and yet keep quiet about it. This position has already been covered. Making everyone a mandatory reporter is a very bad idea. It produces all sorts of problems regarding false accusations (and we're not even talking about maliciously false ones either). There's a reason nobody does this.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Yesterday, 11:24 AM	#182
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Only a little bit. My point was that the mandated reporter training could be a part of the training that priests already get in seminary, but it isn't. Seminaries could voluntarily implement it, but the state cannot require it.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Yesterday, 12:01 PM	#183
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 67,130	All of which is moot, since the issue happened in Arizona, where priests receiving confession are not mandated reporters. All such training would accomplish is ensuring the priests there understand they have no legal obligation to report sod all. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

Today, 10:19 AM	#184
Chanakya Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,488	Originally Posted by Ziggurat This position has already been covered. Making everyone a mandatory reporter is a very bad idea. It produces all sorts of problems regarding false accusations (and we're not even talking about maliciously false ones either). There's a reason nobody does this. Fair point. I guess I hadn't thought this through. Does the law require citizens to necessarily report a crime they're aware of? I don't know! I'd imagine not, and agreed, in principle that's a terrible idea. It would be interesting to know what the law does say about this. (Still haven't read the thread. Since this has, as you say, been discussed here, no doubt the legal aspect has been covered already.) ...Beyond merely reporting, I'd say the lowlife priest is further culpable, in terms of making it easier for a rapist to deal with guilt, and thus enabling the ongoing rape. But I suppose that's too subtle, too ...insubstantial a thing for it to be an actual crime, in legal terms, as opposed to merely being a morally wanting and generally disgusting thing to have done.
Chanakya Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,488