A judge has barred Washington from enforcing a state law that would have required Churches to report child abuse. The judge says the law infringed on freedom of religion
Judge blocks WA requirement for priests to report child abuse disclosed in confession • Washington State Standard
The fact they would protect abusers just to comply with their faith speaks volumes about their priorities. I mean it's no surprise when they already protect the predators within their ranks, so why not do the same with their followers?
Luigi Mangione’s religion requires that he sacrifice health care executives, but I don’t see any judges standing up for him.
I dont understand, Luigi is innocent, he was playing Mouse Trap board game with me at the alleged time.
My bad, thanks for the correction. I get so confused about some of the Psalms.
Ig sexually abusing kids falls under religious freedoms now. What a shithole country
More specifically, Washington State (and most other states) have mandated reporter laws regarding child abuse. If your profession is on the list, you are a mandated reporter. Construction workers are an example of people not mandated reporters. If they suspect abuse they should say something but aren't legally mandated. Teachers, nurses, and clergy are examples of mandated reporters. They have to say something. The carve out is if the priest learns the information during a sacramental confession. Outside of the confessional, he still reports. But because people stop going to confession when priests don't have the seal of the confessional, churches maintain that requirement. Child abusers aren't going to confess to someone who will report that confession to the government so it isn't like this law was going to stop any abuse. In fact, more abuse might happen when perverts have no one to turn to when they need someone to deal with their messed up psychology.
Then we should fix the justice system's punitive nature to reduce recidivism, not the mandate to report.
Teachers, nurses, and clergy are examples of mandated reporters.
Well, mandated, until they want to protect a rapist. Then they are protected from having to disclose they exchanged tips with a fellow child rapist.
I mean, so if my religion says I can diddle kids and kill republicans, is that legal now?
It's seem that two classes of people pedophiles protected in the country are priests & billionaires.
It would seem so.
In the like 40% chance you're actually dumb enough to ask this unironically, no, what this means is if you work a confessional booth as part of your religion and somebody admits to diddling kids and killing republicans in the past tense then you not saying anything about it is legal.
It seems that protecting the children only works to weaken privacy and individual rights, not to actually protect children.
The legislation “places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law. The consequences for violating the law are serious and, as Plaintiffs assert, the implications of violating the Sacramental Seal are more serious still,” he wrote.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s office emphasized that the ruling only applies to “the Sacrament of Confession” and that, if clergy learn about abuse in any other setting, the injunction does not change that they will be mandated reporters. Brown did not provide any further comment.
Batshit insane first paragraph. The second is at least some small positive. I don't know that this being overturned actually makes any meaningful difference in practice though though- if people can't say they abused a child in confessional they won't. I guess you might catch some people in the transmission, who didn't learn about the change? That would be a positive. But I think long term people just wouldn't confess to sexual abuses in the confessional anymore
I live in a place where clergy are legally required to report already. There’s still a regular stream of people who confess anyway and are then counseled to immediately report to the police as well, as clergy will be reporting within 24 hours.
Some people glaze over when told what the legal responsibilities are, and just go with what they were told from old movies, that confession is inviolate. Odd but true.
Huh... Thanks for sharing your perspective! it sounds like I was wrong
So they just need to classify Epstein as a religious leader?
kind of similar on how Christian conservatives push for child/adult marriage, because they believe the only damage of pedophilia is that it is out of wedlock, and it would be better for the child they are sent to live with a rapist and become their servant.
The freedom of religion to do what?
The freedom to not report cases of child abuse when told in the Catholic confessional.
It's just one of the most outrageous stuff "freedom of religion" is being used for. Liberal democracies all around the world are being dismantled in the name of "freedom of religion" in part, other part in name of money.
Read the article. Your question is answered in there.
To protect child rapists.
To fuck kids, dude.
Standing up for religious freedom...to keep child abuse secret.
Religion, ALL religion, is a fucking cancer, the blight of humanity.
This is a tragically close-minded opinion. You sound hurt and angry. I hope you get well.
https://apnews.com/article/sex-abuse-catholic-church-mormon-5d78129a2fe666159a22ce71323f6da3
Multiple religious organizations established abuse hotlines, which publicly appears to be an effort to address the higher than average child SA criminals within their clergy/employees.
But they are actually getting used to establish a loophole so if they report it to clergy using the hotline they want to use religious protected speech (like confession), or if they report it to a lawyer they want it to be attorney client privilege speech. Then they always have a clergy or lawyer answer the hotline and never report the crime to anyone outside their organization ignoring local laws.
Perverse judgement from a perverted judge in yet another case of using perverted make believe superstitions as some perverse magical shield to protect perverts from facing justice.
This can’t be overstated.
Not just about making perverts face justice, it's about helping current and preventing future victims.
A bit of a clickbait title (but only a bit) - the WA law moved to make priests required reporters, professions who are legally required by law to report child abuse. The injunction sought to exempt catholic priests from being required to report child abuse which was reported to them under the 'seal of the confessional' (the special super secret group chat that only exists between you, your priest and god) and after this injunction they are still required reporters in all other instances.
This is... at least a consistent ruling? For example religious leaders can't be held as accomplices if they don't report crimes that were told to them in a ritual setting (oversimplification) or be held liable if they don't forewarn about someone planning suicide or some other crime and then said person goes thru with it. Predictably canon law is rife with examples of breaking the seal of the confession to prevent a suicide, of course, but lets just ignore that.
The rationalization for this is twofold: First freedom of religion from civil regulation. Second and more credibly that it would be allowing unfair weight into criminal proceedings because of the perceived sanctity of the confession and the upstanding character of priests (lol). The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it's nature hersay, but hersay that would be presented as being devout reporting of an unimpeachable confession, and that could unduly sway juries and in general get really messy so the law just doesn't want to deal with it.
I strongly disagree with this ruling, the catholics get enough special treatment what with not being prosecuted for raping all those children, that's just the background to the arguments being made about it.
The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay
Testifying that someone confessed to a crime is not hearsay. Hearsay is "Person X told me that Person Y did Z".
Testifying to someone confessing to you is exactly what cops do on the stand, when they testify about a confession a perp provided in an interrogation.
Colloquial use, not legal. It has been years since I had a class on the admission of testimony, and I mostly just made 40k jokes every time someone said 'hearsay' anyways.
The problem as I understand the religion, is the priests are going to do whatever the church(bishop, cardinal, pope) say is correct. Because the reward and punishment are infinite. For the true believers I think the only exception the church officially makes is to prevent a murder?
The new pope should be lobbied to change this but don't get your hopes up.
Priests are bound to confidentiality for whatever was confessed to them during confession. It’s part of why people confess to them. Priests are then able to encourage people to seek help, talk to the police, etc., but they themselves aren’t supposed to report what is said to them. In a few flavors of Christianity, including Catholicism, confession is considered a sacrament. It’s between the believer, their priest, and their god.
That’s what this ruling is about. Priests are still mandatory reporters for anything they learn outside confession.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I wonder how old that judge's last sexual partner victim was
Wow! But if I “overheard” part of this “confession” as a “mandated reporter” BY FED LAW (confessionals are NOT SOUND PROOF), I can go to jail if I do not report what I overheard and the government found out I knew… straight to court!
Yet, these fucks get a hall pass to keep fucking with kids “because of religion”, religion doesn’t give you the freedom to fuck with kids but the Catholics would know the most about fucking with kids wouldn’t they?!?! Appalling! Our nation is fucked!
I mean, am I surprised when our “president” is a know pedophile who talked about his own daughter sexually and was besties with Epstein!? WHERE IS THE CLIENT LIST!? We know Drumpf was probs the invite NUMBER 1 and FUNDED it! 🤦🏽♀️🤷🏽♀️
What FREEDOM exactly is it violating?
Catholic doctrine is the privacy of the confessional is absolute. Plus there’s an argument that even the worst offender should have a place to unburden and beg forgiveness. Obviously forgiveness doesn’t need to be granted.
The freedom of religion to continue enabling child rapists.
Perhaps all religion should die along with the cunts in charge.
My religion says I can shoot politicians in the fucking face.
And no, I don't have to pay taxes on that.
It's weird how one group of people has such a warped idea of what "freedom" means.
There was a really great article about the difference between Northern liberty vs. the Southern notion of "liberty". The Southern is mostly about the "liberty" to rule over others.
Over the years, there were numerous lawsuits about the use of certain drugs in a religious context, and they were always shot down in the courts. THIS is where they choose to bend ?
But you see, those other religions are pagan. This is a lawsuit brought by Christians.
I really wish that wasn't the justification these judges use.
I could be mistaken, but aren't there are a handful of religions that have exemptions for religious ceremony? Or is that just Natives?
Only indigenous folk, and that's based on the fact that they are a sovereign nation. Rastas will still go right to jail for cannabis use.
Even more evidence that it is far safer to leave your kids with a drag queen (or king) than the clergy.
This tracks with the US electing a pedophile.
By that logic, I can live sacrifice MAGATs to a idol of Teddy Roosevelt and be in the clear. This law is fucking stupid.
.... nah. That doesn't seem right.
Looks like this is about confessionals, meaning it's about privilege.
That being said, sexual abuse of a child is usually an exception to privilege for all professionals.
The actual situation is a lot more nuanced than the headline makes it out to be. The main issue at hand here is the Catholic seal of confession, which has an extremely long history in US law (and in the law in many other countries) as being protected under freedom of religion. Essentially, Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest and be given instructions on how those sins can be forgiven. This practice is extremely old, and crucially, the priest isn't allowed to tell anyone what they were told in confession unless the confessor wants them to. This is for obvious reasons- nobody would confess anything to the priest otherwise. They take this very seriously- Catholic priests essentially believe that breaking the seal of confession is a one way ticket straight to Hell for themselves (actual situation is more complex but that's the short version) and most won't do it even if the law says they have to.
Anyway, the law in question essentially requires priests to break the seal of confession in child sex abuse cases. That seems rational given how many other people are mandated reporters, but because of the long history in US law of respecting the seal of confession and how central this practice is to Catholic doctrine, it's understandable that there is a legal fight about it and why a judge put a pause on it. Regardless of what you may personally believe on this matter, US law depends on precedent and I find it unlikely that even a normal supreme Court that isn't controlled entirely by far right activist judges would let this one stand, if this even made it to the supreme court. The precedent is just very much against it.
No special protections for child-rape book clubs. Hope that covers the nuances unlike the judge in the headline who is covering for nonces.
The main issue at hand here is the Catholic seal of confession, which has an extremely long history in US law (and in the law in many other countries) as being protected under freedom of religion
We had a long history in law for the ownership of humans, and how humans can be treated by their owners...
Doesn't make it right, or even constitutional.
If my "strongly held religious beliefs" mean I must kill every fascist I see, am I protected by the first amendment? It's my exercise, and I must be able to exercise it, right?
Or, does the first amendment say the government cannot make laws that target religious folk, either for benefits or persecution?
Estudillo ruled that requiring disclosure of information priests hear in the confessional infringes on their First Amendment right to practice religion and will force them to violate their sacred vows or face punishment by the state.
The church’s recorded propensity for rampant pedophilia legally demonstrates that they hold noting sacred other than pedophilia and other forms of abuse, making the judge’s ruling (among many other things) invalid. Ignore that idiot, Washington.
Freedom absolutism is great!
You can't take away my freedom to rape kids!
We're just thinking of the kids! Jeez!! Is that so hard to understand?? 😑
Hooray! Abusers get to relieve themselves of the harm they’ve caused while protecting their ability to do it again. What a great country I live in.
FUCK!
The mods in this community are so dumb. Gee, let's protect the child rapists, can't even think about making a comment that implies violence or it gets removed. Don't worry about context, you hear that everyone! Violence is bad ya'll no matter the context, even if someone tries to rape you!
Edit: For the record, when you come to remove this. I was raped as a child, so I have strong feelings about this for good reason. You have personal experience with rape, and you get to have an opinion on it. If you haven't and you think my response is over the top, then you can go fuck yourself. My entire life was ruined bcz of some asshole who wanted to diddle a fucking little kid.
Cruelty is the point. Innit.
Let's get this straight.
Psychiatrist are required to break doctor patient confidentiality if patient is a threat, right and report it.
Lawyers must report crimes to law enforcement, breaking confidentiality too.
But priests are 'sprcial' in the magic, secret telling closets?
We wont be free of groomers until we lock up every single pastor, priest, and every other Christian clergy in this country.
I'm not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge's order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.
Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?
republicans have proven time and time again that they love children....in absolute most inappropriate way.
If you require priests to report what they hear in confession the only thing you accomplish is people stop going to confession. Furthermore, turning yourself in is generally part of your penance anyway.
A lot of other professions have mandated reporting. That is like saying because a therapist have to turn in their client, since they are mandated reporters, then there would be less people getting therapy.
I don't care about penance, I don’t care about confession, and I don’t give a fuck about religion, I care about pedophiles facing justice.
Yeah Catholic church is so big on telling pedophiles turn themselves in that's that's what history shows.
If you require priests to report what they hear in confession the only thing you accomplish is people stop going to confession
Sounds like an overall net benefit then?
Okay. I definitely get where everyone is coming from here. We all want to protect kids. I'm not sure this ruling is in the wrong though.
Here's why. We demonize pedophilia to the point that people would kill someone that is attracted to children. I'm making a specific point here to NOT include child molesters. That's a separate but very related issue. If we took the time to address the mental health issues that caused them to be attracted to children in the first place (eg, molested as children themselves, some other issue that therapy could address, etc), maybe we could stop them from going so far with their problem and actually save kids before they were abused.
Since they really don't have anyone to talk to ever, maybe a priest could curb their behavior and act as a counselor to stop further abuse of children. If left unaddressed, maybe the molester would continue with many more victims, and the priest could stop them at 1. But if they no longer felt they could talk to a priest, then they continue.
Basically, as a country we should be doing MUCH better to stop pedophiles from dealing with their issues alone and help prevent them from actually molesting children. Failing that (since we are failing that), why are we trying to take away the next level of therapy for them? It makes no sense to continue to push them into a lonely corner and expect them to do differently. If the priests' silence allows them to keep the molester from touching more kids, that's a much better outcome overall.
The law suppose to make them report child abuse, real one, that happened already. You can talk with your magic provider about how much you want to diddle kids, and he still can do 3% of what real therapist should be doing, if you want. The law was supposed to catch those who already diddle kids. Which nobody should be doing, no matter how much they want to.
That hasn't worked for the last 1,000 years and it isn't going to start working now.
Good point here: as a country we should be doing MUCH better to stop pedophiles from dealing with their issues
Just throwing the book at people who hurt kids isn't working. Kids are still getting hurt every day. There's far, far more pedophiles in our society than anyone realizes. The reason they're not getting help is because everyone says, "instantly to jail for life" instead of trying to figure out where the problem comes from. They stay in hiding, hurting people in secret because there is no support for them anywhere.
the mental health issues that caused them to be attracted to children in the first place
Question - do we know this is the case? Or is it like other sexual affinities, like S&M or fetishism?
I agree with this: We demonize pedophilia to the point that people would kill someone that is attracted to children.
Most people would make it illegal to have that attraction. It's a slippery slope and I guarantee same-sex attraction would be next.
The issue isn't with therapy, or talking. The issue is what priests will do when they have evidence that a crime has occured.
I have enough of a Catholic background to know that confession isn't a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card. You are supposed to be repentant, and part of that is owning up to any crime you might have committed and turning yourself in. Because of you are confessing a crime to your priest, they can't really be sure that you are truly repentant until you make good for your transgression with the legal authorities.
But! Catholic priests have been caught diddling kids for years, and when the church found out about it, they preferred to deal with it "internally". Instead of submitting the priests to secular authorities, they shuffled them off to some other parish to try to be repentant there. Often times, they just ended up doing it again. Where was the Catholic Church's deeply held beliefs then?
This is why there is so much hostility with the church right now, they can act all sanctimonious when someone tries to impose reporting requirements on them but we know that they have covered shit like this up in the past. Any goodwill they might have had being religious leaders is now depleted. Why shouldn't we treat them like everyone else?
I would argue that the ruling is correct. Child abuse should always be reported. But it shouldn't lead instantly to jail. It should lead instantly to therapy, support, counseling and a plan of action which protects the person and the children in their life from harm.
Since they really don’t have anyone to talk to ever, maybe a priest could curb their behavior and act as a counselor to stop further abuse of children
I think that's rather naive... A priest is far more likely to just get some tips on how to rape kids.
No, we need hard-ass fucking laws to protect children because our moral-fiber as a nation has been eroded away deliberately by capital forces that would absolutely package underage children for consumers if they could get away with it.
We are in a country where the average American thinks that one out of five people is transgender and many think that they are a threat to children, people who think our biggest threat comes from people in drag stalking public bathrooms, and yet are giving passes left and right to actual predators in positions of power. The conservative base in America broadly believes children are property, to be owned, enslaved, abused or used as desired. Right below this post is an update on Florida's efforts to bring back child-labor on factory farms.
We absolutely fucking need better, harsher, stronger laws to protect our vulnerable people, be it children or handicapped or elderly. Particularly from fucking PRIESTS who are one of the biggest groups of offenders who protect each other from consequence. Fuck off with this stinking mess we call "Christianity" in the United States, if Jesus came back he would be flipping every last table and smacking every "Christian" into last century.
Let's rephrase. Think of talking to a priest in this case a really poor level of free mental Healthcare. You think the best response is to take that away? I'm all for that if it's replaced with something better. If we aren't doing that though, then sure, you'd catch a few molesters when it is first announced. Then the other molesters stop talking to their last resort free counseling. And they continue to mess with children.
The entire issue could be solved with better mental Healthcare in the first place. I like the comments that suggested priests be required to refer these people to a program designed for them. Not straight to jail, but straight to better help so they'd top touching kids, and others will still come through and benefit as well.