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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.