I suspect this is spinning this case for the meme.
Even as an atheist I’m torn on this. The clergy privilege is a long standing one like attorney-client privilege. And acknowledging that certain specific groups cannot be forced to divulge the contents of private conversations, is a slippery slope to any sort of ends justifying the means actions.
I don’t give two shits about dogmatic law or privilege, or whatever else your holy fairy belief structure says. If anyone diddles or otherwise violates a child (or anyone for that matter), your ass goes into the grinder. Full stop, zero argument.
I might find this convincing if the Catholic Church has not spent so much time working so hard to enable pedo rapists within their organization. Childrens’ rights to not be victimized are significantly more important than Catholics confession. Let God forgive them, let them enjoy that forgiveness in prison.
This ruling affects far more than just Catholics though. And proving that someone else protected the victimizer by interfering with the criminal justice system or intimidated the victim is still separately illegal by making one an accessory and not impacted by this ruling.
Priests aren’t beholden to government regulations at all, unlike lawyers, and even lawyers must be paid for their service. Meanwhile a pervert can walk into a church and “absolve” themselves for free. The balance isn’t there.
While the individual who did the heinous act may feel religious absolution, that doesn’t immunize them from the legal repercussions of the crime though, so that absolution is legally meaningless, so there is no offset of balance in a legal standpoint.
It also doesn’t allow the clergy member to intimidate or otherwise attack the victim or destroy evidence in the service of a coverup. It just says that one specific kind of communication can’t be compelled as evidence.
I suspect this is spinning this case for the meme.
Even as an atheist I’m torn on this. The clergy privilege is a long standing one like attorney-client privilege. And acknowledging that certain specific groups cannot be forced to divulge the contents of private conversations, is a slippery slope to any sort of ends justifying the means actions.
I don’t give two shits about dogmatic law or privilege, or whatever else your holy fairy belief structure says. If anyone diddles or otherwise violates a child (or anyone for that matter), your ass goes into the grinder. Full stop, zero argument.
I might find this convincing if the Catholic Church has not spent so much time working so hard to enable pedo rapists within their organization. Childrens’ rights to not be victimized are significantly more important than Catholics confession. Let God forgive them, let them enjoy that forgiveness in prison.
This ruling affects far more than just Catholics though. And proving that someone else protected the victimizer by interfering with the criminal justice system or intimidated the victim is still separately illegal by making one an accessory and not impacted by this ruling.
Priests aren’t beholden to government regulations at all, unlike lawyers, and even lawyers must be paid for their service. Meanwhile a pervert can walk into a church and “absolve” themselves for free. The balance isn’t there.
While the individual who did the heinous act may feel religious absolution, that doesn’t immunize them from the legal repercussions of the crime though, so that absolution is legally meaningless, so there is no offset of balance in a legal standpoint.
It also doesn’t allow the clergy member to intimidate or otherwise attack the victim or destroy evidence in the service of a coverup. It just says that one specific kind of communication can’t be compelled as evidence.