Churches Should Have to Report Crimes Learned of Through Confession

[ThreePointTakedown]

Change my mind? 

32 states still have laws saying churches are not responsible and cannot be held liable for crimes they do not report after learning of them through confession. Including past and present child abuse by parishioners.  

[jross]

The government should not have the right to hold citizens accountable for reporting crimes.  

But it does.

All States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands have statutes identifying persons who are required to report child maltreatment under specific circumstances. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/mandaall.pdf

My gut says that clergy-penitent privilege (and attorney-client privilege) should not be protected. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

It kind of turns into a conspiracy-type thing once another person knows a crime has been committed. When it comes to light, after the fact, their knowledge both how much and when acquired can be used against them. I imagine prosecutors are hesitant to throw the book at most people in that situation for fear of a chilling effect to future cooperation. 

[jross]

Ethical nuance leads to 'the clergyman should not be protected.'

Should all citizens, because of ethics, report child abuse?

Are there situations where a citizen would not report child abuse because of ethics?

For example, a rarely intoxicated father abuses his daughter in a one-time abuse scenario.  The father's track record bears financial responsibility and good ethics... 

The father confesses his crime to the clergyman.

As a trusted confidant, the clergyman should encourage the father to seek professional help for rehabilitation.  At the same time, the clergyman should facilitate open communication within the family. A collaborative decision involving the spouse and, if appropriate, professionals can guide the family toward a resolution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of all involved.  This resolution should not automatically require informing legal, and the clergyman should be protected.

But what if the father's job involves time with other children (Teacher, Coach, Counselor, Priest, etc.)?  All parents of other children should be informed.  The father would lose his job.

But what if the father gets another job with different children, given his clean background check?  Absurd.  Getting the incident on his police record is important to protect children.  So, the clergyman should not be protected.

Twist the earlier story such that the clergyman does not facilitate open communication with the family, and keeps the secret.  The daughter reports the story to her mother.  Mother confronts father.  Father reveals he confessed to the clergyman.  Mom is angry at the clergyman.  The clergyman should not be protected because he didn't protect the well-being of a child who was unable to protect herself.

Twist the story such that the household only includes the dad and daughter.  The clergyman should not be protected because he didn't protect the well-being of a child who was unable to protect herself.

[jross]

I support the father in this story.

What would the father do to the clergyman if the knowing clergyman didn't report the abuse, and the abuse had continued?  

[jross]

This thought exercise has me newly understanding why the government holds citizens accountable for reporting high crimes.  

[Plasmodium]

Not a fan of government required reporting for any reason.

As far as churches go, Catholicism doesn't allow for such things so it is a moot point from their perspective.

[ThreePointTakedown]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Not a fan of government required reporting for any reason.

As far as churches go, Catholicism doesn't allow for such things so it is a moot point from their perspective.

Not sure about requiring. You have a right to not self-incriminate. But when someone tells you of a crime they have committed, they are including you in the circle of offenders. At that point you can weigh the consequences and your options. But you are not required.  

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not sure about requiring. You have a right to not self-incriminate. But when someone tells you of a crime they have committed, they are including you in the circle of offenders. At that point you can weigh the consequences and your options. But you are not required.  

If there are direct consequences for not reporting(e.g. liable) then it is a requirement, eh?  I think there have been court cases attempting to compel priests and psychiatrists to provide information to law enforcement and they fail for religious privacy reasons.  At least they do on TV.

Interesting discussion because it is awkward and unsettling to support an obstacle to the prevention of child abuse.

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

If there are direct consequences for not reporting(e.g. liable) then it is a requirement, eh?  I think there have been court cases attempting to compel priests and psychiatrists to provide information to law enforcement and they fail for religious privacy reasons.  At least they do on TV.

Interesting discussion because it is awkward and unsettling to support an obstacle to the prevention of child abuse.

Fair point. 

But planning to commit or cover up a crime is a crime. Regardless of your involvement with the act. Lawyers don't get to keep privilege under those circumstances. Its a tricky place to be in having info of a crime you had no part in planning or committing. Religious organizations, I don't feel, should be an exception. They aren't lawyers or doctors. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Considering the track record of the last few decades. Maybe they should voluntarily exempt themselves from the laws they helped write. Have the church opt out for 10 years. See how it effects attendance or their bottom line. Could be an interesting case study moving forward. Do people confess to unburden themselves of sin for the absolution or because they know they have a witness that can't/won't turn them in to authorities? 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Fair point. 

But planning to commit or cover up a crime is a crime. Regardless of your involvement with the act. Lawyers don't get to keep privilege under those circumstances. Its a tricky place to be in having info of a crime you had no part in planning or committing. Religious organizations, I don't feel, should be an exception. They aren't lawyers or doctors. 

I don't think it is a crime for a priest or psychiatrist to keep the knowledge of someone's behavior secret.  Do you know that it is?   TBH, I don't think Cardinals and Bishops have been prosecuted when they were aware of abuse and took only internal action.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

I don't think it is a crime for a priest or psychiatrist to keep the knowledge of someone's behavior secret.  Do you know that it is?   TBH, I don't think Cardinals and Bishops have been prosecuted when they were aware of abuse and took only internal action.

I agree, they have not.

Despite having knowledge of things that are egregious crimes, going back decades. Moving offenders to places where they reoffended. They have not been found liable for their actions at all. That seems like a miscarriage of justice. There is a slippery slope argument to be made here. We can all agree that there are certain types of crimes, perhaps based on frequency and/or severity, that should not be shielded from authorities regardless of religious affiliation. Things with the word 'petty' associated with them, I could get behind a priest, bishop, or pope-ish person to handle. Just about anything above that, should probably include consultation with the police. How much crime are we comfortable covering up? Circumstance and severity can be taken into account in both respects. 

[Bigbrog]

This is a tough one...hard to really have a strong opinion one way or the other as I have a strong opinion both ways...really torn.

[mspart]

I would think that part of the repentance process for such a person is to go through the legal system.   So whether a clergyman or a psychiatrist or other kind of shrink, or lawyer with those "secrecy" privileges, I don't think it is wrong to report the sexual abuse. 

There are more than 2 ways to look at this and I am only considering the 2 ways and choosing one.   Paramount is the protection of the child.   How to do that without reporting the perpetrator if he/she is part of the family is something I cannot fathom.   I see the opposite point but I am clear on protecting the child. 

mspart