“Priests to be Excommunicated”
This is one of those issues where one side supports an ideal even if there is harm to the other side. My choice would be to warn those who may confess to something they did. The other side of this? If unknown and happening, who is to blame if nothing s done?
~~~~~~~
Priests to be Excommunicated if They Follow the Law & MAGA wants to Blacklist Performers who Refuse to Perform for Them. As taken from Newsweek
WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT: This addresses the key constitutional issue of separation of Church and State, and whether the government should have the power to intervene in religions practice if it perceives a threat to the public.
SUMMARY: The Catholic Church has issued a warning to its clergy in Washington state: Any priest who complies with a new law requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities will be excommunicated.
The new law, which will take effect on July 27, eliminates the long-standing confidentiality of the confessional, forcing Catholic leaders and lawmakers into a highly charged standoff over religious liberty and child protection.
However, the Archdiocese of Seattle and several bishops argue that the law not only contravenes church doctrine but crosses constitutional lines, while supporters maintain it is a crucial step to protect minors from abuse.
MY TAKE: This is one of those tricky existential angst situations where both sides have compelling arguments, yet a decision must be made for the “greater good.” Defining the greater good is the challenging part. Caught in the middle are the priests who must choose between breaking the law or breaking their sworn duty to the Church.
Before delving into it deeper, let me confess that I am torn by the issue. On the one hand, the confessional is a key component of the Catholic Church. To them, confession is a means for adherents to seek redemption for their acts by acknowledging their remorse. The process is their way of treating the faithful’s immortal souls. For the secular world, this would be similar to (but not the same as) a doctor’s and a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality for their patients and clients.
On the other hand, confessing one’s sins does not always lead to ending them, but becomes a vicious cycle of bad behavior, remorse, and doing it all over again. That person’s soul-searching struggles can seem insignificant when weighed against the immediate physical and emotional abuse of a child.
Clearly, the concept of the confession will lose some effectiveness if the confessor has to worry whether or not the priest will report their confession to the police. Where is the line drawn: Any criminal activity confessed to a priest must be reported? What about thoughts about committing a crime but not yet committing one? Should the priest report a man who confesses, “Father, I’m seriously considering raping and murdering my neighbor.”
Currently, the state has a right to override religious doctrine when that practice directly harms individuals or the public good. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state could force children to be vaccinated, despite parents’ religious objections, because it is in the best interests of public health. (FYI: a community needs 95% inoculation to achieve herd immunity.) Some religions profess that sickness and injury can be overcome through prayer and faith. They reject the use of doctors and medicine. The state can intervene in such cases to protect children because they are not capable of making this choice freely on their own.
I’m not sure how such a law would be enforced. Do the cops arrest a child abuser and ask him if he confessed his abuse to his priest? However, just because it will be difficult to draw such lines, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Catholicism is a convenient religion for criminals because they get to unburden themselves through confession and feel like they’re good people even though they aren’t. Not reporting a child abuser, knowing that they are statistically likely to continue abusing, does make one complicit in the crime, regardless of how well-meaning the policy is.
Though it’s a tough call, I prefer to err on the side of protecting children from abuse. The Catholic hierarchy does itself no favors in protecting child abusers, especially with its history of protecting abusive priests who have ruined the lives of thousands of children. I am fully supportive of religious freedom, but all of our freedoms are contingent on our actions not being destructive to others. That is the greater good.
Also: “Catholic Church to Excommunicate Priests for Following New US State Law,” Newsweek
I have to wonder how many child abusers regularly confess their sins and how many will continue to do so after the new law takes effect despite the Church’s threat of excommunication?
@Nilles,
Don’t know about the future, but in the past, there were plenty of cases of child abuse where the priest was known to the church hierarchy and was simply moved to another parish to abuse again. I don’t believe the church can be trusted to put an end to the “sin.” They have a long record of providing the near occasion of sin.
Confession reconciles the sinner with God. The concepts of “bad person” and “good person” have no relevance to this. This law is just eyewash: priests are not going to violate the confidentiality of confession. Also there is nothing in the sacrament that identifies the penitent to the priest anyway. The penitent is simply a sinner seeking reconciliation; not Henry Wilson or Laura Johnson. This message on excommunication isn’t so much for priests who don’t need this reminder, but for penitents; ‘your confession is between you and God and that isn’t going to change’, and public officials; ‘put down that crack pipe’.
The lawyer/client privilege is not absolute. There is a crime-fraud exception. With physician- patient, there are also a number of exceptions some of which are grounded upon preserving the safety of others.