Louisiana Judge Rules That Priests Don’t Have to Report Abuse if They Hear It During Confession

[skepticscott]

112. Nothing but blather

That big deal has been examined, accepted, and applied strictly for a thousands years for eminently sensible reasons under all sorts of civil governments.

We haven't had "civil governments" examining religious privilege for a thousand years. Most of the governments dealing with this for the last millennium have been under the control of religion, particularly the catholic church.

You clearly have a peculiar understanding of the nature of the prosecution of child sexual offenses. You assume, first, that a child rape occurred. Next you assume the priest has sufficient reliable information to conclude a child rape happened. Finally, you smugly and recklessly demand he run to a police station and divulge his information, along with his opinion.

I assume nothing, other than that if an allegation of child rape has been made, it should be reported to the proper authorities so that the truth of the matter can actually be investigated, rather than being hidden behind bogus religious privilege. This is all just shit you made up. Priests make judgements about what has actually occurred every time they hear a confession. Unless you're going to argue that they just hand out penance willy-nilly, instead of for real "sins". And no one is calling for priests to make any more difficult judgements than teachers or doctors who are required to report child abuse.

If, in his zeal to follow your instructions, his information is wrong, or his conclusion is wrong, there is now on record a false, or inaccurate, or misleading accusation, vicariously made, of rape by a child. I doubt you appreciate how devastating that fact is to a prosecution regarding a child who may in fact have been raped. Especially when there is no corroborating physical evidence. Do you consider that as "Nothing actually bad"? Again, none of this calls for priests to do any more than other first reporters, and in no way justifies an exemption for "confession". The report of a priest is never going to be the last word on the subject, so you're just flinging silly straw men because you know you have nothing else.

How about a false prosecution of a person based on this testimony of a vigilant, if incorrect, priest? "Nothing actually bad"? Still, nothing that calls for priests to do anything different than doctors or teachers are very reasonably required to do. Nothing that justifies special status for "confession".

How about if people stopped going to confession lest a priest feel compelled to divulge what was told him, at his conscientious discretion? Oh, wait. I expect you'd find that to be "something actually good". Is that right? Isn't it your opinion that the sooner people stop setting feet in churches, let alone confessional booths, the better? Feel free to answer no. Yes, you need to put words in my mouth, because you have no actual argument. If people stopped going to see doctors lest a doctor feel compelled to divulge what was told him, actual, physical harm might result, and despite that, doctor-patient confidentiality is not absolute. No similar harm would result if people stopped going to confession, so why should the confidentiality of confession be held in any higher regard?

Read the court's decision. The prosecution of child sexual offenses is not the realm of amateurs. That must be why the catholic church has taken it on themselves to deal with such matter internally, and has consistently resisted turning evidence of child rape over to the proper authorities for investigation. Your church is certainly the expert when it comes to child rape.