Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LDS Bishop wasn't it? Those guys aren't anything grand. Just local guys in the church who are nominated to that position. Looks like they are the "go to" confession guys though.
The Church needs to give them some counseling on how to handle things when someone confesses and actual criminal act. Particularly ones like those one.
From what I'm reading it says the Bishops are to keep things confidential. Sounds like that is what the guy did in this case.
I believe it was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who famously said "Hard cases make bad law." He meant that ghastly facts create a great temptation for judges to misapply (or not apply) important principles of law.
There is a reason for the confessional privilege. If those who confess to their bishops and priests had no assurance of confidentiality, the entire purpose of confession would be lost. The sacrament of confession is an entirely religious rite in an entirely religious setting for entirely religious purposes. It is an easy thing for a secular journalist to suggest it's all nonsense and the bishop or priest should just call the police, but this is not how the sacrament is viewed by the participants.
Without the assurance of confidentiality, predators such as the one in this case would surely not confess their crimes at all - so nothing would be gained and whatever benefit flows from confession would be lost. Never mind that the mandatory reporting laws are very broad and would have the bishop or priest reporting far less egregious abuse than occurred in this case. (Having said all that, my state Texas is one of six states that do require reporting by clergy with no exemption for confessional communications.)
As someone in the article pointed out, there are always numerous persons in the victim's circle who might suspect or discover the abuse and report it. To place the onus on the priest or bishop, completing eviscerating the purpose and benefit of confession, seems misguided to me - a perfect illustration of ghastly facts creating a strong temptation to misapply the law (or enact a law such as Texas has).
There are a number of circumstances under which a confession heard in confidence must be reported. Lawyers, doctors, reporters, and psychologists all have the responsibility to keep confidential things learned in confidential settings. However, they all have exceptions, where things learned in confidence must be reported. These things usually involve knowledge of felonies (which would include sexual abuse of children). I don't see why a priest or any other minister should be exempt from the same reporting requirement.
That's why lawyers tell clients that they need to know everything necessary to conduct a defense, but they don't want to know if you committed a crime.
If you take a child to the ER to get a broken arm set, the hospital employees will ask how it happened. If they suspect abuse, they will have the police there before you can get out of the hospital. Doctor confidentiality? Sorry, it doesn't count when crimes are suspected.
I believe it was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who famously said "Hard cases make bad law." He meant that ghastly facts create a great temptation for judges to misapply (or not apply) important principles of law.
There is a reason for the confessional privilege. If those who confess to their bishops and priests had no assurance of confidentiality, the entire purpose of confession would be lost. The sacrament of confession is an entirely religious rite in an entirely religious setting for entirely religious purposes. It is an easy thing for a secular journalist to suggest it's all nonsense and the bishop or priest should just call the police, but this is not how the sacrament is viewed by the participants.
Without the assurance of confidentiality, predators such as the one in this case would surely not confess their crimes at all - so nothing would be gained and whatever benefit flows from confession would be lost. Never mind that the mandatory reporting laws are very broad and would have the bishop or priest reporting far less egregious abuse than occurred in this case. (Having said all that, my state Texas is one of six states that do require reporting by clergy with no exemption for confessional communications.)
As someone in the article pointed out, there are always numerous persons in the victim's circle who might suspect or discover the abuse and report it. To place the onus on the priest or bishop, completing eviscerating the purpose and benefit of confession, seems misguided to me - a perfect illustration of ghastly facts creating a strong temptation to misapply the law (or enact a law such as Texas has).
What "benefit" came to the victims from this person's confession? He continued to do it for years. It's absolutely disgusting that the bishop/priest/whatever did nothing to help those poor kids. The only thing possibly "gained" was for the criminal to get it off his chest and feel like he was forgiven as he continued to do unimaginable harm to the victims.
Predictably, what we see is a stark breakdown between (1) those who hold religious beliefs and can understand and appreciate the significance of the sacrament of confession and (2) those who hold no religious beliefs, regard the sacrament of confession as nonsense, and view the situation as nothing more than "some guy failed to report ghastly child abuse." (This does not even factor into the mix those such as the OP, whose very pores ooze with a visceral hatred of anything even vaguely related to Christianity and for whom threads such as this are little more than opportunities for spleen-venting and faux outrage.)
The Catholic Church, which has as strong an interest in the sacrament of confession as anyone, points out the numerous ways that a priest who learns of such abuse via confession can still be of benefit and even decisive benefit via counseling and other measures. Anyone who is interested can easily find such discussions.
When a poster above says "I don't see why a priest or any other minister should be exempt from the same reporting requirement" as a doctor, lawyer or other secular professional, this merely underscores my point above about the distinction between those in category (1) and those in category (2). Those in category (2) have no understanding or appreciation of the history and purpose of the sacrament of confession, of the priestly role, or of why the relationship between a priest and penitent is not "just like" the relationship between a secular professional and a client.
The current debate that rages in many states breaks down pretty much along these lines. It's questionable whether a Catholic priest would comply even where such a law is in effect, since to break the sanctity of the confessional would result in immediate excommunication that could only be reversed by the Pope himself. The Catholic Church also regards such laws as governmental interference with religion, little different from telling the church how it must conduct other sacramental rites. It seems more appropriate to me that any "reform" - and reporting might well be appropriate in some circumstances - should be a matter for the church itself.
Yes, this was a horrible case of child abuse, but the LDS bishop's responsibility was essentially nil (and it's not as though he did just sat on his hands). Hard cases make bad law. IMO, legislatively eviscerating the confessional privilege would be (and in my state's case is) bad law. We all regard child sexual abuse as among the most horrific of crimes, and there is a great temptation to lash out at anyone and everyone who coulda woulda done something to help - i.e., to enact bad laws or misapply legal principles.
Predictably, what we see is a stark breakdown between (1) those who hold religious beliefs and can understand and appreciate the significance of the sacrament of confession and (2) those who hold no religious beliefs, regard the sacrament of confession as nonsense, and view the situation as nothing more than "some guy failed to report ghastly child abuse." (This does not even factor into the mix those such as the OP, whose very pores ooze with a visceral hatred of anything even vaguely related to Christianity and for whom threads such as this are little more than opportunities for spleen-venting and faux outrage.)
The Catholic Church, which has as strong an interest in the sacrament of confession as anyone, points out the numerous ways that a priest who learns of such abuse via confession can still be of benefit and even decisive benefit via counseling and other measures. Anyone who is interested can easily find such discussions.
When a poster above says "I don't see why a priest or any other minister should be exempt from the same reporting requirement" as a doctor, lawyer or other secular professional, this merely underscores my point above about the distinction between those in category (1) and those in category (2). Those in category (2) have no understanding or appreciation of the history and purpose of the sacrament of confession, of the priestly role, or of why the relationship between a priest and penitent is not "just like" the relationship between a secular professional and a client.
The current debate that rages in many states breaks down pretty much along these lines. It's questionable whether a Catholic priest would comply even where such a law is in effect, since to break the sanctity of the confessional would result in immediate excommunication that could only be reversed by the Pope himself. The Catholic Church also regards such laws as governmental interference with religion, little different from telling the church how it must conduct other sacramental rites. It seems more appropriate to me that any "reform" - and reporting might well be appropriate in some circumstances - should be a matter for the church itself.
Yes, this was a horrible case of child abuse, but the LDS bishop's responsibility was essentially nil (and it's not as though he did just sat on his hands). Hard cases make bad law. IMO, legislatively eviscerating the confessional privilege would be (and in my state's case is) bad law. We all regard child sexual abuse as among the most horrific of crimes, and there is a great temptation to lash out at anyone and everyone who coulda woulda done something to help - i.e., to enact bad laws or misapply legal principles.
So little moral clarity. So many excuses and equivocations.
There are a number of circumstances under which a confession heard in confidence must be reported. Lawyers, doctors, reporters, and psychologists all have the responsibility to keep confidential things learned in confidential settings. However, they all have exceptions, where things learned in confidence must be reported. These things usually involve knowledge of felonies (which would include sexual abuse of children). I don't see why a priest or any other minister should be exempt from the same reporting requirement.
That's why lawyers tell clients that they need to know everything necessary to conduct a defense, but they don't want to know if you committed a crime.
If you take a child to the ER to get a broken arm set, the hospital employees will ask how it happened. If they suspect abuse, they will have the police there before you can get out of the hospital. Doctor confidentiality? Sorry, it doesn't count when crimes are suspected.
In this case, the individual taking the confession is a complete layman despite the title of "Bishop". I don't know what the law might be in that case as compared to an actual authority figure or a professional such as a doctor, counselor or someone like that.
Certainly, there is an ethical dilemma here if not a legal one. Maybe Katzpur knows how the LDS church advises their Bishops and other authority figures manage confession.
So little moral clarity. So many excuses and equivocations.
The man-made "sacrament" of confession should have no standing in secular law. Knowledge of criminal activity makes you an accessory if you fail to report it, period. It should apply to everyone no matter what their profession!
He has nothing to do with religion and there is nothing in it for making you proud to be an Atheist.
IMO, this monster priest is the ACTUAL ATHEIST who has no consciousness and no fear of God - You should be ashamed to have one of your kind cloaked in a religious attire. There are many such Atheists in all religions posing to be religious men, but in fact they don't have an iota of belief in the God and his justice that will be served to ALL. And this is what makes them Atheists.
Sorry and Sad for the child.
This monster Atheist who has posed to be a Priest should be put to death if convicted in a fair trial.
More like you are choosing not to read something that is there. Either way, have a good day.
No, that the clergy remained silent does not infer they also raped the child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
