Excommunicated vs Imprisoned. The choice is yours.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
516 points (99.4% liked)
News
29274 readers
2978 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A curious question. Why isn't everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?
You've touched on a key point, I think. Doctors and other professionals have mandatory reporting because a) they are in positions of respect and trust within the community, and b) they are professionals, as defined in law, and have standards to uphold.
Priests definitely meet the definition of a), however b) is a bit of a sticking point: their role isn't defined by law, but by the church. Furthermore, a court can order you to go to therapy sessions, but they can't order you to go to confession - it's completely voluntary. A therapist could tease out previous abuse, but a priest will only hear what the confessor wants to tell them about.
I'm in line with you in thinking that everyone should report abuse, but I think that a priest has more in common with an average person in this regard compared to a person working in a legally protected profession. There would be legal consequences for impersonating a therapist, but not for impersonating a priest.
So it was unclear to me from the article if it simply made priests mandatory reporters or if it went further. My understanding is that mandatory reporters don't have to report past occurrences specifically. They only havecto report if it is currently happening or they suspect going to happen. If that is the case, it should be fine. Confession isn't about what you are going to do.
Priests are being made into mandatory reporters in Washington state. In Washington state, the mandatory reporting law appears to require reporting of all past events of abuse - it does not make reference to recent acts or imminent risk.
Sec. 2. (1) (a) When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025
Why aren't all the preists who diddle kids excommunicated?
No one would go to church if they thought their kids wouldn’t get experience
Because that's the whole point of the church. It's just one big sham so they can diddle kids
Catholic Church = Child Molester Haven.
Pretty simple.
I’m going to describe a joke from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (since I can’t find a clip).
The season 15 Ireland arc
After Mac goes to a church and tells a priest he wants to become a priest, he presents a potential conflict. In vague terms, Mac explains he is gay. The priest the entire time says that is acceptable. In the end you learn the priest misunderstood and thought Mac was saying he was sexually attracted to children.
Oh, it's most churches. And the GOP.
They’d have no priests left
load more comments
(2 replies)
Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they suspect child abuse. The church thinks it is above secular law and only answers to God, not to mention the protection it offers to its own child abusers. It's complete nonsense and a good example of why religious tolerance has limits.
This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it's not.
A mandated reporter is a person who is required by law to report crimes, typically if they know or suspect a child or vulnerable adult has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected
Mandated reporters have to report child abuse. Full goddamn stop. No, it doesn't matter if it's in the past, why the fuck would that change anything?
These people really think that it's okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
You think a therapist wouldn't report that because their patient said they won't do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
So that paedophiles don't stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It's always a balancing act and from what I've heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Mandatory reporting doesn't solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There's a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit. Without mandated reporting, we can literally never know what happened.
There is very little evidence of societal benefits or needs when it comes to secrecy in confession. There are benefits and needs when it comes to secrecy with mental health professionals, and yet they often are mandated to report these crimes anyway, because the risks of not reporting far outweigh the benefits of secrecy.
Germany is behind the times and most of the EU on this one:
In 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) reporting obligations are in place for all professionals.
In 10 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia) existing obligations only address certain professional groups such as social workers or teachers.
In Germany, Malta and the Netherlands, no reporting obligations were in place in March 2014.
This isn't "the US is the exception" for once.
I've heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Don't know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/
But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.
So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say "I can convince this guy to be more mindful". That alone wouldn't be that bad, but if you're in a downward spiral, "causing harm to yourself", they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.
[citation needed]
I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting -- but not when it comes to confession. "See something, do something", yes, but not "Take confession, do something".
It's that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for -- somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don't turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won't do anything to institutional rot. You're focussing on the wrong thing.
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words "cause harm to yourself or others". That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Please provide a source of that actually happening or a legislative or judicial ruling that supports that idea at all.
While there is some support for absolute secrecy of a private confession, Lutheran history and the Book of Concord do not support the concept of keeping a confidence if it risks the ongoing abuse or death of a child or requires the pastor to violate civil or criminal laws designed to protect children from abuse.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt."
Shit like this is why it is explicitly written that Baha'is must follow the law of the land before the laws of god.
This is not true. A therapist would be required to break confidentially if they became aware that their Client is going to harm themselves or others, or if they are mandated by law.
What someone already did in the past generally isn't reported.
I find zero sources that agree with your claim.
I find several sources that indicate that therapists in all US states are required to break confidentiality when child abuse has occurred.
https://psychcentral.com/health/what-do-therapists-have-to-report
https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-must-a-therapist-file-a-report
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-therapists-report-confidentiality_l_5d2cf063e4b0bca603641a62
https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/exceptions-to-confidentiality-in-counseling
So either you're talking about another country's laws (in which case I'd like to know which country), or you're just incorrect.
I'm in Colombia, where psychologists are required to report "human rights violations, mistreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions of confinement of which any person is a victim and of which they become aware in the exercise of their profession."
That's not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don't confess to things that haven't happened yet. You're more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that's when a confession should become reportable, if we're want the law to be secular and equitable.
Technically everything you've done is in the past, unless you're doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they're confessing, it's in the past, they're repentant--not an ongoing risk--therefore I don't have to report. But that's obviously bullshit.
What's your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don't have to report cases of child abuse.
I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.
It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[^1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).
To be clear, it's the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[^2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):
What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?
At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that's pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[^1] is summarised as:
When [any member of these groups] has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department
[^1]: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) [^2]: https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/
load more comments
(1 replies)
I read the headline and was prepared to support the church on this one (for once). Then I read the first paragraph of the article. I have never made a 180 on an opinion so fast. The fuck is wrong with the Catholic church and child abuse? Why is this a constant problem with them?
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn't the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be "saved from God", and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.
I don't know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it's true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I'm too skeptical of the state to trust it'll always be a good thing.
To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume).
Lawyers don't get to avoid this. They need to, in fact they are forced to, otherwise the entire legal system fails. There is no justice without privileged defense. That's literally in the fifth amendment.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn't lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
Confession requires penitance. They must confess and repent to God, but there is no reason why the penitance for Catholic confession can't involve actually fucking answering for your crimes.
The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn't lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.
It is not the opposite direction. It's the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn't only between you and the clergy.
I don't think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they're required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there's no reason it shouldn't expand to more/all crimes.
Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”
No, they only don't have to report confessions. They'd still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It'd only be things said in the confession box that are safe.
I don't like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people's lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?
Not all laws are good or just.
And yet, it's effectively a universal truth that child sexual abuse is the gravest offense imaginable, and a very common result of religious secrecy is covering up child sexual abuse.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason. We can all fucking agree on a law against child sexual abuse being fair and just. When it comes to anything else, we can have that conversation.
No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes.
Except for the fact that there's a legal loophole in place for confession. If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is "I cannot testify, it is against my religion."
Do you understand the issue? The priest can't ever say "I can't testify because I heard it in confession" because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say "I cannot testify" and we all have to leave it at that.
Slippery slopes are fallacies for a reason.
Slippery slope is a type of fallacy. It isn't fallacious always.
'in its barest bones, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:
“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”
The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A'
(https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/)
Saying that this would create a precident to include other crimes being required to be reported is not fallacious.
If you subpeona a priest who saw someone commit a crime, all he has to say is "I cannot testify, it is against my religion."
That's just blatantly incorrect. They're not required to report on stuff they're told in confessionals and that's all. They're still required to report on crimes they witness, just like everyone else. Do you think lawyers are t required to report crimes they witness?
Do you understand the issue? The priest can't ever say "I can't testify because I heard it in confession" because that in and of itself is a breach of the seal of confession.
So he can only say "I cannot testify" and we all have to leave it at that.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it'd be the same for the clergy. It's not an issue for lawyers, so I don't see an issue for the clergy.
In an ideal world they could hear the confessional and check up on the victim. I'm sure this won't always happen, but it may. If they're required to report it, they'll never be told, so can't act on it.
I don't like religion, and especially organized religion. However, this steps too far into a government that forcing it's way into people's lives that I don't like.
Yes, just as a lawyer would have to do when questioned about a client. Anything they did outside of attorney-client privledge they must speak about, it’d be the same for the clergy. It’s not an issue for lawyers, so I don’t see an issue for the clergy.
Is this intentionally bad faith, or just a deep misunderstanding of the legal system?
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person's lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
They also have the bar - a legal association specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
It's not perfect, but it's something.
It's not the same for the clergy. A priest can be witness to whatever, and there's no legal obligation to stop being the person's priest or hearing their confessions. But there is a tremendous amount of evidence that clergy associations have been exclusively dedicated to ensuring that clergy never face the law at all.
If a lawyer is a witness to a crime that their client committed, and is involved in proceedings related to that crime, they have to recuse themselves from representing the client. They literally cannot be that person's lawyer anymore. They keep all information already held under attorney client privilege, but any future information is no longer protected.
Privledged information is protected, yes. Not other information.
They also have the bar - a legal association...
An association of legal professionals, not a legal association. It is private.
...specifically dedicated to ensuring that lawyers all comply with the law. If they break the law in the course of their duties, the association exists to prevent them from ever practicing law again.
Sure, I'd advocate for something like that, though the clergy does have administration that regulates them also. You can argue they should be more strict, but it does exist.
The entire religion is based on shame and fear. The clergy take advantage of both.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(32 replies)
Wait a sec. What the fuck? So reporting child rape is now BAD???
They hold confession to be inviolate, which is fucking bullshit. Doctors, including psychiatrists, who aren't allowed to share that shit do have to report certain criminal acts to police.
Unfortunately all too often freedom of religion translates to freedom from consequences. Fuck the Catholic church (and all churches) in general, but in particular for shit like this. Three Catholic church isn't unique in this, it's just got the most rigidly hierarchical, top-down structure of them all.
Note for the internet: I am just clarifying the Catholic stance. I am not Catholic and not defending them.
Priests cannot reveal what someone tells them in confession. It's a lot like attorney-client privilege, as your priest is supposed to be your advocate before God. Breaking the seal of confession is a big deal (to them) because, just like criminals deserve representation, sinners need to be able to confess.
Sinners should be allowed to confess, but not be absolved of consequence or even just be allowed to continue.
If things worked the way they should you don't just confess your sin and go about your day. The priest assigns a penance. We are at the edge of my knowledge, and I would love for a Catholic to chime in, but I know penance can be harsh, especially for a grave sin. I'm not sure how it works in practice.
The idea is certainly not to just allow it to continue. Here we get to obvious failings of the Catholic Church. But, honestly, it's not like the government is that great about protecting children from powerful men either.
Confession is for stuff you've done, not are going to do. Presumably they recognize it was wrong or they wouldn't go to confession about it.
I agree it sucks, but I also agree with the comment above yours. Yes, this crime is bad and the people deserve to be caught. I don't trust the state to always do the right thing though. If we agree with this, we should also agree when they do the same for petty theft, assisting with an illegal abortion, or whatever other crimes they want. This is a slippery slope (not the fallacy) to the state removing protections of any confession, and these people believe if they don't confess they'll go to hell, regardless of if they'll never do it again or if it wasn't that significant.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Looks like I'm going to continue not being catholic.
The U.S. Department of Justice said it is investigating whether the law infringes on First Amendment religious protections.
view more: next ›