Posted on 02/24/2019 7:11:03 AM PST by marshmallow
A California state lawmaker introduced a proposal on Wednesday that would require clergy to report child abuse or neglect disclosed during confession.
The bill is expected to inspire a moral debate at the Capitol about the right to private penance versus a desire to protect children, and will force legislators to wade into the debate over the intersection of religion and public safety.
“SB 360 is about the safety and protection of children,” said Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), who introduced the proposal. “The law should apply equally to all professionals who have been designated as mandated reporters of these crimes — with no exceptions, period. The exemption for clergy only protects the abuser and places children at further risk.”
Clergy, doctors, psychologists, marriage and family therapists and social workers are among some 46 categories of professionals required to report any suspicion of abuse or neglect to law enforcement.
But state law offers an exemption for any clergy member “who acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication,” defined as a sacramental confession or other communication made in confidence.
The proposal received swift backlash from the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic Church.
“Inserting government into the Confessional does nothing to protect children and everything to erode the fundamental constitutional rights and liberties we enjoy as Americans,” said Steve Pehanich, director of communications and advocacy for the California Catholic Conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Your take is correct.
But I’m surprised that one who kept silent himself about child abuse has a problem with the Sacrament of Confession and is attacking it.
I attacked nothing. I merely asked a question. Your unending attacks on me, for asking a simple question speaks volumes.
Please read again what you just typed to me...You are surprised that a 10 year old would be ashamed and fearful to report sexul abuse, and therefore should not expect an adult, informed of such an abuse to report it to authorities...Are you kidding me?
How old were you when you first reported your “abuse”? Or was it just today that you did?
Think this through carefully, there is that clause in the Our Father, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us...
Forgive us exactly, to the extent, in the same manner, as we forgive those...
In your example, suppose the confession was anonymous as most are, how would the priest know? Would you cooperate with the State to try and trap a priest? False confession? You know the libs will.
Good job pushing more shame on me for not reporting in a timely manner. Too bad you have no shame to put on a priest that refuses to report someone that confesses to child abuse.
I don't think a priest should grant absolution to someone who confesses to a crime but then refuses to answer for that crime.
Moot point, inasmuch as confessional booths are anonymous.
The anonymity also makes this California law moot.
Your answer should apply to all crimes, even the act of speeding in a car.
But the anonymity of the confessional booth makes this law unenforceable anyways.
Yup. I expect a sudden popular return to the booth, and I then expect California to require ID to be presented prior to a confession.
Using an exception to negate the rule? C'mon, Laz, nobody turns themselves in for speeding but if they rape someone, or rob a bank, or murder??? It's a little different situation, no? I would think that admitting a crime and paying ones debt to society for the crime should be a part of someone being absolved.
Of course I wasn’t referring to committing crimes inside the Church...but for the State to believe it has the right to start meddling in the affairs of the Church is, no, they’ve zero authority.
...are you OK with what they’re proposing?
I agree with you that the anonymity in the confessional makes this law moot. That has been my point.
Yeah ultimately that one would get tossed under First Amendment grounds.
He’s not *imposing his views*.
He’s stating a fact.
There is no Scriptural precedent or support for confession as the Catholic church.
If people want to do it that way, instead of going to God Himself, that’s their prerogative. However, the fact still remains that aimhigh is right.
No, he's offering his personal theological opinion. Some people have difficulty distinguishing their personal opinions from facts.
Please don't be one of those people.
Thank you.
The kind who didn't need to 50 years ago or didn't know they needed to.
Nobody talked to kids about sexual predators back in those days.
For that matter, hardly anyone ever talked about sex in those days.
Kids had their childhood and didn't learn what they needed to know until they were old enough for it and NEEDED to know.
Way to call someone a liar to their face.
I have never been so disgusted with a FR post as yours.
Way to enable sexual abuse of children claiming you’d report it and then not having a problem with a priest not reporting it.
The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering.
I’m even more disgusted than before and I didn’t think that was possible.
Fine, then post the Scriptural support for confession as Roman Catholicism practices it from the Bible, book, chapter, and verse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.