It just is. Feel free to Google it but religion predates man's law. I'm not being a dick with this next comment but I assume you're not Catholic so you don't understand the concept of confession and the role the priest plays. Think of the confessional as you praying out loud to God and the priest is there to provide guidance and absolution. I'm over simplifying but that's an easy way to think about it. A priest is not required by law to divulge anything that is said DURING CONFESSION. It ONLY applies to confession. If you told a priest you molested a baby in confession, he will tell you to stop, turn yourself in, pray, whatever but it's up to you to do the right thing. Now if you are NOT in confession like you're hanging out at his house watching TV and you mention it, that is not the sacrament of confession and if he doesn't report it he's a cunt.
In fact the more I think about this, the more it fucking infuriates me actually... the following is an emotionally charged, personal opinion and is likely to offend some, I offer no apology.
They're ALREADY CUNTS for allowing such confessions to be protected. Once upon a time I may have thought differently, that everyone deserves some 'safe place' to reveal even their darkest nature... but FUCK IT! There's a goddamn line, and so far as I'm concerned it AT LEAST starts with child abuse, I could care less what protections religions x/y/z try to justify - if you want an isolated place in which to confess your crimes against children, try jail and then no doubt, very quickly, a coffin.
The priests that let monsters walk back out those doors and into the community they claim to support... let 'em hang(proverbially speaking, ie, put them to the courts and let good honest people(unbiased by religion) decide their fate) for being enablers/accomplices.
You're making a lot of assumptions. 1. Most child molesters aren't running to the confessional to tell a priest about it. 2. Someone confessing something as bad as child abuse of any kind will probably not do it face to face with their own priest.
It's the EXACT same privilege that an attorney has with their client. You do realize that attorney client privilege keeps a lawyer from divulging the exact same information, right? Why no similar anger towards lawyers?
I wasn't necessarily assuming that it's widely prevalent, sorry if you got that impression.
You're absolutely right to point that out and to an extent they absolutely are afforded a similar hate - especially the ones who knowingly assist the guilty in getting lesser sentences or none at all. However, in that particular context, the matter is at least already in the hands of the courts and not being ignored as blatantly as is the case with a priest letting a child abuser walk out of not only the confessional box, but then the doors of the church.
At least in the example of a lawyer withholding information from the public/police, it's not a guarantee that a guilty person will walk.
The priest, however, is aware that they are allowing the crimes to continue for at least until the police maybe catch the abuser and present them to the courts, at which point, they would then seek the counsel of their lawyer.
FINAL EDIT: Fucking, removing gender pronouns... I hate this planet sometimes -.-
Like I said, it's complicated. I don't condone abuse of any kind and anybody that abuses kids deserves a VERY painful punishment. HOWEVER, confession is a requirement of the Catholic faith and it's critical to Catholicism that when you have confession with a priest that you know it's in complete confidence. It's the exact same confidence you have with your lawyer which is why that is protected as well regardless of what is said.
Let me run something by you for academic purpose. In Washington DC age of consent is 16. In Illinois it's 17. If someone had sex with a 16 year old in each state, it's only a crime in one of them. Does a priest report it and if so, which state? Age of consent in Mexico is 12. If someone had sex with a 16 year old in Mexico, should the priest they confessed to in Mexico report it? I won't even get into the countries like Thailand. What's against the law in one state may not be against the law in another state, or another country. A priest's job is not to judge or know the ins and outs of local/state/federal laws, he's there to help you be a better person, seek forgiveness for the things that you've done that's wrong, and make right what you fucked up, which includes turning yourself in if neccesary.
To be a priest, you make a commitment to God, not the municipality you live in. A priest can't divulge what they learn in confession even to save their own life (like if someone held a gun to their head) and many, many priests have died protecting that privileged information over the years. Lawyers protect this information and even the fuckfaces in the media claim to protect this. I actually had a discussion about this with a priest not too long ago and he gave the example of someone confessing to him the possible scenario that the confessor poisoned the communion wine. He can't tell anyone though he could take precautions to make sure nobody drank it as long as nobody learns what was divulged or who divulged it.
Imo this is a farce. It was all set up to protect the abusers and not the children. This has been going on for centuries. Popes look out for their own and tptb. Kids are on their own.
(please excuse the shortened quote, I very much hear what you're saying and can't argue against it)
"He can't tell anyone though he could take precautions to make sure nobody drank it as long as nobody learns what was divulged or who divulged it."
So, perhaps by this same logic, priests could do a little more to assist potential victims... (no, I'm not advocating violent vigilantism, for the record)
In some cases they can and do. One issue is that if I were to go to confession, I don't give my name and I wouldn't give the name of anyone else I'm talking about. So if I stole $5000 from you, I would say I stole $5000 from Argosciv, I'd say I stole $5000 or "money" from a friend or a coworker or... So most of the time the priest doesn't know who they are talking to or who they are talking about. Obviously in some cases they do but often times they do not. A Catholic can choose a face to face confession or an anonymous confession. MOST Catholics that "go to confession" do so in a confessional that hides the identity of the person confessing as well as who the priest is they are speaking to. Most parishes have multiple priests hearing confession and many times the priests are from another parish so they truly don't know who the hell they are talking to or about.
True true, I was aware of multiple confessional priests and anonymized confessions, absolutely.
I guess at this point I'm just speaking out of general frustration - you've at least helped to remind me that the job of a genuine priest, is far from easy. You have humbled me, Harvey, thank you.
Thanks is not necessary. It's conflicting and frustrating as hell and a large number of priests feel the same way, especially in cases like this. I do a lot of work with the religious and I get exposed to this stuff pretty regularly. I'm nosy as hell and not afraid to ask questions so I ask TONS of questions about this sort of thing.
But here's a TRUE scenario that's fucked up. You and I will both agree it's wrong on at least one level. A priest got arrested for child pornography. The priest admitted he downloaded and looked at the images. We both agree that's wrong. Now here's what's fucked up about it. Had the priest lived in Illinois, the images he looked at are not illegal in the slightest and he wouldn't have been arrested and ended up on the sex offenders registry. The two dozen images on his computer (found by an IT guy working on his PC) were all pictures of naked kids but none of them were sexual in nature. ALL pics came from legal nudist websites and were simply pictures of kids playing or swimming or hanging with their nudist family. These images are perfectly legal to view and download in all 50 US states. But the state he lived in deems an image child pornography if the person viewing it gets off on it (and the image is of a minor). And never forget that a judge in one courtroom may give someone a pass on a major crime while another judge will throw the book at someone for a minor crime. Our criminal justice system is fucked up on so many levels.
That is just... dumbfounding. I seriously don't even know what to feel about that one other than the usual dismay - anger at it just seems pointless, if nothing else.
Had he lived in Illinois and did the exact same thing, the investigation would have been over in about 20 minutes and he'd be free and able to keep the images he downloaded. You and I both agree (and even he would probably agree) that it's sick and wrong, but it's so fucked up that what is a felony in his state (in this case PA) isn't even a misdemeanor in most others. Our fucking laws are ridiculous.
Well they're certainly bizarre case-studies... in the first one, were the images hosted in a state that condones nudist colonies and the sharing of consented nude media? Also(sorry if I wasn't able to extrapolate this myself), did he download the images to a machine that was in IL?
If true to both, and again if I'm reading correctly, his crime was getting off over the photos he looked at? (ie: he confessed to becoming sexually aroused and willingly continuing to expose himself(no pun intended) to the material?)
The only reason I use Illinois as an example is because that's where I live and I know the laws as it relates. Both people (priest and neogaf) downloaded pics to their computer that was located either at home or at work in the state that they live. Nudist websites are perfectly legal in all 50 states. Pictures of naked kids on those nudist websites is perfectly legal in all 50 states (assuming none of the pictures are sexual in nature). The REALLY fucked up thing about this is it's based on intent. You nailed it. If you and I downloaded a picture of a naked kid running through a sprinkler because it was a cute picture or we knew the kid it's perfectly legal in PA if we didn't get sexual pleasure from it. But if someone downloads the exact same picture in PA and gets off on it, it's considered child pornography. If that same perverted guy downloaded that same picture while living in IL and got off on it, nothing to see here. It's perfectly legal. Now here's the real kick in the balls. Let's say the pervert says he does not get off to that picture but the cops think he does. They can take him to a doctor that specializes in erectile dysfunction, hook up sensors to his brain, penis, heart monitor, etc and have him look at the picture and see if there's any changes associated with sexual arousal. When I first heard that I thought it was a scare tactic so I tracked down someone I knew that works with this stuff. Yep. It's real and not that uncommon a practice. Again, I'm not condoning getting off on kids (naked or clothed) but just pointing out that the laws in the US are very inconsistent and pretty fucked up. And once you see prosecutors lie under oath and manipulate the jury over and over you become jaded to the whole judiciary process.
view the rest of the comments →
3141592653 ago
This is related to PG as it is an example of an elite's participation in covering up organized child sexual abuse.
HarveyKlinger ago
Except that it's not. The seal of confession is what it is. Regardless of content, it can not be broken.
3141592653 ago
the seal of confession is not the law! child abuse must be reported at all times!
HarveyKlinger ago
Actually, it IS protected by law.
argosciv ago
not that I won't be googling the shit out of this myself, but, source?
HarveyKlinger ago
It just is. Feel free to Google it but religion predates man's law. I'm not being a dick with this next comment but I assume you're not Catholic so you don't understand the concept of confession and the role the priest plays. Think of the confessional as you praying out loud to God and the priest is there to provide guidance and absolution. I'm over simplifying but that's an easy way to think about it. A priest is not required by law to divulge anything that is said DURING CONFESSION. It ONLY applies to confession. If you told a priest you molested a baby in confession, he will tell you to stop, turn yourself in, pray, whatever but it's up to you to do the right thing. Now if you are NOT in confession like you're hanging out at his house watching TV and you mention it, that is not the sacrament of confession and if he doesn't report it he's a cunt.
HERE: https://www.quora.com/If-you-talk-about-a-crime-in-Catholic-confession-can-the-priest-report-it-to-the-police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM
argosciv ago
In fact the more I think about this, the more it fucking infuriates me actually... the following is an emotionally charged, personal opinion and is likely to offend some, I offer no apology.
They're ALREADY CUNTS for allowing such confessions to be protected. Once upon a time I may have thought differently, that everyone deserves some 'safe place' to reveal even their darkest nature... but FUCK IT! There's a goddamn line, and so far as I'm concerned it AT LEAST starts with child abuse, I could care less what protections religions x/y/z try to justify - if you want an isolated place in which to confess your crimes against children, try jail and then no doubt, very quickly, a coffin.
The priests that let monsters walk back out those doors and into the community they claim to support... let 'em hang(proverbially speaking, ie, put them to the courts and let good honest people(unbiased by religion) decide their fate) for being enablers/accomplices.
F#%$!
HarveyKlinger ago
You're making a lot of assumptions. 1. Most child molesters aren't running to the confessional to tell a priest about it. 2. Someone confessing something as bad as child abuse of any kind will probably not do it face to face with their own priest.
It's the EXACT same privilege that an attorney has with their client. You do realize that attorney client privilege keeps a lawyer from divulging the exact same information, right? Why no similar anger towards lawyers?
argosciv ago
I wasn't necessarily assuming that it's widely prevalent, sorry if you got that impression.
You're absolutely right to point that out and to an extent they absolutely are afforded a similar hate - especially the ones who knowingly assist the guilty in getting lesser sentences or none at all. However, in that particular context, the matter is at least already in the hands of the courts and not being ignored as blatantly as is the case with a priest letting a child abuser walk out of not only the confessional box, but then the doors of the church.
At least in the example of a lawyer withholding information from the public/police, it's not a guarantee that a guilty person will walk.
The priest, however, is aware that they are allowing the crimes to continue for at least until the police maybe catch the abuser and present them to the courts, at which point, they would then seek the counsel of their lawyer.
FINAL EDIT: Fucking, removing gender pronouns... I hate this planet sometimes -.-
HarveyKlinger ago
Like I said, it's complicated. I don't condone abuse of any kind and anybody that abuses kids deserves a VERY painful punishment. HOWEVER, confession is a requirement of the Catholic faith and it's critical to Catholicism that when you have confession with a priest that you know it's in complete confidence. It's the exact same confidence you have with your lawyer which is why that is protected as well regardless of what is said.
Let me run something by you for academic purpose. In Washington DC age of consent is 16. In Illinois it's 17. If someone had sex with a 16 year old in each state, it's only a crime in one of them. Does a priest report it and if so, which state? Age of consent in Mexico is 12. If someone had sex with a 16 year old in Mexico, should the priest they confessed to in Mexico report it? I won't even get into the countries like Thailand. What's against the law in one state may not be against the law in another state, or another country. A priest's job is not to judge or know the ins and outs of local/state/federal laws, he's there to help you be a better person, seek forgiveness for the things that you've done that's wrong, and make right what you fucked up, which includes turning yourself in if neccesary.
To be a priest, you make a commitment to God, not the municipality you live in. A priest can't divulge what they learn in confession even to save their own life (like if someone held a gun to their head) and many, many priests have died protecting that privileged information over the years. Lawyers protect this information and even the fuckfaces in the media claim to protect this. I actually had a discussion about this with a priest not too long ago and he gave the example of someone confessing to him the possible scenario that the confessor poisoned the communion wine. He can't tell anyone though he could take precautions to make sure nobody drank it as long as nobody learns what was divulged or who divulged it.
carmencita ago
Imo this is a farce. It was all set up to protect the abusers and not the children. This has been going on for centuries. Popes look out for their own and tptb. Kids are on their own.
HarveyKlinger ago
Yah. The sacrament of confession was setup so kid diddlers could meet and discuss their crimes in private without fear of getting in trouble.
Good job. You just cracked the Catholicism code.
ugh...
argosciv ago
(please excuse the shortened quote, I very much hear what you're saying and can't argue against it)
So, perhaps by this same logic, priests could do a little more to assist potential victims... (no, I'm not advocating violent vigilantism, for the record)
HarveyKlinger ago
In some cases they can and do. One issue is that if I were to go to confession, I don't give my name and I wouldn't give the name of anyone else I'm talking about. So if I stole $5000 from you, I would say I stole $5000 from Argosciv, I'd say I stole $5000 or "money" from a friend or a coworker or... So most of the time the priest doesn't know who they are talking to or who they are talking about. Obviously in some cases they do but often times they do not. A Catholic can choose a face to face confession or an anonymous confession. MOST Catholics that "go to confession" do so in a confessional that hides the identity of the person confessing as well as who the priest is they are speaking to. Most parishes have multiple priests hearing confession and many times the priests are from another parish so they truly don't know who the hell they are talking to or about.
argosciv ago
True true, I was aware of multiple confessional priests and anonymized confessions, absolutely.
I guess at this point I'm just speaking out of general frustration - you've at least helped to remind me that the job of a genuine priest, is far from easy. You have humbled me, Harvey, thank you.
HarveyKlinger ago
Thanks is not necessary. It's conflicting and frustrating as hell and a large number of priests feel the same way, especially in cases like this. I do a lot of work with the religious and I get exposed to this stuff pretty regularly. I'm nosy as hell and not afraid to ask questions so I ask TONS of questions about this sort of thing.
But here's a TRUE scenario that's fucked up. You and I will both agree it's wrong on at least one level. A priest got arrested for child pornography. The priest admitted he downloaded and looked at the images. We both agree that's wrong. Now here's what's fucked up about it. Had the priest lived in Illinois, the images he looked at are not illegal in the slightest and he wouldn't have been arrested and ended up on the sex offenders registry. The two dozen images on his computer (found by an IT guy working on his PC) were all pictures of naked kids but none of them were sexual in nature. ALL pics came from legal nudist websites and were simply pictures of kids playing or swimming or hanging with their nudist family. These images are perfectly legal to view and download in all 50 US states. But the state he lived in deems an image child pornography if the person viewing it gets off on it (and the image is of a minor). And never forget that a judge in one courtroom may give someone a pass on a major crime while another judge will throw the book at someone for a minor crime. Our criminal justice system is fucked up on so many levels.
argosciv ago
That is just... dumbfounding. I seriously don't even know what to feel about that one other than the usual dismay - anger at it just seems pointless, if nothing else.
HarveyKlinger ago
Remember the guy from neogaf who got arrested very recently for child pornography? Same exact situation.
http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20170628/tobyhanna-man-charged-in-child-porn-case
Had he lived in Illinois and did the exact same thing, the investigation would have been over in about 20 minutes and he'd be free and able to keep the images he downloaded. You and I both agree (and even he would probably agree) that it's sick and wrong, but it's so fucked up that what is a felony in his state (in this case PA) isn't even a misdemeanor in most others. Our fucking laws are ridiculous.
argosciv ago
Well they're certainly bizarre case-studies... in the first one, were the images hosted in a state that condones nudist colonies and the sharing of consented nude media? Also(sorry if I wasn't able to extrapolate this myself), did he download the images to a machine that was in IL?
If true to both, and again if I'm reading correctly, his crime was getting off over the photos he looked at? (ie: he confessed to becoming sexually aroused and willingly continuing to expose himself(no pun intended) to the material?)
EDIT: typo
HarveyKlinger ago
The only reason I use Illinois as an example is because that's where I live and I know the laws as it relates. Both people (priest and neogaf) downloaded pics to their computer that was located either at home or at work in the state that they live. Nudist websites are perfectly legal in all 50 states. Pictures of naked kids on those nudist websites is perfectly legal in all 50 states (assuming none of the pictures are sexual in nature). The REALLY fucked up thing about this is it's based on intent. You nailed it. If you and I downloaded a picture of a naked kid running through a sprinkler because it was a cute picture or we knew the kid it's perfectly legal in PA if we didn't get sexual pleasure from it. But if someone downloads the exact same picture in PA and gets off on it, it's considered child pornography. If that same perverted guy downloaded that same picture while living in IL and got off on it, nothing to see here. It's perfectly legal. Now here's the real kick in the balls. Let's say the pervert says he does not get off to that picture but the cops think he does. They can take him to a doctor that specializes in erectile dysfunction, hook up sensors to his brain, penis, heart monitor, etc and have him look at the picture and see if there's any changes associated with sexual arousal. When I first heard that I thought it was a scare tactic so I tracked down someone I knew that works with this stuff. Yep. It's real and not that uncommon a practice. Again, I'm not condoning getting off on kids (naked or clothed) but just pointing out that the laws in the US are very inconsistent and pretty fucked up. And once you see prosecutors lie under oath and manipulate the jury over and over you become jaded to the whole judiciary process.
argosciv ago
you're not kidding, that is a mess to wrap one's head around :/
Interesting approach to the situation, taking a suspect to an ED doctor... still all leaves me a bit lost for words, though, to be quite honest.
HarveyKlinger ago
me too, brother