You must log in or # to comment.
The fact they would protect abusers just to comply with their faith speaks volumes about their priorities. I mean it’s no surprise when they already protect the predators within their ranks, so why not do the same with their followers?
Luigi Mangione’s religion requires that he sacrifice health care executives, but I don’t see any judges standing up for him.
I dont understand, Luigi is innocent, he was playing Mouse Trap board game with me at the alleged time.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My bad, thanks for the correction. I get so confused about some of the Psalms.
Ig sexually abusing kids falls under religious freedoms now. What a shithole country
I mean, so if my religion says I can diddle kids and kill republicans, is that legal now?
It’s seem that two classes of
peoplepedophiles protected in the country are priests & billionaires.deleted by creator
They just got a lot less obvious about it over the years. Fewer “compounds” and more “congregations” and “constituents”
deleted by creator
I’ve never heard that. Not that it isn’t true….
Dunno if it’s New York, but one of our Supreme Court justices is part of a very culty sub-sect of Catholicism. It’s Barrett.
No
But Republicans get to do it…
Just because someone gets to do it doesn’t mean it’s legal. This mentality gives justification/defense to these acts.
Specifically, this is about forced reporting of sex abuse against children to authorities, not about the act itself.
Ohhh “rules for thee” got it.
Just because someone gets to do it doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Legal or illegal is immaterial. Who is punished for it, and who is protected from punishment is what matters.
It seems that protecting the children only works to weaken privacy and individual rights, not to actually protect children.
The legislation “places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law. The consequences for violating the law are serious and, as Plaintiffs assert, the implications of violating the Sacramental Seal are more serious still,” he wrote.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s office emphasized that the ruling only applies to “the Sacrament of Confession” and that, if clergy learn about abuse in any other setting, the injunction does not change that they will be mandated reporters. Brown did not provide any further comment.
Batshit insane first paragraph. The second is at least some small positive. I don’t know that this being overturned actually makes any meaningful difference in practice though though- if people can’t say they abused a child in confessional they won’t. I guess you might catch some people in the transmission, who didn’t learn about the change? That would be a positive. But I think long term people just wouldn’t confess to sexual abuses in the confessional anymore
I live in a place where clergy are legally required to report already. There’s still a regular stream of people who confess anyway and are then counseled to immediately report to the police as well, as clergy will be reporting within 24 hours.
Some people glaze over when told what the legal responsibilities are, and just go with what they were told from old movies, that confession is inviolate. Odd but true.
Huh… Thanks for sharing your perspective! it sounds like I was wrong
So they just need to classify Epstein as a religious leader?
kind of similar on how Christian conservatives push for child/adult marriage, because they believe the only damage of pedophilia is that it is out of wedlock, and it would be better for the child they are sent to live with a rapist and become their servant.
The freedom of religion to do what?
The freedom to not report cases of child abuse when told in the Catholic confessional.
It’s just one of the most outrageous stuff “freedom of religion” is being used for. Liberal democracies all around the world are being dismantled in the name of “freedom of religion” in part, other part in name of money.
To fuck kids, dude.
Religion, ALL religion, is a fucking cancer, the blight of humanity.
Standing up for religious freedom…to keep child abuse secret.
Perverse judgement from a perverted judge in yet another case of using perverted make believe superstitions as some perverse magical shield to protect perverts from facing justice.
This can’t be overstated.
Not just about making perverts face justice, it’s about helping current and preventing future victims.
https://apnews.com/article/sex-abuse-catholic-church-mormon-5d78129a2fe666159a22ce71323f6da3
Multiple religious organizations established abuse hotlines, which publicly appears to be an effort to address the higher than average child SA criminals within their clergy/employees.
But they are actually getting used to establish a loophole so if they report it to clergy using the hotline they want to use religious protected speech (like confession), or if they report it to a lawyer they want it to be attorney client privilege speech. Then they always have a clergy or lawyer answer the hotline and never report the crime to anyone outside their organization ignoring local laws.
A bit of a clickbait title (but only a bit) - the WA law moved to make priests required reporters, professions who are legally required by law to report child abuse. The injunction sought to exempt catholic priests from being required to report child abuse which was reported to them under the ‘seal of the confessional’ (the special super secret group chat that only exists between you, your priest and god) and after this injunction they are still required reporters in all other instances.
This is… at least a consistent ruling? For example religious leaders can’t be held as accomplices if they don’t report crimes that were told to them in a ritual setting (oversimplification) or be held liable if they don’t forewarn about someone planning suicide or some other crime and then said person goes thru with it. Predictably canon law is rife with examples of breaking the seal of the confession to prevent a suicide, of course, but lets just ignore that.
The rationalization for this is twofold: First freedom of religion from civil regulation. Second and more credibly that it would be allowing unfair weight into criminal proceedings because of the perceived sanctity of the confession and the upstanding character of priests (lol). The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay, but hersay that would be presented as being devout reporting of an unimpeachable confession, and that could unduly sway juries and in general get really messy so the law just doesn’t want to deal with it.
I strongly disagree with this ruling, the catholics get enough special treatment what with not being prosecuted for raping all those children, that’s just the background to the arguments being made about it.
The problem as I understand the religion, is the priests are going to do whatever the church(bishop, cardinal, pope) say is correct. Because the reward and punishment are infinite. For the true believers I think the only exception the church officially makes is to prevent a murder?
The new pope should be lobbied to change this but don’t get your hopes up.
Priests are bound to confidentiality for whatever was confessed to them during confession. It’s part of why people confess to them. Priests are then able to encourage people to seek help, talk to the police, etc., but they themselves aren’t supposed to report what is said to them. In a few flavors of Christianity, including Catholicism, confession is considered a sacrament. It’s between the believer, their priest, and their god.
That’s what this ruling is about. Priests are still mandatory reporters for anything they learn outside confession.
The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay
Testifying that someone confessed to a crime is not hearsay. Hearsay is “Person X told me that Person Y did Z”.
Testifying to someone confessing to you is exactly what cops do on the stand, when they testify about a confession a perp provided in an interrogation.
Colloquial use, not legal. It has been years since I had a class on the admission of testimony, and I mostly just made 40k jokes every time someone said ‘hearsay’ anyways.
Wow! But if I “overheard” part of this “confession” as a “mandated reporter” BY FED LAW (confessionals are NOT SOUND PROOF), I can go to jail if I do not report what I overheard and the government found out I knew… straight to court!
Yet, these fucks get a hall pass to keep fucking with kids “because of religion”, religion doesn’t give you the freedom to fuck with kids but the Catholics would know the most about fucking with kids wouldn’t they?!?! Appalling! Our nation is fucked!
I mean, am I surprised when our “president” is a know pedophile who talked about his own daughter sexually and was besties with Epstein!? WHERE IS THE CLIENT LIST!? We know Drumpf was probs the invite NUMBER 1 and FUNDED it! 🤦🏽♀️🤷🏽♀️
On a scale of 1 to 10, I wonder how old that judge’s last sexual
partnervictim was
