Pedophilia, nothing done. Regardless of victim testimony. Priests are shuffled around, hidden. Protected. Steal relics & police get involved. if splinters, death shrouds, or a "saint's" brain goes missing... call the police. Vatican policy regarding pedophilia evident in their behavior/priorities. Priests can hide behind the confessional for the perpetrators, have no excuse for silencing the victims.
the concern here for childrens wellbeing should be a wake up call to any parents who might still be thinking of raising their child in the church. it really boggles the mind that the catholic church even still exists at this point.
Yes! Without even reading the article the title should scare the Begeezus out of all of us. This priest is a pedo and the fact that he comes forth with such a sick statement, it explains the power of the protection he has and feels.
Upvoat. While on my trip now, someone offered to pay my way for a ticket to Italy next year. I said no thanks! Not while Bergoglio is pope and pedo priests are running rampant. I still pray but have not gone to church for years.
Thank you, I appreciate the huge cultural, historical and social loss involved but at a certain point, an honorable person has to realize that enough is enough and traditions can't justify brutal criminality.
Wikipedia is user-contributed; I'm sure plenty of people would love to post verifiable info on there about this, but, I imagine there's a great effort to keep pertinent details scrubbed or muddied. Not to mention the inherent risks involved, given the public nature of contributions and from where said contributions are made.
You mean "indicates active refusal to report child sexual abuse" is a direct quote? It's click bait. REGARDLESS what is stated in confession, it's protected and has been that way since like forever. ANYTHING confessed during confession (often times via anonymous confession) is kept private.
Every state in the U.S. has laws requiring certain categories of professional people to report child abuse. There are 35 states which either require clergy specifically to report any child abuse learned in confession, or else require all people to report any child abuse discovered by any means (including clergy). In these states, the clergy privilege will NOT apply in such cases (and in many states, in cases of child neglect as well). The remaining 15 states do not include clergy in the list of people mandated to report child abuse, so presumably the clergy privilege remains intact there.
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?
Catholic priest have a sordid history of abusing children and facing no legal consequences. We already know they are above the law and our society is subverted. Lawyers are not the problem, they are advocates for their clients. Priest pray on children, and cover up crimes. This priest is just a typical scumbag caught up in his own protected fantasy world where consequences for actions never materialize. It's the attitude about what is important that pisses people off. Catholic priest are legal pedos.
I respect the conversation I had with Harvey, but, yes, this pretty much nails it.
Several religions are 'guilty' of sheltering/condoning/enabling pedophilia, if not now, at least in the (not so distant) past. Religions need to start drawing the line at child abuse, there is no sanctuary for the offenders in a just society.
I"ll post this again. In the past 2 weeks I think I've posted 5 separate articles of school teachers abusing minors. In that time frame, no priests have been accused. School teachers have ten times the abuse rate of children over priests and school teachers are protected by their unions and merely moved to different schools. THIS STILL HAPPENS. Priests have a lower percentage of abuse than school teachers and much less than society in general.
"School teachers do it; you're overreacting about the priests",
We had a very fair conversation earlier, but, I think even you know that this is a comment of yours (intentionally or otherwise) shifts blame or otherwise attempts to normalize child abuse 'in all corners', responsibility to the responsible.
A human sits in a pew, another sits beside - both are blind(they cannot see each other), nobody else is present.
Person A, says to Person B: "I thoroughly enjoy abusing and murdering infants"
Person B, is of course, free to
do as they will
with this information. Such to an extent, so is Person A free to
do as they will
.
(Do not fucking misread that, I am not condoning Person A)
If Person B does NOTHING to stop Person A from continuing to commit such an act, Person B is as much a cunt as Person A.
I'm not trying to normalize it, just point out that it's an overreaction about priests when compared to many other parts of society which basically get ignored or glossed over. The public school system is more than 10 times worse yet there is no public outrage... and there should be. There should be TONS of it.
fair enough, you are right, but I'd rather we not take anything away from putting light on those who, by now, should understand why there is outcry over many religions' views of children and the abuse thereof. Judaism, for example, once(or still?) defines a 3 year old female as sexually active.
What the fuck, right?
Islam: marry any fuckin underage chick you pay for ey, fuck have a few, go nuts, fuck them, they're your wife, it's okay...
Christianity/Catholicism: Rampant with abusive proponents who consistently avoid prosecution.
Enough is enough, I respect that you are able to be calmer than I about this, but I'm sick of the excuses from whomever, wherever. Kids are off bounds, find another way.
I didn't know that about the Jewish people 😮 I think Islam starts when the girl is 7. Christianity and Catholicism may both believe in Jesus. But they are NOT alike. Christians don't avoid prosecution. They have to go thru the criminal justice system. Catholic priests and them have their own weird system. I disagree with a lot of things that Catholics believe. Morgan's have a lot of child sex abuse.
Important point you just made there. Christianity/Catholocism is the only religion that recognizes it is wrong. And don't even get me started on the Jewish practice of sucking the blood off a baby boy's penis after he is circumcised.
As a side note, I have spoken to a few priests about the point of this article and every single one of them said the same thing. What is said in confession stays in confession. However, most did say that things can be done or said to help someone that needs it but strictly speaking they can not and will not say "Person X was in the confessional today and said this..." If asked by police (or anybody) if Person X told them something in the confessional they would all respond that they can not divulge what was confessed in the confessional. Threat of punishment, even as drastic as death will not change that.
Yeah see and to be perfectly fair, I'm going to stand by "draw the line at child abuse", no sanctuary.
I mean no violent threat by that at all, just that if we're ever to eradicate this filth or at least harshly reduce the impact - there can be no quarter.
Those who have the knowledge or actionable intelligence to help, have a choice to make... I'm not much for the "good" vs "evil" thing, but every once in a while, to get shit done, you have to pick what feels just(ifiable).
Is it truly just(ifiable) to defend the privacy of those who strip that and so much more, away from their victims? Is it truly the work of 'god', to allow the injustice to continue for even a moment after learning about it?
Is this not why we're here in the first place? To destroy the scourge in a timely and efficient manner?
For clarification, I'm not a priest nor have I gone through seminary or any type of priest-like training. That being said, as I understand the Catholic's view of confession, the priest acts more like a medium than a confidant (my words, not theirs). In the eyes of the Catholic church, the priest is acting in good faith on the behalf of God and is more like a translator back and forth. They are not the ones being talked to. Of course I'm oversimplifying and probably screwing this up as I'm not a big fan of confession and converted well after the age kids go to CCD classes where this stuff is actually explained.
nono, I understand your angle there, for one of a way to put it, the priest acts as a channel to 'god'
but here's the inherent issue with this... every one of us is already exactly that channel (though, I suppose, those who have severed their channel would seek the help of those who haven't)
for argument's sake, priests often act as a gatekeeper of sorts for those who have the worst things to confess but who are (rightly so) disconnected from 'god', does it not make sense, that perhaps part of 'god' having an involvement - is through other human advents such as (just(ifiable)) policing and law - which would see these sorely disconnected individuals, isolated from those they might harm - so that, if any is to be found, redemption can be sought?
Send the priest to see them in jail?
But otherwise prioritize getting them the fuck off the street and out of the community until they can be 'healed'?
Not sure what I'd be weighing in on. I think all religion is sick, and specifically (but not soleley) Catholic preachers are likely to be kiddie-diddlers.
One thing to remember through all of this discussion is we're talking strictly hypatheticals. It's ultra super mega rare that someone would confess they are molesting a kid in confession. Typically the worst thing a priest will hear along those lines is a guy or girl cheating on their spouse. And THAT is incredibly rare. If it were so common they heard those types of confessions on a regular basis, our society is pretty damn fucked.
I would like to think some at least consider looking at it the way I am. I mean shit, some of them must have kids or know people with kids, see kids at their sermons(perhaps the exact children a person has confessed to abusing)... how can they "turn the other cheek" at the thought of said children being abused? It seems as unjust as the abuse itself, despite all other attempted justifications.
From Wikipedia: In the Roman Catholic Church, the Seal of Confession (or Seal of the Confessional) is the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the Sacrament of Penance (confession).
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.
Cheers for the explanation, I was already of a similar understanding, that confession is otherwise 'exempt' but was not aware that it is codified law of the land.
I didn't get the impression of dickishness at all, for what it's worth :)
For the record, a LOT of things in the Catholic faith are difficult to understand, even for Catholics. I made a comment like that once and the guy WAS Catholic and was quite offended. If you want to see Catholics get confused by their own words, have them explain transubstantiation to you. :) I graduated from a Catholic university and when that topic came up, the explanation got more and more confusing the more the prof tried to explain it.
▼ Gothamgirl
They should give the man his wish, take him to prison. No person or class, should be placed above the welfare of any child.
▼ adaya
Pedophilia, nothing done. Regardless of victim testimony. Priests are shuffled around, hidden. Protected. Steal relics & police get involved. if splinters, death shrouds, or a "saint's" brain goes missing... call the police. Vatican policy regarding pedophilia evident in their behavior/priorities. Priests can hide behind the confessional for the perpetrators, have no excuse for silencing the victims.
▼ HarveyKlinger
Please give me a few examples of this from the last 10 years.
▼ 3141592653
Yes to this
▼ 2impendingdoom
the concern here for childrens wellbeing should be a wake up call to any parents who might still be thinking of raising their child in the church. it really boggles the mind that the catholic church even still exists at this point.
▼ carmencita
Yes! Without even reading the article the title should scare the Begeezus out of all of us. This priest is a pedo and the fact that he comes forth with such a sick statement, it explains the power of the protection he has and feels.
▼ carmencita
Upvoat. While on my trip now, someone offered to pay my way for a ticket to Italy next year. I said no thanks! Not while Bergoglio is pope and pedo priests are running rampant. I still pray but have not gone to church for years.
▼ 2impendingdoom
Thank you, I appreciate the huge cultural, historical and social loss involved but at a certain point, an honorable person has to realize that enough is enough and traditions can't justify brutal criminality.
ps your trip sounds great and go to italy anyway.
▼ kazza64
pretty much sums up the entire catholic churches attitude towards their priests abuse of children all over the planet
▼ DeanKeyhote
Meanwhile, an entire Wikipedia article for brooklyn alone
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Brooklyn%27s_Haredi_community
▼ 3141592653
Wikipedia doesn't usually like to post about organized child abuse. interesting.
▼ argosciv
Wikipedia is user-contributed; I'm sure plenty of people would love to post verifiable info on there about this, but, I imagine there's a great effort to keep pertinent details scrubbed or muddied. Not to mention the inherent risks involved, given the public nature of contributions and from where said contributions are made.
▼ HarveyKlinger
This click bait headline is taken WAY WAY WAY out of context. He is ONLY talking about what he hears in confession. He is 100% correct.
▼ 3141592653
click bait? it's a direct quote. and he is 100% wrong
▼ HarveyKlinger
You mean "indicates active refusal to report child sexual abuse" is a direct quote? It's click bait. REGARDLESS what is stated in confession, it's protected and has been that way since like forever. ANYTHING confessed during confession (often times via anonymous confession) is kept private.
▼ dotmatrix
doesn't make it right. Australia needs to grow some balls and tell the catholic church to fuck off and obey the law of the land
▼ SurfinMindWaves
I found this at quora.com
▼ HarveyKlinger
I'd like to see the source to that if you can find it. Because I don't think that's true.
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
▼ SurfinMindWaves
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Catholic-Seal-of-Confession-integrate-with-the-legal-system-in-different-countries
Sorry, should have included it the first time.
▼ 3141592653
This is related to PG as it is an example of an elite's participation in covering up organized child sexual abuse.
▼ HarveyKlinger
Except that it's not. The seal of confession is what it is. Regardless of content, it can not be broken.
▼ DeathTooMasons
Fuck confession. Children 1st.
▼ 3141592653
the seal of confession is not the law! child abuse must be reported at all times!
▼ HarveyKlinger
Actually, it IS protected by law.
▼ argosciv
not that I won't be googling the shit out of this myself, but, source?
▼ HarveyKlinger
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
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#%$!
▼ 3141592653
Totally agree
▼ HarveyKlinger
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?
▼ DeathTooMasons
Catholic priest have a sordid history of abusing children and facing no legal consequences. We already know they are above the law and our society is subverted. Lawyers are not the problem, they are advocates for their clients. Priest pray on children, and cover up crimes. This priest is just a typical scumbag caught up in his own protected fantasy world where consequences for actions never materialize. It's the attitude about what is important that pisses people off. Catholic priest are legal pedos.
▼ argosciv
I respect the conversation I had with Harvey, but, yes, this pretty much nails it.
Several religions are 'guilty' of sheltering/condoning/enabling pedophilia, if not now, at least in the (not so distant) past. Religions need to start drawing the line at child abuse, there is no sanctuary for the offenders in a just society.
▼ 3141592653
Yes
▼ HarveyKlinger
I"ll post this again. In the past 2 weeks I think I've posted 5 separate articles of school teachers abusing minors. In that time frame, no priests have been accused. School teachers have ten times the abuse rate of children over priests and school teachers are protected by their unions and merely moved to different schools. THIS STILL HAPPENS. Priests have a lower percentage of abuse than school teachers and much less than society in general.
EDIT: Hey look at this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/27/pennsylvania-teacher-44-accused-sexually-assaulting-male-student.html
▼ argosciv
Sorry but this is just plain misdirection,
"School teachers do it; you're overreacting about the priests",
We had a very fair conversation earlier, but, I think even you know that this is a comment of yours (intentionally or otherwise) shifts blame or otherwise attempts to normalize child abuse 'in all corners', responsibility to the responsible.
A human sits in a pew, another sits beside - both are blind(they cannot see each other), nobody else is present.
▼ srayzie
I like that analogy!
▼ HarveyKlinger
I'm not trying to normalize it, just point out that it's an overreaction about priests when compared to many other parts of society which basically get ignored or glossed over. The public school system is more than 10 times worse yet there is no public outrage... and there should be. There should be TONS of it.
▼ argosciv
fair enough, you are right, but I'd rather we not take anything away from putting light on those who, by now, should understand why there is outcry over many religions' views of children and the abuse thereof. Judaism, for example, once(or still?) defines a 3 year old female as sexually active.
What the fuck, right?
Islam: marry any fuckin underage chick you pay for ey, fuck have a few, go nuts, fuck them, they're your wife, it's okay...
Christianity/Catholicism: Rampant with abusive proponents who consistently avoid prosecution.
Enough is enough, I respect that you are able to be calmer than I about this, but I'm sick of the excuses from whomever, wherever. Kids are off bounds, find another way.
▼ srayzie
I didn't know that about the Jewish people 😮 I think Islam starts when the girl is 7. Christianity and Catholicism may both believe in Jesus. But they are NOT alike. Christians don't avoid prosecution. They have to go thru the criminal justice system. Catholic priests and them have their own weird system. I disagree with a lot of things that Catholics believe. Morgan's have a lot of child sex abuse.
▼ HarveyKlinger
Important point you just made there. Christianity/Catholocism is the only religion that recognizes it is wrong. And don't even get me started on the Jewish practice of sucking the blood off a baby boy's penis after he is circumcised.
▼ argosciv
touché
▼ HarveyKlinger
As a side note, I have spoken to a few priests about the point of this article and every single one of them said the same thing. What is said in confession stays in confession. However, most did say that things can be done or said to help someone that needs it but strictly speaking they can not and will not say "Person X was in the confessional today and said this..." If asked by police (or anybody) if Person X told them something in the confessional they would all respond that they can not divulge what was confessed in the confessional. Threat of punishment, even as drastic as death will not change that.
▼ argosciv
It's about homeostasis brother, shit is out of balance.
The priests have the ability to drop the hammer and help shift things back to a more balanced state.
Good and evil will tangle for eternity, but let's balance it out for a while, at the very fucking least.
▼ argosciv
Yeah see and to be perfectly fair, I'm going to stand by "draw the line at child abuse", no sanctuary.
I mean no violent threat by that at all, just that if we're ever to eradicate this filth or at least harshly reduce the impact - there can be no quarter.
Those who have the knowledge or actionable intelligence to help, have a choice to make... I'm not much for the "good" vs "evil" thing, but every once in a while, to get shit done, you have to pick what feels just(ifiable).
Is it truly just(ifiable) to defend the privacy of those who strip that and so much more, away from their victims? Is it truly the work of 'god', to allow the injustice to continue for even a moment after learning about it?
Is this not why we're here in the first place? To destroy the scourge in a timely and efficient manner?
▼ HarveyKlinger
For clarification, I'm not a priest nor have I gone through seminary or any type of priest-like training. That being said, as I understand the Catholic's view of confession, the priest acts more like a medium than a confidant (my words, not theirs). In the eyes of the Catholic church, the priest is acting in good faith on the behalf of God and is more like a translator back and forth. They are not the ones being talked to. Of course I'm oversimplifying and probably screwing this up as I'm not a big fan of confession and converted well after the age kids go to CCD classes where this stuff is actually explained.
▼ argosciv
nono, I understand your angle there, for one of a way to put it, the priest acts as a channel to 'god'
but here's the inherent issue with this... every one of us is already exactly that channel (though, I suppose, those who have severed their channel would seek the help of those who haven't)
for argument's sake, priests often act as a gatekeeper of sorts for those who have the worst things to confess but who are (rightly so) disconnected from 'god', does it not make sense, that perhaps part of 'god' having an involvement - is through other human advents such as (just(ifiable)) policing and law - which would see these sorely disconnected individuals, isolated from those they might harm - so that, if any is to be found, redemption can be sought?
Send the priest to see them in jail?
But otherwise prioritize getting them the fuck off the street and out of the community until they can be 'healed'?
▼ argosciv
pinging a few for their input, I would like trusted users to weigh in on this discussion without jumping down Harvey's throat.
@Gothamgirl @Commoner @Crensch @Vindicator
▼ Crensch
Not sure what I'd be weighing in on. I think all religion is sick, and specifically (but not soleley) Catholic preachers are likely to be kiddie-diddlers.
▼ HarveyKlinger
One thing to remember through all of this discussion is we're talking strictly hypatheticals. It's ultra super mega rare that someone would confess they are molesting a kid in confession. Typically the worst thing a priest will hear along those lines is a guy or girl cheating on their spouse. And THAT is incredibly rare. If it were so common they heard those types of confessions on a regular basis, our society is pretty damn fucked.
▼ argosciv
of course, but on the merit of what i said, supposing the case presents itself?
▼ HarveyKlinger
I honestly don't know. I would HOPE they would do something even if they can't divulge details.
▼ argosciv
I would like to think some at least consider looking at it the way I am. I mean shit, some of them must have kids or know people with kids, see kids at their sermons(perhaps the exact children a person has confessed to abusing)... how can they "turn the other cheek" at the thought of said children being abused? It seems as unjust as the abuse itself, despite all other attempted justifications.
▼ HarveyKlinger
From Wikipedia: In the Roman Catholic Church, the Seal of Confession (or Seal of the Confessional) is the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the Sacrament of Penance (confession).
They can not and will not break this.
▼ argosciv
Yes and I'm saying, as respectfully as possible, that this is outdated and is enabling predators to seek protection under the guise of religion.
▼ argosciv
sufficient explanation as to why some confessions should not be protected from prosecution?
@DeathTooMasons @3141592653
▼ argosciv
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
me too, brother
▼ argosciv
Cheers for the explanation, I was already of a similar understanding, that confession is otherwise 'exempt' but was not aware that it is codified law of the land.
I didn't get the impression of dickishness at all, for what it's worth :)
▼ HarveyKlinger
For the record, a LOT of things in the Catholic faith are difficult to understand, even for Catholics. I made a comment like that once and the guy WAS Catholic and was quite offended. If you want to see Catholics get confused by their own words, have them explain transubstantiation to you. :) I graduated from a Catholic university and when that topic came up, the explanation got more and more confusing the more the prof tried to explain it.
▼ argosciv
I'd rather eat sawdust :P