Blount County AL Youth Minister Arrested on Multiple Rape and Child Abuse Charges

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

 

You deflected, see your first response.

The law in Alabama specifically exempts clergy.  This is a problem and you won’t answer the question - should they be exempt?

Finally we saw an example of the philosophy where someone literally said they would let god deal with it, and was so very confused why he would get police involved.

The fact is that organized religion has laws and philosophies that enable abuse.  And your response is to dodge and deflect - which understandable.

 

 

 

 

 

A state law exempting clergy from a legal requirement to report pedophilia seems clearly unconstitutional to me.

It should be challenged with a lawsuit - preferably by someone who had a child abused by a church member that wasn't reported.  (The SCOTUS would undoubtedly throw it out if an organization did it. )

 

Edited July 28 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,814]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

A state law exempting clergy from a legal requirement to report pedophilia seems clearly unconstitutional to me.

It should be challenged with a lawsuit - preferably by someone who had a child abused by a church member that wasn't reported.  (The SCOTUS would undoubtedly throw it out if an organization did it. )

 

The exemption in this state applies to the act of confession. For Catholics, the seal of confession is supposed to be inviolable and the penalty for any breach of that is basically automatic excommunication. In any other duty the mandatory reporting requirement remains. “Fess up to what he confessed or you’re going to jail.” The priest will take jail, as would be expected of him under Canon law if he wants to remain in communion with the church.

It would VERY much run afoul of the First Amendment.

The best a priest can do is refuse absolution unless the penitent fesses up to the authorities. This basically renders the idea of going to confession in the first place moot. No sane priest will grant absolution for sexually abusing a child if they’re not actually going to pay for their crime. 

Edited July 28 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,814]

To simplify it, if a priest catches church staff, another member of the clergy or anyone else screwing around with kids, then the priest should go to the authorities per mandatory reporting laws in their area  

If, in the confessional booth, someone confesses to the crime of screwing around with kids, then what would be expected is denial of absolution because the requirement for contrition has not been met. The priest’s hands are tied regarding the confidentiality of the confessional. This rule is absolute for Catholics. 

[homersapien 12,215]

16 hours ago, AUDub said:

The exemption in this state applies to the act of confession. For Catholics, the seal of confession is supposed to be inviolable and the penalty for any breach of that is basically automatic excommunication. In any other duty the mandatory reporting requirement remains. “Fess up to what he confessed or you’re going to jail.” The priest will take jail, as would be expected of him under Canon law if he wants to remain in communion with the church.

It would VERY much run afoul of the First Amendment.

The best a priest can do is refuse absolution unless the penitent fesses up to the authorities. This basically renders the idea of going to confession in the first place moot. No sane priest will grant absolution for sexually abusing a child if they’re not actually going to pay for their crime. 

I understand the rationale made from a religious perspective - at least a particular religion, with a particular dogma/beliefs.

It's still unconstitutional. 

First amendment?  Does a priest have first amendment rights that a lay person or common citizen doesn't?

Edited July 29 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

16 hours ago, AUDub said:

To simplify it, if a priest catches church staff, another member of the clergy or anyone else screwing around with kids, then the priest should go to the authorities per mandatory reporting laws in their area  

If, in the confessional booth, someone confesses to the crime of screwing around with kids, then what would be expected is denial of absolution because the requirement for contrition has not been met. The priest’s hands are tied regarding the confidentiality of the confessional. This rule is absolute for Catholics. 

 

If, theoretically, someone came to confession and said they are actively and currently sexually abusing children and they are confessing cause they want God to help stop their urges or whatever....and so the priest would deny absolution and would encourage going to the authorities/turning himself in. 

Lets say the confessor is just like 'yeah, ill think about or, I'm not ready for that step yet, or I believe God will help me stop this on my own and then i can come back and seek true forgiveness, etc. 

 

So would be priest be able to do anything at all in that situation? Would the priest be breaking Catholic rules by reporting to child services and or police that they needed to check out the household/man without outright reporting what the guy said? 

 

#2 Question: Are there generally time limits on Catholic priests requiring a perpetrator to turn themselves in to receive absolution? Like if a person admits to sexually abusing his daughter 5-10 years ago but says he's never done anything since then to anyone....would the priest still be expected to require the man himself in in exchange for absolution, or is that typically only reserved for active or recent abuse situations?

 

 

Edited July 29 by CoffeeTiger

[AUDub 11,814]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

If, theoretically, someone came to confession and said they are actively and currently sexually abusing children and they are confessing cause they want God to help stop their urges or whatever....and so the priest would deny absolution and would encourage going to the authorities/turning himself in. 

Lets say the confessor is just like 'yeah, ill think about or, I'm not ready for that step yet, or I believe God will help me stop this on my own and then i can come back and seek true forgiveness, etc

That would be sacrilege and would probably make the priest very mad lol  

In Confession you are talking to God directly. The priest is a conduit. His word is God’s word. If the priest tells you “you must stop this immediately and turn yourself in” then God is telling you to do so.

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So would be priest be able to do anything at all in that situation?

The best the priest can do is withhold absolution until conditions for sufficient penance and contrition have been met.

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Would the priest be breaking Catholic rules by reporting to child services and or police that they needed to check out the household/man without outright reporting what the guy said? 
 

Yes. Canon Law is crystal clear on this. 

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

#2 Question: Are there generally time limits on Catholic priests requiring a perpetrator to turn themselves in to receive absolution? Like if a person admits to sexually abusing his daughter 5-10 years ago but says he's never done anything since then to anyone....would the priest still be expected to require the man himself in in exchange for absolution, or is that typically only reserved for active or recent abuse situations?

It’s up to the priest to discern if proper penance and contrition are present. If he doesn’t believe they are then he will not grant absolution.

Either way, if you compel priests to break the seal, they will not do it. Whether that’s under threat of imprisonment or even death, and there are a good number of martyrs and a couple of Saints that were killed for that reason. Plus the fifth amendment thing and all that.

I view it a lot like attorney client privilege, where the defendant can discuss past crimes with his attorney without fear of being turned in. Sure you may catch a few more criminals, but it will harm society immensely.

For another thing, what do you think happens to idea of confession if it’s no longer confidential? It goes away. The criminals will still be out there, but they’ll be more prone to keep it to themselves. Not that the priest can do much given the seal, but at least the criminal is talking to someone that will tell them to do the right thing.

Finally, penance is literally a sacrament. The Church will not bend on this, and any state attempt to force them to do so is a serious breach of freedom of religion.  

[AUDub 11,814]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

It's still unconstitutional.

No it is not. It’s a model example of free exercise.

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

First amendment?  Does a priest have first amendment rights that a lay person or common citizen doesn't?

No.

[homersapien 12,215]

24 minutes ago, AUDub said:

No it is not. It’s a model example of free exercise.

No.

It specifically exempts a class of citizens on the basis of their religion - Catholics - from a law that otherwise applies to everyone else.

How does that not violate the first amendment regarding religion?

In principle, if claiming an exemption to this particular law on the basis of "free exercise" of one's religion, could one claim an exemption to any law using that basis?   Why not?

Edited July 29 by homersapien

[Aufan59 168]

23 hours ago, AUDub said:

To simplify it, if a priest catches church staff, another member of the clergy or anyone else screwing around with kids, then the priest should go to the authorities per mandatory reporting laws in their area  

If, in the confessional booth, someone confesses to the crime of screwing around with kids, then what would be expected is denial of absolution because the requirement for contrition has not been met. The priest’s hands are tied regarding the confidentiality of the confessional. This rule is absolute for Catholics. 

Whether a rule is absolute for a religion doesn’t really matter.  Free exercise clause can (and must) be trumped by public interest in some cases.

 

To be completely fair, I’m not even arguing that this law is gross and obnoxious.

 

I’m arguing that because this law is on the books, Christians should shut their damn mouth about other walks of life being abusers.  The Cartoon Network example, the news editor example, the LGBTQ example that were posted as deflections.  You know what they all have in common?  None of them were legally protected in their abuse, but Christians are.

 

I understand that the argument for protecting abuse in the Church can be nuanced.  But that is not my point.  
 

My point is that as long as you have these laws in place that protect abusers, Christians are by default on the moral low ground.  So stop throwing rocks in glass houses.  Stop deflecting.  Admit your religion is deeply flawed before criticizing others. 

 

[AUDub 11,814]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

It specifically exempts a class of citizens on the basis of their religion - Catholics - from a law that otherwise applies to everyone else.

How does that not violate the first amendment regarding religion?

This argument is so odd. Almost tautological in nature. “The freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment violate the first amendment.” I don’t think it takes a whole lot to connect the constitutional dots that forcing someone to choose between practicing their religion and risk going to prison for it or not practicing their religion at all is an abridgment of their first amendment rights.

It’s spelled out in plain language that you have the right to practice your religion.

Now freedom of religion is not absolute. In fact the lowest bar is that the law be impartial, but beyond that the government had better have a damned compelling reason (strict scrutiny) for forcing someone to choose between charges or being excommunicated.

On its face, yeah. It seems like a no brainer, but as detestable as the circumstances often are, removing the priest-penitent privilege would do little to stop child abuse and would open up an enormous can of constitutional worms. If people know that confessing to their priest is the same as picking up the phone and confessing to their local police department then the end result isn’t more children saved, it’s less confessions given. The abuse doesn’t stop, it’s just more incentivized to be kept in the dark.

It’s, IMO, a solution that won’t actually do much to solve the problem.

[AUDub 11,814]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

First amendment?  Does a priest have first amendment rights that a lay person or common citizen doesn't?

Circling back to this. 

No.

You have to keep in mind things are unique here. 

You don’t have a constitutionally protected right to practice law or medicine or social work any other myriad number of professions we’ve deemed mandatory reporters. You absolutely, unequivocally have a constitutionally protected right to practice your religion. They’re not the same thing and framing them as such is the legal equivalent of comparing apples and airplanes. 

Edited July 29 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,814]

28 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Whether a rule is absolute for a religion doesn’t really matter.  Free exercise clause can (and must) be trumped by public interest in some cases.

 

To be completely fair, I’m not even arguing that this law is gross and obnoxious.

 

I’m arguing that because this law is on the books, Christians should shut their damn mouth about other walks of life being abusers.  The Cartoon Network example, the news editor example, the LGBTQ example that were posted as deflections.  You know what they all have in common?  None of them were legally protected in their abuse, but Christians are.

 

I understand that the argument for protecting abuse in the Church can be nuanced.  But that is not my point.  
 

My point is that as long as you have these laws in place that protect abusers, Christians are by default on the moral low ground.  So stop throwing rocks in glass houses.  Stop deflecting.  Admit your religion is deeply flawed before criticizing others. 

 

Are you arguing with me or someone else? 

[Aufan59 168]

31 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You absolutely, unequivocally have a constitutionally protected right to practice your religion.

This is simply not true.  Religious freedom can be limited to protect public health and safety.  General laws of applicability are also not violations of the first amendment.

 

We do not have an unequivocally protected right to practice our religion.  That, by definition, would give us the right to do whatever we wanted to do, which of course would be absurd and has been addressed many times by the Supreme Court. 

Edited July 29 by Aufan59

[Aufan59 168]

27 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Are you arguing with me or someone else? 

I originally brought up the law to point out IM4AU’s hypocrisy and deflection.

 

But the argument applies to anyone defending Christianity or the law.

[AUDub 11,814]

11 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

This is simply not true.  Religious freedom can be limited to protect public health and safety.  General laws of applicability are also not violations of the first amendment.

The free exercise clause pretty unambiguous. Yes the government can limit it in certain circumstances but the bar is extremely high, as it should be.

 

[Aufan59 168]

16 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The free exercise clause pretty unambiguous. Yes the government can limit it in certain circumstances but the bar is extremely high, as it should be.

 

It is extremely ambiguous, the most ambiguous constitutional right by far.

Freedom to exercise religion by definition means freedom to do literally anything, which has resulted in dozens of Supreme Court cases.

Forcing clergy to report abuse is both a public interest and a generally applicable law.  I would see no first amendment problem with it given previous precedent.  In fact, some states don’t give this privilege to clergy. 

Edited July 29 by Aufan59

[AUDub 11,814]

2 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

It is extremely ambiguous, the most ambiguous constitutional right by far.

Freedom to exercise religion by definition means freedom to do literally anything, which has resulted in dozens of Supreme Court cases.

Forcing clergy to report abuse is both a public interest and a generally applicable law.  I would see no first amendment problem with it given previous precedent.  In fact, some states don’t give this privilege to clergy. 

I would argue speech is equally muddy water, if not more so. Privacy? That too. Tangentially related here as well  

So here are the process that must be met to limit an exercise given recent jurisprudence:

There must be a a critical public policy objective. Examples would be safety, equality, or national security. 

It must not restrict the practitioner(s) any more than absolutely necessary to accomplish the objective.

It must not associate the government with or distance the government from any particular religion.

It must not single out any religion for special treatment.

I think that's a good breakdown.

In other words, you can believe whatever you want (including nothing) and the government can only really justifiably stop you where you're hurting people or for the common good. Clear as mud, right?

Now present a law that basically says a well established practice, literally a sacrament, can be overridden by the state. Set up stings and jail a few priests while you’re at it. See how that works out. 

Edited July 30 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,814]

Priests are already mandatory reporters (at least here in Alabama) in every context BUT confession. And at the end of it, what would the effect be besides the state erasing a sacrament? What does society gain?

Jack s***. That’s what. The second the seal is broken is the second abusers stop confessing their sins to their priests and seeking absolution.

If the seal is no longer a thing, then abusers will keep it to themselves. They will take their crimes to the grave. At least this way you get half of something (someone that can talk to them and will try to get them to rectify their behavior and perform the appropriate acts of penance) rather than all of nothing (the child abuser never confessing at all, to either secular authorities or seeking absolution from God).

From a Catholic perspective, the seal of confession is more important than any heinous crime you can imagine, because to create such fear in people that they do not confess their sinful behavior will ultimately damn them to hell.

Edited July 30 by AUDub
A word

[Aufan59 168]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

Priests are already mandatory reporters (at least here in Alabama) in every context BUT confession. And at the end of it, what would the effect be besides the state erasing a sacrament? What does society gain?

Jack s***. That’s what. The second the seal is broken is the second abusers stop confessing their sins to their priests and seeking absolution.

If the seal is no longer a thing, then abusers will keep it to themselves. They will take their crimes to the grave. At least this way you get half of something (someone that can talk to them and will try to get them to rectify their behavior and perform the appropriate acts of penance) rather than all of nothing (the child abuser never confessing at all, to either secular authorities or seeking absolution from God).

From a Catholic perspective, the seal of confession is more important than any heinous crime you can imagine, because to create such fear in people that they do not confess their sinful behavior will ultimately damn them to hell.

I think you are living in a fantasy land if you don’t think these exemptions have enabled abusers and prevented justice in some cases.  
 

Speaking of fantasy land, people who think some tenant of their religion is more important than stopping heinous crimes are delusional.

 

If maybe we didn’t codify this delusion into law, fewer people would be brain washed into thinking god and the church handles justice rather than the justice system.  That would be a huge net benefit.  
 

Regardless, my point remains.  As long as this law is on the books, Christians have zero moral high ground to complain about any abuse. 

Edited July 30 by Aufan59

[AUDub 11,814]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

I think you are living in a fantasy land if you don’t think these exemptions have enabled abusers and prevented justice in some cases.

I doubt the seal of confession has ever truly “enabled” abuse, per se.

The fact that the seal exists at all is the only reason it would have been revealed to a priest in confession in the first place. 

This is very different from a doctor or therapist suspecting abuse and reporting to the authorities, or even a priest discovering abuse in their other duties. This information is volunteered.

It would no longer be volunteered if priests were compelled to break the seal. 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Speaking of fantasy land, people who think some tenant of their religion is more important than stopping heinous crimes are delusional.

I’m still waiting for a practical outcome of the state forcing the seal open.

Again, the second the seal is no longer a thing, the sinners know that their confession could land them in jail or a hospital bed, is the second sinners stop confessing at all. 

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

If maybe we didn’t codify this delusion into law, fewer people would be brain washed into thinking god and the church handles justice rather than the justice system.  That would be a huge net benefit.  

You’ll have to take that up with the guys who codified Bill of Rights and all the jurisprudence since then.

The church only handles justice with regard to your soul. It’s not the church’s job to jail thieves or win lawsuits.

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Regardless, my point remains.  As long as this law is on the books, Christians have zero moral high ground to complain about any abuse. 

I assert none.

In fact, obviously the Catholic Church has less high ground than practically anyone else. I don’t think there’s more abuse in the Church than in practically any other walk of life, but the fact that such a massive institutional cover-up and the idea of avoiding scandal led to abusers not being punished and in fact even being allowed to continue their abuse is a blight on it. 

Edited July 30 by AUDub

[CoffeeTiger 5,860]

I appreciate this discussion. 

I'm not going to attack any religion or religious ideas on here. I definitely understand the uncomfortable thought of religious officials potentially knowing about ongoing abuse and not doing anything about it because of "church rules"...it's hard to vibe with the idea of that situation being legal, but I do see the argument that people would be vastly less likely to confess abuse if they knew the priest had to report them to police. 

As far as priests withholding forgiveness unless an abuser turns themselves in...that sounds like a great idea in theory, and I'm certain there are a lot of priests who absolutely do follow that recommended guideline. I also find it hard to believe a theoretical hardcore Catholic believer who is an abuser couldn't eventually find a catholic priest who would be willing, for whatever reason, to offer forgiveness without involvement of the legal system. 

Of course these situations hopefully aren't overly common. Especially in the US any given Catholic abuser could just as easily convert to a protestant religion where the individual gets to ask God for forgiveness directly on their own and each individual gets to decide if they believe God has forgiven them or not or if they are saved or not. 

 

The only potential upside I could think of by legally voiding out confidential confessions, would be that if an abuser knows that they don't have a 'safe space' to confess their abuse in a Church, then perhaps they would be more willing or apt to blab about it to other friends/family/professions/ etc who actually could do something about it. Many crimes are solved or brought to light by people who through guilt or bragging cant keep their mouths shut. 

[homersapien 12,215]

16 hours ago, AUDub said:

This argument is so odd. Almost tautological in nature. “The freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment violate the first amendment.” I don’t think it takes a whole lot to connect the constitutional dots that forcing someone to choose between practicing their religion and risk going to prison for it or not practicing their religion at all is an abridgment of their first amendment rights.

It’s spelled out in plain language that you have the right to practice your religion.

Now freedom of religion is not absolute. In fact the lowest bar is that the law be impartial, but beyond that the government had better have a damned compelling reason (strict scrutiny) for forcing someone to choose between charges or being excommunicated.

On its face, yeah. It seems like a no brainer, but as detestable as the circumstances often are, removing the priest-penitent privilege would do little to stop child abuse and would open up an enormous can of constitutional worms. If people know that confessing to their priest is the same as picking up the phone and confessing to their local police department then the end result isn’t more children saved, it’s less confessions given. The abuse doesn’t stop, it’s just more incentivized to be kept in the dark.

It’s, IMO, a solution that won’t actually do much to solve the problem.

I can appreciate the tension you speak of, but it seems to me that specifying such a religious exemption (which really is for Catholics) in this case clearly violates the provision of making laws that respect the establishment of religion.

If what you are saying is valid, then anyone can claim they are exempt from this reporting requirement based on religion beliefs, which could be whatever they say they are, for example, having sex with a child is OK.  If it just means Catholics, then the government is clearly making a law which respects a particular religion.

To me,  to chose between a risk of allowing a pedophile to continue vs. exposing the risk of a given person to be excommunicated is the "no-brainer". 

The former is a risk to society - "common good" - including the innocent victims, which is the purview of government.  Excommunication is the purview of the church.

[AUDub 11,814]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I can appreciate the tension you speak of, but it seems to me that specifying such a religious exemption (which really is for Catholics) in this case clearly violates the provision of making laws that respect the establishment of religion.

No because the free exercise clause is literally right behind that.

There’s no constitutional violation behind priest-penitent privilege. It is simply respecting free exercise.

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

If what you are saying is valid, then anyone can claim they are exempt from this reporting requirement based on religion beliefs, which could be whatever they say they are, for example, having sex with a child is OK.  If it just means Catholics, then the government is clearly making a law which respects a particular religion.

States have to spell things out via statue.

Who is considered clergy?

What communications are privileged?

Who holds the privilege?

I think we’re operating on different wavelengths right now. I bang on with the example of Catholicism for 2 reasons.

1. I’m fairly well versed on doctrine. In fact, my wife teaches Catechism.

2. It’s the easiest example because everything is spelled out and what is ok and what is not OK are starkly demarcated, making it the easiest and most effective example.

This rule also applies to other Christian sects that practice confession. Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, every other Protestant sect, they all have this privilege as well.

It also applies to Imams and Rabbis.

It applies to ANY clergy that are determined to be such by law.

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

To me,  to chose between a risk of allowing a pedophile to continue vs. exposing the risk of a given person to be excommunicated is the "no-brainer". 

The former is a risk to society - "common good" - including the innocent victims, which is the purview of government.  Excommunication is the purview of the church.

Ok. So what happens when some states, like Texas for example, deem abortion murder and force a mandatory reporting requirement that breaks the seal? 

Edited July 30 by AUDub

[Aufan59 168]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

I doubt the seal of confession has ever truly “enabled” abuse, per se.

The fact that the seal exists at all is the only reason it would have been revealed to a priest in confession in the first place. 

This is very different from a doctor or therapist suspecting abuse and reporting to the authorities, or even a priest discovering abuse in their other duties. This information is volunteered.

It would no longer be volunteered if priests were compelled to break the seal. 

I’m still waiting for a practical outcome of the state forcing the seal open.

Again, the second the seal is no longer a thing, the sinners know that their confession could land them in jail or a hospital bed, is the second sinners stop confessing at all. 

You’ll have to take that up with the guys who codified Bill of Rights and all the jurisprudence since then.

The church only handles justice with regard to your soul. It’s not the church’s job to jail thieves or win lawsuits.

I assert none.

In fact, obviously the Catholic Church has less high ground than practically anyone else. I don’t think there’s more abuse in the Church than in practically any other walk of life, but the fact that such a massive institutional cover-up and the idea of avoiding scandal led to abusers not being punished and in fact even being allowed to continue their abuse is a blight on it. 

I think we are agreeing but saying it in different ways.

 

I think I agree that the exceptions don’t do anything, because the religion is clearly perverted and backwards in its priorities.  It has created and protected a massive crime network of abuse.

 

Simple laws won’t change any of this, but my question is, why codify the perversion of this religion into law?  It is not a first amendment issue, as Texas of all places does not have exemptions for clergy.

Edited July 30 by Aufan59

[AUDub 11,814]

48 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Simple laws won’t change any of this, but my question is, why codify the perversion of this religion into law?  It is not a first amendment issue, as Texas of all places does not have exemptions for clergy.

So let’s take Texas lack of an exemption as an example. Say their government decides abortion is a form of child abuse, if not outright infanticide.

A woman has an abortion, for whatever reason. Could be because she had to, could be because it was entirely elective. Let’s say she’s also Catholic and confessed, in the booth, to a priest that she had aborted. In the course of their investigation the investigators decide they need the priest’s testimony.

Are you comfortable with that priest going to jail for keeping that woman’s “crime” in confidence?