US churches do not have to report child rapes.

[RDKirk]

Seems fine to me. The Lord Jesus said to first go to the brother who sinned against you personally, then with others, then the Church, and finally if they be incorrigible then to treat them as a heathen and tax collector (although even love is owed to these). The Lord did not say "first bring it to the government." This also for groups such as the Catholic Church would be relevant to the Seal of Confession which can not be broken.

So--and this is a real question, because I don't know--if someone confesses to such a crime during confessional, is there a mechanism for Matthew 18 to happen within the parish?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Yes but...the Catholic church seems reticent to report instances of abuse even when the knowledge of such abuse didn't come by way of the confessional.

Depending on the case this may very well be wrong, sure, if procedure is followed. From what I have seen the CC has reformed it's system and operates well in all cases I heard of as of late.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Amen. If a person has no Contrition in them and fully intends to do the sin again after Confessing then it does not work, they are not forgiven. God is not mocked.

Although I do note: knowing that it is likely you will sin again does not mean you intend to sin again, a person can reasonably think "considering my life and what has happened before, I will likely do this again" while also fully intending to not do it again. Those are forgiven.

Well one thing I must admit is that it’s probably extremely unlikely that an unrepentant person would ever confess to indecency with a child. I just don’t see that ever happening. So that was an error in judgement on my part.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yeah, no. Clearly the church is incapable of doing the right thing. IF they ever start following what was preached, THEN we will see if it works.

As for the confessional "working" to prevent these occurrences, it clearly doesn't work.

Well I kindly would point out that this does not include all Christian churches.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The problem here is that it appears that ALL the compassion is going towards the offender and none to the offended. That is not God’s teaching. Sure we should have compassion for the guilty but it is more important to protect the innocent. People aren’t put to death for rape, they are imprisoned. I’d much rather put a guilty person in prison than allow him to continue hurting others, especially committing sexual immorality with children. Your compassion seems misplaced my friend.

Yes and the church is wasting its time protecting this person while putting innocent children in danger. Sometimes for the greater good we must allow our brothers to pay the consequences of their actions if it means protecting others from being harmed by him. He can still repent and worship in jail.

I am not assuming that the person in these cases is in fact guilty, God's standard is high, at least two eyewitnesses (previously in certain crimes also the same must be willing to execute the person), that is individuals who saw the act with their very own eyes. If a person is guilty but due to a rightful procedure or something else can't be punished, or rather you believe they are guilty (or I), I just would disassociate from them rather than force the matter unjustly.

I don't believe in consequentialism ("greater good" kind of reasoning) when it comes to justice or morality in general. If someone repents of a sin and is forgiven by God and stopped their act I don't see why they should be placed in prison for that.

 

[Abaxvahl]

So--and this is a real question, because I don't know--if someone confesses to such a crime during confessional, is there a mechanism for Matthew 18 to happen within the parish?

No, as that passage is not concerning Confession. What is Confessed is private and remains between God, the priest, and the person confessing in this age (although a person who confesses is allowed to reveal it if they want, that's on them, they don't have to and probably shouldn't).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Interesting Greek variant, for many other major translations (ESV, RSV, KJV, LEB, YLT, DRA) say "against you," and I know that the NASB like those tends on the word-for-word side of translation, so I assume it is a variant. Very cool to know.

Romans 13 does not justify every law or command obedience to every law, indeed to me it would be a sin against God for the Seal of Confession to be broken. As for justice, it is God's Law.

Yes you are correct, the Greek says “if moreover sins the brother you” sorry about that the NASB is typically more accurate than that, my apologies.

And yes if a government law is contradictory to God’s law then we are not bound by it. Daniel is a good example of this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well I kindly would point out that this does not include all Christian churches.

I appreciate that you feel that way. However, I rather suspect that any institution that feels that they are exempt from oversight will eventually flout normal conventions such as required reporting

I will say that the church I used to go to has survived 2 scandals and did make every attempt to handle them transparently.

 

[partinobodycular]

Depending on the case this may very well be wrong, sure, if procedure is followed. From what I have seen the CC has reformed it's system and operates well in all cases I heard of as of late.

In reality, this has very little to do with undermining the sanctity of the confessional, but instead has to do with the Catholic church's position that it has the authority to operate outside the jurisdiction of the state.

You do understand that in the eyes of someone outside the church this seems like an absurd thing to do. To absolve an entity of the requirement to report abuse under who's authority that abuse occurred in the first place.

The state should at the very least be made aware.

 

[RDKirk]

No, as that passage is not concerning Confession. What is Confessed is private and remains between God, the priest, and the person confessing in this age (although a person who confesses is allowed to reveal it if they want, that's on them, they don't have to and probably shouldn't).

So with 1 Corinthians 5 in mind, how would someone repeatedly confessing the same sin against another parish member ever by handled?

 

[Abaxvahl]

In reality, this has very little to do with undermining the sanctity of the confessional, but instead has to do with the Catholic church's position that it has the authority to operate outside the jurisdiction of the state.

You do understand that in the eyes of someone outside the church this seems like an absurd thing to do. To absolve an entity of the requirement to report abuse under who's authority that abuse occurred in the first place.

The state should at the very least be made aware.

I do so how it is absurd, and I do not expect secular states to abide by God's Law, it is simply that Christians must disobey them on this point and submit to the punishment thereof if it comes (I doubt it will for most of us in the West for now).

 

[Abaxvahl]

So with 1 Corinthians 5 in mind, how would someone repeatedly confessing the same sin against another parish member ever by handled?

It could be handled but not with information from the Confession. For instance, if a priest only heard of a guy fornicating with his father's wife from the guy confessing it then the priest could not act on it. But if after that he heard of it from other people outside of Confession (like this report in 1 Corinthians 5) then he could act on that information. If a person is repeatedly sinning against another parish member and the person who is being sinned against tells other people then it can be handled, and so on with other situations.

 

[Larniavc]

No. "Jesus said to them: Allow the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such."

I'm sure Jesus would be happier if the kids were kept away until they were old enough not to be abused.

 

[Larniavc]

The Confessional works to forgive sins and give grace to divinize people. It clearly does work according to my eyes just as much as it clearly does not work according to yours.

I can't believe you would condone a system that facilitates child abuse- have I misunderstood your meaning?

 

[Abaxvahl]

I'm sure Jesus would be happier if the kids were kept away until they were old enough not to be abused.

Then you are surely wrong for the inclusion of the youngest of children in the Church life is something He Himself did and continues to work in the Church (such as them being given Baptism, that is being made parts of His body, or being given His body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist for their salvation, and so on). It would be an abomination worse than murdering them to separate them from Him like that, to be utterly resisted with the being of anyone who is good.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I can't believe you would condone a system that facilitates child abuse- have I misunderstood your meaning?

You most certainly have, for that is not what the Sacrament does.

 

[Larniavc]

It would be an abomination worse than murdering them to separate them from Him like that, to be utterly resisted with the being of anyone who is good.

Making a place of worship a safe place kids don't get abused is worse than murder?

Let me ask you a direct question: is following doctrinal rules more important than the safety of a child?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Making a place of worship a safe place kids don't get abused is worse than murder?

Let me ask you a direct question: is following doctrinal rules more important than the safety of a child?

No, keeping children away from the Fount of Life is not "making it safe" for them, and it is in fact.

Following God's Teaching (that is His Doctrine) is the safety of children, as it says in the Psalms "they that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it: so the Lord is round about his people from henceforth now and for ever." I see no either/or here.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My greatest concern is not what state such practices are upheld within the courts, but rather that they still prominently exist within religious organisations, particularly those whose practices evolve from closed conservative communities (such as Mormons, JWs, Dutch reform etc) or closed practices such as the catholic seal of the confessional. Closed communities have been found to be reservoirs of unreported abuses. Hence the decision within a supreme court in your country overrule mandatory reporting practices, only emboldens abusive behaviour.

The Supreme court of the US did no such thing. Again do not confuse one state i.e. Montana with the entire country. As for the Confessional, the RCC has always maintained the sanctity of the Confessional and , as there is no actual way for anyone other than the priest and the confessing person to know what was confessed, it is not something that any secular law would cause a priest to abandon his vows over if the heinousness of the confessed crime was not enough for the priest to report to the authorities. Making such a law would be wasted time and effort when there are other likely more efficient and Constitutional ways to legally insist that the RCC hierarchy report abuses.

 

[Larniavc]

No, keeping children away from the Fount of Life is not "making it safe" for them, and it is in fact.

Following God's Teaching (that is His Doctrine) is the safety of children, as it says in the Psalms "they that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it: so the Lord is round about his people from henceforth now and for ever." I see no either/or here.

So it’s worth taking the risk that the local priest will molest your child as long as the get their exposure to the church?

Do you have kids?