US churches do not have to report child rapes.

[BNR32FAN]

So Jesus gave them the power to forgive sin and the sin would be retained or forgiven in heaven as well but they were never supposed to use such a power? That's a far out assumption. Repentance is part of the sacrament, your sins cannot be forgiven without repentance--if the priest judges you not to be repentant there is no forgiveness.

No that’s not what I was saying at all. I’m saying that the privilege of forgiving sins was given to the apostles. There is no indication that this privilege would be passed on to others.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's common for people in churches to feel that people outside churches use abuse as an excuse to attack the church (or particular groups within the church). While I personally don't feel that way, and by and large I welcome government child safety standards etc as a positive thing, I do understand the resistance to people who don't share our beliefs, telling us how we should live our faith.

That said, saying that mandatory reporting laws don't actually work isn't necessarily supporting child abuse or the covering up of child abuse. I'm of the opinion that mandatory reporting laws don't work well, and I'm just about as far from supporting child abuse as you could get.

I agree. In the US, the courts have long upheld pastor-penitent privilege under our 1st Amendment.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

With all due respect, your argument is unfounded, as you have not experienced sacramental grace (or else you would be a liturgical Christian), and you clearly aren’t aware the confessional is not limited to Roman Catholicism, but is ubiquitous across most of the largest Christian churches (Lutheran, Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox), and that most of these churches have not had major problems with child abuse such as those which tragically afflicted the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican II.

 

[Paidiske]

Ahhh... I'd say every church of any significant size has had systemic problems with child abuse. This ain't just a Catholic problem.

 

[The Liturgist]

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

Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.

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

This presupposes a false dichotomy which does not exist in the Christian Church, unlike in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, which have extreme problems with systematic, institutionalized child abuse incorporated in many cases into their actual worship.

As an example, there is one Indian temple where, at least until recently, the Hindu snake worship festival of Naga Puja was celebrated by little girls worshipping naked* in the temple, with only the Brahmins (hereditary priests, also known as Pandits or Pundits) present, not the parents.

*Naga refers to nudity as well as serpents in the Hindu language.

These heathen religions are really almost as bad as the Aztec religion, except that children are not offered as human sacrifices (except in militant Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, where youths have been abused as homicide bombers, as if strapping an explosive vest onto an adult and sending them to blow themselves up with promises of 70 houris in the hereafter was not sufficiently evil by itself). Fortunately most Muslims decry such practices, but there are no doctrines or liturgical practices in any denominations in Christianity as defined by the Nicene Creed and the CF.com statement of faith, including the Roman Catholic Church, which endanger children in any way.

The incidents in the Catholic Church were contrary to Magisterial doctrine and illicit under canon law and grounds for defrocking of the priest; the problem is that some Catholic bishops failed to implement what the canon law and the dogmas of the Church said they should do.

If someone confessed to pederasty in the Early Church, they would be excommunicated, that is to say, denied the Eucharist, for 35 years, or until they were approaching death, whichever came first, under the canons of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople St. John the Faster (c. 600 Anno Domini). These penitential canons were actually less severe than any written previously, where one would certainly be excommunicated so as to only receive communion in extremis, immediately prior to death, and subject to additional penances such as not being permitted to stand in the nave, being required to fast by abstaining from meat continually, and other measures. And fleeing to a different diocese would not work for a clergyman who had been defrocked because letters commendatory were required for clergy, and in many cases, laity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ahhh... I'd say every church of any significant size has had systemic problems with child abuse. This ain't just a Catholic problem.

There have only been a few where the scale has been concerning. There was a major scandal in the SBC a few years ago, for example.

I among other things track everything that happens in the Eastern churches, including the politics and incidents of abuse, and am aware of two recent occurrences, none of which involved the sexual abuse of children. In one tragic incident, a Moldovan Orthodox hieromonk inadvertently drowned a baby he was baptizing, and was defrocked and convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide, or rather the equivalent thereof under Moldovan law. In another incident, in Alaska, a convert to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who had been ordained as a priest, and his wife, ran a home for troubled teenagers, and it emerged that the two of them were treating the youths in an exceedingly harsh and self-serving manner (which did not involve sexual abuse or the corporal punishment which many public schools in the US legally practice, which I consider to be institutionalized sexual abuse that should be prohibited*), and on being informed of this, the two bishops of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the United States immediately shut down the youth home, laicized the priest, reported the couple to the Alaska State Troopers for further investigation, and I believe they were trespassed from all Bulgarian Orthodox properties.

*There was a sickening incident in Tennessee where the female principal of an elementary school coerced, by threatening to call Child Protective Services, the single mother of a 5 year old boy in Kindergarten into signing a permission slip for the boy to be paddled, which is unheard of in most schools that practice corporal punishment - generally the minimum age is much higher, as it was in the UK before the terrible practice of caning was abolished. The mother secretly filmed the incident and the video went viral, but unfortunately Tennessee continues to abuse children in its schools in this manner.

 

[Valletta]

No that’s not what I was saying at all. I’m saying that the privilege of forgiving sins was given to the apostles. There is no indication that this privilege would be passed on to others.

There are plenty of historical documents documenting the successors of the Apostles. Wouldn't that be sad if Jesus withheld his mercy from those who did not live during the time of the Apostles? Our God is a merciful God.

 

[Valletta]

There have only been a few where the scale has been concerning. There was a major scandal in the SBC a few years ago, for example.

I among other things track everything that happens in the Eastern churches, including the politics and incidents of abuse, and am aware of two recent occurrences, none of which involved the sexual abuse of children. In one tragic incident, a Moldovan Orthodox hieromonk inadvertently drowned a baby he was baptizing, and was defrocked and convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide, or rather the equivalent thereof under Moldovan law. In another incident, in Alaska, a convert to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who had been ordained as a priest, and his wife, ran a home for troubled teenagers, and it emerged that the two of them were treating the youths in an exceedingly harsh and self-serving manner (which did not involve sexual abuse or the corporal punishment which many public schools in the US legally practice, which I consider to be institutionalized sexual abuse that should be prohibited*), and on being informed of this, the two bishops of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the United States immediately shut down the youth home, laicized the priest, reported the couple to the Alaska State Troopers for further investigation, and I believe they were trespassed from all Bulgarian Orthodox properties.

*There was a sickening incident in Tennessee where the female principal of an elementary school coerced, by threatening to call Child Protective Services, the single mother of a 5 year old boy in Kindergarten into signing a permission slip for the boy to be paddled, which is unheard of in most schools that practice corporal punishment - generally the minimum age is much higher, as it was in the UK before the terrible practice of caning was abolished. The mother secretly filmed the incident and the video went viral, but unfortunately Tennessee continues to abuse children in its schools in this manner.

Oh there are major problems in the public school system and major Christian denominations. In general the media covers the situation poorly. But you will see a story here and there over the years indicating major problems. But the stage for many is the same that the Catholic Church went through in the past--denial and coverup.

 

[Larniavc]

Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.



This presupposes a false dichotomy which does not exist in the Christian Church, unlike in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, which have extreme problems with systematic, institutionalized child abuse incorporated in many cases into their actual worship.

As an example, there is one Indian temple where, at least until recently, the Hindu snake worship festival of Naga Puja was celebrated by little girls worshipping naked* in the temple, with only the Brahmins (hereditary priests, also known as Pandits or Pundits) present, not the parents.

*Naga refers to nudity as well as serpents in the Hindu language.

These heathen religions are really almost as bad as the Aztec religion, except that children are not offered as human sacrifices (except in militant Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, where youths have been abused as homicide bombers, as if strapping an explosive vest onto an adult and sending them to blow themselves up with promises of 70 houris in the hereafter was not sufficiently evil by itself). Fortunately most Muslims decry such practices, but there are no doctrines or liturgical practices in any denominations in Christianity as defined by the Nicene Creed and the CF.com statement of faith, including the Roman Catholic Church, which endanger children in any way.

The incidents in the Catholic Church were contrary to Magisterial doctrine and illicit under canon law and grounds for defrocking of the priest; the problem is that some Catholic bishops failed to implement what the canon law and the dogmas of the Church said they should do.

If someone confessed to pederasty in the Early Church, they would be excommunicated, that is to say, denied the Eucharist, for 35 years, or until they were approaching death, whichever came first, under the canons of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople St. John the Faster (c. 600 Anno Domini). These penitential canons were actually less severe than any written previously, where one would certainly be excommunicated so as to only receive communion in extremis, immediately prior to death, and subject to additional penances such as not being permitted to stand in the nave, being required to fast by abstaining from meat continually, and other measures. And fleeing to a different diocese would not work for a clergyman who had been defrocked because letters commendatory were required for clergy, and in many cases, laity.

That’s a lot of text to not answer the questions.

 

[partinobodycular]

This whole confessional line is an attack against freedom of religion and Christianity and distracts from real efforts to stop child abuse.

It's not an attack on the freedom of religion, nor does it distract from the efforts to stop child abuse. In fact it's an essential part of the effort to stop child abuse.

If you think of it as only an effort to catch child abusers then you're not seeing the whole picture. Teachers and social workers are in a unique position to identify and help abused children, but who's in a position to help the abuser more than a priest? Becoming an abuser isn't something that happens over night, it happens over years, and the abuser may well have confessed their feelings to a priest many times over that span. Those confessions, if they're truly sincere are as much a cry for help as they are a plea for forgiveness. It should be the duty of the priest to see that those cries for help are answered, and not to feel shackled by a vow of silence.

Mechanisms should be put in place that enable the church and the community to help these people, not after the abuse occurs, but before. You've chosen to focus on the most egregious cases, but the goal should be, to not have egregious cases. And accomplishing that is where the priest is essential, because who is the potential abuser more likely to confess to than a priest? So by reaching beyond the confessional the priest isn't just forgiving sins, they're actively working to prevent them, and isn't that what even the repentant abuser really wants?

The church should be a leader in this effort, and it doesn't mean sacrificing the seal of the confessional, it means fulfilling the duty of the church, to help the abused and the abuser alike. Keeping silent does neither.

 

[loveofourlord]

I think it is most important to follow God's procedure with these things for it leads to the best and most just outcome invariably, contrary to the world's procedures. If you want to protect the innocent then the Lord's way is the best way for that, for He is their protector and has made His Laws with them accounted for.

If that worked in the catholic church there wouldn't be all these lawsuits, them hiding even now the full extent of the problem, refusing to hand over the perpetrator. By now the catholic church has shown it's not working in gods ways and in the way of the pedophiles. They can't be trusted to do the right thing any more.

 

[Abaxvahl]

If that worked in the catholic church there wouldn't be all these lawsuits, them hiding even now the full extent of the problem, refusing to hand over the perpetrator. By now the catholic church has shown it's not working in gods ways and in the way of the pedophiles. They can't be trusted to do the right thing any more.

False, but go off. God bless, baruch HaShem.

 

[loveofourlord]

False, but go off. God bless, baruch HaShem.

What does the bible say about spreading lies, multiple independent studies have shown that even the figures the catholic church gives are woefully under reported and likely hiding a lot.

 

[Abaxvahl]

What does the bible say about spreading lies, multiple independent studies have shown that even the figures the catholic church gives are woefully under reported and likely hiding a lot.

What does the Bible say about spreading lies? Let's speak of another Commandment: what does it say about blasphemers? It would be a great study, I recommend starting in Exodus.

 

[loveofourlord]

What does the Bible say about spreading lies? Let's speak of another Commandment: what does it say about blasphemers? It would be a great study, I recommend starting in Exodus.

the catholic church isn't god, holy spirit, or the bible, equating the evil the catholic church has done to that IS blasphemy.

 

[Abaxvahl]

the catholic church isn't god, holy spirit, or the bible, equating the evil the catholic church has done to that IS blasphemy.

Continue in your misunderstandings (both of what I have said and what you yourself said), God bless.

 

[loveofourlord]

Continue in your misunderstandings (both of what I have said and what you yourself said), God bless.

I know exactly what we said, if the catholic church is going to repeatedly ignore the problem pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing to end it, it will continue to be a problem. If any non religious organization had done half the things the catholic church did, it would have been dismantled and most of it's higher ups arrested.

 

[Paidiske]

This presupposes a false dichotomy...

No, it doesn't. If investigations have revealed that formal confession has been part of systemic cover up (as they have), and recommendations have been made to nuance that practice to protect children (as they have), and the church says, "No, because our doctrine on this point is rigid and immutable" (as the Catholics have), then that is exactly the dichotomy.

And by the way, a quick google shows me a number of instances of abuse in the Orthodox churches (eg here: Cleo's story | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ), so I don't buy the idea that they're somehow immune to this problem which has plagued everyone else.

 

[Zoii]

Be that as it may, it appears that the Montanna legal system has now opened the way for all religions to choose not to report child sexual assault that has been disclosed to their church officials-- starting with the Jehova Witnesses. Is there a way that at a national level that decision can be over-ruled?

 

[The Liturgist]

No, it doesn't. If investigations have revealed that formal confession has been part of systemic cover up (as they have), and recommendations have been made to nuance that practice to protect children (as they have), and the church says, "No, because our doctrine on this point is rigid and immutable" (as the Catholics have), then that is exactly the dichotomy.

Well, from a purely doctrinal perspective, the Catholics were untruthful and guilty of failing to implement their magisterium. According to the ancient canon law, and I would hope, the Code of Canon Law that has superseded it in the RCC, a priest who does any of that is to be laicized. It says nothing about moving priests from parish to parish or between dioceses.

And by the way, a quick google shows me a number of instances of abuse in the Orthodox churches (eg here: Cleo's story | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ), so I don't buy the idea that they're somehow immune to this problem which has plagued everyone else.

Well obviously they aren’t, as I cited two instances of abuse, and then there was Elder Panteleimon, who became schismatic in the late 1980s after ROCOR severed communion with his church and monastery when he refused to participate into an investigation into allegations he was sexually abusing young male novice monks, which isn’t child abuse per se, but it is of the same category of perversion by church leaders. Fast forward 25 years later, and the allegations were proven true by a more recent incident (I don’t know if he was caught in flagrante delicto or the allegations simply were more specific in terms of inculpatory evidence), forcing him to resign in disgrace, and he subsequently died of cancer, but was not criminally prosecuted.

Rather, I don’t think there is a systematic problem on the scale of the RCC. I do not however think that the Orthodox system of married parish priests has anything to do with that, because married men and women with children are known to commit paedophilia (a married mother was recently jailed for many years; she was the principal, i.e. the head, of a private high school in Arizona, where she sexually abused a 13 year old pupil and made lewd and suggestive remarks to one of his friends. So clearly, there is nothing preventing massive abuse in the Orthodox churches; I just haven’t seen the evidence of it. I do know that due to aformentioned canon laws, the transfer of priests between dioceses is more complex because of the requirement of letters commendatory.

Also, it is certain the early church had problems with priests engaging in abuse of this sort, because there are stories behind every canon law or monastic rule. In fact, in the Eastern Church, monasteries were banned from accepting boys as early as the era of the idiorythmic monastery or skete that we read about in the Desert Fathers, because of problems of sexual abuse that led to two early Egyptian sketes failing completely as communities, and this remained the rule. In the West however, Benedictine monasteries accepted boys as young as ten years old as oblates, and convents, likewise, and I have read translations of disturbing monastic journals which indicate that abuse of the oblates was widespread and the Benedictines discontinued having them. I don’t think the Cistercians accepted such young oblates or had this problem; they were focused on cutting away the abuses and excesses of, for example, the Cluniac abbeys. Indeed I think by the time of St. Bernardus, the Benedictines were beginning to have higher age requirements for oblates.