FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: dpareja on July 03, 2018, 10:31:46 am
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australian-bishop-sentenced-cover-up-child-sex-abuse-1.4731452
Philip Thomas, Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, has been sentenced to twelve months' detention for his role in covering up child abuse by James Fletcher in the 1970s, a pedophile who repeatedly abused two altar boys.
Thomas is the highest-ranking Catholic official to be convicted anywhere in the world over the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church.
State governments in Australia are considering laws that would obligate Catholic priests to report allegations of child abuse or other revelations of pedophilia made in the confessional, particularly South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory. However Greg O'Kelly, acting Archbishop of Adelaide, has said that priests would defy any such laws, despite their being recommended in December 2017 by a Royal Commission looking into child abuse, saying, "Politicians can change the law, but we can't change the nature of the confessional."
Meanwhile, charges against Cardinal-Archbishop George Pell on pedophilia allegations (not just a coverup as with Archbishop Wilson--he is accused of pedophilia) are pending trial in his home state of Victoria.
-
Politicians can change the nature of the confessional, so can other people. They can change it from wood to ash, they just need a little heat.
-
So, first of all, hell yeah for another conviction for protecting child abusers.
That said. I... don't actually like the trend that privacy laws stop applying when it comes to child sexual abuse. If you think priest-penitent privilege shouldn't exist, that's certainly a position one can have, but "you're obligated to report molesters, but not murderers" makes no sense. And this is the same shit they pull off when they want the right to spy on computers and shut down websites, "there might be CP there!".
-
Honestly, I think one ought to be obligated to report any form of violent crime, be it murder, rape, arson, or child molestation. Well, that or incentivize reporting in some manner.
-
Honestly, I think one ought to be obligated to report any form of violent crime, be it murder, rape, arson, or child molestation. Well, that or incentivize reporting in some manner.
I mean. I think there's an argument for that. On the other hand we don't force psychiatrists to disclose this sort of thing, for good reason I think, and confession can serve similar roles.
-
Honestly, I think one ought to be obligated to report any form of violent crime, be it murder, rape, arson, or child molestation. Well, that or incentivize reporting in some manner.
I mean. I think there's an argument for that. On the other hand we don't force psychiatrists to disclose this sort of thing, for good reason I think, and confession can serve similar roles.
I disagree. Actual psychiatric care versus religious pandering are only similar roles in the most superficial sense of the term. One has the time, training and resources to actually identify and treat the root cause and therefore put a stop to such behaviour. The other will tell you everything is fine, as long as you say enough Hail Marys and donate enough money to the church.
Not to mention, the Catholic Church in general has a wee bit of a problem with thinking it's above the law, but that's arguably a whole other issue.
-
Honestly, I think one ought to be obligated to report any form of violent crime, be it murder, rape, arson, or child molestation. Well, that or incentivize reporting in some manner.
I mean. I think there's an argument for that. On the other hand we don't force psychiatrists to disclose this sort of thing, for good reason I think, and confession can serve similar roles.
Wait, what? I dunno about other countries, but I'm fairly certain doctor-patient confidentiality does not extend to when a person is a clear and present danger to themselves or others here in the States.
-
As someone who started seeing a therapist again recently, I can tell you for a fact that not only is it not covered by confidentiality, but they are required to tell the police, or they can be charged as an accomplice if you tell them about planning to harm yourself or another.
-
As someone who started seeing a therapist again recently, I can tell you for a fact that not only is it not covered by confidentiality, but they are required to tell the police, or they can be charged as an accomplice if you tell them about planning to harm yourself or another.
Yes, but we were talking about confessing to an already committed crime, not about plans to commit a future one.
Honestly, I think one ought to be obligated to report any form of violent crime, be it murder, rape, arson, or child molestation. Well, that or incentivize reporting in some manner.
I mean. I think there's an argument for that. On the other hand we don't force psychiatrists to disclose this sort of thing, for good reason I think, and confession can serve similar roles.
I disagree. Actual psychiatric care versus religious pandering are only similar roles in the most superficial sense of the term. One has the time, training and resources to actually identify and treat the root cause and therefore put a stop to such behaviour. The other will tell you everything is fine, as long as you say enough Hail Marys and donate enough money to the church.
A significant fraction of the benefit of therapy is literally just talking to someone. Obviously that's not all and there are plenty of things you need either specialised techniques or drugs to treat.
-
A significant fraction of the benefit of therapy is literally just talking to someone.
Sure, and if we're going to say that justifies not reporting something serious to the police, then it should apply to everyone, not just priests and therapists.
-
Yes, but we were talking about confessing to an already committed crime, not about plans to commit a future one.
Agreed, but the main problem with the Catholic church as well as other secular and religious organisations has been that they were aware of crimes being committed and failed to disclose such to the relevant authorities. This isn't an Australian problem or an American one, it's an international trend. Neither religion nor doctor patient confidentiality should shield someone from culpability if they knew harm was being done and did nothing about it.
Wherever it occurs.
-
A significant fraction of the benefit of therapy is literally just talking to someone.
Sure, and if we're going to say that justifies not reporting something serious to the police, then it should apply to everyone, not just priests and therapists.
If everybody can claim privacy privileges then you have an absolute defence against charges that you didn't report a crime. If it's only a handful of people under specific situations then you don't.
-
Yes, but we were talking about confessing to an already committed crime, not about plans to commit a future one.
Agreed, but the main problem with the Catholic church as well as other secular and religious organisations has been that they were aware of crimes being committed and failed to disclose such to the relevant authorities. This isn't an Australian problem or an American one, it's an international trend. Neither religion nor doctor patient confidentiality should shield someone from culpability if they knew harm was being done and did nothing about it.
Wherever it occurs.
The Church clearly doesn't need confidentiality to hide child molesters, they do so regardless. Changing the laws to remove confidentiality doesn't matter, because they don't report them when confidentiality doesn't apply either.
-
Are you arguing that mandatory reporting laws are useless becauase laws against the things being hypothetically reported on already exist including obstruction of justice and perjury?
-
A significant fraction of the benefit of therapy is literally just talking to someone.
Sure, and if we're going to say that justifies not reporting something serious to the police, then it should apply to everyone, not just priests and therapists.
If everybody can claim privacy privileges then you have an absolute defence against charges that you didn't report a crime. If it's only a handful of people under specific situations then you don't.
Indeed. That's why I would argue that privacy privileges should only apply to people who are uniquely capable of making a positive difference. Hence why doctors and therapists and the like get it, while priests do not.
-
Are you arguing that mandatory reporting laws are useless becauase laws against the things being hypothetically reported on already exist including obstruction of justice and perjury?
I'm saying the specific argument "we need to get rid of privacy laws that apply to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church has a bad track record with reporting crimes" makes no sense
-
A significant fraction of the benefit of therapy is literally just talking to someone.
Sure, and if we're going to say that justifies not reporting something serious to the police, then it should apply to everyone, not just priests and therapists.
If everybody can claim privacy privileges then you have an absolute defence against charges that you didn't report a crime. If it's only a handful of people under specific situations then you don't.
Indeed. That's why I would argue that privacy privileges should only apply to people who are uniquely capable of making a positive difference. Hence why doctors and therapists and the like get it, while priests do not.
I think that's a plausible argument, and it's clearly not the one being used by people who want a child abuse exception rather than getting rid of priest-penitent privilege entirely.
-
Are you arguing that mandatory reporting laws are useless becauase laws against the things being hypothetically reported on already exist including obstruction of justice and perjury?
I'm saying the specific argument "we need to get rid of privacy laws that apply to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church has a bad track record with reporting crimes" makes no sense
I agree that laws shouldn't be levelled against one religipus group or body, I just think thst laws seperate from obstruction and perjury aimed at specifically those professions whp work with children make sense. It provides an additional incentive for reporting and sets up a framework for assessing these claims.
-
Are you arguing that mandatory reporting laws are useless becauase laws against the things being hypothetically reported on already exist including obstruction of justice and perjury?
I'm saying the specific argument "we need to get rid of privacy laws that apply to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church has a bad track record with reporting crimes" makes no sense
I agree that laws shouldn't be levelled against one religipus group or body, I just think thst laws seperate from obstruction and perjury aimed at specifically those professions whp work with children make sense. It provides an additional incentive for reporting and sets up a framework for assessing these claims.
I think there could be relevant useful laws to that effect (I also think the default reaction will be shitty laws that invade people's privacy under the excuse that they might be child molesters and that won't help the problem at all).
-
I agree that tossing someone under the bus whose done, or perhaps even contemplated nothing wrong is manifestly unjust at the same time onlookers who suspect wrongdoing aren't investigators and waiting until they are absolutely certain before contacting proefessional investigators to determine if wrongdoing occurs can also lead to gross miscarriages of justice particularly when lack of certainty can be abused as a convenient alibi. It's thorny, I don't know what the right balance is.