Well yes, the title might come across as a tad click-baitish, but it is literally the official Catholic position to this day.
Really?
Yes really.
If you, as a normal decent empathetic human being became aware that somebody was sexually abusing kids, your immediate response would be to report it to the authorities. You would not hesitate.
If however you are a Catholic Priest and somebody confesses to you that they have been abusing kids, then according to what they deem to be the Sacrament of the Confession, (officially called the Sacrament of Penance), that priest must keep silent and not tell anybody else … ever. They are ordered to step back and do absolutely nothing except to let the sexual abuse continue.
It gets worse.
This supposedly bastion of ultimate morality will handle things like this …
- If a Priest makes a confession that he himself is sexually abusing kids to another priest, literally nothing happens.
- If however a Priest makes the right moral choice and breaks the seal of Confession to report an abuser, they will toss him out of the priesthood and he will be excommunicated.
So why am I writing about this?
Well, because something interesting is happening. In the US, up until now, there has existed a legal carveout, a special exception for Catholic Priests for this.
That may be about to change in some states.
The Montana Bill
Democratic lawmakers in Montana have introduced SB 139 …
Up until now, Catholic Priests are not legally required to report child abuse if they become aware of it. This bill, if it passes would change that.
Only Catholic Priests have this special exemption because … well basically because the church insisted and so abuse was covered up and abusers were protected for religious reasons.
Will it pass?
This has been tried before. Whenever such legislation pops up the Catholic Bishops rumble into action and promptly throw a hissy fit demanding a hard “no” to this.
I have honestly no idea why. They have absolutely no problem covering up abuse and protecting abusers, so why would a legal mandate to not do that bother them, who would ever actually know?
As is inevitable, members of their fan club promptly try to build pressure against this …
To be wholly clear, the bill is specifically about child abuse. If for example somebody confesses other things, such as rape or murder then there is no legal requirement to report that, but if a child is being abused, then the priest would be mandated to report that.
For those attempting to push back against this bill the message they are sending here is clear, child abusers must be protected at all costs.
What a great look that is.
So how will it play out?
So far I can see that the bill is in the committee stage.
If it makes it all the way it would be a first.
But wait, there is more. It is not the only bill attempting to do this.
The Washington State Bill
Yes, another one.
There it is SB 5375 (and companion bill HB 1211) that would do the same …
This also has been tried before in Washington State. A previous version from last year (see here) did try to compromise by wording it such that if there was already a suspicion of abuse and a confession only confirmed that, then it had to be reported.
That earlier bill died because after all the sexual abuse cases being reported, lawmakers from both parties make it clear that they have had enough of this BS and wanted no exceptions at all, hence we now get this new bill to do exactly that.
So what about this time around?
Here is the bill’s sponsor explaining (clip starts at 1:09 into the 2 hours of the proceedings) …
In the above Sen. Noel Frame explains that as a survivor of sexual abuse she can no longer stomach any “religion freedom” claim trumping the prevention of child sexual abuse because of all the rampant abuse that has been revealed in their state in three separate Archdioceses.
Here are her actual words …
… I will say that the bill fell apart last year after the Revelation that the Catholic— three separate Archdioceses [sic] of the Catholic—Church were being investigated, which was not able to be corroborated until after legislative session last year, but that became public.
And quite frankly, it made it hard for me at a personal level to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse, of children.
Because everybody that’s been following this bill knows that this one is personal for me, as a survivor of sexual abuse myself— an abuse that only stopped when I told a mandated reporter, which was a teacher.
So I have tried really hard over the last couple of years to find a balance and to strike a careful compromise, and I’m just here to say, for those who I tried to work with, I’m really sorry that I don’t feel like I can make a compromise for you anymore, and I stand by the bill with no exemption.
So yes, Washington State also is finally doing the right moral and ethical thing here.
It’s about time
Having a special legal protection for child abuse is utterly reprehensible and illustrates just how morally bankrupt religion can be. It’s time for society to move on from this archaic legacy and be far far better.
To those that might indeed attempt to cite “religious freedom”, I have this point to make – The institution has demonstrated that it is utterly incapable of having such an exception. Rampant sexual abuse by clerics and also the associated cover up should indeed be a cue to end any special legal exceptions because there is nothing holy or “special” about what has been going on.
In other words, what the clerics did to literally thousands of kids on a global industrial scale while their “brothers” turned a blind eye and strove to cover it all up, means that they have also now done that to their special legal protection.
If such legislation does pass and become law then it creates a choice for Priests who become aware of the sexual abuse of kids …
- Do they break the “seal of confession” and possibly face excommunication … or … do they remain silent and let the abuse continue?
If there really was a god that dammed people for doing evil things, then you know in your heart whom such a god would condemn.