Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sullster · 01-23-2002, 03:13 PM

In Massachusetts, the legislature passed a bill requiring the local Catholic archdiocese to make public all records of past priest pedophilia. A high profile case of a child-molesting priest, who had been protected by the church, brought this on.

Does this bill bring up any church-state issues? I feel that it does not since pedophilia is a crime, but would like to hear other views.

Vorkosigan · 01-23-2002, 04:53 PM

It might violate the priest-penitant privacy. I can envision a situation where Priest A knows Priest B is a pedophile via confession, but the Church's admin structure does not. Would that be a constitutional violation?

Michael

RufusAtticus · 01-24-2002, 11:12 AM

In our country we there are certain relationships that are confidential: doctor-patient, marriage, etc. If there is case law establishing such for religious relationships, then the Mass. law might not pass mustard. On the other hand, the confidentiality of confession could just be a traditional courtesy granted by the government (like tax-breaks) and not a constitutional right. The fundie (protestant) republican position might be that "they should be confessing strait to God and not to a mortal. It (that a priest can divulge a confession) serves them right for being unbiblical."

-RvFvS

sullster · 01-24-2002, 02:45 PM

The issue here in Massachusetts does not involve priest-penitant privacy. The issue is about the hierarchy of the church covering up documented cases of child molestations committed by priests.

Pedophilia is a crime and the church cannot use its organization to hide a criminal. That is the issue here. If the church is seen as harboring a criminal from its own ranks, is the state violating separation law by demanding that the church hand over the pedophile for prosecution?

PopeInTheWoods · 01-24-2002, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sullster:
If the church is seen as harboring a criminal from its own ranks, is the state violating separation law by demanding that the church hand over the pedophile for prosecution?

Separation means the state must be neutral in matters of religion. One's religious affiliation cannot afford them special treatment, so the Diocese has no more of a right to cover up a crime than any other person or organization. Charge the Diocese with conspiracy and obstruction under RICO and start taking away some of that tax-free property.

Andy (PITW)

sullster · 01-25-2002, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PopeInTheWoods:

Separation means the state must be neutral in matters of religion. One's religious affiliation cannot afford them special treatment, so the Diocese has no more of a right to cover up a crime than any other person or organization. Charge the Diocese with conspiracy and obstruction under RICO and start taking away some of that tax-free property.

Andy (PITW)

Thanks for reply and to update you on this local scandal here in Boston: The diocese is revealing the names of pedophile priests from the past, revealing letters covering up abuse from 30 years and twisting in the wind big time. The cardinal is not resigning in spite of many calls for his resignation. The **** has hit the fan here in Boston with pedophile priest coverups.

Interesting side point showing how the church can get itself exempt from laws which apply to other groups. In Massachusetts in 1986, all organizations could be held responsible for not revealing a pedophile. Guess which tax-exempt organization lobbied and successfully excluded itself from such a law? If you guessed the CC, you are very correct. I see your

and raise it one

.

crazyfingers · 01-25-2002, 02:31 PM

Anyone who wants to really get a fill on this story can find as much as you want at <a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/" target="_blank">Boston Globe On-line</a>

Some of the stories just from today's Boston Globe.

<a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/" target="_blank">Diocese will report ex-priests</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/nation/In_letters_Geoghan_showed_self_in_denial+.shtml" target="_blank">In letters, Geoghan showed self in denial</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/nation/Police_probed_priest_on_sex_abuse_as_early_as_1986 %2b.shtml" target="_blank">Police probed priest on sex abuse as early as 1986</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/metro/The_apologies_aren_t_enough+.shtml" target="_blank">The apologies aren't enough</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/oped/The_kindest_regards_for_an_errant_priest+.shtml" target="_blank">The kindest regards for an errant priest</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/editorials/Cardinal_Law_s_response+.shtml" target="_blank">Cardinal Law's response</a>

There are more...

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ]

Toto · 02-16-2002, 03:32 PM

Here's a discussion of the problem with forcing priests to divulge confessions:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/16/arts/16CONF.html" target="_blank">Secrets Confided to the Clergy Are Getting Harder to Keep</a>

Quote:

Sister Rose McDermott, a professor of canon law at Catholic University, said Catholic priests would be unable to comply with a law that required them to break the seal of confession. "The sacramental seal differs from professional confidentiality in the law or psychiatry," she said. "The confessor's obligation is absolute."

But even if they worry that some of the state laws may be unconstitutional, legal scholars acknowledge that they have broad public support. As Paul Rothstein, a professor of evidence law at Georgetown University Law Center, put it, "There's a societal trend against child abusers," and, along with it, "a reaction against hiding harmful conduct behind privilege."

That reaction was on vivid display earlier this month in Massachusetts, the latest state seeking to make the clergy "mandatory reporters" of sexual abuse. Prompted by the case of John J. Geoghan, a former Boston- area priest whose record of sexually molesting young parishioners was concealed by superiors � he now faces criminal charges and 84 civil lawsuits � lawmakers in the predominantly Catholic state drafted a bill last summer. Now pending in the state legislature, it has provoked a fierce battle between Catholic leaders determined to preserve priest- penitent confidentiality and Protestant leaders who argue that protecting children is more important.

Under the State Senate's version of the bill, which the Catholic Church supports, members of the clergy who learn of possible abuse through confession or counseling where confidentiality is expected would not have to report it to the authorities. Protestant leaders object that the exemption amounts to an unacceptable loophole.

In a Jan. 31 letter to all members of the state's House of Representatives, Nancy S. Taylor, president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, urged legislators to oppose the bill as proposed. "While upholding confidentiality as a general principle, it should not be used to protect criminals, or criminal behavior, at the expense of innocent victims," she wrote.

Of course, the Catholic church may have knowledge of paedophilia from means other than the rite of confession. And it is one thing to cover up a past crime, but quite another to allow a criminal to go on committing crimes in the name of religion.

Arrowman · 02-17-2002, 02:45 PM

The old Catholic Church / paedophilia coverup has had some exposure (pardon the pun) in recent times in Australia, also. But our current issue surrounds the Governor-General, who is a former Anglican Archbishop. Dr Peter Hollingworth has been accused of covering up sex abuse by a teacher at an Anglican school in Brisbane when he was the local Archbishop. Now more stuff is coming out of the closet. Articles from today's Sydney Morning Herald:

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national1.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national1.html</a>
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national4.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national4.html</a>

When Hollingworth was appointed there was some controversy over his suitability for the role (being a former Archbishop, that is - the sex abuse thing hadn't come out then).

At the time, the religion writer for the national newspaper expressed his opinion that the apppointment was NOT suitable because a priest or bishop has taken an oath to "a higher authority" and that oath is for life - not to be resigned at a convenient time. In other words, you can resign as CEO of a major company to take up a position like G-G; you can't fully "resign" as a priest.

IMHO he was spot on the money.

sullster · 02-18-2002, 05:25 AM

Here is a bit of a up-date about the pedophile explosion in the Boston Diocese. The church has revealed that 84 priests had done the deed one or many times. Some priests have been pulled out of their parish churches. A hundred people protest outside the Cardinal's residence demanding that he resign. The cardinal is saying,"heck no, I won't go", and claims he will clean up the church. Many feel that it is like keeping on a CEO who stole the company's money so that he can make things right.(Sounds like some big energy corporation in the news, doesn't it?)

01-23-2002, 03:13 PM	#1
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Catholic church forced to reveal pedophiles In Massachusetts, the legislature passed a bill requiring the local Catholic archdiocese to make public all records of past priest pedophilia. A high profile case of a child-molesting priest, who had been protected by the church, brought this on. Does this bill bring up any church-state issues? I feel that it does not since pedophilia is a crime, but would like to hear other views.

01-25-2002, 02:31 PM	#7
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	Anyone who wants to really get a fill on this story can find as much as you want at <a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/" target="_blank">Boston Globe On-line</a> Some of the stories just from today's Boston Globe. <a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/" target="_blank">Diocese will report ex-priests</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/nation/In_letters_Geoghan_showed_self_in_denial+.shtml" target="_blank">In letters, Geoghan showed self in denial</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/nation/Police_probed_priest_on_sex_abuse_as_early_as_1986 %2b.shtml" target="_blank">Police probed priest on sex abuse as early as 1986</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/metro/The_apologies_aren_t_enough+.shtml" target="_blank">The apologies aren't enough</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/oped/The_kindest_regards_for_an_errant_priest+.shtml" target="_blank">The kindest regards for an errant priest</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/025/editorials/Cardinal_Law_s_response+.shtml" target="_blank">Cardinal Law's response</a> There are more... [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2002, 04:53 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	It might violate the priest-penitant privacy. I can envision a situation where Priest A knows Priest B is a pedophile via confession, but the Church's admin structure does not. Would that be a constitutional violation? Michael

01-24-2002, 11:12 AM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	In our country we there are certain relationships that are confidential: doctor-patient, marriage, etc. If there is case law establishing such for religious relationships, then the Mass. law might not pass mustard. On the other hand, the confidentiality of confession could just be a traditional courtesy granted by the government (like tax-breaks) and not a constitutional right. The fundie (protestant) republican position might be that "they should be confessing strait to God and not to a mortal. It (that a priest can divulge a confession) serves them right for being unbiblical." -RvFvS

01-24-2002, 02:45 PM	#4
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	The issue here in Massachusetts does not involve priest-penitant privacy. The issue is about the hierarchy of the church covering up documented cases of child molestations committed by priests. Pedophilia is a crime and the church cannot use its organization to hide a criminal. That is the issue here. If the church is seen as harboring a criminal from its own ranks, is the state violating separation law by demanding that the church hand over the pedophile for prosecution?

02-17-2002, 02:45 PM	#9
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	The old Catholic Church / paedophilia coverup has had some exposure (pardon the pun) in recent times in Australia, also. But our current issue surrounds the Governor-General, who is a former Anglican Archbishop. Dr Peter Hollingworth has been accused of covering up sex abuse by a teacher at an Anglican school in Brisbane when he was the local Archbishop. Now more stuff is coming out of the closet. Articles from today's Sydney Morning Herald: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national1.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national1.html</a> <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national4.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/news/0202/18/national/national4.html</a> When Hollingworth was appointed there was some controversy over his suitability for the role (being a former Archbishop, that is - the sex abuse thing hadn't come out then). At the time, the religion writer for the national newspaper expressed his opinion that the apppointment was NOT suitable because a priest or bishop has taken an oath to "a higher authority" and that oath is for life - not to be resigned at a convenient time. In other words, you can resign as CEO of a major company to take up a position like G-G; you can't fully "resign" as a priest. IMHO he was spot on the money.

02-18-2002, 05:25 AM	#10
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Here is a bit of a up-date about the pedophile explosion in the Boston Diocese. The church has revealed that 84 priests had done the deed one or many times. Some priests have been pulled out of their parish churches. A hundred people protest outside the Cardinal's residence demanding that he resign. The cardinal is saying,"heck no, I won't go", and claims he will clean up the church. Many feel that it is like keeping on a CEO who stole the company's money so that he can make things right.(Sounds like some big energy corporation in the news, doesn't it?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.