re: Catholics to excommunicate priests who follows Washington law about reporting child abuse

quote:

---

quote:

---

And that’s the problem.

---

it’s not because the priest cannot assume a crime will happen based off of past actions

---

That wasn’t really the question though. The question was whether a priest could divulge knowledge of future crimes specifically. That’s the standard for other professions with legally-protected confidentiality, isn’t it?

As I said it’s not black & white. Let’s say someone tells their priest/lawyer/psychiatrist one of the following:

1. “I abused my son 10 years ago.”
2. “I’ve been abusing my son for the past month.”
3. “I’ve been abusing my son for the past month and I can’t stop.”

AMA guidelines say:

quote:

---

When a patient threatens to inflict serious physical harm to another person or to him or herself and there is a reasonable probability that the patient may carry out the threat, the physician should take reasonable precautions for the protection of the intended victim, which may include notification of law enforcement authorities.

---

ABA guidelines say:

quote:

---

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

---

So looking at the psychiatrist, I would think:
#1 doesn’t warrant disclosure because it was 10 years ago.
#2 might warrant disclosure. My guess is that in most cases, the psychiatrist notifies law enforcement.
#3 certainly warrants disclosure.

Looking at the attorney, I would think:
#1 doesn’t warrant disclosure because it was 10 years ago.
#2 might warrant disclosure. I’m not sure how exactly “substantial bodily harm” is defined in this context, but there are probably other applicable state/federal laws as well. My guess is that most attorneys will err on the side of maintaining confidentiality unless state law mandates reporting.
#3 is probably the same logic as #2, except there is now a higher probability that the abuse continues.

Looking at the priest, what I’m reading in this thread is:
#1 can’t be disclosed.
#2 can’t be disclosed.
#3 can’t be disclosed.

My point is that I think there’s a lot of reasonable middle ground between “any knowledge of child abuse must be reported” and “no knowledge at all can be reported.”

quote:

---

there shouldn’t be any for the priest

---

I agree*

*except for the anti-Catholic laws we'll enact later

I understand what you are saying but many times a random person will walk into a church for confession and say bizarre things and the priest has no idea who the person is - either because it’s a totally random person or the person does not confess face to face

Many people do lie in confession - sort of defeats the point of it but it happens

And the priest is not a lawyer or a psychiatrist, so why should he be upheld to standards of different professions? He should be held to the standard of his profession

quote:

---

I don't know how this is debatable. 3 downvotes, but no contrary replies...

---

because you can’t pick and choose what needs to be protected

It’s not a law to protect children it’s a law against Catholicism

quote:

---

And the priest is not a lawyer or a psychiatrist, so why should he be upheld to standards of different professions? He should be held to the standard of his profession

---

I mean if you go back in the thread this particular conversation started with this quote:

quote:

---

I will ask this question again, if we are demanding that priests be a mandated reporter for the safety of children, why are lawyers exempt?

---

That being said, after some additional research on the Washington law it appears that the bill extends the same reporting requirements for doctors, nurses, law enforcement, child care providers, etc. to clergy. With one major exception - the reporting requirements does not apply to information obtained “solely as a result of privileged communication” except for Clergy. That, I would agree, is kind of bullshite.

ETA: After further reading it’s not quite as egregious as I thought.. see my post below.

I'm not clear on this, but given the recent history, I would think priests would welcome the opportunity to expose molestation.

I don't see how it could be any other way...

It should be paramount to protect those that can't protect themselves.

If someone has a moral dilemma, test it against scripture.

Again, Jesus was clear in his instruction about this particular situation.



Millstone, etc.

quote:

---

That being said, after some additional research on the Washington law it appears that the bill extends the same reporting requirements for doctors, nurses, law enforcement, child care providers, etc. to clergy. With one major exception - the reporting requirements does not apply to information obtained “solely as a result of privileged communication” except for Clergy. That, I would agree, is kind of bullshite.

---

Like I said earlier, the purpose of the law is make being a Catholic Priest illegal.

Yeah, thats kinda BS.

If you tell your lawyer you are molesting a child, he oughta turn your arse in.

And every lawyer I know would do that...

quote:

---

I doubt that's explicitly stated in the oath.

---

How convenient

quote:

---

---

Actually I wasn’t entirely correct.

Here is a link to the bill and here is a link to the mandatory reporting law prior to modification under the bill.

If I’m reading it correctly, section 1(a) lists the people who are considered mandatory reporters. That list is being expanded to include clergy under the bill.

Section 1(b) says that any person (which appears to mean regardless of whether specifically defined as mandatory reporters) is required to report child abuse if they are the supervisor of the alleged abuser, and the alleged abuser’s job involves child care/interaction of some sort.

That section, 1(b) is where it says that privileged communications are excluded from the requirement. It goes on to say that nothing in 1(b) shall limit duty to report under 1(a).

I think the intention of removing the “privileged communications” exception for clergy is to eliminate a scenario where a priest’s admission of child abuse to a superior in confession becomes shielded from mandatory reporting. It seems like the privilege would not apply to anyone else’s admissions in confession anyway. In other words, it’s saying that a bishop who finds out a priest abused a child is still a mandatory reporter even if the bishop found out via confession. Another scenario might be a priest finding out via a volunteer’s confession.

That’s actually a pretty narrow exception to the privilege protections, and doesn’t seem as egregious as I initially thought.