Catholic Confession and LDS Repentance Process

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

In your final paragraph after you offer the reasoning which I will critique below you said: "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted."

There is a difference here between being okay with the legislation and supporting it. I have made it quite clear that I am in favor of the earlier legislation over this one. But this legislation doesn't bother me.

You continue to avoid the hard questions here Rory.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

That raises another question. Why just the one heinous crime? 

Because it's a useful starting point. You keep avoiding this question - do you think that there are boundaries that society can place on religious practice? Do you think that Mormons should have been allowed to continue with polygamy? Do you think that a religion that allows child marriage shouldn't face scrutiny because of that practice? We start with the heinous crimes because once we establish - in principle - that churches can place boundaries on the practice of religion, it is then merely a process of trying to determine where those boundaries should be. We haven't gotten to that point in this discussion because so far, you are outraged over the idea that society should have any say whatsoever.

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think it helps to trivialize Catholic response to the point of suggesting it is not a problem for a devout or any other Catholic (in this case Rory) that the CC did not take significant steps in many cases to prevent abuse when leaders learned of it.  I would be hurt if you said something like that to me.

I am going to quote something from a report completed at the request of the Catholic Church:

Quote

The historical sequencing used in the first section is again employed here to help define the evolution of the Catholic Church’s attitude towards the acts of sexual violence committed within its confines. From 1950 to 1970, the desire of the Catholic Church to protect itself from scandal and to “save” the aggressors dominated its policy, while it ignored the fate of the victims who were exhorted to remain silent. From 1970 to 1990, the question of sexual violence took a back seat to the priesthood crisis, which monopolised the internal support structures for “problem” clergy and this goes too for the clinical field which was a way of treating reported cases, abandoned by the end of this period. The Catholic Church’s attitude gradually began to change from the 1990s as it started to take onboard the existence of victims - even if this could not yet be considered recognition. It was only from 2010 that the Church began to recognise victims when it started reporting cases to the judicial system, imposing canonical sanctions, and accepted that dealing with perpetrators should no longer be an internal affair.

Over the greater part of the period studied by the CIASE, its bservations show that the Church’s attitude could be summarised as one of ignorance, relativisation or even denial, with only a very recent recognition, dating from 2015, and even then, unequally accepted by dioceses and religious institutions. If this analysis is combined with what has been said in the first section regarding the prevalence of sexual violence against children and vulnerable persons, the concept of a systemic phenomenon emerges. It is not that the violence was organised or accepted by the institution (although this did happen in a very small number of communities or institutions), rather that the Church did not have any clear idea how to prevent such violence or indeed even see it, let alone deal with it in a fair and determined manner.

A little later we get this (emphasis is mine):

Quote

To close the second section of the report, as a transition towards the more concrete recommendations expected to result from the commission’s work and intended to put a stop to the tragedies of sexual violence and ensure that they do not recur, particular attention has been paid – as requested by the CEF and the CORREF – to the measures taken by these bodies, or under their leadership, since the turning point of the 2000s which is when, from the very top of its organisation, the Catholic Church began speaking in public about what it has chosen to call the fight against paedophilia. These measures have been substantial on both a national and local level. But – with huge differences between one diocese or religious institution and another - the response from the Church has been globally insufficient, has often come too late and only in reaction to events, or has been poorly applied. This is very much the case with the obligation to report to the justice system any behaviour from members of clergy or religious orders which could constitute a crime or misdemeanour. This measure was decided by the CEF as early as 2000, so no later than by other public or private institutions for minors, but was applied slowly and unevenly over different dioceses. The Church also failed to take onboard criticism from, in particular, victim support groups which wanted it to go much further.

There is a difference between what actually happens, and what is pronounced from the Vatican. I certainly believe that things have actually gotten better at this point (this report was completed in 2021). But there is this problem that the Catholic Church has not proven itself yet as a willing partner with the rest of society over these issues. I think that we (as a society) have the right to protect children from predators. I think that this right can (at least in a variety of specific instances) exceed the right for people to practice their religion as they see fit. And I do not think that Rory has really made any concessions at all to the idea that the Catholic Church enabled abuse by not preventing those who engaged in this abuse from having inappropriate access to children. I want Rory to justify his position that his religious belief is more important than the rest of society's need to protect children, and the rest of society's need for justice against the perpetrators of these crimes. And quite frankly, I am not particularly concerned about whether or not feelings get hurt here. Hurt feelings are minor problems to the sometimes permanently damaging outcomes that are the result of (preventable) child abuse.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am going to quote something from a report completed at the request of the Catholic Church:

A little later we get this (emphasis is mine):

There is a difference between what actually happens, and what is pronounced from the Vatican. I certainly believe that things have actually gotten better at this point (this report was completed in 2021). But there is this problem that the Catholic Church has not proven itself yet as a willing partner with the rest of society over these issues. I think that we (as a society) have the right to protect children from predators. I think that this right can (at least in a variety of specific instances) exceed the right for people to practice their religion as they see fit. And I do not think that Rory has really made any concessions at all to the idea that the Catholic Church enabled abuse by not preventing those who engaged in this abuse from having inappropriate access to children. I want Rory to justify his position that his religious belief is more important than the rest of society's need to protect children, and the rest of society's need for justice against the perpetrators of these crimes. And quite frankly, I am not particularly concerned about whether or not feelings get hurt here. Hurt feelings are minor problems to the sometimes permanently damaging outcomes that are the result of (preventable) child abuse.

Ben, hi.

I have engaged with your attempts to justify a useless, impractical state legislative bill. You have admitted that there is slight evidence that child predators of any religion avail themselves of the opportunity to confess their crimes to church or civic authorities. You advocate this proposed bill which infringes on a 1500 year old tradition of secrecy in the Confessional, which you uncharitably characterized as irrelevant. I see more contempt, and not much respect for my religion when you use that kind of language. Anyway, following are four ways you compare with this legislation where society protects itself by law from other forms of religious predation. Three are already in force, while you advocate violating the secrecy of the Confessional as a fourth:  

1) Jews are prohibited from stoning people, curbing the practice of cherished Jewish beliefs?

2) Mormons are supposedly prohibited from committing polygamy, curbing what Mormons would like to do if it were lawful?   

3) Child marriage is prohibited, curbing whose beliefs? Muslim maybe, or LDS?

4) The Catholic Sacrament of Confession should by law be violated because of the extremely remote possibility that it will enable law enforcement to apprehend a child abuser?

Do you think Jews would stone people if not for the law, or Mormons resume polygamy? What religion in America feels oppressed because of state laws requiring that persons must meet a minimum age requirement to marry? My only opinion about your concern for society is that you seem to profess a great love for humanity as a whole, in the abstract. Your concern is focused on the safety of society and your desire for Rory to answer your questions about the relation of society to religion. If you want to find the answer, it is in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae, #7. In that paragraph anyone can read that religious rights cannot be used as a pretext for violating other natural rights, and that furthermore, "the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary." 

I do not believe anyone has met the criteria given above for when religious liberty should be curtailed in the matter under discussion. This law will have no practical effect even if passed in the far northwest corner of the United States. I came to this thread originally out of an interest in exposing the ignorant zeal with which those who have no knowledge or regard for my faith think this would be an aid in apprehending child abuse. But you Ben, are a different case. Unlike most of its supporters, you have admitted that the bill is practically useless. I accept your retraction where you seem to clarify and soften your earlier statement that "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." You favor a different law, but if that can't be passed, let's go this more draconian legislation? I think that is your position?  

Regardless of that, I find it disturbing that you have an attitude about this impractical law that you expressed as follows:  "...quite frankly, I am not particularly concerned about whether or not feelings get hurt here. Hurt feelings are minor problems to the sometimes permanently damaging outcomes that are the result of (preventable) child abuse."

There is a troubling tendency in our age to think we can love humanity as an abstract whole, while having contempt for individual humans, particularly if their ideas conflict with our own humanitarian political ideologies. I believe that you are my brother in Jesus Christ, that we are in a very important sense, united in Him. However, even if I agreed with you that this legislation should be passed, I would disagree with your ambivalence about hurting your neighbor that you have had discourse with, in favor of an abstract human society that would probably disagree with your ideology in large part anyway. There are two great commandents. You know them. Neither of the two urge us to love mankind as a whole, but rather God and our neighbor. There is an important distinction there. Mankind isn't somebody to know or love. Worse than feeling no guilt about hurting the feelings of your neighbor, you haven't even established the utility of this law to prevent child abuse! "Love of mankind" can perhaps result in noble endeavors, or in totalitarianism. Those who say they have conceived a love for mankind should also love each person he has contact with as individuals. I suspect you love most of your next door neighbors. It IS harder to love your internet neighbors, admittedly. But we still have that duty. I am not saying that you hate me. My feelings are fine, unscathed in fact, but it is a spiritually unhealthy state of mind for you not to care if I did have hurt feelings. I am happy to think that you were overemphasizing your understandable concerns. I even think you would help me, even if you knew it was me on the side of the road needing help! Heh. I fear you have misunderstood me, and perhaps I am to blame for that. Please accept my apologies for when I have been less than neighborly with you. Please believe me that I have no hard feelings towards you and would look forward to healthier discussions with you that may arise in the future. 

May God bless you and yours,

Rory

PS: For anyone interested in this fair recent psychological phenomenon (love of mankind, less love for neighbor), I would recommend this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170

 

   

[Benjamin McGuire]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Do you think Jews would stone people if not for the law, or Mormons resume polygamy? What religion in America feels oppressed because of state laws requiring that persons must meet a minimum age requirement to marry? My only opinion about your concern for society is that you seem to profess a great love for humanity as a whole, in the abstract. Your concern is focused on the safety of society and your desire for Rory to answer your questions about the relation of society to religion. If you want to find the answer, it is in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae, #7. In that paragraph anyone can read that religious rights cannot be used as a pretext for violating other natural rights, and that furthermore, "the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary." 

You are avoiding the point here.

I am asking a fairly straight forward question that you are consistently refusing to answer. Are there limits to religion that society should be allowed to impose? This is not a difficult question to answer. Or do you believe that any religion should be allowed to do whatever it wants to do in the name of that religion?

I suggest that the history of that religious practice is an irrelevancy because it seems to me that the history of a religious practice should have little value to the question I just posed. While you may not believe that Jews would be willing to stone someone today, part of this is because the Jews historically lost the right (to a civil government) to try capital cases. That is, it was originally a political action by a civil government that ended the practice.

You bring up the issue of freedom being curtailed when necessary - we recognize that civil governments curtail all sorts of liberties. This occurs for the greater good. We tend to place rights into hierarchies - with some rights taking precedence over others. So this brings me to the second question I would like you to answer - specifically. Do you think that the right for Catholics to have a sealed confessional is greater than the right of children to live lives free of abuse? This is a simple yes or no question. I would like an answer. And it is important because you invoke the question of natural rights above. In invoking Dignitatis Humanae #7, you are, I am sure, aware of this statement in it:

Quote

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

When I have been discussing this issue, I have been placing it in this context. Society has an obligation protect children. Assuming (and I will grant that you can disagree with this assumption) that making clergy mandatory reporters will help protect children and their natural rights, wouldn't this be justified? Again, this is an issue that so far you haven't recognized one way or another. Do you think that society has a collective right to place restrictions on religious practice when that practice leads to demonstrable harm to society?

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

do not believe anyone has met the criteria given above for when religious liberty should be curtailed in the matter under discussion. This law will have no practical effect even if passed in the far northwest corner of the United States. I came to this thread originally out of an interest in exposing the ignorant zeal with which those who have no knowledge or regard for my faith think this would be an aid in apprehending child abuse. But you Ben, are a different case. Unlike most of its supporters, you have admitted that the bill is practically useless. I accept your retraction where you seem to clarify and soften your earlier statement that "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." You favor a different law, but if that can't be passed, let's go this more draconian legislation? I think that is your position?  

No, the bill isn't useless. And this is part of my frustration with you in this discussion. You are hyper-focused on a single part of that law. So let's take the opening of the confession off the table. Let's remove the part that you disagree with the most. Do you think it is acceptable to make clergy mandatory reporters except in the circumstances of the sealed confession? While this is a simple yes or no question, I would appreciate a brief statement about what you believe should also be excluded if you answer is no. But I will also add this. I believe that preventing abuse to children is a greater responsibility for society than the protection of a sealed confession. When I say that it is largely useless, what I mean is that there would hardly ever be a time when it would need to be applied - at least in the context of abusers. But, in the few instances where an abuser might make a confession - and the reporting of that confession would save a child from continued abuse - and would allow that abuser to be brought to justice - then I would in fact consider that to be a good trade. And I believe that the right of children to live lives free of abuse is a higher natural right than any right to a sealed confession.

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

There is a troubling tendency in our age to think we can love humanity as an abstract whole, while having contempt for individual humans, particularly if their ideas conflict with our own humanitarian political ideologies. I believe that you are my brother in Jesus Christ, that we are in a very important sense, united in Him. However, even if I agreed with you that this legislation should be passed, I would disagree with your ambivalence about hurting your neighbor that you have had discourse with, in favor of an abstract human society that would probably disagree with your ideology in large part anyway. There are two great commandents. You know them. Neither of the two urge us to love mankind as a whole, but rather God and our neighbor. There is an important distinction there. Mankind isn't somebody to know or love. Worse than feeling no guilt about hurting the feelings of your neighbor, you haven't even established the utility of this law to prevent child abuse! "Love of mankind" can perhaps result in noble endeavors, or in totalitarianism. Those who say they have conceived a love for mankind should also love each person he has contact with as individuals. I suspect you love most of your next door neighbors. It IS harder to love your internet neighbors, admittedly. But we still have that duty. I am not saying that you hate me. My feelings are fine, unscathed in fact, but it is a spiritually unhealthy state of mind for you not to care if I did have hurt feelings. I am happy to think that you were overemphasizing your understandable concerns. I even think you would help me, even if you knew it was me on the side of the road needing help! Heh. I fear you have misunderstood me, and perhaps I am to blame for that. Please accept my apologies for when I have been less than neighborly with you. Please believe me that I have no hard feelings towards you and would look forward to healthier discussions with you that may arise in the future. 

I don't  hold you in contempt. I have a deep respect for Catholicism and especially for its theologians (I have met and studied with several of them in my lifetime). 

However, we are talking about child abuse here. If it is painful for you to hear criticism of Catholicism over the child abuse that has been perpetrated by its clergy, is this actually a valid reason for me not to bring it up or discuss it? Perhaps it is easy for you to include the children who are abused into that faceless mass of humanity - that have no names. The bottom line here, though, is that child abuse and child abusers are not primarily a religious issue - because Catholicism does not (and never will) endorse child abuse. It is a purely civil issue. And Society has a need to address these in any way that it can. So where is the line that you believe that society cannot cross when religion decides to prevent or block society from doing its due diligence and achieving justice for its people? As I keep asking - how do you balance the one set of rights against the other?

These are real questions - and I think that if you want to argue that religion should be free with no constraints, then you need to answer them.