But nothing to see here, folks. Abuse is just a human nature thing and there is nothing different when it is empowered by religious doctrine.

The sacraments are the very last things that will survive, even if the entire church goes bankrupt and disintegrates.

And so, the abuse will continue apace. And it will be covered up, as it has been, because nobody can tell about it happening if the offender simply confesses to another priest. That ends the story, as far as the Church is concerned.

And, as we have seen, even when the victim reports the crime of sexual abuse, it will simply be denied, because, "Who will you believe? A holy priest or a lying child?" Thus has it been and thus it shall be.

On the contrary, in the secular world there is recourse. Let's say a child reports being abused right after it happens. DNA evidence will be taken, an investigation will take place, and justice might be served. If it happens in a Catholic Church setting, no such thing will occur, except very, very rarely. Few District Attorneys will take on a priest sexual abuse case as a criminal matter. Such cases are almost impossible to prove in court, and the priest may well be "spirited" away, even to the Vatican, as has happened with some of the Bishops accused of cover-ups. The state mistakenly works to protect the Church in most cases. It is how it is done. Nobody wants to take on the Catholic Church.

The seal of the confessional can be changed to apply to the lay penitent and the priest. Priests already put themselves in a elevated position so "breaking the seal" is only reasonable. I don't expect them to do as such but...

By the by, it has always been the case that the priest can give instructions to the penitent to confess such crimes to the police as part of their "absolution". Technically, if they don't, then their sins are not absolved. I understand it seems like a pointless distinction, but the penitent that is foolish enough to admit these things in the confessional, apparently finds some importance in this distinction. Technically, within the RCC, forgiveness involves something similar to the twelve steps and involves admitting the sin and requesting forgiveness from the person wronged. AA calls it "making amends". Truly the proper result of a priest making these confessions should be both a requirement to express regret for their actions, beg forgiveness from the wronged, and going to the police to face the consequences.

Much depends on the priest who hears the confession. Most priests choose their own confessor. A superior might even choose a priest who is in an inferior position to hear his confession. Conflicts are many. A priest who is a child sexual molester might even choose another priest with the same predilection for child abuse.

Granting absolution is entirely up to the confessor Priest. And, since nothing can be said to a third party, there it ends.

Only in a situation where every priest is good and holy and takes the job of being a confessor with due seriousness would your fix apply. I fear that is not often the case. Also a priest might hear a confession, be convinced of the true penitence of the fellow priest and give absolution...perhaps even more than once.

It is the seal of the confessional that allows this sort of abuse to continue and spread. Accountability is very, very limited.

Your final sentence expresses how it should be. Given the total secrecy, however, that is not how it always is, I can guarantee.

the problem is the people. The people know what theologically they're supposed to do. They merely choose not to do it. Either by abdicating to the higher authorities, or by choosing to violate theology themselves.

It's why most of the existing clergy needs to be expunged. And that isn't gonna happen.

As you say, the answer is to defrock such priests and be done with them. That, however, so rarely happens that it's almost a miracle when it does.

The system perpetuates itself by existing in its current form. There seems to be little hope that that form will be altered.

And the clergy doesn't want to lose their privilege.

Perhaps we'll learn enough to abolish it and put it out of business.

It's internationally, it has governmental level authority, it's richer than you can imagine, and it support comes from around the world. They've survived for 1500 - 2000 years. They've got alot of experience at this.

The key word in that statement is "CAN."

They don't do it in the case of church officials, because they believe only canon law applies.

But even canon law ultimately would allow the Vatican to apply appropriate punishment. The problem is that so many of the clergy were in one way or another involved or complicit. It is still true and may be so for another generation.

That's the problem. The "punishment" is wholly ineffective and in fact has caused MORE abuse because the abuser has been shipped to a new parish with fresh victims.

The RCC simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing. History has proven this beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The problem is the people who are/were running things.

I.e., religion is definitely in this equation.

But it involves a priesthood willing to treat the crime as a matter for civil and spiritual authorities.

And I'm not holding my breath. My only point was it's not theology or cannon law that is the people that are the problem.

That's what causes the RCC to treat its hierarchy as "above the law."

The abuse and coverup in the RCC is so far and beyond what we have seen elsewhere - and it's because religion helped make things worse.

the point is that whether it is cannon law, or civil law, the outcome is ostensibly supposed to be the same. The reason it was not in this situation isn't because of the laws, it is because of those executing the laws. It's true even in civil laws. If the courts refuse to enforce them (look at the south and the treatment of AA by the courts) it doesn't matter what laws, or theology, one creates. It is the people who execute and support them that will make the reality.

The church protected its own from the legal system of the countries it operated in.

All because of its precious RELIGIOUS beliefs. Religion is not innocent here.

You've assumed that a priest who has molested a child would seek absolution through the Confessional and penance. What if the priest doesn't confess? It's hard for me to consider that a man so twisted as to sexually assault young people has any real morality and would feel guilty so as to require confession.

But that's just me. I can also clearly see your point that the door to the Confessional is protected space.

I guess it's another part of the ongoing hypocrisy.

feel deep shame and guilt every time they offend. If they can make confession, do penance and receive absolution, they might even swear, and even believe, that they will never do that again. But, then, opportunity presents itself and their resolve is too weak. Some, of course, are sociopaths who do not even recognize their guilt, and somehow rationalize their behavior. Those, indeed, might not go to the confessional. But the confessional remains as a place where absolute secrecy is maintained.

Adults who sexually abuse children are seriously broken people. There's something badly wrong with them. If they can do that, all bets are off, I think. Still, the sacrament of penance (or reconciliation, as it is now called) offers an out. It offers a way to deal with it that stops utterly inside the confessional.

a mortal sin. It was also one of the most common sins confessed by adolescent boys in particular. They felt shame, confessed, did their penance, got absolution, and then repeated their sin again and again, bringing the same shame, confession and absolution.

I suspect that those confessions also led to some of the cases of abuse against boys by priests, for obvious reasons.

These days, it's no longer considered a major sin, although it's frowned upon, and still gets confessed by boys, I'm sure. But, shame that leads someone into the confessional doesn't necessarily mean and end to the behavior.

of course it is. But to chalk it up as just "twisted" and the folks who do it as having "no real morality" isn't remotely accurate and it isn't conducive to ultimately reducing this crime.

I suspect they do have morals and they do have guilt for the most part. I suspect this because I've defended and prosecuted a number of them and I haven't come across one that I thought was amoral.

Studies have also shown that their recidivism rate isn't really higher, and arguably lower, than other criminals...so that suggests to me morality and guilt, or at the very least, a level of self-preservation (and as long as they aren't molesting anyone else, I don't care what the motivation is).

The idea being the priest as a conduit to God and absolute confidence that confessions heard are not subject to being revealed, this allows one to have confidence in speaking truth no matter how difficult or awful that truth may be. The abuse of this practice is what is wrong. I have no answer to this dilemma other than eliminating the middle man. I'm sure the confidentiality of the confessional has helped a lot of people face difficult problems but if priests (and others) are confessing to crimes, maybe absolution should include turning oneself in to face civil justice and not just some ineffectual prayers and a "go and sin no more" send-off. Forgiveness isn't an automatic thing just because someone asks for it in a church setting. That sense of guilt and desire for change has to be sincere or it's just a lie. The real forgiveness, in my opinion, has to come from oneself *and* the ones who have been abused, not some third-party priest following a script. Unless they take their religion as nothing more than a game.

The entire idea that evil deeds can be absolved by a priest has always seemed ridiculous to me. The priest who hears the confession is not the victim, does not hear from the victim, and has only the story told on which to make a decision. It's a dilemma without a solution. It's a one-sided process, with the perpetrator providing the information.

It's a system rife with opportunities for abuse.

Priests as intermediaries between people and deities is a ridiculous idea in the first place.

Look much of cannon law was written well before enlightenment and an concept of jurisprudence. None the less, the basic concept of forgiveness within the theology involves 3 steps if I remember correctly. Admittance (which is what the confession is), Acknowledgement to the wronged, and Atonement. In a modern society any rational observance of this process would require that the confessor end up in a police station one way or another. Even in some society with poor judicial practices, the RCC should haul them to the Vatican and punish them in some reasonably effective way. Shuttling them off to the next Diocese is in not way an appropriate result. And by the way, what they have done is a "mortal" sin so the punishment should be severe.

But this will not filter out those with no previous history.

Forgiveness is mandated, but equally applicable is Jesus' admonition to go and sin no more.

relatively useless. In fact, most such seminarians have not yet offended, I'm sure. That, however, has nothing to do with the problem created by the ability of one priest to give absolution to another priest. That is a toxic combination in some cases that leads to corruption and worse. The stories from Pennsylvania of priests giving a gold cross as a symbol to compliant children, I'm sure led to further abuse by other priests, who may well have been giving each other absolution.

The seal of the confessional has led to many people guilty of crimes never coming to justice. Mafia bosses and minions also went to confession, and were major donors to parishes. The same is true for some politicians. It's an old, old story. It's an ugly, ugly story, too. It's the story of a corrupt and closed organization that gets a pass on almost everything.

A requirement that for absolution to be given, the offender must confess to the police as well, thus, as Jesus counselled, acknowledging civil and spiritual authority.

I don't expect any changes in the rules of confessions. Nope. The Roman Catholic Church sees its doctrine as superior to civil laws, which vary widely from nation to nation. And, under the 1st Amendment, our government can't require any changes, either.

So if he were to speak ex cathedra, that change would become doctrine. And there is scriptural authority for recognizing civil authority.

If you would like to make a wager on that, just state the amount. I could use some extra cash.

but I am also aware of history.

Maybe sitting around hoping for change while the Vatican busies itself fucking kids and protecting people who fuck kids ain't the best plan.

You know.

For the kids.

Most of the cases we know about are because other priests saw or heard of something or victims came forward. When that happened, the church buried it and moved the perpetrator to another parrish. The problem was the Church's wish to keep crime's "in house."