Obviously not, but noting how difficult it is to change human behavior, and the behavior of a dangerous few, is not sweeping anything under the rug. It is identifying barriers.

has for decades, probably for centuries, deliberately protected its pedophile clergy. That has to stop. And every bit of institutional knowledge of who has done what needs to be turned over to the relevant local authorities.

But this behavior, sexual predation, is a human behavioral characteristic.

Is anyone claiming that the rcc is the sole source of pedophelia?

My point is, how do we change behavior to make this predation unacceptable?

And I confess that I have no idea.

The ever-present conflict between expressed ideals and actual behavior.

But you post an opinion that says mandatory reporting requirements won’t work, and you try to give the RCC a pass by saying it happens everywhere anyway.

A failed repeat that ignores actual human behavior that exists everywhere.

Nobody is saying you have to be a priest to rape children. It just makes it a lot easier when you have a built in support network. Meanwhile you think that support network can’t do anything about it because it’s just “human behavior”. That’s pretty fucked up.

And in families, the source of much predation, the family often covers it up.

From your own OP no less.

Ignore it at your peril.

That is why it is called reality. Because it actually happens.

They enabled the priests and actively engaged in the cover up and now you are posting an opinion that forcing them to do what they have refused to do themselves just won’t work so why bother.

Child rape apologia has no place here. Not anywhere else for that matter.

But you prefer to argue this straw man instead.

I suggested, here and in other posts, that this behavior is seen in every institution.


So the actual point is, how do we change human behavior?

Do you have an idea about this, or would you prefer to build with straw?

Either religion bears some of the responsibility for this epidemic of child rape or it doesn’t.

So far you’ve made it quite clear that it doesn’t. If you want to walk that shit back, be my guest. Somehow I think you won’t.

Something that I have said numerous times.

Keep building with the straw. It is quite inexpensive.

From my original post:

Then when the same solution is implemented for the RCC, you think it’s a bad idea.

Very telling that.

Very telling that.

That you prefer to ascribe motivation to others so you can attack a position that was never taken.

Calling people in this group “intolerant”?

“11th commandment”?

What should that tell us, Gil?

What pattern of behavior can we derive from that, Gil. Or is judgement the sole purview of the self-righteous?

Some people. Some is not synonymous with all.

I’m quite aware it’s only certain types of posters, just like you admit. That’s the whole point of your hate.

I mean, if it's not going to change anything, what's the point?

I was in my career.

I do not know how to stop predation, or if it can be stopped. I feel that the author's point is that there is no easy solution to this, NOT to excuse it.

EVERYONE who has information about a possible instance of abuse should be required to report it.

Do you agree? Do you agree that there should be NO EXCEPTIONS, not even when a clergy member receives that information in a confessional session?

I bet you won't answer, because you know your answer is deplorable.

On a side note wouldn't someone have a legal responsibility to report it or is the clergy exempt from that law?

The law in the US is clear, as is the evasion of that law that some in the RCC engaged in.

I will answer in order.

So whats the law?? Thinking about it I did block you for a while.

There is no state where predation is legal, and many types of individuals are legally required to report it.

It varies on a state by state basis.

But Im not on here all day every day and I certainly don't follow all of your posts. "many types of individuals are legally required to report it. " is the clergy exempt from this?

I was surprised to read this when I researched it before, but who is covered by mandatory reporting laws varies.

My wife and I are volunteer leaders in a youth organization. We had to undergo a background check.


But to your question about clergy:

Not really. I'm outright disgusted. And do you think this is ok??

And why this is not a national issue escapes me.

but how can you think laws for 2 different types of people is ok or right?

Why is sexual violence not governed by national law?

And I admit that I have no idea how we stop predators from preying.

Do you?

Answer it and we can proceed.

Not 50 different standards.

The national standard could also exempt clergy. Do you think that would be ok?

But all 50 states have a mandatory reporting law. They just vary in certain particulars. The expectations for clergy are sure to change with recent revelations.

Illinois is the exception in the Midwest in mandating clergy as required reporters.

SNAP, the organization of survivors, is part of this conversation.

But never priests, because they enjoy religious privilege.

Religious privilege helps protect abusers, and endangers children.

And you are A-OK with that, evidently.

I posted about Illinois law that specifically mandates reporting by clergy. So your first point is factually incorrect. Requirements vary by state.

As to your ending, that is your framing and unsupported by anything that I have actually posted. But setting up a straw man and arguing with it is your right.

The mandatory reporter law in Illinois specifically excludes confessional-revealed situations, in accordance with Catholic religious dogma.

THAT is what makes the abuse problem WORSE, gil. And you are defending it. No straw needed. You have to own this disgusting shit with your constant, steadfast support of religious privilege.

https://www.isba.org/committees/minorities/newsletter/2004/03/illinoisclergyasmandatedreporters

But, as the article notes, and as I argue, the mere existence of a law does not stop criminal behavior.

And again, more straw as you construct your preferred opponent.

State, here and now, that you don't believe information received in confessional should be excluded from mandatory reporting laws.

If you can state that, I will retract what I have said.

Ball's in your court now.

And the, much harder, change human behavior.

The solution is there for you.

Ball's in your court now.

The religious privilege that YOU defend.

YOU are helping make it so we can't change the law.

YOU won't help me change the law.

This is a ridiculous attempt at reframing and you very well know it, because you've been caught admitting you support exceptions for clergy being mandated reporters.

Civil rights were extended by people who advocated for change.

The organization SNAP is trying to change the laws.

I have marched for abortion rights, and in front of clinics to defend patients.

Have you?

THAT'S the question.

You don't get to dodge that.

And you avoided what I said.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Demonstrating excellent copy and paste skills.

But I will not answer any "question" based on mis-framing. That tactic would earn you a failed grade in any debate class.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

You failed the test.

You don't. You embrace it and wish to perpetuate it.

Which one of us has truly failed, gil?

If you don't support religious exceptions for mandatory reporting laws, then just state so. I asked you to. Specifically. But you have refused to answer.

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

Why do you feel clergy can exclude some information from mandatory reporting laws, gil?

That explains much.

I asked you a very straightforward question.

Your refusal to answer is itself an answer, and that's the substantiation.

You can dispute my evidence by simply answering the question.

But you won't, because you know how deplorable your stance is on this issue.

You believe clergy should be able to exempt information from mandatory reporting laws.

If I'm wrong, say so. And as I have previously stated, I'll retract my claim.

Ball's still in your court, gil. Try another weasely trick if you want - you aren't fooling anyone.

Especially when a person makes a direct claim, and says asking for proof is a trick.

Good one, but it would fail in a debate class.

You won't, because you can't.

QED

Will you?

Answer the question, and engage in dialog.

I'm trying. Why won't you reciprocate?

It is also called a failure in actual debate.

You made a claim that you will not provide evidence for.

A claim that this article constitutes an example of rape apologia.

It is that simple.

Do you support exempting information received in confessional from mandatory reporting laws?

Yes or no.

I can answer the question. I answer No. I do NOT support exemptions for information received in confessional.

If this were a "have you stopped beating" question, I wouldn't want to answer it either.

But I did.

Now engage in this "actual dialog" you always CLAIM you want, and answer the question.

I'll bet you a million dollars you won't.

Shall I also bet a million figurative dollars that your claim will never be answered?

I'll accept your payment in the form of gold bars or gemstones.

Why won't you answer my question? Answer it and I promise I'll answer ANYTHING you ask in return.

Something.

I won proof that you want information received in a confessional booth exempted from mandatory reporting laws.

Why won't you?

I bet I know why you won't.

It would be SO EASY for you to shut me completely up. Makes one really wonder why you won't do it.

Are you ashamed of your answer? That's what I think.

I rescind any claim that this article is an example of rape apologia.

I never made such a claim, but I rescind it anyway.

NOW will you answer my question?

Probably not such good news for the RCC.

Predators engage in their behavior even thought it is illegal. Other than being caught, and incarcerated, how does anyone stop these predators?

And stop them before the prey?

Zero tolerance for child rapists on the payroll

Loss of retirement

No paid legal defense for those accused

Zero tolerance for those who fail to report

Turning over all relevant records to law enforcement

Report known child rapists to law enforcement

Establish transparency rules that lets the public know how many have been accused and what was done about it

The RCC could have been doing lots of things, but they haven’t. And now that the authorities have no choice but to start taking action directly, your only answer is it won’t work.

Very telling that.

Yes, this might be a partial solution for one institution, but what about families?

The larger question is how do we stop predation in every setting?

The Catholic Church is unique in many ways, so it may require special handling. Certainly your OP is suggesting that, since only Catholics have confession.

He also told the sinner to go and sin no more. But predators see confession as wiping the slate clear, only to blacken it again.

everyone else confesses directly to God.

You need to explain why, when an adult learns about the sexual abuse of a child, they SHOULDN'T have to report it to the authorities simply because they are part of the RCC's hierarchy.

Explain.

Now.

Right now.

Because you obviously didn’t understand it.

It ain’t talking about everywhere, Gil.

Of course, that's been a common defense of it, because it also serves the purpose of ignoring the specific features about the Catholic Church that make the problem WORSE.

Instead of talking about those features and how to deal with it, g demands answers on how to stop the sexual abuse of children EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW. When you can't propose something on the spot, then you need to stop talking about the abuse done by the church.

Classic gil.

Really, there is just an entirely different set of tools that would be needed and that are mostly not related to religion.