the only reason that any secrets are revealed in the confessional is that the sinner wants his soul to get to heaven because of what he did as he seeks forgiveness and absolution.

Make it so the police are the third party in the confessional and you've removed much of the reason that the police don't act as confessors.

It's the same with counselors. If you go to a psychiatrist and say, "Doctor, I want to get better" and confess to a crime, you're turned in. Why would a sane person go to a psychiatrist?

It's different with secular priests called "lawyers," to whom those who committed crimes go and say, "Hey, I did nothing wrong." It's possible to confess and make a lawyer into a mandatory reporter, but most lawyers will make that confession go away and seek absolution in the denial of wrong doing. Then the lawyer will do everything possible to get somebody declared not guilty, even if the lawyer has a decent suspicion that the client really is did the crime. Suspicion isn't proof.

Society has layers. There's the official, government layer, with law enforcement to enforce the secular, official moral code. Then there's a set of civil society layers, to enforce a similar, but distinct, code. Then there's layers based on kin groups, enforcing yet a different, presumably non-conflicting, code. American society, given it's atomism, seems to be trending towards there just being an official code.

over the rights of children not to be raped?

If they want to go to heaven they must face the consequences of their crimes legally. I have no problem with that, they should consider it part of atoning for their crimes/sins.

It's only a complex issue if you prioritize the rights of child rapists of raped children.

They are officers of the court with a specific role - to protect the rights of the accused. We want to catch criminals, but this is not the Middle Ages, we don't strip the accused of rights and torture them to death. We don't strip them of access to at least one human being who can protect their rights. And we don't have attorney-client privilege just to protect criminals. We have it to protect the innocent. So if YOU are falsely accused, YOU can tell your attorney the truth without fear that the one person who can protect you will be another witness against you.

And even the attorney-client privilege has limits. If you tell your attorney you are about to murder someone, there is no more privilege and he has to call the police.

But if you tell a priest you are about to murder someone, the priest has to let you do it and pretend he knows nothing about it. Which would normally be a crime in itself, but it's okay because he's a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, which says that God would rather let an innocent person die than block a murderer's path into heaven.

Damn that's disgusting.

You can say whatever you want, the priest can say whatever they want, but if the words aren't in tune with the heart, mind and spirit, then it's just a lie. Do you think that's going to get past St. Peter, let alone Jesus or God?

The priest is in the same position as any other person acting as a counselor. If there's a possibility of a breach of confidentiality, the integrity of the whole system is compromised. Which leads to very difficult situations such as you describe - what if someone confesses to murder or rape or child abuse? The priest, to my mind, is in a role to assist one to "get right with God", not just shove souls through the tiny keyhole of the door to eternal life. Confession may be a first step and that confidentiality may be the *only* reason some decide to take that step.

Just saying you believe something doesn't make it so. The goal isn't just to get one into heaven by hook or by crook, by saying the right words at the right time with the right inflection. If that were the case, we've already arrived. The sinner needs to make right sincerely inside and out, up and down, from stem to stern, or entry to heaven isn't happening. Not by the rules of some authority figure with a checklist of do's and don'ts but by the very nature of what one is seeking.

Those people have formal training requirements to do what they do and are bound by licenses that tie them to specific codes of conduct. Neither are those types of people given the latitude of confidentiality provided to priests. Neither do either of those types of people afforded the access to children that priests have. Neither do those types of people have a very long and sordid history of abusing trust with children and covering up an epidemic of child rape of biblical proportions.

So no, priests aren’t in the same position. Not even close.

Right or wrong, they do function as counselors and even representatives of the people before God. I don't disagree with any point you make except that. The abuse of trust and position is sickening. It corrupts and destroys very powerful tools for building better lives for people.

You are comparing highly trained professionals accountable to licensing authorities with amateurs accountable to nobody.

I've met priests who are highly insightful and highly respected by the people they serve. And I've met priests who wouldn't give me the time of day simply for how I looked. Any priest worth their salt takes their job seriously and knows they are accountable for what they do and say (whether you believe in that authority or not is beside the point, if they are sincere then they do believe in the authority over their position). Trouble seems to be that the position is too easily abused. We can't paint an honest picture if we think position equals character. Any position in the hands of a corrupt person can be misused. Some more easily than others, no? A licensing board is a good start at preventing charlatans from taking advantage of people, but it's not fool-proof.

If you think I'm arguing to protect criminals from justice, I'm not. Just that the confessional requires absolute confidentiality to work. If we humans can't handle that without abusing it, then what? The problem lies within us, not the tool.

And no priest is an amateur if you consider years of school and passing rigorous tests a requirement to get out of the "amateur" category. They require years of training as well. By the looks of how much abuse is going on, I'd say the church and seminary are failing. But that is another matter they need to address.

that we let children and others be abused or worse to work, then that's a BIG HINT that we should get rid of it.

That is an abuse of the tool. My argument for it is when it's in the right hands, the confessional is a powerful tool for change and motivation. But when it's being abused, the victims have every right to call them out and get them to stop.

So who would get rid of it? Government? The church leaders? The parishioners? It's a traditional practice (most notably in the Roman Catholic Church and many see it as an integral part of their spiritual life. Actually getting rid of it sounds like an impossible task. Despite all the problems with it as mentioned in this thread, many people use it regularly and get a lot out of it. In part it is an educational issue, that its use requires a certain level of maturity particularly on the part of the priests that take confessions. Many are. Maybe, too, the people who use the confessional need to be educated better on what to expect out of it so they can protect themselves if they feel anything inappropriate is going on. This would include children but frankly, why are children involved at all with this, at least to the age of 12, maybe older. If someone can't explain what the confessional is for without resorting to a memorized script, then they have no business using it. Just my opinion and no doubt there will be exceptions.

This is all so idealistic that it's difficult to imagine it actually happening. I know that sounds contradictory to my arguments but I'm again seeing a powerful spiritual practice getting questioned because people are misusing it and causing people a lifetime of guilt and shame. That sucks mostly for the victims but also for those who are responsible with its use.

Not even close. A priest is a professional in administering faith based education. They are not a professional in administering mental health or legal advice. That's why they aren't licensed in either of those things.

Regardless of what your intent is the effect of exempting religious organizations from being mandatory reporters results in more child rapes and child rapists escaping justice. The RCC and other denominations have a culture of child rape and covering it up. The RCC has also shown it lacks the desire to police themselves. Mandatory reporting laws are how you change that culture. Religious organizations already benefit from all sorts of privileges. Exempting them from holding child rapists accountable shouldn't be one of those privileges.

If the legal requirements are put into place and it makes a difference for the better, then that's good. I've stated my concerns and there are a lot of legitimate "whatabouts" to them. I'll leave it at that.

Why should the soul of the rapist be more important than the soul/life of the raped child?

If the rapist must choose between eternal damnation and a stint in jail, surely a stint in jail pales in comparison to the eternal torture of the damned?

Again the issue is not complex.

Maybe a stint in jail is exactly what they need. Or maybe they need to suffer shame from the people they know and love finding out this terrible truth about them. Who knows.

The confessional has to be confidential or it cannot work...not that it works well all the time but I can't say it any better. It's not at all about who's soul is more important. Who is anyone to judge such a thing.

What exactly are you asking for? Rules that state if a priest hears a confession about certain actions that they must report it to authorities? Will there be a list of offenses available prior to entering the booth? I don't think what you apparently want to happen will actually happen. The guilty just wouldn't go.

On the other hand, a priest may be the only person who could convince a criminal to do the right thing and turn themselves in. This idea that it's some sort of sin shower that absolves one of all manner of evil simply by saying the magic words is incorrect. People can try but it's never worked for me or anyone I know.

"What exactly are you asking for? Rules that state if a priest hears a confession about certain actions that they must report it to authorities? Will there be a list of offenses available prior to entering the booth? I don't think what you apparently want to happen will actually happen. The guilty just wouldn't go."

Yes, that is exactly what we are asking for, and it's exactly what we have. The list of reportable offenses is in the law. Anyone can look it for themselves. Mandatory reporters are explicitly told what the reportable offenses are and what the standard of suspicion is.

The guilty sometimes do confess, sometimes on purpose and sometimes by slips.

Also (and this important), CHILDREN confess. Yes, it's true. A known fact. And it's important. I belabor this because it keeps getting ignored. Abusers often tell children that the crime is their fault. Children being children, they believe the abuser and feel guilty. So they confess to a therapist, a teacher or a priest. The fact that children confess "their" sin to priests, totally negates the argument that the guilty won't go. Because even if the abuser never confesses (which isn't true), the innocent child sometimes does. Did I mention that we actually do catch some abusers this way?

when someone is abused are taking the side of the abuser.

if I see someone is being hurt. I'm no hero but you're over-reaching.

It's not at all about who's soul is more important. Who is anyone to judge such a thing.

That led me to conclude that you were not taking sides. If you can't see that the victims must take precedence of the perpetrators then maybe you need to look again.

do you find acceptable for that rare redemption?

That's literally the opposite of what the person just told you.

If the confessor is so worried about their soul that they will confess child abuse, that's a good thing. They can be caught.

If they don't care about confession, then they wouldn't have confessed the sin anyway.

The real question is, why should clergy be exempted from laws that everyone else in a similar position has to follow? Particularly when it comes to preventing the rape of children?

Other confidential counselors like doctors and psychologists are mandatory reporters, so priests should be too.

It doesn't only apply to child rapists. For example, if someone murders an atheist, many Christians would say the atheist went to hell, because the only way to get to heaven is to have faith in Christ. If the murderer repents and believes Jesus forgives him, sometime before he dies, he goes to heaven to enjoy eternal bliss, while his victim is being tortured forever (or suffering some other unpleasant thing). It's really horrifying if you think about it.

Not to a lot of Christians I've talked to. And that's even more horrifying, tbh.