this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026

334 points (98.8% liked)

News

38639 readers

1916 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

334

Arizona clergy who learn of child abuse in confessions aren’t required to report it, court rules (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

State supreme court rules in case of two bishops who were silent about three children abused by Mormon parents

Clergy members in Arizona who learn of child abuse in the context of religious confession are not required to report it, the state’s supreme court has said in a ruling that protects what church leaders call the “seal of the confessional”.

The panel’s ruling ends a long-running case in which three children who were sexually abused by their parents sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church, and two bishops who became aware of the crimes but remained silent.

The case has parallels in a short-lived 2025 law in Washington state that would have compelled clergy members there to report sexual abuse. That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.

In a statement, the LDS welcomed the unanimous ruling by the state supreme court on Thursday that exempts clergy members as “mandated reporters” if they learned of the abuse of minors in the confession booth or through other “confidential” methods.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

There's a difference between "are not required" and "are not allowed". If a confession and crime is particularly heinous or serial, in the knowledge of the priest, the priest should have the moral discretion to report it if he thinks that's the best decision for public safety.

But aren't we kidding ourselves a little in expecting child molesters to confess their crimes?

[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Once again special privileges for religion.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

The LDS Church is a huge source of Christofascist content online. They push all of the purity stuff and a lot of the Trad wife stuff is Mormons who don't tell you what they are. They're rich as hell and they want all the same regressive stuff as the rest of MAGA. Know your enemy.

[–] lukaro@lemmy.zip 23 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I think anyone hearing of any abuse heard in any context should be legally required to report it.

[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

If you therapists and priests are made untrustworthy, no one will trust them. If they are meant to work as a valve for suppressed psychological issues and decrease the probability of patients getting overwhelmed by their urges, they need to be trustworthy.

I assume that in general, therapists and priests do actually work to stabilize their patients in a lot of cases and by that prevent a lot of damage from happening. Obviously, if that isn't the case (I expect it to be, but I don't actually know), then making them generally untrustworthy doesn't hurt.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is one of those things we've learned to do not out of ideal moral principles, but because the consequences of not doing it are so much worse.

The first beginnings of what would grow into modern concepts of religious liberty in Europe came out of the Thirty Years War. Millions died in the fighting, most civilians. When both sides think God's on their side, and that giving in will mean eternal damnation? It's gonna be ugly. Through this and other wars of religion, we learned the hard way to take a "live and let live" attitude with certain religious practices.

Religion makes people do terrible things. When someone truly believes their eternal soul is on the line, there's very little you can actually do to change their behavior. There is no punishment you can apply to them that is greater than an eternity in literal Hell.

I'm in favor of letting priests keep their confessions secret. First, forcing them to reveal confessions isn't going to actually help catch any abusers. If you establish that policy, even if you get the priests to go along, all that will happen is that priests will tell people before every confession. "Please note, there are some crimes I'm required by law to report." In that case, no abuser will confess their crimes to a priest. At least now there is a chance the priest can convince the abuser to seek out redemption and turn themselves in for their crimes. And if someone cares enough about religion that they're willing to confess molesting a child, they're probably on the verge of turning themselves in anyway. I would rather the priest be able to hear the confession and tell the molester, "the only way you will not go to hell for this is if you turn yourself in." That would at least result in a nonzero amount of predators being caught.

But historically, forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs rarely works well. It's a short hop from "I will die for my religious beliefs," to "I will kill for my religious beliefs."

I don't support forcing priests to reveal any crimes confessed to them. Ultimately it won't catch many criminals, and it comes with a lot of risks. On the low end you end up risking locking up nonviolent priests for decades for no other crime than sticking to their sacred vows. On the high end you risk religious violence.

It's not something I support in principle, but merely out of practical reality. I'm agnostic myself. I just think forcing priests to report does more harm than good.

[–] DementedSociety@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Damn, when I read the post and first comment I was ready to grab the pitch fork... After reading your very well reasoned, logical, argument that deals with the nuance of this situation. I completely agree with you.

Disappointed by how presumptuous and fast-to-anger I was.

Edit: word

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It's a hard thing. Like, from pure moral principles? No. I don't think priests should get any exceptions. But simply from balancing the positive and negative consequences of forcing them to testify? It's not worth doing. There's a lot of religious practices that wouldn't exist in my ideal world.

For example, in an ideal world, I wouldn't let parents force their children to attend church. Ideally religion would be something you actively have to seek out, rather than something forcibly imposed on you by your parents.

But I shudder to think at what horrors would be unleashed if you actually tried to ban parents from taking their kids to church. From their perspective, without baptism, their kids would be one fatal accident away from an eternity in Hell. That kind of pressure will motivate people to do unspeakable things. It is terrifying to think of what someone who truly believes, "you are trying to damn my child to Hell," is capable of.

You just have to do a cost/benefit on it. It is practical to ban certain religious practices. If someone wanted to build a pyramid and start sacrificing people to the Sun god, even willing people, we wouldn't allow that. But we wouldn't allow that because:

The consequences of allowing it are extreme. (People are being murdered.)
The consequences of banning it are minor. (Not many people actually want to sacrifice people to the Sun god. There's few enough of them that they do not present a threat to the rest of society. We can easily arrest the handful of people that engage in human sacrifice without tearing society apart.)

[–] falynns@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

Weird use of the Fifth Amendment.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

We could confiscate every church and house the homeless. Dont worry, their religions want us to do it. Ideally it would be the believers, but they have abdicated their duties.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago

In the US there's already more vacant housing than homeless people. A lot more.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

In the 23-page ruling, John Lopez, the supreme court vice-chief justice, said the US constitution’s first amendment – which addresses religious freedom – prevented courts and juries from assessing religious doctrine when considering a clergy member’s reasons for choosing not to report abuse.

This seems backwards to me. If the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" then that should mean that one's religious faith should have no bearing on the enforcement of the law. Granting church members exclusion from mandatory reporting laws is giving particular religions a special class with regard to such laws. No religion should get special benefits or restrictions under the law and this ruling is the opposite of that.

The fact that the LDS church considers confession to be sacred should not mean that members should be allowed to remain silent when they learn about heinous abuse that any other member of society would be required to report.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Religion really does deserve to be treated as a special class though. It's pretty unique. I don't believe this out of reverence or respect for it, but simple practical reality. Messing with people's religious beliefs never turns out well. When you truly believe your eternal soul is on the line, that will make you do some pretty wild things.

For example, if you force a priest to report, you're putting them in a very tough position. They've taken a holy vow to never reveal what is confessed to them. They believe they will personally go to Hell if they do. There is no punishment you can apply to a priest that will be greater than a literal eternity in Hell. You can lock up a priest until they're willing to testify, but all you'll accomplish is locking up a nonviolent person who is just trying to follow their faith.

At some point, it just becomes an exercise in abusing the mentally ill.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

Good thing I was smart enough to report my own abuse and people believed me. God forbid a kid try to say something and people ignore them. I'd be a lot more fucked up than I am if nobody listened to me or reported it.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 11 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

So I can get excused from my heinous crimes if I belong to cult that doesn't mind?

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 hours ago

There's a reason they're full of pedophiles

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

No, only your religious confession can't be disclosed to the authorities.

load more comments