this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
637 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
75436 readers
2127 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
friendly reminder from an athiest; this pope is a good dude and a mathematician, he knows what's up.
Boggles the fucking mind that an elderly white male high ranking Catholic is a sane and solid pick for president considering the current state of things.
If the founding fathers were still alive, the very idea of this would kill them.
ha, honestly I think it boggles the mind of anyone who was alive before (the last) Pope Francis.
Didn't know he had a degree in mathematics - that's a fun one to share with my students.
Thanks!
last one was a mbc
Woke Pope!
😅
friendly reminder from someone that doesn't label himself according to his beliefs in fairy tales: the pope is the ceo of a bigot cult that use fear to manipulate and control people. He's not a good dude and has a history already of defending fellow cult pedophiles.
OK but you gotta start somewhere. Can't change the world overnight.
Do you point out that you are an atheist to give credit to your comment? Sad...
He's been a very very bad man. Thank you for your attention on this matter.
The pope? I mean... I'd say pedophiles are worse than "very very bad", but I can see why you people think it's just a minor (pun not intended) thing.
Didn't he threaten to defrock priests who turned in child rapists?
If you’re referring to priests turning in child rapists via breaking the seal of confession, no. Doing so is an automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, that’s not something he’s instituted.
This week he did affirm his zero-tolerance policy on not only child abuse within the church, but also any attempts to cover them up. So the closest thing I can think of is the fact that’s he’s essentially threatened to defrock child abusers and anyone who covers for them.
If he really had a zero tolerance policy, he'd get rid of the rule that bar priests from turning in child rapists.
Because it's literally the Catholic Church's policy to protect child rapists otherwise.
FYI a dokter/psychiatrist is just as banned from exposing a confessed murder or rapist,
What they do instead is highly encourage you to turn yourself in.
The reason professional secrecy is so important is because the moment you leave the tiniest gap, no one will trust the profession anymore when processing the guilt of their own actions. Potentially making the problem worse. These people are not well in their head and require treatment, the bar for treatment must be as low and safe as can be.
I believe Dokters do have a rule when someone has full intention to do harm to a person in the near future they have to call law enforcement but i don’t think they need to provide information about the perpetrator if they aren’t the person in danger.
This may be subject to specific local laws but i always assumed it was modeled after how the church did it, pastors used to act as primitive psychologists.
Doctor patient confidentiality does not override the public interest.
Have we resorted to stating overt lies now? The most basic internet search will provide you with reliable sources that show this absurd statement is untrue.
No, i just know how to read.
From your source:
“disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm.”
Admitting something happened in the past is not a risk something will happen in the future. I mentioned how they have an exception for when people are in danger in the near future in my comment.
Its not uncommon for patients to confess to something in the past that was covered up and is since no longer happening.
Also note how i said local laws may be different, this is a uk source. The professionals i asked this question where not from the UK.
To give you as much straightforward an example.
If a patient admits to having harmed many kids while they have or work with kids, thats is a reason to break secrecy.
But if they said they raped and murdered a kid 30 years ago. That alone is not enough to break secrecy, there is no automatic assumption of repeat offending.
That is not the full paragraph. It reads:
"If it is not practicable or appropriate to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential."
Let's not forget that you had previously stated:
From this UK source, doctors are explicitly exempt from violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the aforementioned case. This directly contradicts your statement.
I'm eager to read your referenced citations from the individuals you've interviewed in other regions where doctors would be banned in such cases.
The fuller quote does not add more nuance here. I am not sure how you are deriving at your interpretation. Can you give an example of an “afformented case” that validates this exception?
It is not in the public interest to break doctor patient confidentiality about events that happend in the past when It is vastly better if the patient understands their wrongdoing and goed to law enforcement themselves. There is usually plenty of time to convince them if its clear there is no actual risk to a living person in the now.
There is no interview, there is a question i was curious about years ago while i had access to psychiatric professionals so inquired them about what the law said about it.
I've no interest in debating your opinion, forgive me for not entertaining it. Perhaps you've not recalled your past interactions accurately, and my only goal here is to correct the misinformation written in this thread.
If you're instead looking for some sources, I've performed a rudimentary search on interpreting paragraph 64:
Fair
"The aforementioned case" just means "the case that was mentioned previously."
Yes, it is 100% in the public interest to break confidentiality to report instances of egregious bodily harm to other human beings. The confessional seal should not be more important than justice for victims of crimes. This is why many countries have mandatory reporting requirements.
It is not for the priest to decide whether someone is at risk of reoffending. We should not trust bad people to police themselves. And if the situation is someone confessing to hurting another person, they have already breached the trust placed in them by society. If you just ask them to turn themselves in, they will often breach that trust again.
We (i) don’t actually know the rules for priests, just that its the origins for how it works for medical personnel.
This 100% feels very dangerous, psychiatrists provide a huge service to the public interests, you are advocating to undermine it with no nuance to individual cases.
Take for example. Someone with guilt and is contemplating to go to authorities themselves. The source material poop provided even starts with specifying refusal to consent as a possible requirement.
Good thing the job of psychiatrists has a high bar of required study and expertise.
Priest sadly not as much.
That’s not a rule he can get rid of. The seal of confession is a matter of doctrine and divine law and the pope isn’t authorized to overrule god.
Also, again, there’s no rule against turning in child rapists. There’s a rule against breaking the seal of confession. If a priest finds out about a crime in any manner besides confession, they’re free to contact authorities.
And it’d be a dumbass idea anyway. If a criminal is coming to confession in the first place then there is some remorse for what they’ve done, which means that person might be encouraged to turn themselves in. If you started reporting them when they came to confession, it’ll work once or twice and then criminals would just stop going to confession. Which additionally, is an anonymous act. The priest doesn’t know who you are when you go to confession.
That's fucking bullshit, sorry. My therapist is a mandatory reporter, but a fucking priest isn't? Nah.
In many states priests are mandatory reporters.
But they can’t be forced to abandon their religious beliefs by the government by breaking the seal of confession.
Then they should be prosecuted for it. Their beliefs are a direct detriment to public health and safety.
Great idea, let’s just disregard the first amendment entirely. And then once we’ve done that, the government would also be free to establish a state religion and force all of us to follow it.
I think we better put that monkeys paw back where we found it.
It's not disregarding it entirely. There are a bunch of things that aren't protected by freedom of religion, and protecting people who are an immediate threat to others shouldn't be something that's protected.
The seal of confession is protected by the first amendment as it’s a core tenant of the Catholic religion, and the U.S. government doesn’t have the authority to change religious doctrine of a religion that predates the country by millennia. There are decades of legal precedent for this so outside of a landmark Supreme Court ruling, it’s protected. If you were to violate the constitutional rights of these priests, you wouldn’t catch any more child abusers, you’d just be jailing people for their faith.
Also, the seal of confession is not “protecting people”. The church isn’t going to defend a child abuser, nor protect them. There is nothing to stop clergy from reporting child abusers to the authorities. It only protects speech shared during the sacrament of confession. If a priest were to find out that somebody is an abuser in any way other than through confession, they would report it the same as anyone else.
If a child rapist tells a priest in confession, "I've raped a child and I'm going to do it again," and the priest tells no one, that's protecting a child rapist.
I don't think your religious beliefs are a valid excuse to put others in harms way. If a therapist is a mandatory reporter, then a priest should be too. It's a bullshit loophole that needs to be closed.
A child rapist wouldn’t say that in confession. Confession is a sacrament where you confess your sins with regret, for the purpose of earning forgiveness. If somebody was not only not remorseful for what they’ve done, but are already determined to continue in the future… why would they be at confession? Your example makes no sense.
Putting aside the total lack of reason and sense in your hypothetical question, you’re asking what would happen if a criminal went into a confessional booth not to engage with the sacrament of confession, but to brag to a priest about a crime that they committed and boast that they’re planning to do it again? That would not be protected by the seal of confession since it isn’t one, and the priest could report that person.
And one of the founding principles of our nation can hardly be considered a “loophole” when it was placed there on purpose with cases exactly like this in mind.
You're making overly broad generalizations about a religion with over 1 billion members.
There are absolutely people who abuse the confession system as a get out of jail free card for their guilt with no intention of changing their ways.
Again, there are absolutely restrictions to freedom of religion, just like there's restrictions on every other 1A right. I don't think that it's possible to make a reasonable case to not make priests mandatory reporters for child rape.
That’s not how confession works. It’s not a “get out of jail free card”, and it doesn’t take a broad generalization to know that even somebody deluded enough to think that it is, isn’t going to tell a priest “and I’ll do it again” and still think they’re getting anything out of it. That’s just a scenario made up entirely in your head, and I wouldn’t waste too much of your energy worrying about scenarios that only exist in your head. We have enough real problems to worry about.
Yes, and the seal of confession is not one of them, nor should it be.
You must be a child rapist since you know so authoritatively what they'd say in confession.
No just somebody with a little common sense is all.
How is speaking to the actions of every Catholic child rapist "common sense"?
Your entire argument is predicated on the fallacy that every single Catholic holds the sanctity of confessional to the same standard you do.
Considering the fact that priests raping children is not a rate event, you're very mistaken. Christianity has been used and abused by horrible people to justify their behavior since its inception.
To sit there and claim that absolutely no Catholic would ever dare sully the sanctity of confession just shows how naive you are about how awful humans are.
Catholicism isn’t like other Christian sects where you can kinda interpret things your own way. The defining characteristic of the Catholic Church is a rigid adherence to established doctrine.
If there were somebody out there that didn’t hold confession to the standard that I do, they probably wouldn’t bother going to confession. It’s not something you’re forced to do at regular intervals. Either this hypothetical person believes in the sanctity of confession or they don’t. If they do, they aren’t going to go to confession to tell the priest that they aren’t sorry and are ready to offend again. And if they don’t, there’s no reason for them to go in the first place.
The only possible third option which is extremely unlikely, is somebody who doesn’t believe in the sanctity of confession, going into a confessional just to not confess at all but boast about their crimes and willingness to do it again. But in that case, they aren’t taking the sacrament, so the priest could report them.
Your middle school level spiel and circular logic are not getting you anywhere here
Yeah, I'm done talking with someone who supports protecting child rapists.
I'd say have a nice life, but I wouldn't actually mean it.
Edit: BTW, I think it's particularly funny that you're defending a religion that has a long history of raping children and covering up for the rapists.
Not just raping children, too. The Catholic Church has actively participated in the genocide of indigenous peoples.
https://www.cwla.org/supreme-court-upholds-child-abuse-evidence-via-mandatory-reporter/
womp womp
What is it that you think that page says?
Would you say the same if Muslims were doing human sacrifices? (It must be noted that they do not actually do that, this question is for demonstration purposes only.)
Is your demonstration an attempt to equate listening to somebody’s regrets about committing a crime in the past, with perpetrating a crime?
And what do the Muslims have to do with this?
But can he?
It's all made up bullshit, so yes.