No religious exemptions for CSA disclosures

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2023/08/no-religious-loopholes-for-reporting-abuse-nss-warns-government1

Consultation currently looking at laws about mandatory disclosure.

Right, posted that on my phone. Now able to add more context!

'There must be no religious exemptions to laws requiring child sexual abuse to be reported, the National Secular Society has warned.
The NSS has told the Home Office it must resist religious lobbying for sacramental confession to be exempted from new mandatory reporting laws.
The NSS's warning came in response to a Home Office consultation on implementing a recommendation from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). IICSA recommended that people who work with children be legally obliged to report incidents of sexual abuse.
The NSS said mandatory reporting laws "must apply to all religious settings", including the 'seal of confession'.
During sacramental confession, which is held by the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, an individual reports their 'sins' privately to a priest and asks for forgiveness.
In countries including Ireland and Australia, the Catholic Church has resisted laws which would require a priest who heard disclosures of child sexual abuse during confession to report the incident to the authorities.
The NSS said there is "ample evidence" many disclosures of child sexual abuse have been made in confession which, if acted on, could have prevented subsequent abuse.
Research has found that sexual abusers within Catholic clergy have used confession to disclose their abuse and absolve themselves of guilt, in the knowledge that their abuse would not be reported. This enabled the continuation of abuse.
Dynamics in other religious institutions may affect their willingness to report child sex abuse, the NSS warned. This includes the Jehovah's Witnesses' 'two witness' rule, in which elders of a congregation will only act if there are two witnesses to any 'sin' committed, including abuse.'

Why stop at CSA? I’m not being sarcastic but if they are going to require that the crime/sin of CSA be reportable, then why not other domestic abuse/violence crimes? Why is it that religious authorities will have to report sex abuse but not child beatings and neglect that can be life threatening?

Why stop at CSA?

I don't disagree; just that the current consultation is on CSA.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/mandatory-reporting-of-child-sexual-abuse

Actually, I wonder if women on here may be interested in responding. Only three days til the deadline. They are looking for responses from:

1. Persons working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended).
2. Volunteers who would be undertaking regulated activity in relation to children if they were unsupervised.
3. Anyone working with children in any capacity.
4. Persons working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ).
5. Police officers.
6. Local authorities; including children’s social care workers
7. Welsh Government.
8. NHS England, Directors of Public Health and Integrated Care Boards
9. Inspectorates and regulators.
10. Education settings and workforce, including Early Years and Further Education.
11. Children’s activity settings and workforces (children’s sports, drama, arts, and music clubs)
12. Civil Society and Youth organisations (charities, voluntary, community and social enterprises).
13. Academics and research institutions such as What Works Centres
14. Professional organisations such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA etc.
15. Members of the public.

Duration:From Monday 22 May to Monday 14 August.

This is deeply dangerous territory. Sounds good, doesn't it? Mandatory reporting of child sex abuse.

But look at what's happened in WA and in the States where laws with a larger scope have been used to force parents to confirm a child's "gender identity". They've lost their kids.

And is it the case that children don't or only very rarely tell someone about what's happened? No. Quite the opposite. It's adults who ignore reports. Look at Rotherham, Savile. Adults knew. They ignored it.

This will have ripple effects into gender identity, just watch.

Yeah,
Id like it expanded to cover any child crime. Child abuse & neglect of all kinds, FGM, forced marriage, refused access to education. I’m thinking of the girl beaten in the face with the iron bar here.

I think all it would do though is allow yet another charge to be brought forth against religious leaders if you could prove they knew because they’re not going to actually report no matter what secular law says their duty is especially if the abuse is of a kind condoned or tolerated by their religion even if it is technically illegal.

How would anyone outside of the priest and the "sinner" know what was said in the confessional?

And if there was any surefire of knowing, surely people would stop mentioning their crimes to the priest.

I am not and never have been Catholic by the way.

It makes me wonder if some deranged men get their kicks through confessing their abhorrent deeds real or imagined, to a priest knowing that the priest must then carry it and cannot seek counselling for what he’s heard nor alert the police.

As ever, thanks for thoughtful and insightful comments!

Some people absolutely get a kick out of lying about stuff like this, and not just to Priests. Just look at how many murder investigations get thrown off the scent because some fantasist 'confesses'. I think it may even be a listed disorder in its own right.

I'm not sure what including mandatory reporting from the confessional would actually achieve tbh. Say a priest comes forward and says 'Mr X confessed he abused three children twenty years ago', and Mr X says 'no I didn't', would the police even have enough to go on to get a warrant or spend time pursuing it further?

The priest can get spiritual counselling from other priests though. They can’t name who confessed what but they can also under seal of confessional talk about doubts and the evil/sins they’ve been exposed to.

The reasoning I saw from a brief look at some of the links suggested that part of the problem is that people confess to abuse and are 'absolved', and therefore go on to commit further abuse. That may be a bit of a different argument, though - it's more complex than it first appears.

I'm in two minds about this. While I see the positive outcomes re safeguarding, I think there's a lot to be said for having a safe place where to confess and hopefully get help.

This might not necessarily be the church, where all the priest does is absolve. But there could be many benefits of someone being able to confide in a therapist about what they've done - if it's in the context of seeking help to not do it again.

Let's put it this way, will forcing more people to become mandatory reporters actually stop the crimes or just cause the criminals to go further underground?

Interesting. Absolutely safeguarding children should take priority, so why restrict this to CSA? What about other safeguarding issues? How would a priest's non-disclosure be proved? How would the truth of a confession be assessed, if people confess for kicks?

Is there any other religious principle that the UK government interferes with? If this proposition became law, would it ultimately enable assault on religious freedom?

Such a law wouldn’t increase reporting - there’s just a slight chance that some priests might end up in prison for having taken the confession of someone whose identity they were sure of. (Because this of course also covers the confessions of laity, not just clergy.)

Being granted absolution isn’t permission to go away & offend again - hence the traditional “go, & sin no more”. Asking for absolution with the intent of repeating a sin is a sin in & of itself, because you are neither truly penitent nor intending to reform. The Rite of Penance isn’t exactly a gripping read, but it does explain how it works. It is also possible, in certain circumstances, to deny absolution.

The IICSA Report on Child protection in religious organisations and settings (September 2021) is valuable reading - it includes a section on mandatory reporting, where concerns were raised that victims wouldn’t come forward if they knew the police would be informed. The Federation of Synagogues’ stance was:
we fear that requiring religious leaders to report these matters will have the unintended consequence of deterring complainants, victims and survivors from disclosing them to their religious leaders. If someone is not yet ready to go to the authorities, but needs to confide in their Rabbi, they will be reluctant to do so if they know the Rabbi is required by law to report their conversation. This closes off a route to pastoral care for the victim. It also means that the Rabbi may remain unaware of the situation in their community and will thus be unable to take measures to prevent the perpetrator from continuing to abuse, or to bring them to justice.
(Perhaps important to note that by contrast the respondent on behalf Liberal Judaism was FOR mandatory reporting; & indeed extending any such legislation to cover all staff & volunteers!)

That report was part of the work undertaken by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, whose final report was published in October 2022. There are also multiple other small/specialised reports on their website. Obviously not easy reading, but important.

In Australia mandatory reporting is required when the professional has reason to believe a child is likely to be harmed in the near future. It's about reporting to social services, not the police (it can be done by contacting the police, or social services may involve police later, but the point of it is child protection). Our laws were draughted in response to the death of a little boy in the early 90s, they apply to physical and sexual violence and severe neglect. I think it's about 5 years since the exemptions for the confessional were removed. Prior to that priests were among the professionals of whom mandatory reporting is required, but they were allowed the seal of the confessional.
I don't think the change has led to a spate of child protection interventions, nor have there been criminal proceedings against priests. Still, my own feeling is, if mandatory reporting laws exist for professionals in our society they should exist across the board, without caveats. If individual priests want to bend or break the rules as a matter of conscience, that is between them and their god. It makes me angry because there is nothing to stop a priest contacting social services to say, "I'm Rev. Smith of Saint Such-and-Such Church, I believe Billy Blogs of Somewhere is at risk of ongoing harm. The seal of the confessional prevents me from giving further details." I'd think he was a d*ck but at least he's done more than nothing, and it's not my religion so perhaps I can't understand. But, no, the magesterium want to be above the law.
My opinion is no doubt coloured by the case that prompted the original legislation. I'd love to live in a society in which mandatory reporting was not required, but in my opinion, I don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Daniel_Valerio

A priest can withhold absolution if the person refunded to hand themself in to the police. As it means that they are not truly repentant. The seal of the confessional needs to remain sacrosanct though.

Since confession is always one to one, it would be one persons word against another.

That's for RC confession but this covers other things.

JW's call people to a meeting where they are interviewed by, I think three (could be two) elders, who are always men.

They are not counselors but they do ask questions. And it isn't just the accused it is the child too.

They have a policy of not reporting to the police, they report to the head quarters.

They have been found to have a database of abusers, but they don't tell anyone in the congregation.