In Massachusetts, the House and Senate are at odds over legislation that would require clergy to report suspected child abuse. The disagreement centers on which body's version of the proposed law offers a bigger potential loophole in its attempt to keep confessions private.
A rite of the Catholic Church, confession is not generally used by Protestant denominations. In an attempt at even-handedness, the Senate bill exempts not just confession from the reporting requirement but other conversations aimed at seeking spiritual guidance. (A Christian Scientist who consults a faith healer is promised confidentiality, and thus presumably would be protected.)
The House bill protects remarks made during a confession but not in more informal spiritual discussions. Secrecy is allowed if "disclosure is enjoined by the rules or practice of the church or religious body."
The House and Senate also differ on how to handle retroactive reporting. The Senate says any past abuse should be reported; the House limits it to victims who are still minors.
States vary in how they handle such matters. In about 20, clergy are never required to report abuse. Roughly a dozen states offer some form of exemption for penitential conversations. Several, including Rhode Island, make no distinction between clergy and anyone else required to report abuse.
In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church fought for 10 years battle to remain free of any reporting rules and only recently dropped its resistance. Legislation to include clergy among mandatory reporters had been introduced in response to the James Porter scandal, which involved dozens of reports of abuse by the former Bay State priest. At that point, the need for reform was painfully clear. Yet lawmakers failed to extend to children this simplest of protections.
Now, with some 80 Boston-area priests suspected of abuse, the legislature must not fail again. A bill that protects the priest-penitent privilege has the best chance of passing, and is much preferable to the status quo. But the language framing that exemption must be the tightest lawmakers can find. The law should also favor the most encouraging conditions for retroactive reporting. Here, the Senate bill has the edge.
Requiring clergy to report suspected abuse may be more symbol than solution. Under most mandatory reporting laws, fines tend to be minimal and prosecutions few. But such laws do foster an environment in which abuse is less tolerated.
Amid the spate of recent revelations, it has become sadly apparent that the Boston Archdiocese could not or would not police itself. Mandatory reporting for clergy will press the church toward greater openness. It will also help keep it from settling back into the secrecy that brought so much harm.
Printer-Friendly Version
