For Those Who Argue That the First Amendment Protects

[MineralMan]

child-abusing priests who confess their crimes to another priest, I offer this:

The First Amendment protects the right to worship as one pleases but, like other parts of the Constitution, there are limits. Our laws recognize those limits. For example:

Some religious denominations prohibit seeking medical care, and rely on prayer and other religious rites to cure. The right of an adult to refuse to seek medical care is protected. THAT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF CHILDREN. Adult parents may not withhold life-saving health care from their children based on the adults' religious beliefs and rely on the First Amendment to insist that no care be given.

The courts, in case after case, have required that the child receive medical care in such instances. The rights of the minor child take precedence over the rights of the parents to follow their religious beliefs. Children have rights that are also protected by the Constitution and by laws.

Where child sexual abuse by priests is involved, the so-called "sanctity of the confessional" is overridden by the harm caused to the child, who cannot consent to such sexual acts. The doctrine of the church has nothing to do with any of it. The protection of the child overrides the right of the church to hide this crime from the authorities, just as the government can require that medical treatment be given to a child, regardless of the beliefs of the adult parents.

The state has an interest in protecting the rights of those who cannot assert their rights in the case of harm by an adult. That interest overrides religious doctrine.

That's my argument with regard to this.