Mandatory reporting is in place for one purpose and one purpose only.
To PROTECT CHILDREN.
It is an outrage when any adult fails to protect a child -let alone harm a child. Who could possibly do that! It is unthinkable. And what adult could possible desire a child sexually? Yet this is what people do and there are laws in place that govern how to adjudicate these crimes and there are also laws in place that protect children from these crimes. But you are not above the law and if you take the law into your own hands or if you violate the laws you like to violate to stop crimes that you like to stop (such as child abuse) then you are a criminal and/or a law breaker.
The rest of society doesn't give a shit if the "sinner" gets absolution
from their church. The rest of society puts the welfare of children
above the welfare of a church.
There you go again posting nonsense. You do not represent society, the government does. In the US, the basis for society (or living in in the US) is the US Constitution. It is the Supreme law of the land and the Constitution (can be referred to sort of speak as society or vice versa) does not put the welfare of children above the welfare of the church both enjoy equal protection under the law, that is to say, that the US Constitution protects both the rights of children and the rights of the church and that being the supreme law of the land, the welfare of children cannot infringe on the welfare (or rights) of the church and neither can the rights of the church infringe on the welfare of the the children. It does not matter how you feel about that, you are not above the Constitution, neither are children and neither is the church -and neither are mandatory reporting laws if they violate the Constitution -but that is for the USC to decide not you; they haven't, that is to say they have not established that the church does not have the right to confidentiality in child abuse sinner penitent cases under the constitution, USC can do whatever they like, legalize abortion, protect homosexuality AND DECIDE THAT CHURCH REPORTING CHILD ABUSE CONSTITUTIONALITY-but they have not- knowing full well that the issue existed and exists. The last USC decision protects church sinner confidentiality privilege. That is the law and based on that law and more solidly on the 1st Amendment itself, the WT does not turn in sinners. But lnterpretation of the Constitution in the US can change as fast as fast as the Supreme Court likes to change it and since there is so many lawsuit and public hatred against the church anything can happen one way or the other and I would not be surprised if the USC rules either way. But as it stands now chuch penitent confidentiality priviledge is rooted in the 1st Amendment inspite of mandatory reporting laws, Church constitutional basis for not reporting trumps any state mandatory laws (That is church position and defense in the USA) and will continue to be the case until the USC says otherwise.
Any "church" that promotes secrecy about child abuse does not deserve to
receive recognition in our culture. It should not be called a church
when it is a haven for criminals that harm children.
You do not get to determine that and you are not a spokesman for "our culture" Child abuse confessions to the church are protected by church confidentiality privilge laws as interpreted by the Courts but churches base their rights to confidentiality on the 1st Amendment inspite of mandatory reporting law.
My post above really apples to the US but in all of the world freedom of religion and confidentiality is a trumping human right. We will see how this child abuse / church controversy plays out
Personally though, if I had any knowledge or even a suspicion of any child being hurt in any way whatsoever (and if I did not know, I would like to know about it) unfortunately I could not provide any spiritual help for such a person. I would have to report the crime because I could not be able to have any emotional peace knowing that a child is being hurt with me keeping it secret. But that is just something that I would do IF I HAD ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE but other than that I would support and defend the US Constitution which protects human rights, and I would not take it upon myself to attack on encroach upon constitutional rights others, or advocate guilt or liabilty of such based upon news reports or allegations or accusations of which I had no personal knowledge of.
DO not attack my choice of words or my form of expression to jump to conclusion as to what I mean to say. If you don not understand ask but do not misrepresent what I post as I have shown OC does.