ok so lets take this as you presented it...
"Anyone with a little common sense can figure out that someone that gets a ticket for disorderly conduct faces different legal consequences than someone who commits armed robbery. They are both crimes though and criminal procedure is exactly the same. "
fish, please try to remove some of the excess emotion from your remarks. When you start off by saying "anyone one with a little common sense" you seem to be taking a shot at me and suggesting that i lack common sense or perhaps that I'm talking to you as if i think you don't. Neither of those is the case. Im trying to have a respectful discussion, devoid of excess negative emotion.
as for your point, you are incorrect. they are both crimes yes but criminal procedure is not exactly the same. The burden of proof for disorderly conduct is different that for armed robbery.
"Child abuse is also a crime and treated just the same as any other crime. There is no special category for child abuse, it is in the same Penal Code with all the other crimes and classified as a Felony with all the other Felonies of the same rank. There is no difference."
this is also not entirely correct. In many jurisdictions there are special units set up to investigate child abuse. there are special laws regarding reporting child abuse and there are special procedures to investigate. there are even special laws to let children testify in court without facing the abuser. the law is rife with example of children being treated differently.
"Therefore, If a litigant can Supeona private church communications about child abuse to help his civil case, there is nothing special about that crime to somebody else that also wants church privacy files disclosed to help his case about non-child abuse, such as a prosecutor, a victim of a crime, the Federal government going after someone for tax fraud, etc"
i agree. and church communications can be and are subject to subpoena. you seem to be conflating the confidentiality of the confessional with other internal church communications. two very different things. also consider this:
"It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse."
Fish, you have no legal precedent or concept upon which you are basing your argument. its feeling and emotion, ironically the very thing you are accusing others of...
Let me summarize.. i agree with you that past judicial cases absolutely should not be revealed or released. its fraught with legal and moral issues and innocents would undoubtably be harmed irreparably. but not all church communications are privileged. current law demands in many states that child abuse be reported over and above the confidentiality of the confessional.
what exactly are you arguing? are you agreeing with me that past cases have to remain sealed but future cases must be reported? do you have a different perspective all together? is there a way you can simply state your opinion without excess fluff or straw men?
