Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son. But he who loves him urgently instructs him.

The rod is a metaphor for discipline and instruction

Proverbs is full of parables

Capitalism (and most other organized hierarchical power structures) favor and reward sociopathy. Sociopaths might not be any more likely to have pedophilic inclinations than anybody else, but they are more likely to act on those inclinations if they have them, while others -- who have functioning empathy -- are more likely to realize it's wrong and resist those urges if they have them.

The disorders that make someone more likely to act on pedophilic impulses are the same disorders that help someone climb the hierarchy and claim dominance.

And the empathy and human decency that holds most people back from the ruthless pursuit of power are the same factors that can make someone with pedophilic attraction less likely to act on that attraction.

That's why we're ruled by pedophiles -- not just now, but for pretty much all of recorded history.

Why aren't you stopping them? That's probably why nobody else is.

This is one of those things we've learned to do not out of ideal moral principles, but because the consequences of not doing it are so much worse.

The first beginnings of what would grow into modern concepts of religious liberty in Europe came out of the Thirty Years War. Millions died in the fighting, most civilians. When both sides think God's on their side, and that giving in will mean eternal damnation? It's gonna be ugly. Through this and other wars of religion, we learned the hard way to take a "live and let live" attitude with certain religious practices.

Religion makes people do terrible things. When someone truly believes their eternal soul is on the line, there's very little you can actually do to change their behavior. There is no punishment you can apply to them that is greater than an eternity in literal Hell.

I'm in favor of letting priests keep their confessions secret. First, forcing them to reveal confessions isn't going to actually help catch any abusers. If you establish that policy, even if you get the priests to go along, all that will happen is that priests will tell people before every confession. "Please note, there are some crimes I'm required by law to report." In that case, no abuser will confess their crimes to a priest. At least now there is a chance the priest can convince the abuser to seek out redemption and turn themselves in for their crimes. And if someone cares enough about religion that they're willing to confess molesting a child, they're probably on the verge of turning themselves in anyway. I would rather the priest be able to hear the confession and tell the molester, "the only way you will not go to hell for this is if you turn yourself in." That would at least result in a nonzero amount of predators being caught.

But historically, forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs rarely works well. It's a short hop from "I will die for my religious beliefs," to "I will kill for my religious beliefs."

I don't support forcing priests to reveal any crimes confessed to them. Ultimately it won't catch many criminals, and it comes with a lot of risks. On the low end you end up risking locking up nonviolent priests for decades for no other crime than sticking to their sacred vows. On the high end you risk religious violence.

It's not something I support in principle, but merely out of practical reality. I'm agnostic myself. I just think forcing priests to report does more harm than good.

If you therapists and priests are made untrustworthy, no one will trust them. If they are meant to work as a valve for suppressed psychological issues and decrease the probability of patients getting overwhelmed by their urges, they need to be trustworthy.

I assume that in general, therapists and priests do actually work to stabilize their patients in a lot of cases and by that prevent a lot of damage from happening. Obviously, if that isn't the case (I expect it to be, but I don't actually know), then making them generally untrustworthy doesn't hurt.

It's not very surprising. There's a legal rationale behind it.

Certain classes of people are granted privileged communications.

Lawyers are permitted privileged communications with the people they represent, as those people need to be able to be honest with them about their situation. You cannot compel these communications to be handed over, and I don't believe that there's an obligation to report. The idea is that we donlt want communication to break down with lawyers, because thst causes other social harm.

Similar is also true for certain other relationships, like husband-wife.

Doctor-patient.

And I guess there priest-parisoner; priests often provide a similar counsel-and-advise role.

searches

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/privileged-communication

Privileged communications exist because society values the privacy or purpose of certain relationships. The established privileged communications are those between wife and husband, clergy and communicant, psychotherapist and patient, physician and patient, and attorney and client.

These relationships are protected for various reasons. The wife-husband and clergy-communicant privileges protect the general sanctity of marriage and religion. The psychotherapist or physician and patient privilege promotes full disclosure in the interests of the patient's health. If patients were unable to keep secret communications with psychotherapists or physicians relating to treatment or diagnosis, they might give doctors incomplete information. If doctors received incomplete information, they might be unable to administer health care to the patient, which is the very purpose of the doctor-patient relationship.

The attorney-client privilege exists for roughly the same reason as the physician-patient privilege. In order to secure effective representation, a client must feel free to discuss all aspects of a case without the fear that her attorney will be called at trial to repeat her statements. Likewise, to retain the client's trust and do his job properly, the attorney must be allowed to withhold from the court and opposing party private communications with the client.

A communication is not confidential, and therefore not privileged, if it is overheard by a third party who is not an agent of the listener. Agents include secretaries and other employees of the listener. For example, a communication between a psychotherapist and patient would be privileged even if the psychotherapist's secretary happened to overhear it. In such a case, the secretary could not be forced to testify about the communication. However, a communication between a psychotherapist and a patient on a public elevator occupied by third parties would not be privileged and could be used in court.

There's a reason they're full of pedophiles

No, only your religious confession can't be disclosed to the authorities.

And absolutely nothing of value would be lost.

In the US there's already more vacant housing than homeless people. A lot more.