helix

Ya, almost certainly waiting until it's officially filed. News via rumors can get real ugly real fast. Also can put the news organization in ugly legal footing. If the alternative is to wait a day or two for the facts to get officially laid out by the government, then that's the professional course of action.

I wonder if that bolded part will be argued about in the trial. Yet the ruling states it "raises the question of whether the Church Defendants violated Church doctrine by not reporting Paul to the authorities" That should never, ever be stated in a ruling. Judges don't get to decide how correctly a church followed its own doctrine. Especially when the church's handbook has that glaring "there is not time to seek guidance", phrase the judges glossed over. Every fact in this case indicates the only thing confessed was a much earlier one time incident of abuse, and the bishops felt due to the confession the abuse had ended.

This whole thing screams unconstitutional. The implication is that all clergy need lawyers on standby for confessions: an expensive third party who parses details of a sacred confession to see if it meets legal standards. This becomes an entanglement of government into core religious beliefs and puts a negative burden on religions. The same thing was brought up in the James Huntsman case, that clergy should not have to run their sermons past lawyers and accountants to ensure it meets government legal clarity and muster. They were in a religious setting. He was confessing. Because he turned his head directed his confession to his wife shouldn't make the bishop liable for damages. If this stands then priest-penitent privilege is not allowed in the LDS church but is allowed for other faiths with different confession styles. We often require councils with a few more leaders and a clerk to record the meeting. We believe confession belongs in many situations to multiple people, not one. The US government here is defining who is clergy, which gives some religions government sponsored rights while others do not get those rights. That's grossly unconstitutional. This again reminds me of the James Huntsman case. Initially on an appeal two judges redefined what tithing meant for the church, and tried to use church texts to make their case. The later appeal ruled against that unanimously and viciously shot down that idea. Religions enjoy broad latitude to make these definition calls for themselves. Government can't redefine a religion's own words for them. This Arizona lawsuit has been appealed to their Supreme Court, and I do not expect this ruling to survive as is. It's got major First Amendment issues.