Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

[Del March]

I know that in the past (anecdotal sorry) my friends who have been abuse victims at the hands of their own fathers, were ignored and made to feel responsible by their church leaders.

The members of the Church are very much products of their society, no matter how much we try not to be. This particular attitude you describe has nothing to do with being LDS, and everything to do with our society. Accusing the victim is one of the most common responses to abuse. It is in no way exclusive to the LDS Church. In fact, the LDS Church should be commended for putting the blame of any kind of abuse squarely on the shoulders of the abusers, and for clearly stating that there is no excuse for abuse. The fact that some (too many) members of the Church, especially among the Priesthood holders and consequently among the local leaders, don't follow the lead of the general leaders is no fault of "the Church".

Del

[Dear Mee]

CONFIDENTIAL INFO,

I love it when the "I-was-so-much-more-enlightened-back-then" crowd joins the discussion.

Thanks for the welcome!

Not sure how you came to that conclusion? My position on most things, including abuses, is that the future/present trumps the past, generally speaking and, with most social issues. Hardly necessary to elaborate.

Professionalism has tended to be preferred over amateurism in most areas of vocation or endevour--outside of arts?--as i have witnessed. While "School Diplomas" don't always assure the "best XYZ" or make up for character deficiencies, i think we now have more protection against "Snake Oil Peddlers" than was once offered???

What is obvious in these measures of protection we all live with, some that little appeal to Mee personally, is the fact that most, if not all, originate in and are advocated and enforced by "Secular Society".

Can't help but make Mee wonder: "Where does "revelation" play its role in advancing the causes that counter the pains and abuses that too many of our kin suffer by the moment? Like, why aren't all of "our"--broad term--Christian Religious Leaders at the front of the Anti-War, Anti-Poverty movements?"

When these issues are remedied, abortion might not likey be as viable an alternative, or consideration, in the circumstances of a just society as envisioned by the master-mentor of how to live together in harmony. Enough already Mee!!

[1973betRP&Glendale]

Christian,

Your post is exactly why the LDS Church has been, and will continue to be sued for millions and millions of dollars. But, not just by victims of sexual abuse (several of these cases involve people suing the church, simply because their abusers were at one time LDS Church members) but anyone and everyone with a personal ax to grind against the church.

There was the recent case of a man who won a lawsuit against the church after losing his arm in a lawnmower accident a decade earlier. The incident occured on church property and even though the church had been paying this man's medical bills for years, he still wanted more $$$$.

Many are blaming the vitims of the abuse for seeking recourse of $$ from the church. I have to ask those who are critical of this allegedly opportunistic behavior, Would you be more supportive had the victims sought only say $1000 from the church? Can you please explain why?

I would never blame a victim of sexual abuse for wanting some kind of compensation, but my question would be, what's fair compensation? If one person gets 4-million, should the next person get 5-million, followed by the next person getting 6, 7 or 10-million?

It will send a clear, absolute message to all members of the church that child sexual abuse is not just a "sin" but it is criminal behavior.

My wife recently served as a full-time missionary in California. When she arrived, her mission president gave strict instructions to all missionaries, both Elders and Sisters, that the only physical contact they could make with anyone was a handshake. Missionaries could not hold new born babies, have toddlers on their laps and they couldn't even give half hugs to people of their same gender, all because two or three sicko missionaries in other cities were caught touching children inapproprietly.

On top of that, because of the recent conviction of a male primary teacher in Utah, who was found guilty of molesting a child in his class; my ward, along with many others, will not call men to teach in Primary, even if that man's wife teaches with him.

It's really quite sad how much everyone else has to pay for the stupidity and perversion of a few.

Whether this confusion between abuse and consensual sexual sins was the cause of any church wrong doing in this case--I'm not sure-- I wasn't there, I didn't see what happened, I don't know if the church is at fault. But, nonetheless to say that a victim of terrible child abuse should not be able to seek millions of damages from an organization with billions at its disposall from wrongdoing is really scrwed up. The main question should be "did the church do something wrong?" If it did, asking the church to pay $4.3 million as a penalty for the wrong is really not a lot to ask of it. Maybe they could add one less shop to the new mall to pay for the verdict, if it is a problem.

Again, this is why the church will continue to get sued, again and again and again. It's the new version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" People see a successful organization, with allegedly lots of bank, and they want a piece of it. I wouldn't be surprised if one day I hear about someone suing the church simply because they were sideswiped by a car that had Utah license plates.

[charity]

There is a sad aspect to this, not from the Church's viewpoint. We are in a culture that is increasingly causing a victim mentality. With this shift away from personal responsibility and accountability, people are being treated as increasingly incompetent. Then they become so. They give up their agency. It isn't taken from them.

[BMD]

Defend yourself against my claim that you are dismissive of LDS doctrine that inspiration comes from without.

Moving with an almost uncanny seamlessness in artful employment of distraction-aimed dexterity, USU78 makes the switch from self-satisfied bully to crybaby .

i have no need to "defend myself" against your baseless allegation. My word alone that my observation on the value of information gleaned via introspective process is sufficient, and neither did you show the courtesy of substantively defending the other charges you leveled against me in the quoted post (page 6 of the present thread).

It appears quite obvious to this poster that you covet the actual victim's victim-status.

ys,

BMD.

[Abulafia]

The members of the Church are very much products of their society, no matter how much we try not to be.

Agreed, but also recognising that we are ALL different sometimes very subtly, in our attitudes and responses.

This particular attitude you describe has nothing to do with being LDS, and everything to do with our society.

Whilst agreeing that there are obvious differences in interpretation of doctrine, as per the above, the church (as my father would argue) IS its people. Salt of the earth, and all that.

Accusing the victim is one of the most common responses to abuse.

And you base that opinion on what? Is this a male response, a female response or both? Evidence please. When my friends told me their horrific stories, one starting from the age of 4, and the other from 8, I didn't even think to blame them? Never would have crossed my mind....

In fact, the LDS Church should be commended for putting the blame of any kind of abuse squarely on the shoulders of the abusers, and for clearly stating that there is no excuse for abuse.

Absolutely, but I know of enough cases in this area, to form an opinion that there is often a difference between policy, proceedure, and actual practice. It is a murky area for everyone. Like I said. NO winners in this. But the victim, really is the victim. Sexual abuse of minors, is a crime, thank Goodness, and it should be punished and the abusers and those complicit, should be brought to justice.

I am interested in what the guidelines now are within the church. I am sure they have indeed improved, as has awareness of this often taboo subject.

Abulafia

[Arlon James]

(Arlon James @ Nov 22 2005, 09:50 PM)

I would ask if you had read the rules before posting but, obviously you have not.

One: you have failed to get past the tone of Pahoran's post to actually deal with the (very valid) points he's made and Two: after failing at this, proceeded to attack him personally as bolded above.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: there are no winners in this situation and it saddens me beyond belief.

Some comments:

1. This has already been tried in court. After hearing testimony from both sides, a jury of 12 average people voted and came to a verdict. Asking Jessi to answer detailed questions about details of the case here seems like hubris. She has already been through more than one trial about this question; putting her through it again seems unFair. Let us leave off with trying this case again in this thread.

2. This lawsuit was not about what the perp did. That was established as a point of law prior to this lawsuit. This lawsuit was about stewardship, about what the bishop was supposed to do but did not do. Bishops act as the local contact of the church. They are the church's finger in the neighborhood. When bishops screw up in their official capacity, it is the church that screws up. The jury determined that the bishop had a duty which he did not fulfill. This is what we should be discussing, not details of this case. What duty, if any, did the bishop, and by extension the church, have to fulfill in this type of situation?

3. Jessi did not win anything; by no fault of her own, she lost that which is most precious and cannot be replaced, but that is not what was decided in this trial. What this jury found was that, once she reported the abuse, those that should have protected her did not. The jury awarded her damages, but money cannot replace what she lost. Protest the damages if you must, but claiming she "won" is both unFair and unChristlike. None here should have to be reminded of what she lost. She was not responsible for her situation and ridiculing or chastising her for seeking compensation from those who were supposed to protect her after she reported the abuse but didn't is both rehensible and misplaced. She trusted the church via her bishop and the church let her down. This lawsuit is not about the abuse she undoubtedly suffered. This lawsuit is about the protection she had a right to expect after she reported it to her bishop, which was not afforded to her. We should never forget that she suffered as a child, not just because her stepfather molested her, but because she was not protected after she reported him.

What we should be discussing is whether or not this little girl had a right to trust that the church would protect her after she told her bishop about the abuse. What we should not be doing is denigrating this girl's experience as some sort of perceived undeserved victimhood, cross examining her again in this forum, or personalizing our responses.

Back to your regularly scheduled defense of the church at all costs, even that of a child's misery.

[maxrep12]

Thankyou, Pickles, for a levelheaded view.

[Sput]

I dont think most ppl are against jessica and her situation. Personally im sad shes a victim and that yes someone did win. Her lawyer did. Hes gunna get his payday. But thats besides the point. I think for some ppl this kinda goes along the same lines as sueing the gun manufacturer for making the gun that was used in a homecide, or the bartender that served alcohol to the drunk driver, and so on. The only person that is responsible for this hanus crime was the step father. Placing blame on the church represenative but not on the mother kinda bothers me alot. Since in the end she married the man and let them into their home. Anyways good luck to the survivors of this crime I hope your life ends up better then the way it started.

[nomdujour]

The only person that is responsible for this hanus crime was the step father. Placing blame on the church represenative but not on the mother kinda bothers me alot. Since in the end she married the man and let them into their home. Anyways good luck to the survivors of this crime I hope your life ends up better then the way it started.

The Church leaders knew about this crime and they failed to report it, that makes them an accomplice.

If you knew your neighbor set the Grocery Store on fire and that he would consider setting Home Depot on fire, and failed to warn authorities, you would then become an accomplice too once that Home Depot went Bouche de Noel in the hood.

[Dill Pickles]

I dont think most ppl are against jessica and her situation. Personally im sad shes a victim and that yes someone did win. Her lawyer did. Hes gunna get his payday. But thats besides the point. I think for some ppl this kinda goes along the same lines as sueing the gun manufacturer for making the gun that was used in a homecide, or the bartender that served alcohol to the drunk driver, and so on. The only person that is responsible for this hanus crime was the step father. Placing blame on the church represenative but not on the mother kinda bothers me alot. Since in the end she married the man and let them into their home. Anyways good luck to the survivors of this crime I hope your life ends up better then the way it started.

from the Pickle once again: Sput, are you aware that in some states at least, the bartender can be held liable if he serves drinks to an obviously intoxicated patron? But that is a different issue entirely.

This trial was not about placing blame on the mother or the step father. The step father's conviction and the mother's alleged negligence was not at issue in this trial. This trial had one purpose and one purpose only: to decide whether or not the church was legally liable for damages if it did not protect that child after she reported the abuse to the church's legal representative in her area. The jury decided that, via the involvement of the bishop, SP, etc, the church had a legal duty which it did not fulfill.

This girl reported abuse to her bishop. Did he have a legal responsibility to fulfill in his future (even 1 minute later) interactions with this girl? That is the question the jury had to decide. They said he did; they said he did not fulfill his legal duty; they said he was acting as the legal agent of the church in his capacity as a bishop; they said therefore the church was liable for damages because of the legal duty that their representative had to this girl but did not fulfill. Do you agree? If not, why not?

[charity]

nomdujour, lets keep the analogies. . . analogous.

If someone told you your neighbor had set the grocery store on fire, and that he planned on setting the Home Depot on fire, you have to wonder, first, if the someone is telling the truth. And when you see your neighbor fail to notify the police or the fire department, that makes you wonder.

Who has the resonsbility? The person who knows, or the person who gets it second hand.

[Dill Pickles]

The only person that is responsible for this hanus crime was the step father. Placing blame on the church represenative but not on the mother kinda bothers me alot. Since in the end she married the man and let them into their home.  Anyways good luck to the survivors of this crime I hope your life ends up better then the way it started.

The Church leaders knew about this crime and they failed to report it, that makes them an accomplice.

If you knew your neighbor set the Grocery Store on fire and that he would consider setting Home Depot on fire, and failed to warn authorities, you would then become an accomplice too once that Home Depot went Bouche de Noel in the hood.

from the Pickle again: nom, could you stick with the facts as presented? A grocery store is not a little girl. Arson is not the same as child abuse. The duty under the law is not the same for arson as it is for child abuse.

[USU78]

Were you truly LDS and not an opportunist, you would know this.

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

Isa. 59:14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

Explain how you get to where you are, O unabashed apologist for the morally indefensible, in supporting the jury's finding that the Church is $2.5 Mill responsible for "pain and suffering" and the actual abuser is but $1.7 Mill responsible?

Moreover, explain how you support the rabbit hole imputation of the actual abuser's $1.7 Mill to the Church?

The abusive father's only 40% liable -- and the Church pays.

The mother's 0% liable -- and the Church pays 100%.

You don't find this offensive?

[Del March]

The members of the Church are very much products of their society, no matter how much we try not to be.

Agreed, but also recognising that we are ALL different sometimes very subtly, in our attitudes and responses.

Yes, but even then personal views and personality speak at least as loudly as church membership.

This particular attitude you describe has nothing to do with being LDS, and everything to do with our society.

Whilst agreeing that there are obvious differences in interpretation of doctrine, as per the above, the church (as my father would argue) IS its people. Salt of the earth, and all that.

If you go that way, then it is particularly unfair that the Church, meaning millions of well-meaning people who would have helped Jessica if only they had known, should be sued and considered an accomplice.

No matter which way we go, we always come back to this fact: it was a handful of leaders who let Jessica down, it wasn't "the Church". Let her sue those individuals, not the Church.

Accusing the victim is one of the most common responses to abuse.

And you base that opinion on what? Is this a male response, a female response or both?

It's a victim's response.

Evidence please.  When my friends told me their horrific stories, one starting from the age of 4, and the other from 8, I didn't even think to blame them?  Never would have crossed my mind....

No, from your posts, you definitely don't come off as the kind of person who would do that, indeed. But many do.

Absolutely, but I know of enough cases in this area, to form an opinion that there is often a difference between policy, proceedure, and actual practice.  It is a murky area for everyone.

Which is why making black-and-white statements about what "the Church" should "obviously" have done is not right (you didn't do that, by the way, but others did).

But the victim, really is the victim.  Sexual abuse of minors, is a crime, thank Goodness, and it should be punished and the abusers and those complicit, should be brought to justice.

Nobody ever contested that on this thread. What we are arguing is whether the Church, as an organisation, is one of those complicit simply because some of its representatives chose to act in a certain way.

Del

[USU78]

Nomdujour, this isn't about truth, justice and the American way. This is Apologetics. It is about spin. You change the story so it looks good for you and bad for the other guys. Don't get bent out of shape. This is just to prepare young men and women to take their place in defense of the Church.

You might think this is misguided and that truth itself will be the best defender of the Church, and that position does have a smattering of support.

Never-the-less, this is just spin, so relax.

Horsefeathers.

We have set forth the legal and policy reasons why this whole imputation of 100%liabililty to the Church for allegedly failing to report abuse is a legal abortion.

The girls suffered for years.

Someone has to pay.

Let's blame the Church and hold it responsible for all damages suffered over years of abuse for its quite ephemeral involvement.

You really don't see, do you?

[USU78]

Defend yourself against my claim that you are dismissive of LDS doctrine that inspiration comes from without.

Moving with an almost uncanny seamlessness in artful employment of distraction-aimed dexterity, USU78 makes the switch from self-satisfied bully to crybaby .

i have no need to "defend myself" against your baseless allegation. My word alone that my observation on the value of information gleaned via introspective process is sufficient, and neither did you show the courtesy of substantively defending the other charges you leveled against me in the quoted post (page 6 of the present thread).

It appears quite obvious to this poster that you covet the actual victim's victim-status.

ys,

BMD.

This is so much more interesting than having BMD address the actual issue.

Well done!

[Sput]

I dont think most ppl are against jessica and her situation. Personally im sad shes a victim and that yes someone did win. Her lawyer did. Hes gunna get his payday.  But thats besides the point. I think for some ppl this kinda goes along the same lines as sueing the gun manufacturer for making the gun that was used in a homecide, or the bartender that served alcohol to the drunk driver, and so on.  The only person that is responsible for this hanus crime was the step father. Placing blame on the church represenative but not on the mother kinda bothers me alot. Since in the end she married the man and let them into their home.  Anyways good luck to the survivors of this crime I hope your life ends up better then the way it started.

from the Pickle once again: Sput, are you aware that in some states at least, the bartender can be held liable if he serves drinks to an obviously intoxicated patron? But that is a different issue entirely.

This trial was not about placing blame on the mother or the step father. The step father's conviction and the mother's alleged negligence was not at issue in this trial. This trial had one purpose and one purpose only: to decide whether or not the church was legally liable for damages if it did not protect that child after she reported the abuse to the church's legal representative in her area. The jury decided that, via the involvement of the bishop, SP, etc, the church had a legal duty which it did not fulfill.

This girl reported abuse to her bishop. Did he have a legal responsibility to fulfill in his future (even 1 minute later) interactions with this girl? That is the question the jury had to decide. They said he did; they said he did not fulfill his legal duty; they said he was acting as the legal agent of the church in his capacity as a bishop; they said therefore the church was liable for damages because of the legal duty that their representative had to this girl but did not fulfill. Do you agree? If not, why not?

If the church was liable for wrongful doing then it should have been delt with in criminal court. If the bishop broke the law then yes he is liable criminaly. Unfortuently in the US anyone can sue anyone so instead of persuing it criminally it was persued civily cause thats where the money is. Also im sure the jury was sensitive to the fact that these exact same cases are happening to the catholic church and wanted to make a "fair" ruling. From my opinion I dont think the LDS church stood a chance in any civil court with the current suits against the Catholic church. And why is the LDS church liable for anything. Did they commit a crime if so why are there not criminal charges brought against them? My thoughts are civil cases dont have the same issues of having to prove beyond a resonable doubt which they would have had to prove in a criminal case. In civil cases all you have to do is prove its a possibility. So from my understanding you think the church is liable and should fork out the dough? Why may I ask is this your position if it is? Im sorry these cases even against the RCC drive me insane. Why go after money? Whats the point? Does money end the pain? Or is it a HAH I got you back deal.

[Sput]

The abusive father's only 40% liable -- and the Church pays.

The mother's 0% liable -- and the Church pays 100%.

You don't find this offensive?

Yes I do!

[Serious]

Nomdujour, this isn't about truth, justice and the American way.  This is Apologetics.  It is about spin.  You change the story so it looks good for you and bad for the other guys.  Don't get bent out of shape.  This is just to prepare young men and women to take their place in defense of the Church. 

You might think this is misguided and that truth itself will be the best defender of the Church, and that position does have a smattering of support.

Never-the-less, this is just spin, so relax.

Horsefeathers.

We have set forth the legal and policy reasons why this whole imputation of 100%liabililty to the Church for allegedly failing to report abuse is a legal abortion.

The girls suffered for years.

Someone has to pay.

Let's blame the Church and hold it responsible for all damages suffered over years of abuse for its quite ephemeral involvement.

You really don't see, do you?

Absolute Horse Feathers! USU7B I agree!

[Dill Pickles]

If the church was liable for wrongful doing then it should have been delt with in criminal court. If the bishop broke the law then yes he is liable criminaly. Unfortuently in the US anyone can sue anyone so instead of persuing it criminally it was persued civily cause thats where the money is. Also im sure the jury was sensitive to the fact that these exact same cases are happening to the catholic church and wanted to make a "fair" ruling. From my opinion I dont think the LDS church stood a chance in any civil court with the current suits against the Catholic church. And why is the LDS church liable for anything. Did they commit a crime if so why are there not criminal charges brought against them? My thoughts are civil cases dont have the same issues of having to prove beyond a resonable doubt which they would have had to prove in a criminal case. In civil cases all you have to do is prove its a possibility. So from my understanding you think the church is liable and should fork out the dough? Why may I ask is this your position if it is? Im sorry these cases even against the RCC drive me insane. Why go after money? Whats the point? Does money end the pain? Or is it a HAH I got you back deal.

from the Pickle: I see no reason for a civil suit to be decided in criminal court. That's a new concept to me. Unless you feel not fulfilling one's legal duty is a crime, I don't see the connection.

I've taken great pains to not make my feelings about the award evident at all, and that is how I intend to continue. The discussion I'm interested in is two-fold:

1. if the church is legally liable for the actions of its agents,

2. what is/was the church's duty, if any, in this situation.

Would you care to weigh in on any aspect of either subject?

[Del March]

1. This has already been tried in court. After hearing testimony from both sides, a jury of 12 average people voted and came to a verdict. Asking Jessi to answer detailed questions about details of the case here seems like hubris. She has already been through more than one trial about this question; putting her through it again seems unFair. Let us leave off with trying this case again in this thread.

So trying to understand what is going on is wrong??

This lawsuit was about stewardship, about what the bishop was supposed to do but did not do. Bishops act as the local contact of the church. They are the church's finger in the neighborhood. When bishops screw up in their official capacity, it is the church that screws up.

I disagree. When a RCC priest "screws up", I don't accuse the RCC Church. Instead, I recognise that in this instance he failed to act like a TRUE representative of his church, and that he himself should be held accountable. If his bishop protects him, then let this bishop be held accountable too. But in no way am I going to demand that the RCC Church, as an organisation, pay for the sins of those men. Same with scout organisations or school systems, for example.

What this jury found was that, once she reported the abuse, those that should have protected her did not. The jury awarded her damages, but money cannot replace what she lost.

Except that the money is NOT coming from the pockets of those who failed her...

None here should have to be reminded of what she lost. She was not responsible for her situation and ridiculing or chastising her for seeking compensation from those who were supposed to protect her after she reported the abuse but didn't is both rehensible and misplaced.

I know very well what she lost. I also know that money is NOT any kind of compensation for that loss. And finally I do not think that making an organisation pay for the sins of some of its members is a just retribution.

She trusted the church via her bishop and the church let her down.

No: her bishop let her down. Only her bishop. We haven't been told that she talked to, say, her Young Women president, or her Sunday School teacher, or anything, after that one man, her bishop, failed to take action to protect her. Would you consider that the whole police force is letting you down if one officer refused to take you seriously? Would you consider that the whole school system is letting you down if one teacher refused to take your worries into consideration? No, you would go to someone else.

Her bishop failed her badly, I don't contest that. But that is NOT equal to the Church letting her down.

This lawsuit is about the protection she had a right to expect after she reported it to her bishop, which was not afforded to her.

What kind of protection is a bishop supposed to offer?? If I wanted protection, I would go to the police, who actually has the power to protect me. It is NOT the role of a bishop to protect anyone in their own homes.

What we should be discussing is whether or not this little girl had a right to trust that the church would protect her after she told her bishop about the abuse.

Little girl? I thought she was already a teenager when she reported the abuse?

What we should not be doing is denigrating this girl's experience as some sort of perceived undeserved victimhood, cross examining her again in this forum, or personalizing our responses.

Nobody is denigrating her experience, don't you go building strawmen. What we are discussing is why she chose to sue the Church instead of the individuals who failed to help her.

Del

[smac97]

Dill Pickles,

> This has already been tried in court. After hearing testimony from both sides, a jury of 12 average people voted and came to a verdict. Asking Jessi to answer detailed questions about details of the case here seems like hubris.

==Then she can simply decline to respond. Indeed, that's just what she appears to be doing. But when she comes here and voluntarily participates in an open discussion about her lawsuit, she pretty much waives any expectation of privacy about her lawsuit.

> She has already been through more than one trial about this question; putting her through it again seems unFair.

==So she can talk to the newspapers, she can come here and add to the discussion, but nobody's alowed to ask questions of her? Why?

> Let us leave off with trying this case again in this thread.

==Why? What's wrong with evaluating the case? Particularly since the case is not over (the Church has said it will appeal)?

> This lawsuit was not about what the perp did. That was established as a point of law prior to this lawsuit. This lawsuit was about stewardship, about what the bishop was supposed to do but did not do.

==Apparently, this lawsuit is about re-categorizing an ecclesiastical leader as a "social worker," yet holding still keeping the ecclesiastical unit on the hook.

> When bishops screw up in their official capacity, it is the church that screws up.

==Kosnoff persuaded the jury that the Bro. Hatch was acting in the capacity of a social worker. How is that his "official [church] capacity?"

> The jury determined that the bishop had a duty which he did not fulfill.

==A duty incumbent on social workers, not ecclesiastical leaders. And this duty didn't exist until the jury said so. Both sides of this case agree that the decision was "a first." So how, exactly, was Bishop Hatch supposed to have fulfilled a duty that did not exist until after the fact?

> This is what we should be discussing, not details of this case. What duty, if any, did the bishop, and by extension the church, have to fulfill in this type of situation?

==That's a fair question. But I disagree that the "details of this case" are off-limits. There's an appeal pending. The facts are still relevant to the disposition of the case.

> Jessi did not win anything; by no fault of her own, she lost that which is most precious and cannot be replaced, but that is not what was decided in this trial.

==Nobody's disputing that Ms. Cavelieri was victimized by her stepfather (BTW, what's up with "Jessi?" Do you know her personally?). What is being disputed is whether the LDS Church is at fault in the case, and whether Ms. Cavelieri's claims against the Church have merit.

==I disagree with the whole she-was-victimized-so-anything-she-says-is-gospel-and-don't-you-dare-question-her-about-anything mindset. If she wants privacy, tell her and her attorney to stop talking to newspapers and participating in public forums.

==I find what Mr. Taylor did to his step-daughter evil and utterly reprehensible. Nobody here is disputing that. Instead, we are critiquing her lawsuit against the LDS Church. Her status as an abuse victim warrants sensitivity as to the abuse, but that's about it.

==And as you've said several times, this lawsuit isn't about the abuse.

-Smac

[Dill Pickles]

1. This has already been tried in court. After hearing testimony from both sides, a jury of 12 average people voted and came to a verdict. Asking Jessi to answer detailed questions about details of the case here seems like hubris. She has already been through more than one trial about this question; putting her through it again seems unFair. Let us leave off with trying this case again in this thread.

So trying to understand what is going on is wrong??

This lawsuit was about stewardship, about what the bishop was supposed to do but did not do. Bishops act as the local contact of the church. They are the church's finger in the neighborhood. When bishops screw up in their official capacity, it is the church that screws up.

I disagree. When a RCC priest "screws up", I don't accuse the RCC Church. Instead, I recognise that in this instance he failed to act like a TRUE representative of his church, and that he himself should be held accountable. If his bishop protects him, then let this bishop be held accountable too. But in no way am I going to demand that the RCC Church, as an organisation, pay for the sins of those men. Same with scout organisations or school systems, for example.

What this jury found was that, once she reported the abuse, those that should have protected her did not. The jury awarded her damages, but money cannot replace what she lost.

Except that the money is NOT coming from the pockets of those who failed her...

None here should have to be reminded of what she lost. She was not responsible for her situation and ridiculing or chastising her for seeking compensation from those who were supposed to protect her after she reported the abuse but didn't is both rehensible and misplaced.

I know very well what she lost. I also know that money is NOT any kind of compensation for that loss. And finally I do not think that making an organisation pay for the sins of some of its members is a just retribution.

She trusted the church via her bishop and the church let her down.

No: her bishop let her down. Only her bishop. We haven't been told that she talked to, say, her Young Women president, or her Sunday School teacher, or anything, after that one man, her bishop, failed to take action to protect her. Would you consider that the whole police force is letting you down if one officer refused to take you seriously? Would you consider that the whole school system is letting you down if one teacher refused to take your worries into consideration? No, you would go to someone else.

Her bishop failed her badly, I don't contest that. But that is NOT equal to the Church letting her down.

This lawsuit is about the protection she had a right to expect after she reported it to her bishop, which was not afforded to her.

What kind of protection is a bishop supposed to offer?? If I wanted protection, I would go to the police, who actually has the power to protect me. It is NOT the role of a bishop to protect anyone in their own homes.

What we should be discussing is whether or not this little girl had a right to trust that the church would protect her after she told her bishop about the abuse.

Little girl? I thought she was already a teenager when she reported the abuse?

What we should not be doing is denigrating this girl's experience as some sort of perceived undeserved victimhood, cross examining her again in this forum, or personalizing our responses.

Nobody is denigrating her experience, don't you go building strawmen. What we are discussing is why she chose to sue the Church instead of the individuals who failed to help her.

Del

from the Pickle: I didn't see your questions to Jessi as a person trying to understand what happened. I saw it as you trying an already decided case again on this forum, and in the process, extracting yet another pound of flesh from the person who is the true victim in this situation.

As for the other questions: The church is a legal entity, Del. As a legal entity, it has all sorts of legal responsibilities. The bishop is the church's agent. He is not just a member, he is the bishop... he acts as the church's agent and he performs the church's legal duties. He can perform all sorts of legal activities, because he is the agent of the LDS church. As the legal agent of the church, he has certain legal stewardships like performing marriages. They are not his personal stewardships, they are the church's. For example, he as an individual cannot legally marry anyone; the stewardship to marry is given to the LDS church, and he acts as their representative when he performs marriages. When he is released, he can no longer perform marriages.

In this case of reporting abuse, the legal stewardship resides with the church, not the individual. As an individual, yes, he has a moral responsibility (which he may or may not fulfill as he sees fit), but as the church's legal representative, he has a separate, legal responsibility to fulfill also. And according to this jury, the church had a duty and as the church's agent, he didn't fulfill that duty, and because it is the church's duty to make sure their agents perform their legal duties, the church failed in their duty, and thus is liable when their agent didn't perform his duty. So yes, according to the jury, the money is coming from the pockets of those who had a legal duty to her and who failed in that duty.

(Incidently, if the bishop's profession was one of a number of professions that also have a legal duty in cases of alleged child abuse, such as school counselor, psychologist, MD, etc., in addition to the church's legal duty, he would carry a personal duty. But that didn't come out in trial, so I'm assuming he doesn't have that personal duty via his profession.)

Teenagers are legally children until they're 18 in the USA. Maybe it's different in France.