Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations? (so titled)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

According to the story as many as 15 people knew of a case of molestation of a child. They cannot be charged because Idaho has a law protecting

[kolipoki09]

According to the story as many as 15 people knew of a case of molestation of a child. They cannot be charged because Idaho has a law protecting

[ERayR]

The State of Idaho has laws prohibiting clergy from breaking strict confidentiality. Loyd Ericson noted to me this week that the Church has a 24 hour hot line for leaders who have members confess serious crimes to, including abuse. They are provided with both social counseling and legal advice on how to handle these issues. In many states, such as Idaho, if someone confesses to a Bishop and that Bishop goes to the police, the Bishop and the Church can both be sued. Because of the Idaho law, anyone set apart as a clergy member could not report it without violating the law. They could only encourage the offender (and his wife) to turn himself in.

While I disagree with the application of the law, the Stake High Council members along with the Stake Presidency in this case were only following state guidelines, and more than encouraging to have the man turn himself in. I would like to see the law changed.

I have always had a problem with confidentiality for serious crime (murder, rape, and especially child molestation). I understand the theory behind it but when others are in danger then that outweighs the confideniality.

A doctor who is a bishop is in a really tough spot because as a medical professional he is required, by law, to report child molestation so he would be breaking the law no matter which course he followed.

[USU78]

I have always had a problem with confidentiality for serious crime (murder, rape, and especially child molestation). I understand the theory behind it but when others are in danger then that outweighs the confideniality.

A doctor who is a bishop is in a really tough spot because as a medical professional he is required, by law, to report child molestation so he would be breaking the law no matter which course he followed.

There are exceptions, at least for attorneys and doctors (don't know for sure about clergy) if disclosure of otherwise confidential information will/might prevent harm to others. People tend not to understand this. Now, I don't have special knowledge of what the folks at the Church's hotline would advise if it appears abuse would continue in, for example, the case of a father diddling his own child.

Where there's an occurrence of an event that's unambiguously in the past and knowledge of it comes via a confidential priest/penitent communication, however, the privilege is absolute.

This is not something that is unique to Utah or Idaho, but is rather something that has been sacrosanct in Anglo-Saxon-Norman (including Aussie and US and Canadian) common law for over a thousand years.

You don't toss something like that out because a particular crime gets a lot of ink and newsprint over the last 15 years or so.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There are exceptions, at least for attorneys and doctors (don't know for sure about clergy) if disclosure of otherwise confidential information will/might prevent harm to others. People tend not to understand this. Now, I don't have special knowledge of what the folks at the Church's hotline would advise if it appears abuse would continue in, for example, the case of a father diddling his own child.

Where there's an occurrence of an event that's unambiguously in the past and knowledge of it comes via a confidential priest/penitent communication, however, the privilege is absolute.

This is not something that is unique to Utah or Idaho, but is rather something that has been sacrosanct in Anglo-Saxon-Norman (including Aussie and US and Canadian) common law for over a thousand years.

You don't toss something like that out because a particular crime gets a lot of ink and newsprint over the last 15 years or so.

I am only addressing the Church policy on this matter

[Analytics]

The State of Idaho has laws prohibiting clergy from breaking strict confidentiality. Loyd Ericson noted to me this week that the Church has a 24 hour hot line for leaders who have members confess serious crimes to, including abuse. They are provided with both social counseling and legal advice on how to handle these issues. In many states, such as Idaho, if someone confesses to a Bishop and that Bishop goes to the police, the Bishop and the Church can both be sued.

Are you sure? For example, a Catholic priest would feel a strict moral obligation to keep what he hears in the confessional a secret. I can imagine a law saying that such a priest isn

[semlogo]

I am only addressing the Church policy on this matter

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ruh roh

What are you now

[semlogo]

What are you now

[frankenstein]

USU you are a lawyer, correct? I would think you could an abundance of reasons why a lawyer should be exempted from things and others shouldn't

There is no intellectually honest reason to exempt clergy.

Damned be the state of Idaho and any other people who allow children to be molested; "better that a millstone be hung about their neck and tossed into the sea". I have stated my opinion before, but it is incredolous that states or a people would allow child molestation to continue.

I dare say that states are unconstitutionally promoting religion by making it legal to knowing allow child molestation to continue.

[katherine the great]

This is very interesting. Reporters so frequently mess up that I'm not sure I understand, but I think this is the gist of it: Idaho has one law that makes it legal for clergy to NOT report child abuse IF the information is derived from the assailant. There is a separate statute that actually forbids clergy from reporting the abuse if the information is derived from the assailant. What about information that is gathered from the victim? It sounds like they may be required to report that. Hypothetically then: If the Bishop hears the confession of the assailant, he urges the man and his wife (if she is present) to go to authorities. Then, does the Bishop seek out the victim and try to gather information from them so that they are able to go to authorities with the accusation but without revealing the perp's confession? Does anyone know? I'm actually quite good friends with the brother of the guy who did turn this guy in. He's also a cop. Maybe I'll ask him.

[katherine the great]

USU you are a lawyer, correct? I would think you could an abundance of reasons why a lawyer should be exempted from things and others shouldn't

There is no intellectually honest reason to exempt clergy.

Damned be the state of Idaho and any other people who allow children to be molested; "better that a millstone be hung about their neck and tossed into the sea". I have stated my opinion before, but it is incredolous that states or a people would allow child molestation to continue.

I dare say that states are unconstitutionally promoting religion by making it legal to knowing allow child molestation to continue.

I don't think it is quite that simple and I don't think it has to do with putting religion before child welfare. I'm kind of a "Law and Order" freak, and many episodes deal with these issues. Idaho is certainly not the only state to recognize and deal with clergy confidentiality, and priests have been known to cooperate with law enforcement in "roundabout" ways without breaking the confidentiality (which Catholic priests consider sacrosanct.) I also think that clergy will come forward quickly when they receive the information from the victim or other sources--just not the confessor.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Please, refrain from hysterics. No one is stalking you - I didn't even notice it was you I was replying to. "Ruh roh" was referring to the efforts to change the law in California.

Since you believe it's not our place to change the law, I'm sure you'll drop support for Prop 8.

That is one really big leap

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

USU you are a lawyer, correct? I would think you could an abundance of reasons why a lawyer should be exempted from things and others shouldn't

There is no intellectually honest reason to exempt clergy.

Damned be the state of Idaho and any other people who allow children to be molested; "better that a millstone be hung about their neck and tossed into the sea". I have stated my opinion before, but it is incredolous that states or a people would allow child molestation to continue.

I dare say that states are unconstitutionally promoting religion by making it legal to knowing allow child molestation to continue.

It is a thin line

[kolipoki09]

Are you sure? For example, a Catholic priest would feel a strict moral obligation to keep what he hears in the confessional a secret. I can imagine a law saying that such a priest isn

[emeliza]

Well I know I am going to be the odd man out, but I agree with what the clergy did in this situation and I agree with the law that allows for a confession to clergy to be confidential, even in horrible cases like this. I can't imagine being the clergy that has to deal with it though. I am glad though that the man eventually (with assistance) turned himself in. I think the Church should follow the law though and it seems that they do.

[semlogo]

That is one really big leap

[Obiwan]

USU you are a lawyer, correct? I would think you could an abundance of reasons why a lawyer should be exempted from things and others shouldn't

There is no intellectually honest reason to exempt clergy.

Damned be the state of Idaho and any other people who allow children to be molested; "better that a millstone be hung about their neck and tossed into the sea". I have stated my opinion before, but it is incredolous that states or a people would allow child molestation to continue.

I dare say that states are unconstitutionally promoting religion by making it legal to knowing allow child molestation to continue.

Just an FYI.... I know everyone including us uses those verses as being applicable to "actual" children, and it could be said that such an application would be reasonable, but those verses in question are actually directly talking about "children of God" who are not "with us", not actual children. Christ's warning there is being applied to anyone who condemns "other believers" who He says is also His children, but aren't with us and not having our authority. It's the same idea of other verses such as "contend against no Church save the Church of the Devil".

I like these verses Mark/Luke 9 that that statement is from because Christ Himself is directly condemning anti other religion fruits, such as anti-mormons. For we are ALSO little ones of Christ, even if others think we aren't the "true servants". Thus, they should stop offending us with their bearing false witness, degradations, etc.

[daz2]

I am not so sure there was a violation of Church policy here.

According to the lds newsroom, http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/child-abuse the following is the reporting policy of the Church:

The Obligation to Report

At the heart of many legal contests is when and whether notice of a potential abuse or abuser is reported. Church officials follow state law regarding when and how to report an act of child abuse to public authorities.

The more difficult moral issue is whether a bishop should report abuse information to public authorities when he has obtained that information in an official capacity in the privileged context of a private confession. Apart from the difficult religious issue involved, some churches and professionals believe that to force clergy to report a private confession makes it less likely that child abusers will come forward to get help. They will likely continue to abuse. Others argue that law enforcement needs to be involved quickly because of the high risk of repeat offenders. There is no consensus on this difficult issue.

The complexity of the problem is reflected in a wide variety of reporting laws from state to state. Twenty-three states have laws requiring clergy to report only when the information is not privileged. In these states, for instance, a clergyman who learns of abuse in a confidential communication, such as a confession, has no legal duty to report it to authorities, whereas a clergyman who personally observes abuse or has an independent reason to suspect abuse is required to report. In nine other states, clergy have a duty to report child abuse no matter what. And in the remaining 18 states and in the District of Columbia, reporting statues do not require clergy to report child abuse at all.

Bishops in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught that they have two primary responsibilities when they learn about a case of child abuse. First, they must protect the victim. Second, they must hold the perpetrator accountable for his actions. Even in states where the confidentiality of the confessional prevents clergy from reporting, bishops do all they can to prevent further abuse. Every effort is made to persuade the abuser to take responsibility for his actions, including going to the legal authorities. The very fact that a man has gone to his bishop with a confession makes it more likely that a respected Church leader can influence him to do the right thing.

Thus, the Church policy does not require a bishop to violate a state's law prohibiting disclosure of a confession. I am not familiar with Idaho's reporting and privilege laws, but if the law forbids the reporting by clergy of information obtain solely from the confessional, then the bishop and stake president followed the law and Church policy. My recollection from the handbook is that members of a disciplinary council are under an absolute rule of confidentiality--at one time (and perhaps still) the handbook directed that a police officer or other person under a legal requirement to disclose should not serve on a disciplinary council.

[Analytics]

Any person who discloses information to a clergy member with confidentiality can legally press charges against said clergy member if that information is revealed to an outside source. It's not some ancient law only practiced in Idaho and Utah, but is a fairly common procedure that is enforced in at least 25 states that I'm aware of. Here are a few case rulings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_Privilege_%28United_States%29

That link is to the "Confessional Privilege" which apparently is a rule of evidence that forbids the inquiry into the content or even existence of certain communications between clergy and communicants. The link says nothing about the clergy being legally bound to keep secrets or otherwise required by law not to report criminal behavior to the police.

Do you have any links to a case where a criminal sued his clergy and won because the criminal got busted for his crimes because of the clergy? That seems bizzare.

[USU78]

What about information that is gathered from the victim? It sounds like they may be required to report that.

That is correct.

[USU78]

I don't think it is quite that simple and I don't think it has to do with putting religion before child welfare. I'm kind of a "Law and Order" freak, and many episodes deal with these issues. Idaho is certainly not the only state to recognize and deal with clergy confidentiality, and priests have been known to cooperate with law enforcement in "roundabout" ways without breaking the confidentiality (which Catholic priests consider sacrosanct.) I also think that clergy will come forward quickly when they receive the information from the victim or other sources--just not the confessor.

Francis is just being hysterical on the issue. The State has no business interfering in the relationship between Priest and Penitent. Bad enough the State spends so much of its energy and our money poking its Duranteesque nose into personal matters. Keep the miserable so-and-sos out of our religious practices!

[Chaos]

What are you now

[katherine the great]

That link is to the "Confessional Privilege" which apparently is a rule of evidence that forbids the inquiry into the content or even existence of certain communications between clergy and communicants. The link says nothing about the clergy being legally bound to keep secrets or otherwise required by law not to report criminal behavior to the police.

Do you have any links to a case where a criminal sued his clergy and won because the criminal got busted for his crimes because of the clergy? That seems bizzare.

It seems more logical that the confession would be ruled inadmissable in court. Its hard to imagine a scenario where the abuser would press charges against the clergy or the police ever pursuing it.

[katherine the great]

Francis is just being hysterical on the issue. The State has no business interfering in the relationship between Priest and Penitent. Bad enough the State spends so much of its energy and our money poking its Duranteesque nose into personal matters. Keep the miserable so-and-sos out of our religious practices!

You might not feel that way if YOUR innocent child was molested and then you find out that fifteen people knew about the molester's history and did nothing to inform law enforcement. This is a very complicated, emotional issue and you can't expect that people are not going to react strongly to it.