Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[smac97]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I have seen discussions today about this elsewhere online, but haven't seen it posted here.  I thought in light of the recently locked thread (where the Franklyn Curtis case involving the Mormon church was being discussed), it was relevant to us too.

How do members here feel about a Priest or Bishop being forced to reveal child abuse confessed to them in private?  

I think a balance needs to be struck between society's interest in preserving the confidence of the confessional (which often leads to voluntary corrective action of some sort) while also addressing the profound importance of protecting vulnerable youth.  That balance varies from state to state in the U.S.  

Utah's "mandatory reporting" laws are, I think, pretty good

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

Could the child involved in the Curtis case been spared the abuse if the Bishop had warned his mother about his repeated behavior as a child abuser?

Here is a link to the article and a couple of quotes from it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations/8804040

 

"Clergy who fail to report information about child sexual abuse heard during confession would face criminal charges under a series of sweeping changes to the criminal justice system recommended in a new report."

......

"The royal commission said it had heard evidence of multiple cases where abuse was disclosed in confession, both by victims and perpetrators."

"We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again.

"We have concluded that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession."

I think there are important religious freedoms in play here, the protections for which will vary by jurisdiction.

Moreover, sweeping changes in the laws regarding confession will necessarily lead to a reduction - probably a substantial one - in the number of such confessions.  As abhorrent as these acts are, I think there is a greater likelihood of the perpetrator seeking to change his/her behavior, or to confess to secular authorities, if he has the option of counseling in confidence with a spiritual advisor.  Last that utterly eliminate that confidentiality with drive perpetrators further into darkness.  That can't be a good thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

I think this is something that the Church/priesthood leaders should do on their own (i.e., without being forced to).

Except that "Church/priesthood leaders" are bound by more than their personal preferences.  They function in those roles at the behest of the LDS Church, and therefore must function in accordance with its precepts.

That said, the LDS Church has a fairly wise and prudent approach to this issue.

11 hours ago, rongo said:

I differ from the Church on this, and have had to deal with the other end of this (victims in my ward, not the perpetrator).

I can respect that.

11 hours ago, rongo said:

If a person confessed something like this to me, I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right. When the answer is "yes," I would tell them that they need to turn themselves in to the police and cooperate fully with the investigation, and take whatever consequences follow. If they aren't willing to do that, I would inform them that I would contact the police, but that this should be them.

Then you're not really giving them a choice.  So you seem to be advocating a sort of false pretense here.

More to the point, as soon as word gets out that Bishop So-and-so is not to be trusted with adhering to the parameters set forth by the Church, that he will betray your confidences in violation of the Church's teachings and in disregard of the secular law as well, then how likely is it that a perpetrator will confess to that bishop, or indeed to any bishop anywhere?

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Do they really want to do everything they can to repent?

There is more to the calculus of this situation then that.

11 hours ago, rongo said:

This puts me at odds with the counsel you get by calling the abuse hotline, but it's the right thing to do. In my view, and in my experience.

Bishops are not at liberty to disregard the policies and guidelines of the Church, nor are they at liberty to violate the confessor's constitutionally-protected rights.  Hence the Church's very wise system of having a hotline that gives bishops guidance on how to navigate the Church's policies and the secular law.

All of that gets blown to smithereens when a bishop goes maverick.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Under what law would it?

Say someone tells a bishop that he has molested children in many families. He wants to repent, and thinks initially that his confession, and informal sacrament and activity restrictions over a period of time will put this painful thing behind him and let him move on. In his meeting with the bishop, he learns that he will be facing more serious discipline that will result in years and years of severance from his covenants and loss of his membership. This is much heavier than he thought; he thought that his burden would be lightened by his meeting with the bishop and he would be able to move on from that point. He begins to second-guess his decision to confess at all. Then, the bishop informs him that he must tell the parents of his victims, with him present, and that he will have to turn himself in to the police and confess to everything. This horrifies him, and he decides that he isn't going to say another word to anyone. The bishop informs him that if he won't, then he (the bishop) will immediately tell the police and the families what he knows.

The man does nothing. He's terrified to do anything, and is unwilling to take this drastic step that is going to change the course of his life forever. The bishop is true to his word, and the man is arrested.

What big money liability would the bishop likely face? Under what law or legal argument would the Church and/or the bishop be found culpable liable? What if criminal investigation confirms that the charges are true, so that it isn't simply a matter of alleged confessional confidences vs. categorical denial?

Are clergy legally required, subject to civil penalties, to maintain clergy privilege?

Thanks in advance, USU78! This is a fascinating and relevant topic for me.

Yes they are so required, and it isn't a close question. It holds in all Common Law countries

Edited August 18, 2017 by USU78

[smac97]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree (if that's definitely the case).

But what about a bishop warning a potential victim (as in the Curtis case)?

What the bishop can and cannot do is governed predominantly by secular law, which incorporates the "Free Exercise" elements of religious expression found in U.S. Constitutional law.

In other words, it's not really up to the bishop to unilaterally decide what to report and what not to report.  His obligation is to follow the law.

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know that's not so black and white most likely.

There is a bit more complexity than that, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree!  I don't understand those that defend a bishop who knew a man had abused numerous children, but didn't warn a mother to keep her young son away from him (after he learned the man was moving into their home).  

Unless we have more than the mother's statement on what the bishop told her, we don't actually know what he said and if it would have been enough for a mother with an ounce of caution in her head (I don't see much evidence the mother displayed either common sense or caution).

I will admit to a bias to doubt her credibility given to my relationship to a simian case where a father carelessly and callously exposed his children to danger (family exposure to porn and then putting them in the same room with teen boys) and then screamed at the preschoolers for being liars because he refused to accept and responsibility for the tragic situation.

The mother has an abundance of reasons, emotional, social, and financial to shift the blame to someone else.

It has been awhile since I studied this case, nothing I have read here (haven't done more than skim it) seems to indicate we had anything besides the mother's side of the story when it came to what was said by the bishop to her.

Imo, from what little we know of the man's interactions at church, I do think the Bishop should have been more proactive, but unless I am completely spacing he never told his side in court due to the settlement...which iirc was because the judge insisted the Church open its financial books prior to the case being tried and liability being found, which I believe was not standard law practices.

[USU78]

Example: http://www.churchlawandtax.com/cltr/2001/november-december/confidential-and-privileged-communications-part-1.html

[smac97]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

Evidence doesn't include confession (or "only" confession), and reporting to the police is *not* what you are told at the hotline.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I have had several experiences where abuse has been reported to the policy in compliance with mandatory reporting laws, and at the instruction of the attorneys who staff the abuse hotline.

9 hours ago, rongo said:

You are told "you have no legal obligation to report this."

This is a substantial mischaracterization.  There may or may not be a legal obligation to report.  That is what the hotline is there to help determine.  

To suggest that there is an across-the-board negative response to inquiries to the hotline is simply a falsehood.  I have first-hand experience with this.

9 hours ago, rongo said:

It is very important to the Church's lawyers to preserve the clergy privilege and not undermine it, and I don't want to casually erode it.

There is more than the privilege at stake.  The individual's constitutional rights are also implicated.

9 hours ago, rongo said:

But, I consider facing the legal consequences and doing everything you can to help victim families heal to be essential to real repentance. 

It's not up to the individual bishop to ignore both the Church's laws and the laws of the land and decide for himself what to report and what not to report.

9 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm with Papa Lee. I would inform the penitent that they need to report it themselves now, and if they didn't, then I would.

Which may contravene the teachings of the Church and the laws of the land.  And it may violate the confessor's constitutional rights.

I know this is an emotional issue, but you folks are recommending that bishops go maverick, the legal and ethical implications be darned.  This is unwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

he confessed to many of these crimes (to several Bishops over the years).

Was this actually documented (the bishop part) or claims that did not get scruntinized in court?

[MiserereNobis]

In Catholicism, the seal of the confessional is absolute. The priest cannot under any circumstance violate it. It doesn't matter what the law of the land says; the law of the Church and of God is higher.

This sometimes offends our modern sensibilities, but what USU78 says it correct. The sanctity of the confessional was bought with His Most Precious Blood, and there is nothing more sacred than that.

The priest who catechized me and baptized me told me that if a heinous crime is confessed to him, he does his best to convince the penitent to turn himself in. He did convince a child molester once to do so. He didn't tell me if there were any he was unable to convince.

I think this doctrine shows the infinite mercy of God towards a penitent sinner. Forgiveness is not contingent upon anything other than confessing to God, via His appointed intermediary, which means all one has to do is throw one's self at the mercy of God and then one is forgiven. The atonement is absolute and infinite and requires nothing more.

Of course, a person who is not truly penitent and is just playing the system, so to speak, will be dealt with properly by God in the afterlife. To me, though, the doctrine of the atonement in Catholicism is full of such incredible love and mercy that it is almost incomprehensible.

+PAX+

Edited August 18, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak to the hotline, but it is law that they have to do it in many states. Utah law says it's not required if given as a confession but is required for any other information. Stated Church policy is that the prime focus is to protect victims. Membership records are supposed to be annotated if they are an abuse perpetrator. 

There are many ways a bishop can hear about abuse, and generally the only "privileged" one is when the report of abuse is directly from the abuser to the bishop acting in that capacity.

Here's an interesting blog entry on this topic:

Quote

Last week {in May 2011} the Pinal Arizona County Attorney decided not to charge two LDS Bishops with failing to report the sexual abuse of a minor in the case of LDS Church member Susan Brock, who is now serving a 13-year prison sentence for the crime. While I tend to agree with the county attorney’s position on the bishops, I have to ask the question, who should have reported the crime and when?

Brock confessed the crime to her bishop last October 9th after her teenage victim’s girlfriend discovered sexually-charged texts on the victim’s phone. The girlfriend told her parents, who called Brock’s husband, Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, leading to Susan Brock’s meeting with the Bishop. Brock’s Bishop, Matthew Meyers, then contacted the victim’s bishop, Troy Hansen, on October 12th or 13th, who met with the teenage victim and his parents on October 19th. According to the police, both Bishops contacted the Church’s law firm, Kirton and McConkie, as directed in the handbook (as I understand it), and evidently received advice from the attorneys there.

Bishop Hansen’s meeting with the teenager and his father disclosed the full extent of the abuse, but also left the issue of reporting the crime to the police up in the air. The victim’s father, according to police, was told that “things were being done,” and “it was going to be dealt with.” But an LDS Church spokesman disputes this account, and says that “Church leaders worked effectively within the law, and with those involved, to facilitate prompt reporting to police” and claimed that the Bishop urged the teenager to report.

However, the victim’s father waited several days, and then told police that they were “waiting for what seemed like forever for someone to knock on their front door.” After the teenager and his father filed their complaint October 22, Susan Brock was arrested October 26.

It does seem kind of strange that everyone (all the Brocks, the victim and his family and the victim’s girlfriend and her family are all LDS) involved in this case seemed to go exclusively to each other and to local Church leaders and not to the police. Who was supposed to report the crime? And if it was just the victim, why would the victim’s father think that the Bishop would take care of this?

I assume that the advice the Bishops received from the Church lawyers was that they didn’t have to report — i.e., that they should not violate the confessional. The victim’s Bishop learned of the abuse from Brock’s confession to her Bishop, making his knowledge part of the confession. Since I want the confessional protected, I can accept that position. And, it looks like the Pinal County Attorney has effectively supported that belief.

But, what about the others? Even though the victim’s girlfriend and her family didn’t have very good knowledge, it sure seems like this would be the kind of suspicion to report to the police. And surely the family of the victim should take this directly to the police in addition to the Bishop?

I have to wonder if some part of our culture believes that crimes like this should be kept from the police, that we should handle the issue inside the Church. If nothing else, this case shows that such an approach is not always wise.

It is, of course, very possible that there are details of this case which have not yet come out. That somehow there are reasons for why each of these people did what they did. But I’m still left with questions about who was supposed to report and when.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which may contravene the teachings of the Church and the laws of the land.  And it may violate the confessor's constitutionaI know this is an emotional issue, but you folks are recommending that bishops go maverick, the legal and ethical implications be darned.  This is unwise.

Could an improperly (legally speaking) shared with the police confession endanger actual prosecution? (Fruit of the poisonous tree?)

[smac97]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll admit I'm far less convinced of the sanctity of the confessional.

Translation: You are willing to utterly disregard profoundly important constitutional rights of churches and confessors.

Do you recognize that this is what you are doing?

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But that's probably a tangent.

Well, no, it's not.  Constitutional rights are not a tangent at all.  They should be at or near the center of this discussion.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To the topic at had all you need to do is a modicum of investigation independent of the confession and you'll have information you're free to act upon. Any Bishop that didn't do that would be acting neglectfully in my view. 

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am not understanding all the questioning on this...handbook or not...whatever..you do what is right!!!

So you are promoting . . . anarchy.  Each person decides for himself what is "right" and "wrong."  Each person becomes a law unto himself.  No need to consider the laws of the community in which we live.  No need to consider the rights of others.  Do whatever you want.  That's your solution?

Yep, that's anarchy.  Well-intentioned anarchy, I think, but anarchy nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

"Requiring" somebody to turn himself in in pain of Church discipline happens all the time. Going public with a confidence belonging to an offender is absolutely not happening. This is a huge deal. A rogue Bishop disclosing confidences would subject himself and the Church up to big money liability.

There is also a very serious moral question involved here.  A profound betrayal of the confessor's trust.

This thread seems to be an exercise in using righteous indignation to justify a mob mentality of guilty-until-proven-innocent, an-accusation-alone-justifies-a-bishop-in-going-rogue, who-cares-what-the-law-is-because-we-are-each-a-law-unto-ourselves.

In short, there are folks on this board who are advocating lawlessness.  They seem to have righteous motives, but lawlessness will always get out of hand.  It will always have serious and negative and unintended consequences.  

That is why we live in a country governed by laws, not by the whims (however well-intentioned) of self-appointed vigilantes who recognize no obligation to follow the law (a rather important precept in the LDS Church), and instead get to do whatever they want whenever they want, consequences be damned.

I am surprised and disappointed to be reading such stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is also a very serious moral question involved here.  A profound betrayal of the confessor's trust.

This thread seems to be an exercise in using righteous indignation to justify a mob mentality of guilty-until-proven-innocent, an-accusation-alone-justifies-a-bishop-in-going-rogue, who-cares-what-the-law-is-because-we-are-each-a-law-unto-ourselves.

In short, there are folks on this board who are advocating lawlessness.  They seem to have righteous motives, but lawlessness will always get out of hand.  It will always have serious and negative and unintended consequences.  

That is why we live in a country governed by laws, not by the whims (however well-intentioned) of self-appointed vigilantes who recognize no obligation to follow the law (a rather important precept in the LDS Church), and instead get to do whatever they want whenever they want, consequences be damned.

I am surprised and disappointed to be reading such stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

And this is why you make the big bucks.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Could an improperly (legally speaking) shared with the police confession endanger actual prosecution? (Fruit of the poisonous tree?)

Certainly.  That is the purpose of legal privileges.  The person making the communication is "privileged" to make a statement without fear of the statement being used against him legally.

I am an attorney, and I have been privy to all sorts of "confidential" information from my clients (some of which, but not all, is legally "privileged").  On occasion I have had information as to misconduct by a client (I am not a criminal defense attorney, so I'm speaking of mostly "civil," rather than "criminal," wrongs).  I am legal constrained from divulging confidential information given to me by my clients.  In fact, I could lose my bar license in doing so.

To you folks who are advocating that bishops go rogue, I ask you this: Do you likewise advocate that attorneys disregard the law as well?  If so, do you have any idea as to how reckless and harmful and shortsighted this type of thinking is?  Do you need some examples of how constitutional rights would be trampled, how the rule of law would be severely undermined, how quickly totalitarian our government would become if it were able to use the force of law to extract information from attorneys about their clients?

Can you comprehend the importance of the attorney-client privilege in allowing attorneys to do their jobs and protect their clients' rights (here is a fairly good primer on that subject)?

And if you can accommodate the need for an attorney-client privilege (which, I note, is intended to protect the client), then can you also allow for a somewhat comparable priest-penitent privilege (which is intended to protect the confessor, not the priest/bishop)?

I am reminded here of Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I am concerned to see members of the Church so cavalierly tossing aside the rule of law.  They seem to be doing so out of a sense of "zeal," but "not according to knowledge."

Don't get me wrong, I am deeply concerned about the welfare of abuse victims (I have six children myself).  But I am also an attorney, so I have some experience with the broader perspective of society's need to balance competing interests.  We cannot devolve into a mob and disregard the law when it suits us, even when we feel we are justified in doing so.  There are very, very few circumstances where utter disregard of the constraints (and protections) of the law is justified.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

"Certainly.  That is the purpose of legal privileges.  The person making the communication is "privileged" to make a statement without fear of the statement being used against him legally."

This is what concerns me.  If this happens and it ends up causing the guy's conviction to  be tossed or never investigated in the first place, it is possible more harm will be done in the long run to victims than if the info hadn't been illegally shared.

There are potentially more consequences than just financial to going rogue.  If the intent is victims must be protected at all costs, than the costs of not protecting them by making a legal error needs to be part of the consideration of what to do.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

yes, don't you ever watch MASH?!

It's been many years but boy that was a great show.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

OK.  I do. 

Obviously. 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Certainly.  That is the purpose of legal privileges.  The person making the communication is "privileged" to make a statement without fear of the statement being used against him legally."

This is what concerns me.  

I can understand that.  This is where a broader perspective comes into play.  Society is better off when the legal system functions well.  The functioning of that system requires that attorneys be able to do their jobs.  Attorneys doing their jobs requires them to be able to get the whole story from their clients.  Getting the whole story from their clients only works if the clients know they can communicate without fear of the government using that communications against them.  Allowing such communications to occur is a vital aspect of preserving the clients' constitutional rights against self-incrimination, among others.  Protecting those constitutional rights therefore requires . . . an attorney-client privilege.

There is a similar syllogism in play for the priest-penitent privilege.

Quote

If this happens and it ends up causing the guy's conviction to  be tossed or never investigated in the first place, it is possible more harm will be done in the long run to victims than if the info hadn't been illegally shared.

There are many, many ways in which a breach of the privilege can muck up the judicial/legal system.  "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is one of them.

Quote

There are potentially more consequences than just financial to going rogue.  

Absolutely.  Generally speaking, I think society is better of when the worst of its citizenry have a confidential venue for divulging their wrongdoing, as this often (though not always) is part of the process of a guilt-ridden person in "repenting" (I use that term in both its sectarian and secular sense).  If we, in our desire to hound abusers from our midst, give them no quarter, if we essentially tell them "We are going to pass laws that make it impossible for you to divulge your wrongdoing to your priest, or anyone else, in fact we are going to make it a criminal offense for anyone to not turn you in," then we are forcing abusers further into darkness and secrecy.  Our society is not better off when that happens, as this secrecy will be far more likely to beget further abusive conduct.

Quote

If the intent is victims must be protected at all costs,

"Victims" being merely "accusers" prior to adjudication.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is a very important concept in the law.  Those folks in this thread who would so easily toss it aside would certainly have second thoughts about that if they were falsely accused of horrendous conduct.

Let's keep in mind that in our society, even the allegation of sexual abuse is enough to ruin a person's life.  Utterly.  

The mob mentality being advocated in this thread is not a healthy thing.  "At all costs" is an extraordinarily dangerous phrase.  It excuses . . . well, pretty much anything.  It is a tempting precursor to anarchy and lawlessness.

Quote

than the costs of not protecting them by making a legal error needs to be part of the consideration of what to do.

I think the total number of instances where innocents are injured by preserving the priest-penitent privilege is, at present, fairly low.  The privilege is very narrow.  There is plentiful "awareness" about sexual abuse, such that victims and/or their family members are substantially more likely these days to report abuse to a bishop.  Such reports are not covered by the privilege, and in Utah would trigger a mandatory report to authorities.

Here is the relevant provision of the state statute: Utah Code Ann. sec. 62A-4a-403(2)-(3) (emphasis added):

Quote

(2) Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirements of Subsection (1) do not apply to a clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person making the confession, with regard to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in the professional character of the clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs, if:

(a) the confession was made directly to the clergyman or priest by the perpetrator; and

(b) the clergyman or priest is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.

(3)

(a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.

(b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.

We can always formulate a scenario which includes a parade of horribles culminating in an innocent being injured, and then use that hypothetical as a justification for utterly disregarding the rule of law, the rights of the penitent, and so on.

It's a dangerous game to play. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2017 by smac97

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can understand that.  This is where a broader perspective comes into play.  Society is better off when the legal system functions well.  The functioning of that system requires that attorneys be able to do their jobs.  Attorneys doing their jobs requires them to be able to get the whole story from their clients.  Getting the whole story from their clients only works if the clients know they can communicate without fear of the government using that communications against them.  Allowing such communications to occur is a vital aspect of preserving the clients' constitutional rights against self-incrimination, among others.  Protecting those constitutional rights therefore requires . . . an attorney-client privilege.

There is a similar syllogism in play for the priest-penitent privilege.

There are many, many ways in which a breach of the privilege can muck up the judicial/legal system.  "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is one of them.

Absolutely.  Generally speaking, I think society is better of when the worst of its citizenry have a confidential venue for divulging their wrongdoing, as this often (though not always) is part of the process of a guilt-ridden person in "repenting" (I use that term in both its sectarian and secular sense).  If we, in our desire to hound abusers from our midst, give them no quarter, if we essentially tell them "We are going to pass laws that make it impossible for you to divulge your wrongdoing to your priest, or anyone else, in fact we are going to make it a criminal offense for anyone to not turn you in," then we are forcing abusers further into darkness and secrecy.  Our society is not better off when that happens, as this secrecy will be far more likely to beget further abusive conduct.

"Victims" being merely "accusers" prior to adjudication.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is a very important concept in the law.  Those folks in this thread who would so easily toss it aside would certainly have second thoughts about that if they were falsely accused of horrendous conduct.

Let's keep in mind that in our society, even the allegation of sexual abuse is enough to ruin a person's life.  Utterly.  

The mob mentality being advocated in this thread is not a healthy thing.  "At all costs" is an extraordinarily dangerous phrase.  It excuses . . . well, pretty much everything.  It is a tempting gateway to anarchy and lawlessness.

I think the total number of instances where innocents are injured by preserving the priest-penitent privilege is, at present, fairly low.  The privilege is very narrow.  There is plentiful "awareness" about sexual abuse, such that victims and/or their family members are substantially more likely these days to report abuse to a bishop.  Such reports are not covered by the privilege, and in Utah would trigger a mandatory report to authorities.

Here is the relevant provision of the state statute: Utah Code Ann. sec. 62A-4a-403(2)-(3) (emphasis added):

We can always formulate a scenario which includes a parade of horribles culminating in an innocent being injured, and then use that hypothetical as a justification for utterly disregarding the rule of law, the rights of the penitent, and so on.

It's a dangerous game to play. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Here's what happened to me, granted in was 1994 and in Canada. Someone is authority in the Church molested me. I didn't even know what to do or think for about a month when I went to the Bishop, I was a teen at the time. He took what I said and told the perp's leader and then I had heard through the grapevine this person was removed from office and exed but I don't know for sure that was the case and that was it.I never told the police as a month had gone by and any evidence was gone, so how could I prove it beyond what I said? 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless we have more than the mother's statement on what the bishop told her, we don't actually know what he said and if it would have been enough for a mother with an ounce of caution in her head (I don't see much evidence the mother displayed either common sense or caution).

I will admit to a bias to doubt her credibility given to my relationship to a simian case where a father carelessly and callously exposed his children to danger (family exposure to porn and then putting them in the same room with teen boys) and then screamed at the preschoolers for being liars because he refused to accept and responsibility for the tragic situation.

The mother has an abundance of reasons, emotional, social, and financial to shift the blame to someone else.

It has been awhile since I studied this case, nothing I have read here (haven't done more than skim it) seems to indicate we had anything besides the mother's side of the story when it came to what was said by the bishop to her.

Imo, from what little we know of the man's interactions at church, I do think the Bishop should have been more proactive, but unless I am completely spacing he never told his side in court due to the settlement...which iirc was because the judge insisted the Church open its financial books prior to the case being tried and liability being found, which I believe was not standard law practices.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

There were many other children who were abused.  Even if this Mother was responsible for her son being abused, this man had confessed to abusing other children and had been excommunicated from the church because of his confessions.  He was re-baptized by the time the Mother and her son met him.  His case is just the one that received all of the publicity (because of the lawsuit) and seems to be the focus here.  However, there were many other children abused and he did admit to that abuse.  He was also convicted of child abuse and was in prison when he died.

In the trial, evidence was presented showing that he moved around and was given callings where he worked with the youth.  I think it could be that Bishops felt he had been forgiven and thought that his past shouldn't be revealed.  I think they believed this is how it should be handled.  In the end, it resulted with more boys being abused.

Years have changed how many deal with child abuse and I believe church leaders have learned and progressed too.

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[bsjkki]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Here's what happened to me, granted in was 1994 and in Canada. Someone is authority in the Church molested me. I didn't even know what to do or think for about a month when I went to the Bishop, I was a teen at the time. He took what I said and told the perp's leader and then I had heard through the grapevine this person was removed from office and exed but I don't know for sure that was the case and that was it.I never told the police as a month had gone by and any evidence was gone, so how could I prove it beyond what I said? 

I'm sorry that happened to you.  

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Was this actually documented (the bishop part) or claims that did not get scruntinized in court?

He was convicted of child abuse, I believe, and served time in prison.  He also was excommunicated for confessed child abuse.  The abuse of the boy who we are discussing was not an isolated case.  He abused many other young boys.

Wouldn't it be in his church record that he'd been excommunicate for child abuse?  I have to believe a new bishop would be aware of that and exercise extreme caution when considering him for a calling dealing with young men or allowing him to be in a home where a young boy was present. 

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I'm sorry that happened to you.  

It wasn't something I anticipated in life and sadly enough it happened before when I was a kid, not in the Church though!