Bishops interview with minors

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seriously?  How deep is that hole into which you've buried your head.  There are DOCUMENTED occurrences linked in this very thread.

I think the issue is the number of cases as a problem. It's certainly not hard to find bad Bishops. The question is more what the numbers are and what the scale of the problem is.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is the number of cases as a problem. It's certainly not hard to find bad Bishops. The question is more what the numbers are and what the scale of the problem is.

I'll repeat myself - One is too many.  You can be damn sure that for the parents of that one child, the numbers game is grossly offensive and cruel.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ttribe

[Hestia]

We're starting to get reports of posters using insulting language.  Be respectful or the thread will be locked.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Eveline said:

I think bisshops really need to stop asking anything intimate to children. Anything sexual is my job as parent and not the Church. Church needs to stear well Clear away from intergering with the sexual life of me or my children.

I love this.. thank you.  Welcome Eveline.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'll repeat myself - One is too many.  You can be damn sure that for the parents of that one child, the numbers game is grossly offensive and cruel.

I certainly agree. But the "numbers game" is something you always have to do when figuring tradeoffs with organizations. That's just the reality. By the same token one case of abuse with a teacher is too many, but I don't think a solution of only having home schooling would be wise.

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I certainly agree. But the "numbers game" is something you always have to do when figuring tradeoffs with organizations. That's just the reality. By the same token one case of abuse with a teacher is too many, but I don't think a solution of only having home schooling would be wise.

I think the numbers should not only include those physically abused by Bishops ( the most extreme case of abuse) but also those who felt Bishops questions went too far or whose Bishops caused harm (example..made them want to kill themselves.) But as Calm and I discussed...there are no statistics, only anecdotes because nobody is asking or tracking this information. I can anecdotally tell you, that kind, loving Bishops who come across like they are there to help not punish...get a lot better results. It only takes one bad experience to realize  the system is flawed and that as a parent, trusting a Bishop to not cause harm to your child, is a gamble not worth taking. 

[ttribe]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I certainly agree. But the "numbers game" is something you always have to do when figuring tradeoffs with organizations. That's just the reality. By the same token one case of abuse with a teacher is too many, but I don't think a solution of only having home schooling would be wise.

I get that.  But, truly, what is the real downside risk to having a second person in the room for all of these interviews?

[RevTestament]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The problem is that many Bishops take pity on the abuser and try to work with him rather than report him.  I have personally seen this happen several times and all have been disastrous.  The child was left in the home, the Father is called in and confesses, cries and promises never to do it again.  The Bishop does not want to take the child away from the home (and Mother, etc.) or cause the family embarrassment (or whatever the reasons), he believes the Father (or other abuser) and tries to help him through the repentance process without notifying the authorities.  In every case I have known of like this, the abuser continues to abuse.  In one case it eventually came out that this man had abused older children and some even outside of their family.

There has to be a more strict enforcement from the leaders of the church instructing local leaders to immediately report the abuse (or even suspected abuse) and remove the child from danger.  Leaders need to stop caring so much about the abuser (even though many times the Bishop is personally acquainted with him and of course should still care about him) and put the child or youth first.

I am going to stick my foot in this door. 

I see some on this forum almost take the position that they don't want the bishop talking to their child about sex at all. However, in order to be prepared for temple covenants, both adults and children must be worthy and clean. Some have pointed out that the bishop may be a child's opportunity to escape abuse. I am sure this has happened. If abuse is not visible, teachers at school are not free to pursue such issues. I am sure that there have been many times when the first real opportunity for a child to get help was with a bishop. Obviously, bishops are usually not trained therapists, but we lose the chance to get the child help with a therapist if the subject is never broached. By the same token I have had concerns about these interviews with reports of some children committing suicide because of masturbation habits after the subject became an issue. I do not quite see eye-to-eye with the Church on this topic. Having three sons I have addressed the issue, and pitfalls of pornography and most everything about sex I could think of. Personally, I accept scripture on the topic of sin, and believe that pre-marital sex is sinful. So, although I have broached this subject with my children, I do not mind if the bishop brings it up. If they are committing sin in that regard, I hope the bishop could help them. I also told them if they got troubled about it that I was there to talk to. 

The Church may still have areas it needs to improve speaking from second-hand experience in a local ward where I grew up. There was an issue about sexual abuse in this ward, and a calling extended to a man whom a woman strongly suspected of abuse. She objected to the man's calling, and rather than being heard, was later silenced with the statement implying the infallibility of priesthood leaders and callings. Where a calling is objected to, I believe the person should be heard whether by a stake leader or perhaps in an evidentiary manner with the high council. In other words if the reason for the vote abstinence is of a sexual nature, I believe the person should be able to appeal to a body of the Church empowered to hear evidence, since sexual sins are usually the most relevant in the Church today, and would serve to disqualify a leader from his or her calling. This would better ensure that bishops are not those prone to any kind of abuse, and should help to relieve the concerns of parents, and addresses your concern, Alarson, that abusers are not molly-coddled - even if they are bishops. Obviously, however, if parents are waiting out in the hall or whatever, there is really no realistic chance of untoward abuses by a bishop imho. It is much more likely that a concerned abuser(ie abusive father) is the one waiting out in the hall hoping not to get discovered. However, often abuse cases involve other members of a family - older brothers, cousins, nephews, uncles, etc, and the bishop interview stands a fair chance of being the first to uncover it, and get the child help. If the parent is really that concerned about this process, I thoroughly encourage them to wait for their child while he or she is being interviewed, and if they don't want an area like masturbation broached to advise their child to have the bishop talk with them. This is probably the best way to resolve the concerns of all involved. If the Church finds something better, I strongly encourage them to pursue it.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I get that.  But, truly, what is the real downside risk to having a second person in the room for all of these interviews?

If it's an other member of the Bishopric, there's really not much of one and I'd advocate that. However I think the standard solution many are pushing is either not having the interviews or having a parent in the room. Both of those seem problematic.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am going to stick my foot in this door. 

I see some on this forum almost take the position that they don't want the bishop talking to their child about sex at all. However, in order to be prepared for temple covenants, both adults and children must be worthy and clean. Some have pointed out that the bishop may be a child's opportunity to escape abuse. I am sure this has happened. If abuse is not visible, teachers at school are not free to pursue such issues. I am sure that there have been many times when the first real opportunity for a child to get help was with a bishop. Obviously, bishops are usually not trained therapists, but we lose the chance to get the child help with a therapist if the subject is never broached. By the same token I have had concerns about these interviews with reports of some children committing suicide because of masturbation habits after the subject became an issue. I do not quite see eye-to-eye with the Church on this topic. Having three sons I have addressed the issue, and pitfalls of pornography and most everything about sex I could think of. Personally, I accept scripture on the topic of sin, and believe that pre-marital sex is sinful. So, although I have broached this subject with my children, I do not mind if the bishop brings it up. If they are committing sin in that regard, I hope the bishop could help them. I also told them if they got troubled about it that I was there to talk to. 

Thanks for your thoughts, I'll respond this way and want to talk about the idea of youth interviews and their appropriateness, and set the abuse conversation to the side for my comments.  A couple thoughts:

1.  Why assume that regular interviews with minors actually helps them to avoid sexual behaviors that the church wants to discourage?  We really have no data to support that these interviews are helping curb actual behavior.  The data might show the exact opposite.  I know of therapists that talk about shame cycles and how strong taboos can actually reinforce shame and exacerbate certain behaviors. 

2.  As a concerned parent, I don't like the idea of someone else who may have very different perspectives than I do about this topic of sexual behavior, to be teaching my children ideas that might differ form mine in significant ways.  I personally don't think its appropriate with the difference in power dynamics for an adult leader to be behind closed doors with a minor discussing anything of a sexual nature with my child.  I'm concerned first and foremost about my child, and secondarily about the protection of the leader from a legal perspective.  The church already acknowledges the risks of having people in one on one situations with children as it has policies to avoid this in scouting, in primary and for missionaries.  Exempting bishops and other leaders from this rule is inconsistent and shows that the church believes there is something so important at play that it outweighs the risk.  I just don't accept this argument that the value is greater than the risk for the leader.  So on both cases from a child protection perspective and a leader protection perspective, this fails the test for me.  

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by hope_for_things

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If it's an other member of the Bishopric, there's really not much of one and I'd advocate that. However I think the standard solution many are pushing is either not having the interviews or having a parent in the room. Both of those seem problematic.

And, I get that as well.  However, it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that there is room for improvement and an easy first-step solution (2 people in the room) and yet the Church (and many of its defenders in this thread) just doubled-down on the status quo.  That's what I don't get.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'll repeat myself - One is too many.  You can be damn sure that for the parents of that one child, the numbers game is grossly offensive and cruel.

The importance of stats is there may be some attributes of the system that benefit a large majority of the participants while causing problems for a few.  And if the wrong stuff gets changed more get harmed, not helped.  Unfortunately the system isn't great at telling us where it worked as where as where it went wrong.  And given the confidentiality of the interviews .I am not sure if it can be determined, but anonymous surveys among membership asking about past experiences and what they felt worked and didn't might help.

[Calm]

Outside my daughter's therapist there is a white noisemaker to ensure no one can overhear the conversation.  I don't think it would be a bad idea to have the door open, but with music or white noise ensuring privacy until voices are slightly raised.  

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Incorrect.  With the exception of Texas (maybe more, but I don't know today) all states keep the priest-penitential relationship privileged.  No duty to report.  It stems from canonical law.  A mortal sin to breach the confessional seal.

Pastors usually are mandated reporters, but not from the confessional. Thus, if a parent seeks counsel with a bishop and says that her son might have been molested by another church member, or even a stranger, the Bishop must report.   Pastors get into trouble when they don't believe the story (as in, it is the report of a bitter ex-wife) and they don't report.

You are correct, Bob.  However, I was correct to say that "if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat."  In other words, a continuing criminal conspiracy or threat negates the confessional.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Apparently in this case the authorities were not contacted and the abuse was allowed to go on. http://kutv.com/news/local/several-virginia-families-suing-lds-church-over-alleged-cover-up-of-child-sexual-abuse

Yes, the local church leadership must show due diligence.  The Church has been sued successfully many times on that basis.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps it has already been mentioned that the Church has a hotline for bishops to call for legal advice. In my state, clergy are not required by law to report.

Even when there is a continuing threat or conspiracy?

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, the local church leadership must show due diligence.  The Church has been sued successfully many times on that basis.

Serious question here (not a gotcha): Does it appear that things have gotten better?

The reason I ask is that it seems like the news stories about unreported abuse or ecclesiastical abuse are decades old. 

I have asked the hotline before what repercussions or consequences there could be if I reported something that they told me I didn't have to/shouldn't report. There have been times I wanted to report things, but was instructed not to. One of these was discussed (very vaguely and obliquely) in thread I had started here, where I wondered if I could have been released or disciplined by the Church for breaking the confessional due to conscience (i.e., perpetrator didn't want to report or confess to anything to the authorities, but needed to face consequences). I've never gotten a real answer to that. I don't think anything like that would happen, but I don't think the Church wants leaders not following hotline counsel, either. This didn't happen directly to me (the victims were in my ward, and the abuse preceded my time there), but if I had been the one he confessed to, I would have demanded that he turn himself in, or I would. 

I do know from hotline conversations that being sued for not showing due diligence is a primary concern with the Church's attorneys --- and this varies in different states and even counties. 

My sense is that the bishops currently in place right now do a good job of not hiding abuse, protecting people, and properly reporting.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

And, I get that as well.  However, it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that there is room for improvement and an easy first-step solution (2 people in the room) and yet the Church (and many of its defenders in this thread) just doubled-down on the status quo.  That's what I don't get.

I think there's always room for improvement and the church seems to have been constantly trying to make things better. I think assuming the church is doubling down on status quo is lacking in evidence. Until new policies are announced what can the spokespeople say other than what the current policy is? Yet those policies have been changing to improve things over the past decade or so. I have faith they'll continue to do so. However they'd be irresponsible to change policy because KUED had one show that week and some activists advocated stopping sexual worthiness questions. I have my own views, but I'd certainly want to examine things for what the actual benefits are along with unanticipated negative consequences before implementing them.

As for others I can only speak for myself. It seems a reasonable concern, even if some of the rhetoric against worthiness questions seems overstated.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are correct, Bob.  However, I was correct to say that "if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat."  In other words, a continuing criminal conspiracy or threat negates the confessional.

I disagree with that, as well.  It is not true as you state it.  Rex Lee took a case to the California Supreme Court holding there was no duty for a church cleric to take action with a suicide threat.  

Doctors and psychotherapists in some states have a duty to take action when violence against others or suicide is threatened during a counseling session, but that rule does not apply to priests or lawyers.   Like I say, under Catholic dogma it is a mortal sin to break the confessional seal and a priest would be excommunicated for it.

If a Mormon Bishop breached his duty of confidentiality and went to law enforcement, it would be a breach.   Just like lawyers can report clients to the cops.  But the lawyer would be subject to disbarment.   A Mormon bishop could be exposed to civil liability for breach of privacy. 

I think that in the case of a Mormon Bishop receiving a confession from a 16 year old that he is having incest with his 10 year old sister, there would be practical means to address this.  It is done all the time for analogous situations. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ttribe]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's always room for improvement and the church seems to have been constantly trying to make things better. I think assuming the church is doubling down on status quo is lacking in evidence. Until new policies are announced what can the spokespeople say other than what the current policy is? Yet those policies have been changing to improve things over the past decade or so. I have faith they'll continue to do so. However they'd be irresponsible to change policy because KUED had one show that week and some activists advocated stopping sexual worthiness questions. I have my own views, but I'd certainly want to examine things for what the actual benefits are along with unanticipated negative consequences before implementing them.

As for others I can only speak for myself. It seems a reasonable concern, even if some of the rhetoric against worthiness questions seems overstated.

I hear what you are saying, but nowhere in the Church's official pronouncement is any indication that this policy is even considered for any kind of review (although, I could have missed it).  I just don't see any evidence that there is any consideration of the issues at hand.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

I hear what you are saying, but nowhere in the Church's official pronouncement is any indication that this policy is even considered for any kind of review (although, I could have missed it).  I just don't see any evidence that there is any consideration of the issues at hand.

Not only that, but I think the new missionary interview questions rather indicate the opposite to detente or glasnost on the subject of eliminating worthiness interviews. 

[RevTestament]

44 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think that in the case of a Mormon Bishop receiving a confession from a 16 year old that he is having incest with his 10 year old sister, there would be practical means to address this.  It is done all the time for analogous situations. 

If I understand the law correctly, he could interview the sister and if she reports abuse, he is then required to report it in about 26 states. But, I think you are right about the confession of a penitent perhaps unless he is confessing a planned crime or abuse.

here is a summary from http://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/cultcomp/clergy mandated reporters.pdf

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I hear what you are saying, but nowhere in the Church's official pronouncement is any indication that this policy is even considered for any kind of review (although, I could have missed it).  I just don't see any evidence that there is any consideration of the issues at hand.

They'd be foolish to announce anything until they make changes.

My point is just that it seems clear the Church is concerned about issues of abuse and related themes. Our church building recently had all the doors modified to have clear windows in them so parents can check in on lessons.

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not only that, but I think the new missionary interview questions rather indicate the opposite to detente or glasnost on the subject of eliminating worthiness interviews. 

Well I think eliminating worthiness interviews is a non-starter. I'd advise them against that if someone asked me. I think they have a duty to do that. The question is how to do it as best as possible.

Edited December 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I disagree with that, as well.  It is not true as you state it.  Rex Lee took a case to the California Supreme Court holding there was no duty for a church cleric to take action with a suicide threat.  

Doctors and psychotherapists in some states have a duty to take action when violence against others or suicide is threatened during a counseling session, but that rule does not apply to priests or lawyers.   Like I say, under Catholic dogma it is a mortal sin to break the confessional seal and a priest would be excommunicated for it.

If a Mormon Bishop breached his duty of confidentiality and went to law enforcement, it would be a breach.   Just like lawyers can report clients to the cops.  But the lawyer would be subject to disbarment.   A Mormon bishop could be exposed to civil liability for breach of privacy. 

I think that in the case of a Mormon Bishop receiving a confession from a 16 year old that he is having incest with his 10 year old sister, there would be practical means to address this.  It is done all the time for analogous situations. 

Bob,

Sort of a side question here.

We have a unique situation sometimes for leadership since we have lay clergy.

What are the requirements for someone who is in law enforcement who is also a bishop or a counselor. Aren't law enforcement  personnel required to take action? And, if so, which takes precedence,  their duties as a bishop or those of their jobs?

 

Thanks

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They'd be foolish to announce anything until they make changes.

My point is just that it seems clear the Church is concerned about issues of abuse and related themes. Our church building recently had all the doors modified to have clear windows in them so parents can check in on lessons.

I agree, our buildings have had that for several years now.