Bishops interview with minors

[Bob Crockett]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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

Don't take me as speaking officially for the church, because I don't.  But it is my understanding in California that law enforcement officers can no longer be called as confessor/clergymen for the very reason you mention. I did confirm my understanding the other day with high-ranking LAPD officer who is a member of my stake.

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours 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?

Downsides, I've been mentioning:

1.   Won't qualify as a confession under the laws of most states and the bishop will be subject to subpoena and the Church itself can be more easily implicated in the problem.

2.   Would break the confessional seal in other churches, as a doctrinal matter for them.

3.   Penitent not likely to be forthcoming for a number of reasons, such as, the parent is part of the problem.  In a few abuse cases I've handled for schools and churches, the parent is part of the problem -- as an abuser or enabler (i.e., knowing but turning a blind eye).  Many times the abuse allegations are false and the kid is in between two feuding divorcing parents.  I remember having a friend call me to tell me he was divorcing his wife.  I remarked off-hand that he should be prepared to be accused of some sort of child abuse in connection with the custody fight.  A few months later he called to say I was right. 

4.  Many times the bishop is the solace of last resort, when parents won't work.  I sure as dang tootin' would never have gone into a bishop with my mom to discuss stealing hubcaps and smoking weed, just as an example.  As a 16 year old I was glad to be in control of some of my destiny.

5.  School counselors and therapists would never agree to a restriction like that.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Downsides, I've been mentioning:

1.   Won't qualify as a confession under the laws of most states and the bishop will be subject to subpoena and the Church itself can be more easily implicated in the problem.

2.   Would break the confessional seal in other churches, as a doctrinal matter for them.

3.   Penitent not likely to be forthcoming for a number of reasons, such as, the parent is part of the problem.  In a few abuse cases I've handled for schools and churches, the parent is part of the problem -- as an abuser or enabler (i.e., knowing but turning a blind eye).  School counselors and therapists would never agree to a restriction like that.

Even if the 2nd person is another member of the bishopric?

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

I disagree.  The rule is that, in the case of say a serial rapist or murderer who is likely to continue, the cleric is free from any obligation to maintain confidentiality, and has the duty to reveal the continuing criminal activity to the police.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I disagree.  The rule is that, in the case of say a serial rapist or murderer who is likely to continue, the cleric is free from any obligation to maintain confidentiality, and has the duty to reveal the continuing criminal activity to the police.

Uhhh, you do realize Bob is an attorney who has had to defend these cases for the Church, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, you do realize Bob is an attorney who has had to defend these cases for the Church, right?

Yes, Bob is a prominent attorney in southern California, in the same county from which I am a retiree -- my having spent many years in the courts there.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, Bob is a prominent attorney in southern California, in the same county from which I am a retiree -- my having spent many years in the courts there.

Well, this should be interesting...

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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.  

Things have indeed improved.  Procedures have been put in place (especially for scouting) to prevent even the opportunity to engage in child abuse.  Training for bishoprics, scout leaders, and others has been refined and improved. However, there are still some lawsuits.  That seems unavoidable, no matter how well we prepare.  Humans always get in the way of perfection.

[Bob Crockett]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I disagree.  The rule is that, in the case of say a serial rapist or murderer who is likely to continue, the cleric is free from any obligation to maintain confidentiality, and has the duty to reveal the continuing criminal activity to the police.

Again.  Such would break the confessional seal in the Catholic church and lead to a priest's excommunication.  I guess you can say he's "free" in the sense the law doesn't really care, although I have lingering concerns about being sued for invasion of privacy.

As far as an LDS Bishop is concerned, he's "free" as well.

But neither has a duty to report, at least in California, and as such cannot be compelled to do so nor sued for failure to prevent a murder or abuse. 

Certainly, I know that if I were a criminal defense lawyer and a pedophile came in and confessed to ongoing incest with a child, I'd be disbarred if I went to the cops.  I won't speak to my personal experience as a bishop, as I would be breaking my "seal," but I certainly know that bishops receive confessions frequently of criminal behavior.  They have no duty to report.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[bsjkki]

52 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Don't take me as speaking officially for the church, because I don't.  But it is my understanding in California that law enforcement officers can no longer be called as confessor/clergymen for the very reason you mention. I did confirm my understanding the other day with high-ranking LAPD officer who is a member of my stake.

I know of a recently called Bishop who was immediately released when he won an election for District Attorney.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Downsides, I've been mentioning:

1.   Won't qualify as a confession under the laws of most states and the bishop will be subject to subpoena and the Church itself can be more easily implicated in the problem.

2.   Would break the confessional seal in other churches, as a doctrinal matter for them.

3.   Penitent not likely to be forthcoming for a number of reasons, such as, the parent is part of the problem.  In a few abuse cases I've handled for schools and churches, the parent is part of the problem -- as an abuser or enabler (i.e., knowing but turning a blind eye).  Many times the abuse allegations are false and the kid is in between two feuding divorcing parents.  I remember having a friend call me to tell me he was divorcing his wife.  I remarked off-hand that he should be prepared to be accused of some sort of child abuse in connection with the custody fight.  A few months later he called to say I was right. 

4.  Many times the bishop is the solace of last resort, when parents won't work.  I sure as dang tootin' would never have gone into a bishop with my mom to discuss stealing hubcaps and smoking weed, just as an example.  As a 16 year old I was glad to be in control of some of my destiny.

5.  School counselors and therapists would never agree to a restriction like that.

Honestly (1) and (2) are less of an issue that I can see. Do state laws actually limit confessions to one on one situations? I can see lawyers raising issues though. I'd want to see the pluses and minuses made a bit more explicit. But I'll confess the legal confessor role seems to have less theological value in Mormonism than say Catholicism. Not getting into legal entanglements might be an issue, but I wonder how much of a practical issue that is.

(3) does seem like a problem I thought of. I can see lots of people feeling less willing to speak about things when there are multiple people present - especially if one is a parent. Still for younger teens - say 12-15 - I can see having a councilor present as a good middle ground.

(5) ultimately doesn't matter, although truthfully I think having pairs in school environments would be a net positive. I think the reason it's not done is primarily for financial reasons. Most schools are chronically underfunded and understaffed as is.

42 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Certainly, I know that if I were a criminal defense lawyer and a pedophile came in and confessed to ongoing incest with a child, I'd be disbarred if I went to the cops. 

Why if you weren't acting in the role of an attorney? That seems weird. (Not saying it's not true, just that it seems like an odd thing for a state bar to require)

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Things have indeed improved.  Procedures have been put in place (especially for scouting) to prevent even the opportunity to engage in child abuse.  Training for bishoprics, scout leaders, and others has been refined and improved. However, there are still some lawsuits.  That seems unavoidable, no matter how well we prepare.  Humans always get in the way of perfection.

I agree. I think every year we see improvements. Clearly the brethren care about these issues. But even critics who think the worst of us ought recognize that legal liability will incentivize change. That said, I think it wise to continue to think about such issues and see where we can improve.

Honestly though legal requirements rather than common sense often determine what happens. What's legally required isn't always what makes sense sadly.

 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, 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.

I have a recollection that the church successfully argued in court that they have no duty to report.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I have a recollection that the church successfully argued in court that they have no duty to report.

If so, I stand corrected.  Bob Crockett seems to be saying the same thing, but I would like to see case law on that.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Again.  Such would break the confessional seal in the Catholic church and lead to a priest's excommunication.  I guess you can say he's "free" in the sense the law doesn't really care, although I have lingering concerns about being sued for invasion of privacy.

As far as an LDS Bishop is concerned, he's "free" as well.

But neither has a duty to report, at least in California, and as such cannot be compelled to do so nor sued for failure to prevent a murder or abuse. 

Certainly, I know that if I were a criminal defense lawyer and a pedophile came in and confessed to ongoing incest with a child, I'd be disbarred if I went to the cops.  I won't speak to my personal experience as a bishop, as I would be breaking my "seal," but I certainly know that bishops receive confessions frequently of criminal behavior.  They have no duty to report.

So there is no positive duty to inform authorities of a planned or forthcoming crime?  I have not been referring to already committed offenses.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even when there is a continuing threat or conspiracy?

I don’t know the answer to that.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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

When I served as a bishop, I learned of an abusive situation in my ward. I was also a school teacher and the child was a student in one of my schools. I was required by law to report abuse as a teacher, but not as a bishop. It came down to how I learned of the abuse, which was through a bishop’s interview and not in my role as a teacher, so I was instructed by my SP, who was a prominent lawyer, not to report it but to encourage the person to confess to authorities. Granted, this was several decades ago and laws and expectations have changed, but it was a dilemma.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Don't take me as speaking officially for the church, because I don't.  But it is my understanding in California that law enforcement officers can no longer be called as confessor/clergymen for the very reason you mention. I did confirm my understanding the other day with high-ranking LAPD officer who is a member of my stake.

Would that also apply to school teachers?

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would that also apply to school teachers?

No.  Cops take some sort of oath. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, ttribe said:

Even if the 2nd person is another member of the bishopric?

Counselors in the bishopric do not have the same ecclesiastical mantle of authority as the bishop. It has only been in recent years that they have been authorized to give temple recommend interviews, and even now, when a person begins to confess wrongdoing, the counselor is obliged to terminate the interview immediately and refer the individual to the bishop. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Counselors in the bishopric do not have the same ecclesiastical mantle of authority as the bishop. It has only been in recent years that they have been authorized to give temple recommend interviews, and even now, when a person begins to confess wrongdoing, the counselor is obliged to terminate the interview immediately and refer the individual to the bishop. 

Don't bishops' counselors do these interviews without the bishop? We have at least two counselors participating in this thread who have conducted such interviews, and one has acknowledged that he provides every opportunity for youth to confess wrongdoing. Am I missing something?

[Gray]

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/15/sexual-abuse-survivors-group-of-spotlight-fame-calls-on-mormon-church-to-change-interview-system/

 

Quote

The prominent support group that helped expose widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests is calling on the LDS Church to discontinue its practice of male bishops interviewing young Mormons behind closed doors.

Such conversations — sometimes about intimate sexual matters — are “a recipe for abuse,” said Joelle Casteix, the Western regional leader for SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “They should be stopped.”

Considered the oldest and largest support group for victims of sexual abuse in institutional settings, SNAP’s efforts were featured in the Oscar-winning film “Spotlight.”

Predators thrive “in a system like the LDS Church has,” Casteix, an abuse-prevention expert and a survivor herself, said Thursday in an interview. “This is not a safe environment for children.”

No other “reputable institutional church, private or public school, sports group, youth-serving organization, or community center allows one-on-one meetings between adults and children,” she said in a news release. “Why is the LDS Church endorsing this horrible practice?”

SNAP was responding to the question of whether it is appropriate, especially amid today’s torrent of revelations about sexual harassment and misconduct, for Mormon bishops, who are always male, to interview children privately.

Some wonder whether the approach itself — even at its most benign — might be a form of harassment.

“When I heard about [the Mormon practice],” Casteix said, “I was shocked.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to comment Thursday on SNAP’s plea. But earlier this week it said these “personal interviews are an important part of ministering to those in a congregation.”

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Don't bishops' counselors do these interviews without the bishop? We have at least two counselors participating in this thread who have conducted such interviews, and one has acknowledged that he provides every opportunity for youth to confess wrongdoing. Am I missing something?

My understanding (and it has been years since I heard it) is that they may conduct the interview so long as the person can affirm his/her own worthiness, but the moment it is clear he/she can’t, the counselor must turn the individual over to the bishop. 

I may be wrong (I’ve not been in a bishopric) but my understanding is counselors are not to hear confession of moral transgression. 

[rchorse]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My understanding (and it has been years since I heard it) is that they may conduct the interview so long as the person can affirm his/her own worthiness, but the moment it is clear he/she can’t, the counselor must turn the individual over to the bishop. 

I may be wrong (I’ve not been in a bishopric) but my understanding is counselors are not to hear confession of moral transgression. 

This is correct. Once things turn toward confession, counselors are supposed to end the interview and refer the individual to the bishop. Per the handbook "Only the bishop resolves concerns about chastity and associated moral matters in these interviews. If a counselor encounters serious matters, such as transgressions that require confession, he refers the member to the bishop without delay."

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My understanding (and it has been years since I heard it) is that they may conduct the interview so long as the person can affirm his/her own worthiness, but the moment it is clear he/she can’t, the counselor must turn the individual over to the bishop. 

I may be wrong (I’ve not been in a bishopric) but my understanding is counselors are not to hear confession of moral transgression. 

Interesting. If you're correct, these intrusive interviews may be even more out of bounds than I thought. Either way, I'm glad I set some boundaries with my children. 

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So there is no positive duty to inform authorities of a planned or forthcoming crime?  I have not been referring to already committed offenses.

No.   The question could be reframed as:  Can a bishop be arrested criminally or sued civilly for failure to report a threatened crime?  No.  Normal people don't have that duty.   The exception is when a bishop learns of a child abuse in a non-confessional setting and then, yes, he can be arrested and sued for failure. 

As I mentioned, Rex Lee prevailed in the California Supreme Court for a local megachurch here.  A church counselor was asked by a young man threatening suicide:  "Once saved, always saved.  Does that apply to suicides?"  The pastor said:  "Yes."   The guy then went out and killed himself and the church was sued.

Same rule applies to psychotherapists, although if a therapist goes out and warns a potential victim he or she is immunized from claims of breach of ethics.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bob Crockett