Were you taught not to go to the police?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Unfortunately, I believe that many (maybe even most?) members of the church would go first to their Bishop. 

As I mentioned above, the results of a year-long consultation in the jurisdiction where I live included the fact that the overwhelming majority of abuse victims don't want a solution that involves the police or the courts. As a consequence, our government is actually trying to craft a response that keeps people safer whilst respecting these desires. You, on the other hand, seem to want to deny people any autonomy or choice in the matter. If a victim wants to counsel with a trusted clergy member, why does it distress you so much?

Edited April 6, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I mentioned above, the results of a year-long consultation in the jurisdiction where I live included the fact that the overwhelming majority of abuse victims don't want a solution that involves the police or the courts. In response, our government is actually trying to craft a response that keeps people safer whilst respecting these desires. You, on the other hand, seem to want to deny people any autonomy or choice in the matter. If a victim wants to counsel with a trusted clergy member, why does it distress you so much?

No "distress" here.  I'm just giving my observations regarding my experience over the years with members who have experienced abuse.  I have no issue with a member going to their Bishop for counsel and support.  However,  I do believe that the contacting of the proper authorities should be involved as well to prevent any further danger or abuse.  There's no reason both cannot take place, IMO.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do believe that the contacting of the proper authorities should be involved as well to prevent any further danger or abuse.  There's no reason both cannot take place, IMO.

No, there's no reason both cannot take place. But you seem to maintain your desire to dictate to victims how they'll handle their situations. As much as I dislike our government here, at least they're proceeding with the assumption that victims' desires should be respected. I'm not really seeing any of that in these discussions.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Yes, it's very frustrating. Just dealt with a sexual harassment situation in our choir and while some of us were anxious to kick the man out as soon as possible, others were saying it was a great place for him to learn boundaries. Most aggravating thing I have ever experienced. The women involved appealed it and now he's gone, but it took two months. The consequences should have been immediate and swift, but it just dragged it out for everyone involved and gave him false hope, which left me feeling terrified because of his violent online rants. I know the man's daughter and although she didn't know about the situation, she had expressed to me that he chooses not to learn and that in his 55+ years, he should know better by now. These well-meaning people believe for some reason that no one ever took him under their wing and explained what appropriate behavior is. He can't keep a job for a reason and I'm sure he has been told why. Close relatives including his parents have cut ties because of his behavior, yet people think no one ever told him how he was affecting others?  His daughter told him bluntly that she unfollowed him on Facebook and why, but rather than learn, he acted like a victim. He also knows his daughters hate his brother with a passion because he talks about their bodies. But he doesn't know he shouldn't talk about women's bodies or touch them?

In the end he was dismissed, but as I expected, a few people are mad at me and at least one never wants to speak to me again because I didn't handle it in a "Christlike" way. According to them.  In almost 5 years they only knew me as nice, agreeable, cooperative, etc., but then that man groped two of my friends and mama bear appeared. My 9-year-old daughter was also rehearsing in the building. He never paid attention to one of my friends until her daughters joined the children's chorus and then suddenly he was messaging her asking when he could come over and meet the whole family. I saw him hassling a 15-year-old girl on Facebook the same way he was with multiple women. "Did you get my private message? Did you check your inbox?"  Private messaging a minor!!! I spent 12 hours writing my appeal letter and told them keeping in the organization was a legal death wish. 

I know people have good intentions, but UGH!!! What in the heck. This should have been maybe a 3 day investigation tops with over a dozen women complaining and others expressing just a general creeped out feeling. Hundreds of hours of precious time were devoted to that guy. Hopefully he'll finally get help, but I still see him bothering one of my friends who is a public figure. She ignores his private messages and then he'll leave a comment, "Did you get my PM?"  She has literally ignored his messages for months and other women have flat out asked him to stop messaging them. He doesn't learn and his opportunities to bother women should be as limited as possible. Yes, people will still have to deal with him at church, but being in a choir is not a right. 

The two women who were groped both initially told themselves, "Uhhhh .... maybe it was an accident?" Because they're nice and want to believe the best about people and men like him choose nice victims. I would have called him out loudly and called the police, without consulting anyone because I wouldn't give them the opportunity to tell me that's not Christlike. Groping people isn't Christlike! 

Well, there it is. I can see giving a pass to a once-off minor perhaps accidental situation, but continued harassment, physical or verbal, when told "no!", nope, that's not cool. I'm even uncomfortable with the persistent huggers that have to give you a full body press when they say hello or goodbye....male or female.

But I'm a stuffy old Puritan. On the other hand, considering what's going on in the country, I think maybe the Puritans are winning.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, there's no reason both cannot take place. But you seem to maintain your desire to dictate to victims how they'll handle their situations. As much as I dislike our government here, at least they're proceeding with the assumption that victims' desires should be respected. I'm not really seeing any of that in these discussions.

I know some people who do not want to call police because that can result in some pretty drastic measures being taken. It can escalate beyond control. On the other hand, innocents must be protected from harm.

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I know some people who do not want to call police because that can result in some pretty drastic measures being taken. It can escalate beyond control. On the other hand, innocents must be protected from harm.

I know rape victims who don't want to call the police because of trauma and no evidence. No one should force them to knowing how dismal convictions are in he said/she said situations. 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Unfortunately, I believe that many (maybe even most?) members of the church would go first to their Bishop.

Why do you think that? 

I should clarify. Do you think they do that because they think that's the social norm taught by the Church or because they've made a rational/emotional decision that talking to the Bishop makes the most sense for them? It seems to me that we should keep those two things distinguished yet people are conflating them.

Edited April 7, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I mentioned above, the results of a year-long consultation in the jurisdiction where I live included the fact that the overwhelming majority of abuse victims don't want a solution that involves the police or the courts. As a consequence, our government is actually trying to craft a response that keeps people safer whilst respecting these desires. You, on the other hand, seem to want to deny people any autonomy or choice in the matter. If a victim wants to counsel with a trusted clergy member, why does it distress you so 

Edited April 7, 2018 by smac97

[Traela]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

This. 

And it was more about white collar crime type stuff, I think. But the underlying message was always try to work it out and forgive. There was little about restitution and it was a badge of honor to just walk away and take the hit. Twenty years ago when I had to sue for repayment of a loan, my bishop leaned over the table, stretching his arms out, with his palms up and told me with a straight face that "their lives are in your hands." Uh, no....my money, as a widow with a small child, was in their hands. I refused to talk to him again. It took me a year and a half of trying to "work it out" before I sued because of this kind of pressure. 

I don't think it is as prevalent now but we still get lesson after lesson about "forgiving" that does not take into account the practicalities of the victim's needs being met along with it. That is where I think the message still gets through even if it is not said directly.  

 

Even theologically, that's just wrong.  A bishop should be helping sinners repent.  That includes insisting on restitution.

 

[rpn]

Someone pointed out that the current for the strength of the youth pamphlet says

Quote

Victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent. If you have been a victim of abuse, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Talk to your parents or another trusted adult, and seek your bishop’s counsel immediately.

Maybe it should be changed to read:  "...adult (who may help you contact the police), and seek your bishop's counsel if you feel you need support, or immediately if it happened in church or involved a church leader in any way."

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Why do you think that? 

That's just what I have personally observed over the years. 

I'm encouraged by what you posted though.  I think it's important to get support from church leaders, but I also feel if there is repeated abuse of a child (or woman or man) who is living with someone who is being abusive to them, that authorities should be contacted as well (for their protection).

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, there's no reason both cannot take place. But you seem to maintain your desire to dictate to victims how they'll handle their situations. As much as I dislike our government here, at least they're proceeding with the assumption that victims' desires should be respected. I'm not really seeing any of that in these discussions.

I agree with that.  I believe each situation is sensitive and different.  As I've repeatedly stated here, I think that both are important to do (receive counsel from church leaders and involve the proper authorities when sexual abuse or other physical abuse is taking place within a home or from a church leader, teacher....etc.).  The protection of a child or the one being abused should be the first concern in every case though, IMO.

[Kenngo1969]

I can envision a scenario ... fortunately, it's not a very likely scenario, but I can envision such a scenario nonetheless; what can I say?  I have a very fertile mind!  ... in which a bishop or other church leader who counsels a member to not go to the police would be charged with obstruction of justice. I haven't known very many bishops who would relish such a prospect: "Ehhh, bring it on!!!"  

Edited April 7, 2018 by Kenngo1969