Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Bishops should NEVER EVER report or be legally required to report what they are told by a perp in confessional.   The only thing that (and forcing counselors to report confessions by their clients) does is to prevent any perp who seeks help from any and all opportunities to get it. 

 

If someone confesses to bishop that they are about to kill someone, should bishop not be required report? 

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I see your point, but I'm not sure that applies here.  It was very clearly stated (and in the other quote as well).

I do know this is complicated, but maybe they should have been more clear if their policy is not to always report abuse "if they learn of it"..... if they are not going to do that.  (Just my opinion.)

As stated (both times), there's not much wiggle room and pretty specific.

After reading the quotes, I agree.

Why make a statement that you are going to do something, if you’re sometimes not going to do it?  Or at least make certain members know there are reasons they sometimes don’t (or can’t) report abuse when they learn about it.  The way it’s stated, is about as definite as it can be (that when they learn of abuse, they will report it and bishops will too).

I hope laws change for all states on this.  Protecting children (or any abuse victim) should always trump protecting the identity of the perpetrator.   

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[Danzo]

One thing people here should remember, turning the problem over to the state doesn't always fix the problems, sometime it can make things worse

The state often doesn't do a very good job in helping people with abuse,  the Foster care system is full of examples actually increasing abuse.

here is a recent new story that illustrates some of the problems with the State dealing with children.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/03/lawyer-oregon-child-welfare-workers-had-sex-in-presence-of-foster-child.html

 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If someone confesses to bishop that they are about to kill someone, should bishop not be required report? 

you are confusing confession of past behavior with planing future behavior.  One is usually protected, the other usually isn't.

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think many people here understand the scope of  privilege. 

Privilege applies to communications regarding past behavior.

 

If i tell my attorney I killed someone, the information is privileged.

If I tell my attorney I am going  to kill someone, then the information is not privileged and the attorney has an obligation to report.

The same should apply to a priest penitent confession. If person confesses to a past misdeed, it would be protected. If a person confesses to something is ongoing, or something that is going to happen, then the clergy member should report to authorities. 

Remember that Privilege belongs to the person confessing, not to the priest (or attorney, or spouse)

Having the Clergy report the occurrence  could actually hurt the case (the person accused can assert the privilege and prevent the clergy member from testifying).

 

 

So if uncle Chester in my ward hurt me and is now running a day care, Bushop can and should report. 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

After reading the quotes, I agree.

Why make a statement that you are going to do something, if you’re sometimes not going to do it?  Or at least make certain members know there are reasons they sometimes don’t (or can’t) report abuse when they learn about it.  The way it’s stated, is about as definite as it can be (that when they learn of abuse, they will report it and bishops will too).

because that is not how the real world works.  Different circumstances require different responses, 

Even if you wrote a book on the subject, there will still be exceptions,  interpretations and varying degrees of compliance. 

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you are confusing confession of past behavior with planing future behavior.  One is usually protected, the other usually isn't.

I’m clear, yes.  I was wondering if Rpn was. 

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I would change the Church's statements.

But then you seem to believe they aren’t accurate as stated.  Would you add that sometimes leaders don’t or cannot report abuse when they learn of it?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

One thing people here should remember, turning the problem over to the state doesn't always fix the problems, sometime it can make things worse

The state often doesn't do a very good job in helping people with abuse,  the Foster care system is full of examples actually increasing abuse.

here is a recent new story that illustrates some of the problems with the State dealing with children.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/03/lawyer-oregon-child-welfare-workers-had-sex-in-presence-of-foster-child.html

 

Yes, there was actually a finding that staying in one state that staying with their abusive parents was better for their future mental and emotional health then being in the foster system. It is hard. Foster care providers shoulder a heavy load. Many of these kids are DIFFICULT to take care of and the most difficult ones shuffle between homes and care facilities and do not get the stability they need.

This has changed a bit since then. The federal government clamped down on extended stays in foster care where the children are trapped in limbo without terminating parental rights or sending the kids home for years. The standard now is one year to either reunify the family, grant custody to other extended family or fictive kin, or make the child available for adoption. Extensions are occasionally granted but rarely for more then 18 months total.

Edited July 25, 2019 by The Nehor

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

because that is not how the real world works.  Different circumstances require different responses, 

Then just be honest about that with the policy and statements from the leaders. I think most all would understand that their hands are tied (legally) at times.

But I believe that should change.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

So if uncle Chester in my ward hurt me and is now running a day care, Bushop can and should report. 

I don't think a decision can be made based on your statement alone.

If uncle Chester confessed to hurting you in the past, the bishop should't be required to report it (the bishop usually strongly encourages reporting to the authorities) . If it is ongoing abuse, he should be required to report it.

If You reported to your bishop what Uncle Chester did, then the bishop might have to report it whether in the past or not,.

However you might decide not to report it if you know that reporting something to the bishop means reporting it to the police.  The policy would then have the effect of deterring you from seeking help which could prevent future hurt and healing. 

There isn't a magic cure for this problem.  Every situation is different.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the handbook isn't supposed to merely carry "a tone" about "reporting child abuse."  Hence the Bishops' Helpline.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, it serves as both a source of spirit and letter: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

I say "tone" because in light of the privilege laws discussed in the thread, a purely technical read might lead one to overlook what it means to report child abuse, the conditions under which it is reported, and in behalf or stoppage of whom.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then just be honest about that with the policy and statements from the leaders. I think most all would understand that their hands are tied (legally) at times.

But I believe that should change.

Of course you do.  The thousand-odd year fight to obtain and preserve rights for mere citizens/subjects/individual humans in the Common Law countries is of no particular interest, n'est-ce pas?  And the actual cooperation, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, with law enforcement so that the Church does not unwittingly tank prosecutions because of a failure to honor individuals'/subjects'/citizens' rights is of no particular interest. 

The only interest is Monday-morning quarterbacking because, dang it, Mormons bad. 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of course you do.  The thousand-odd year fight to obtain and preserve rights for mere citizens/subjects/individual humans in the Common Law countries is of no particular interest, n'est-ce pas?  And the actual cooperation, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, with law enforcement so that the Church does not unwittingly tank prosecutions because of a failure to honor individuals'/subjects'/citizens' rights is of no particular interest. 

The only interest is Monday-morning quarterbacking because, dang it, Mormons bad. 

🤪

No.  

I would like to see the same laws applied to church leaders as for therapists, school officials and so on.  I believe a victim or potential victim’s safety and protection should always come before protecting anyone who is harming, abusing or breaking the law to do so.  

I think that’s already the case in some states.  Also some here seem to believe the handbook already allows this for our leaders.  That’s great, if true.  Abuse should be reported.   That’s actually the best thing most times for the abuser to get help and stop hurting others too.

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[MustardSeed]

44 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think a decision can be made based on your statement alone.

If uncle Chester confessed to hurting you in the past, the bishop should't be required to report it (the bishop usually strongly encourages reporting to the authorities) . If it is ongoing abuse, he should be required to report it.

If You reported to your bishop what Uncle Chester did, then the bishop might have to report it whether in the past or not,.

However you might decide not to report it if you know that reporting something to the bishop means reporting it to the police.  The policy would then have the effect of deterring you from seeking help which could prevent future hurt and healing. 

There isn't a magic cure for this problem.  Every situation is different.

Indeed.  But gentle rpn stated emphatically “never ever”. 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

However you might decide not to report it if you know that reporting something to the bishop means reporting it to the police.  The policy would then have the effect of deterring you from seeking help which could prevent future hurt and healing. 

I’m sure this happens all the time, knowing that so many social service providers are mandated reporters

sorry, the quote comes from Danzo

Edited July 25, 2019 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But then you seem to believe they aren’t accurate as stated.  

I believe that generalized press releases are not inaccurate because they omit nuances and complexities.

58 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Would you add that sometimes leaders don’t or cannot report abuse when they learn of it?

To a press release?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

🤪

No.  

I would like to see the same laws applied to church leaders as for therapists, school officials and so on.  I believe a victim or potential victim’s safety and protection should always come before protecting anyone who is harming, abusing or breaking the law to do so.  

I think that’s already the case in some states.  Also some here seem to believe the handbook already allows this for our leaders.  That’s great, if true.  Abuse should be reported.   That’s actually the best thing most times for the abuser to get help and stop hurting others too.

Students have never enjoyed any sort of privilege for their communications with teachers, administrators, and other employees.  Therapists is an open question, depending.  Why are you dumping them in the same pot?  The attorney/client, doctor/patient and other privileges arose out of the priest/penitent privilege as states recognized that there are other kinds of communications that ought to have the same protection from state snooping.

I know you don't care.  Your posts make it clear.  But the privilege is, as smac (as I recall) has pointed out, partially enthroned in free exercise of religion.  The privilege keeps the state from being able to deputize priests for law enforcement purposes.  I don't want my stake president to be an arm of law enforcement.  Neither do you, if you thought about it.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I know you don't care.  Your posts make it clear. 

That’s not true.  I very much value this privilege. 

I just believe there should be exceptions allowed for when leaders learn of ongoing abuse or if any other harm may be inflicted on others if it’s not reported (especially if children are being abused or are in the care of an abuser).   Then the abuser has lost the right to that privilege, imo.   I believe that the protection of the abused comes above that right then.

But that does not mean the entire privilege should be thrown out or that I don’t care about it.

[Storm Rider]

I think our clergy should observe the laws of the land at all times. I also think that the priest/penitent exceptions are vital in repentance for each and every remember regardless of the sin. 

When a member confesses to ongoing sin, I am pretty confident that leaders attempt to intervene as much as possible. Does the caliber of the sin change when there are children involved?  I think so and I think part of the process of repentance is involving trained counselors, parents, and spouses in the process. 

If the penitent finds involving those individuals in the process, I am not sure what can be done except continued, ongoing counseling about the gravity of the sin and the necessity of involving others in the process in order to stop sinning and return to a path of righteousness.

When children are involved, I think leaders need to obviously do all they can to remove that individual from situations where children will be susceptible to their actions. 

There are few thing that would be more spiritually taxing, more demanding of physical time and effort than this situation with sexual abusers of children. The Savior talked about eunuchs in a rather casual manner. Our society is so committed to sexual gratification that we don't even conceive that one such as this is worthy of removing that which offends them and destroys others. I find this strange when at least some of these problems could be handled quickly and easily. A sexual abuser does not abuse once, nor does he stop abusing. He will be an abuser for life and the temptation will be present always unless he is stopped permanently. 

[Danzo]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s not true.  I very much value this privilege. 

I just believe there should be exceptions allowed for when leaders learn of ongoing abuse or if any other harm may be inflicted on others if it’s not reported (especially if children are being abused or are in the care of an abuser).   Then the abuser has lost the right to that privilege, imo.   I believe that the protection of the abused comes above that right then.

But that does not mean the entire privilege should be thrown out or that I don’t care about it.

There are already exceptions when it comes to ongoing abuse, there always have been. 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There are already exceptions when it comes to ongoing abuse, there always have been. 

That’s good.  I would also extend that to any abuse confessed if the person is still in a role or position to continue abusing (such as was the case with the situation in the opening post), unless they agree to make necessary changes and remove themself from that position.  

I am actually kind of on the fence about reporting ALL abusers and realize those may need to be taken on a case by case basis.  But for sure report all ongoing abuse that leaders become aware of.

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

47 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s not true.  I very much value this privilege. 

I just believe there should be exceptions allowed for when leaders learn of ongoing abuse or if any other harm may be inflicted on others if it’s not reported (especially if children are being abused or are in the care of an abuser).   Then the abuser has lost the right to that privilege, imo.   I believe that the protection of the abused comes above that right then.

But that does not mean the entire privilege should be thrown out or that I don’t care about it.

If you were on the receiving end of a false accusation, especially of the kind going on in Utah County back in the '80s, you would care a whole lot and not be pounding the drum for getting rid of the privilege based upon the specific charge.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think our clergy should observe the laws of the land at all times. I also think that the priest/penitent exceptions are vital in repentance for each and every remember regardless of the sin. 

When a member confesses to ongoing sin, I am pretty confident that leaders attempt to intervene as much as possible. Does the caliber of the sin change when there are children involved?  I think so and I think part of the process of repentance is involving trained counselors, parents, and spouses in the process. 

If the penitent finds involving those individuals in the process, I am not sure what can be done except continued, ongoing counseling about the gravity of the sin and the necessity of involving others in the process in order to stop sinning and return to a path of righteousness.

When children are involved, I think leaders need to obviously do all they can to remove that individual from situations where children will be susceptible to their actions. 

There are few thing that would be more spiritually taxing, more demanding of physical time and effort than this situation with sexual abusers of children. The Savior talked about eunuchs in a rather casual manner. Our society is so committed to sexual gratification that we don't even conceive that one such as this is worthy of removing that which offends them and destroys others. I find this strange when at least some of these problems could be handled quickly and easily. A sexual abuser does not abuse once, nor does he stop abusing. He will be an abuser for life and the temptation will be present always unless he is stopped permanently. 

Your last paragraph is not true unless you believe there are limits on Christ’s ability to heal and the scriptures calling his atonement infinite was just hyperbole.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s good.  I would also extend that to any abuse confessed if the person is still in a role or position to continue abusing (such as was the case with the situation in the opening post), unless they agree to make necessary changes and remove themself from that position.  

I am actually kind of on the fence about reporting ALL abusers and realize those may need to be taken on a case by case basis.  But for sure report all ongoing abuse that leaders become aware of.

I would posit that almost all people who confess to abuse are still in a a role or position to continue abusing. Victims and perpetrators don't seem to have trouble finding one another.

The question (for the sake of privilege) is whether there knowledge of ongoing or future acts.

In fact almost all people who don't confess to abuse are still in a role or position to commit abuse.

The risk is always there. 

The privilege exists because its widely understood that clergy will encourage the penitent to do the right thing.  If you turn these into mandatory reporters, people will have a much harder time getting help and the abuse will continue much longer.  There is only so much the state can do to address the problem.

Certainly the Clergy aren't perfect and make mistakes, but then so do doctors, police, judges, social workers in the system.