Sexual abuse cover up in Canada

[2BizE]

I saw this article about a sexual abuse cover-up in Canada.

Perhaps our Canadian brothers and sisters have more insight...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

[Duncan]

I'm Canadian, but without any names or places where this happened, I don't know how much service I can render. S. Alberta has a HUGE Church population though. I had heard of a Doctor though, a psychiatrist, who was involved in this sort of thing but he was in Calgary, which is in the middle of Alberta.Maybe he's the guy in question though? As I recall with him he was a Patriarch and was involved in some bad stuff and he got kicked to the curb in the church and professionally

[Metis_LDS]

Tacenda posted the same in High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed .  Posted 49 minutes ago  

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I saw this article about a sexual abuse cover-up in Canada.

Perhaps our Canadian brothers and sisters have more insight...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

I sounds like some bad decisions were made by the bishop and mission president involved years ago.  Policies have changed and training has improved since then.

[The Nehor]

Reposting my response on the other thread:

That is a weird story. The abuse happened during the years from 1986 to 1993. It says he was a minor when it started which is barely possible. He was on a mission in 1987 and confessed and thought it was all taken care of even though abuse continued for years afterwards? Even on the ecclesiastical level that makes no sense.

Unless corroborated by the Priesthood leaders in question I would also stay skeptical about how much he told them and what they instructed him to do. The guy has had 30 years to reconstruct the narrative in his head to make himself the good guy. It is possible in that amount of time for his memory to go from he told them he was tempted to abuse someone to he fully confessed and was forgiven. This is especially likely since according to the chronology the abuse continued yet he somehow in court gave the impression he had been forgiven.

It is possible it happened as he said but my money would be he overstates how much he shared.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I sounds like some bad decisions were made by the bishop and mission president involved years ago.  Policies have changed and training has improved since then.

Sure hope so. There is something that has me wondering, and maybe needs to be it's own thread. Why does the church become involved at all, they should just let the law handle it and those that want to go to the law handle it. And why does the church have to be sued for these abuses, why not sue the individuals that commit the crime. This might be a terribly naive question. 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why does the church become involved at all, they should just let the law handle it and those that want to go to the law handle it.

The church became involved because the perpetrator confessed to his bishop and mission president.

 

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And why does the church have to be sued for these abuses, why not sue the individuals that commit the crime.

The church is sued because the church has money.  If I was the one being sued the plaintiff wouldn't really end up with that much.  But if the lawyers can connect the church in some when then the potential judgement goes way, way up.

[Metis_LDS]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I sounds like some bad decisions were made by the bishop and mission president involved years ago.  Policies have changed and training has improved since then.

Yes I agree,  apart from policies and training  (unless you live in a hole in the ground) everyone now knows (including other Churches) that not calling the police just does not work and makes everything worse.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I saw this article about a sexual abuse cover-up in Canada.

Perhaps our Canadian brothers and sisters have more insight...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

It is inexcusable to cover up such horrible sins, and all responsible should be punished severely. Not only those who commit such heinous sins, but any Bishops or Stake Presidents who seek to conceal, such sins, and those who commit them. 
 

ETA: Why are there no names, and how could anyone know if this story is true, with no names? 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is inexcusable to cover up such horrible sins, and all responsible should be punished severely. Not only those who commit such heinous sins, but any Bishops or Stake Presidents who seek to conceal, such sins, and those who commit them. 
 

ETA: Why are there no names, and how could anyone know if this story is true, with no names? 

There is the priest/penitent privilege to consider here as well.  I don't know what the laws were in Canada at the time, but I'm guessing the bishop and mission president were obliged not to report  under the law.  The counsel not the involve the authorities, if true, would seem to be in hindsight a mistake.

Edited December 24, 2019 by ksfisher

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

There is the priest/penitent privilege to consider here as well.  I don't know what the laws were in Canada at the time, but I'm guessing the bishop and mission president were obliged not to report  under the law.  The counsel not the involve the authorities, if true, would seem to be in hindsight a mistake.

Bishops must take steps to report crimes, and protect victims, this is no so (from what I understand) in Catholic Churches, were all confessions are sealed, meaning a Priest is not obliged to tell anyone. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Bishops must take steps to report crimes, and protect victims, this is no so (from what I understand) in Catholic Churches, were all confessions are sealed, meaning a Priest is not obliged to tell anyone. 

The same applies to ecclesiastical leaders in other churches as well.  Bishops, stake presidents, and mission presidents would be obliged to follow the same laws as a Catholic priest.

Laws vary from country to country and state to state.

 

[strappinglad]

I wonder what the law would have done here 30 +/- years ago ? Church policies have changed a lot over time. So have Law enforcement policies. For the better. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by strappinglad

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I saw this article about a sexual abuse cover-up in Canada.

Perhaps our Canadian brothers and sisters have more insight...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sex-assault-abuse-mormon-church-lethbridge-judge-alberta-1.5407316

All the more reason for full transparency in all such LDS Church matters.  Same applies to all other religious organizations.   Confidentiality only guarantees that the problem will fester and that abuse will be repeated.  Members need to know how much tithing money has to be paid to settle these cases -- in which due diligence was not practiced.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

There is the priest/penitent privilege to consider here as well.  I don't know what the laws were in Canada at the time, but I'm guessing the bishop and mission president were obliged not to report  under the law.  The counsel not the involve the authorities, if true, would seem to be in hindsight a mistake.

Assuming that counsel is being accurately reported. There is a good chance the priesthood leaders in question are dead at this point and, if so, he can put anything he wants into their mouths. Even if they are alive they did not come to court. This was a criminal trial and my read on the case from the scanty reports is that he used his alleged confession as part of a strategy to seek a reduced sentence as his confession showed remorse and the self-serving statement that they told him not to turn himself in is subtly hinting that he might have if not for that counsel. If you believe that I have some beachfront property in Arizona I can sell you at a very reasonable price.

[rpn]

I once had occasion to ask church leaders if repentance required a perp give up his/her constitutional right to remain silent., or to confront or cross examine witnesses (which often terrifies a child or their parents so much that they can't/won't testify at all)  It was an interesting discussion.   What I got out of it was that since we believe the Constitution is inspired of God, it would be hard to claim that one could not repent while exercising those rights, and that the perp doesn't have to confess to the police, or even report himself. *  But the bishop should do everything he could without violating the confidentiality of the confessional to make sure law enforcement was advised, and that accused would have a hard time repenting if they refused a reasonable plea deal, forcing victims to testify against them (thereby causing additional harm ---- those some survivors and their therapists will say fhat for some the trial process turns out to be cathartic, even though the victims are terrified going into it.)

NOTE that I don't know if the leaders would have settled where they did in a country that doesn't have the kind of constitution the US has, with those protections.

*In the VanWagenen case, the bishop did require he go report himself to the police (1980's or 90s?).

Edited December 24, 2019 by rpn

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The church became involved because the perpetrator confessed to his bishop and mission president.

 

The church is sued because the church has money.  If I was the one being sued the plaintiff wouldn't really end up with that much.  But if the lawyers can connect the church in some when then the potential judgement goes way, way up.

Well, if the church isn't at fault, why would the church make payouts?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if the church isn't at fault, why would the church make payouts?

Because you can be not at fault but still lose a court case. The justice system is not infallible and sometimes a settlement is the better option over fighting an expensive case and possibly losing more. There is an argument to be made that plea deals and settlements undermine justice but I do not see this changing any time soon.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

I once had occasion to ask church leaders if repentance required a perp give up his/her constitutional right to remain silent., or to confront or cross examine witnesses (which often terrifies a child or their parents so much that they can't/won't testify at all)  It was an interesting discussion.   What I got out of it was that since we believe the Constitution is inspired of God, it would be hard to claim that one could not repent while exercising those rights, and that the perp doesn't have to confess to the police, or even report himself. *  But the bishop should do everything he could without violating the confidentiality of the confessional to make sure law enforcement was advised, and that accused would have a hard time repenting if they refused a reasonable plea deal, forcing victims to testify against them (thereby causing additional harm ---- those some survivors and their therapists will say fhat for some the trial process turns out to be cathartic, even though the victims are terrified going into it.)

NOTE that I don't know if the leaders would have settled where they did in a country that doesn't have the kind of constitution the US has, with those protections.

*In the VanWagenen case, the bishop did require he go report himself to the police (1980's or 90s?).

Having a right to remain silent or not to incriminate yourself does not mean it is the right call. The right to not testify against yourself is more appropriately used by the innocent and that right can protect the innocent from appearing guilty.

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, if the church isn't at fault, why would the church make payouts?

Because often times it is cheaper to settle out of court than go through the process, as well as just r6ing to stay out of court in general.  

There is also this advice from the Savior to consider as well

”And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”

Matthew 5:40

[rpn]

Of course the Church should pay to help the person heal, for therapy, maybe for education, maybe to get a new start.   That would be part of the humanitarian mission of the church even if the church itself had not called the perp to a sensitive position, and even if the church had no previous knowledge of risks, and no legal responsibility.

[ksfisher]

16 hours ago, rpn said:

What I got out of it was that since we believe the Constitution is inspired of God, it would be hard to claim that one could not repent while exercising those rights, and that the perp doesn't have to confess to the police, or even report himself. * 

Inspired by God doesn’t mean written by or given by revelation.

[Tacenda]

23 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'm Canadian, but without any names or places where this happened, I don't know how much service I can render. S. Alberta has a HUGE Church population though. I had heard of a Doctor though, a psychiatrist, who was involved in this sort of thing but he was in Calgary, which is in the middle of Alberta.Maybe he's the guy in question though? As I recall with him he was a Patriarch and was involved in some bad stuff and he got kicked to the curb in the church and professionally

https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2019/12/17/raymond-man-found-guilty-of-sexual-assault-at-second-trial/?fbclid=IwAR3GNPZdVMV_iKR9me2POVeuOT4NrhZupbah1Yz6VEGjNF-b5KoaHYSAz7g

I want to make mention that this man became a bishop later on as most are aware, I wish he'd had some annotation put on his church record to stop him from becoming a bishop, I doubt very much someone who is gay would have been able to be one. He shouldn't have been interviewing young girls, since he at one time sexually assaulted 14 year old girls or even younger than 14, the article states. 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He shouldn't have been interviewing young girls, since he at one time sexually assaulted 14 year old girls or even younger than 14, the article states. 

You’re saying here that people can never change.  People can never become more than they were at the time they did something really wrong.  This is a very sad thought.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You’re saying here that people can never change.  People can never become more than they were at the time they did something really wrong.  This is a very sad thought.

I believe people can change.  I believe the Atonement can produce miraculous change in everyone willing and able to access it.

 But there are consequences to behaviour, especially that which harms others. At that point, decisions should be made to protect victims and prevent future ones first and foremost even if the risk appears to be low.  Sometimes that includes things we might wonder if are safe or appropriate, like a father living with a child they abused.  From the viewpoint of the child healing, that may be important   

I don’t see a need for healing of victims though for a former (hopefully) predator to become a bishop.  Much more likely to trigger old feelings and fear for potential victims as happened in this case, I believe.

The Church recognizes this by annotating records of those who have offended with children now.

Plus it is wisdom not to put someone under stress and then add temptation to the mix.  I would not give a person who had killed someone through drunk driving a job driving people home from bars, even though that might be a perfect community service.  Putting them behind the wheel and in close proximity to alcohol...not a good idea even if 20 years sober. 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Calm