Proposed bill in utah to eliminate priest/Penitent privelege (re: Child abuse)

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

A bill made public ahead of the 2020 legislative session would remove the "priest-penitent" privilege when it comes to reporting abuse cases.

House Bill 90, sponsored by Rep. Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, would demand that a priest, a bishop or any other clergy who receives a disclosure of abuse turn around and report that to law enforcement to investigate. If that clergy member doesn't, they could face a misdemeanor charge. It also allows for the possibility of civil litigation by a victim, she told FOX 13.

"We’re not attacking their religion. We’re looking to protect children from being harmed," Rep. Romero said Tuesday.

I guess the idea would be to compel Catholic priests, Latter-day Saint bishops, etc. to report confessions of abuse.

Quote

Currently, Utah law allows some confessions to clergy to remain protected or "privileged" communications.
...

"We are still reviewing the legislation and its constitutionality," said Jean Hill, the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake's Office of Life, Justice and Peace.

A spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told FOX 13 it would need to "review the bill and its implications before taking a position."

The Islamic Society of Greater Salt Lake said it would also review the bill before commenting, but added it "understands the importance of this legislation."

So everyone seems to be taking this seriously.

Quote

Rep. Romero said her legislation is trying to combat cover-ups involving clergy who either do not report abuse, or move abusers around.

"We’ve seen this in the Catholic church. We’ve seen this in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we’ve seen this in a variety of religions," she said. "People get shuffled around, they get moved around."

Yes, we have seen clergy "not report abuse."  That is the effect of the privilege.  Likewise, attorneys, psychologists, etc. also "do not report abuse" when the perpetrator discloses it

Quote

Rep. Romero, who has sponsored a number of bills aimed at combatting child sexual abuse, said other states have passed similar legislation and she does not believe it will violate any First Amendment religious freedom rights.

"I’m asking religious leaders, just like any other professional, that if somebody admits to hurting a child in a sexual manner, they need to be reported," she said.

Well, let's dig in a bit...

1. The Bill: Let's take a look at the bill itself.  It proposes to amend Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-403 ("Reporting requirements").  This statute provides as follows:

Quote

(1)

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (2), when any individual, including an individual licensed under Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that individual shall immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect to the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division. (b) Upon receipt of a report described in Subsection (1)(a), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division. If an initial report of abuse or neglect is made to the division, the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency. (c) The division shall, in addition to its own investigation, comply with and lend support to investigations by law enforcement undertaken to investigate a report described in Subsection (1)(a).

(2)

Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirement described in Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession, if: (a) the perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy; and (b) the member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.

(3)

(a) When a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report that information even though the member of the clergy may have also received information about abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator. (b) Exemption of the reporting requirement for a member of the clergy does not exempt the member of the clergy from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.

The bill, if passed, would eliminate subparts (2) and (3) pertaining to priest/penitent privileges.

2. An Affirmative Duty by "Any Individual" to Report: The above statute creates an affirmative duty on "any individual."  In other words, if any private citizen "has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect" this statute compels him or her to "immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect to the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division."  The bill, having eliminated subparts (2) and (3) (which exempted clergy), would compel clergy to "immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect" to law enforcement.

Theoretically, the bill could result in a bishop being punished for calling the bishop's hotline prior to calling law enforcement (since the statute would compel him to "immediately report the alleged abuse").

I had not previously known that this provision exists.  I wonder if it is constitutional.  If it amounts to compelled speech, or is unconstitutionally vague (what does "has reason to believe" mean?), or triggers "fruit of the poisonous tree" concerns, or is otherwise problematic on constitutional grounds.  I hope some of the lawyers that hang out here with more experience than I, will weigh in on this point.

3. Criminal Penalty for Failure to Report: A subsequent portion of the statute, Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-411 ("Failure to report -- Criminal penalty"), criminalizes a failure to report:

Quote

Any person, official, or institution required to report a case of suspected abuse, neglect, fetal alcohol syndrome, or fetal drug dependency, who willfully fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Action for failure to report must be commenced within four years from the date of knowledge of the offense and the willful failure to report.

A "class B misdemeanor" is punishable by up to six months in jail and fine of up to $1,000.

I'd be interested to see how often this statute is enforced.

4. Complications: It seems like the bill, if passed, could create some complications because the foregoing statute, Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-403, is not the only law pertaining to reporting concerns about child abuse.  For example, let's take a look at the privileges found in the Utah Rules of Evidence:

Quote

• Rule 501 Privilege in General.
• Rule 502 Husband-wife.
• Rule 503 Communications to clergy.
• Rule 504 Lawyer-client.
• ...
• Rule 506 Physician and mental health therapist-patient.
• Rule 507 First responder peer support.
• ...
• Rule 509 News reporters.
• ...
• Rule 512. Victim communications.

These evidentiary rules pertain to testimony that can be used in court.  There is also a spousal privilege, an attorney/client privilege, a doctor/patient mental health therapist/patient privilege, a somewhat limited "news reporter" privilege, and a limited "first responder peer support" privilege. 

Utah also has a state statute pertaining to privileges: Utah Code sec. 78B-1-137 ("Witnesses -- Privileged communications").  This statute, like the foregoing evidentiary rules, prohibits the compulsion of testimony of certain persons as to certain communications.  The statute provides for a spousal privilege, an attorney/client privilege, a priest/penitent privilege, a doctor/patient privilege (applying to physicians, surgeons, and PAs), a "public officer" privilege, a "sexual assault counselor" privilege, and a "victim advocate" privilege. 

This statute also has an interesting preamble: "There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate."

I assume the legislature lacks the authority to override the evidentiary privileges in the Rules of Evidence, which I think are promulgated by the Utah Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of government. It's not directly relevant here, though, since the proposed bill does not seek to alter Rule 503 (the one pertaining to priest/penitent privileges) or Utah Code sec. 78B-1-137.  

5. Singling out the Priest/Penitent Privilege: I think it's odd that Rep. Romero is singling out the priest/penitent privilege for elimination when, as noted in the above evidentiary rule and statute, there are several other privileges that also pertain to "somebody admit{ting} to hurting a child in a sexual manner."  These privileges include "professionals" such as doctors and lawyers.  So it seems like Ms. Romero is not exactly playing it straight when she states "I’m asking religious leaders, just like any other professional, that if somebody admits to hurting a child in a sexual manner, they need to be reported" (emphasis added). 

"Religious leaders" are not situated like "other professional{s}."  There are some pretty substantial First Amendment implications associated with the privilege.

6. Initial Impression: My first impression is that the bill will likely not cut constitutional muster.  I think the legislature will see that coming, and hence will not pass the bill (or else Gov. Herbert will not sign it into law).

If passed, the bill would punish clergy for not reporting confessions of abuse.  I think such nondisclosures are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  Consequently, the bill would effectively punish clergy for constitutionally-protected exercise of their religion.  

Everyone involved in this wants to protect children.  But the preamble to the above statute bears emphasis: "There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate."  There are some pretty good reasons to allow certain limited segments of society from being punished for not disclosing confessed misconduct.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Privileged communications exist because society values the privacy or purpose of certain relationships. The established privileged communications are those between wife and husband, clergy and communicant, psychotherapist and patient, physician and patient, and attorney and client.

These relationships are protected for various reasons. The wife-husband and clergy-communicant privileges protect the general sanctity of marriage and religion. The psychotherapist or physician and patient privilege promotes full disclosure in the interests of the patient's health. If patients were unable to keep secret communications with psychotherapists or physicians relating to treatment or diagnosis, they might give doctors incomplete information. If doctors received incomplete information, they might be unable to administer health care to the patient, which is the very purpose of the doctor-patient relationship.

The attorney-client exists for roughly the same reason as the physician-patient privilege. In order to secure effective representation, a client must feel free to discuss all aspects of a case without the fear that her attorney will be called at trial to repeat her statements. Likewise, to retain the client's trust and do his job properly, the attorney must be allowed to withhold from the court and opposing party private communications with the client.

And here:

Quote

John Henry Wigmore, whose influential treatise on evidence was first published in 1904, approved the privilege on the grounds that it passed what he called the four canons of privileged communications. These canons, expressed in the form of a question, constituted a four-pronged test for whether a privilege should be recognized at common law: 1) Does the communication originate in a confidence of secrecy? 2) Is the confidentiality of the communication integral to the relation? 3) Should the state formally recognize and countenance the penitential relation? 4) Would forced disclosure result in an injury that would be greater than the benefit to justice?

On the whole, Wigmore concluded that the privilege should be sustained. Wigmore's view, dubbed the utilitarian view by one scholar, is grounded in the belief that the rights of individual defendants should be sacrificed in order to provide prospective protection of the priest-penitent relationship. These supporters believe confession provides a crucial social function. They have argued that recognition of the privilege is essential because encouraging confession fosters a desirable result and a denial of the privilege would dissuade potential penitents from disclosing misdeeds. On the other hand, nonutilitarian supporters of the privilege contend that the privilege should be supported because of the retrospective harm that would result in requiring priests to violate their religious tenets. Under this view the privilege should be approved because it is unfair to put clergy to the "Morton's fork" of having to violate either their religious tenants or secular law. Under this theory, damage to the priest's reputation and career should supersede that of the party seeking forced disclosure.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

Texas compels the priest to report confessions of abuse.  The last I looked that was the only state.  

[Amulek]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's odd that Rep. Romero is singling out the priest/penitent privilege for elimination when, as noted in the above evidentiary rule and statute, there are several other privileges that also pertain to "somebody admit{ting} to hurting a child in a sexual manner."  These privileges include "professionals" such as doctors and lawyers.  So it seems like Ms. Romero is not exactly playing it straight when she states "I’m asking religious leaders, just like any other professional, that if somebody admits to hurting a child in a sexual manner, they need to be reported" (emphasis added). 

"Religious leaders" are not situated like "other professional{s}."  There are some pretty substantial First Amendment implications associated with the privilege.

I found that odd as well. Here in Texas, when they instituted a mandatory duty to report - it was done across the board (see below).

Which, if one ostensibly wants to go about such an endeavor, seems to be the more principled way of doing so - rather than singling out religious leaders. 

 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/FA/htm/FA.261.htm

Sec. 261.101. PERSONS REQUIRED TO REPORT; TIME TO REPORT. (a) A person having cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect by any person shall immediately make a report as provided by this subchapter.

[...]

(c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, an employee or member of a board that licenses or certifies a professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

[ksfisher]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that if the bill becomes law that it won't cut down on child abuse or increase reporting of such.  What will happen is that abusers will stop confessing to religious leaders.

It may even have the unintended consequence  of increasing abuse, as some abusers may turn themselves in after speaking with a religious leaders.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

My thoughts are that if the bill becomes law that it won't cut down on child abuse or increase reporting of such.  What will happen is that abusers will stop confessing to religious leaders.

It may even have the unintended consequence  of increasing abuse, as some abusers may turn themselves in after speaking with a religious leaders.

I agree with this. It is well-intentioned but it means less confession from those who know the law. It also will not work with Catholic priests taking confession who, if faithful, will ignore the law.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Texas compels the priest to report confessions of abuse.  The last I looked that was the only state.  

From this article:

Quote

Guam, New Hampshire, and West Virginia don’t exempt clergy from reporting suspected cases of child abuse, according to Child Welfare Information Gateway. North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas also say that “any person” is required to report when it comes to child abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Here in Texas everyone is a “mandatory reporter” though it is rarely prosecuted.

[smac97]

Wow.  This story was just published 30 minutes ago: Oregon woman sues Mormon church over husband’s abuse disclosure

Quote

An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for $9.54 million after her husband’s confession to church leaders led to his arrest, conviction and imprisonment on child sexual abuse charges.

The lawsuit, filed in Marion County Circuit Court, involves a Turner man convicted of abuse after he confessed to Stayton clergy that he had repeated sexual contact with a minor.

Church officials did not respond to the Statesman Journal for comment.

The man’s confession was meant to be confidential, said the family’s attorney Bill Brandt.

The "confession was meant to be confidential."

Quote

Timothy Samuel Johnson and his wife Kristine Johnson were members of a Stayton, Oregon, Mormon ward when his wife learned he had “engaged in inappropriate conduct” with a minor known to him, according to the lawsuit.

After learning of the sexual abuse, the couple followed church doctrine by having Johnson confess and repent his sins before church clergy and the official church court.

Brandt also said church leaders represented “that whatever the scope of Mr. Johnson’s evil transgressions, the Church and its clergy will spiritually counsel Mr. Johnson to bring peace within his life and family.”

So far so good.  But here's the kicker...

Quote

Johnson confessed to local leaders and members of the church court that he had sexually abused a minor.

But what leaders failed to advise Johnson of is that if he confessed to the abuse, they would report his actions to local law enforcement, according to the lawsuit.

Johnson, 47, was arrested in 2017 on charges of first-degree sodomy, sexual abuse and unlawful sexual penetration for sexually abusing a girl under the age of 16.

He later pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The lawsuit requests $5.5 million for his wife for loss of his income and for extreme emotional distress and $1 million for each of his four children.

Apparently Oregon includes clergy in "mandatory reporting" laws (see here).  However, it looks like that provision does not apply to confessions by the perpetrator.  See previous link (emphasis added):

Quote

Question 6: Are There Any Exceptions To The Reporting Requirement?
...
Lawyers, together with clergy, psychiatrists, psychologists and guardians ad litem appointed under ORS 419B.231, are not required to report information “communicated by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295 or 419B.234(6).”

ORS 40.260 ("Member of clergy-penitent privilege") states:

Quote

A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member’s professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.

So what happened here?  The article doesn't say, but rather obviously implies, that the Church reported the abuse to law enforcement.

So did Mr. Johnson waive the privilege?  Or did the Church waive it with his consent? 

Or did the Church waive it without his consent?

Or did the Church receive information about the abuse other than through the confessor, such that it was legally obligated to report the allegations (from this other source) to law enforcement?

I think it was likely this last one.  I would be quite surprised if the Church waived the privilege without Mr. Johnson's consent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Texas compels the priest to report confessions of abuse.  The last I looked that was the only state.  

How long has Texas been doing this?  Enough to see what impact it might have?

[LoudmouthMormon]

The Church's Protecting Children and Youth page has a link to State laws on reporting abuse.  There's a section there on clergy as mandatory reporters. 

Handy chart from that PDF:

 

[Calm]

Quote

Johnson, 47, was arrested in 2017 on charges of first-degree sodomy, sexual abuse and unlawful sexual penetration for sexually abusing a girl under the age of 16.

He later pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The lawsuit requests $5.5 million for his wife for loss of his income and for extreme emotional distress and $1 million for each of his four children.

I think this is unlikely to be successful given his guilt.  His crime and conviction is the cause of loss of income, it might have come to light in another way. 

Are mandatory reporters required by law to share the requirement  similar to or are people assumed to know it on their own?  I am thinking something like Mirandizing?

Have there been any successful lawsuits similar to this?  As in someone is found guilty but successfully sues the person turning them in?  For instance, a spouse suing another spouse for violating spousal privilege.

  If this was correct, it seems to me ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ would have kicked in if the sharing of information was illegal. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Found this one, but wasn’t criminal:

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/suing-clergy-for-divulging-confidences.html

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

How long has Texas been doing this?  Enough to see what impact it might have?

I live in Texas. I know of a bishop that found out about abuse (not through confession) and was told to report it by the help line unless someone else would report it. The bishop asked for my help because of my volunteer work and we got another family member who knew enough to make the report and set it up so the investigation occurred when the children were with other family so they were unlikely to be put in foster care. This happened several years ago.

In the Oregon case I think it is a coin flip whether the bishop reported it without consent or had other information. If I were the bishop I would not let someone in this situation fully repent unless they confessed to law enforcement, preferably after they get a lawyer and consult with them. Always with the proviso of revelation or spiritual direction otherwise overriding my first instinct.

Edited January 8, 2020 by The Nehor

[Calm]

https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

Quote

However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.

 

[The Nehor]

In the Oregon case he pleaded guilty. Was The church’s evidence enough to actually convict? Would that matter? I have no idea.

[Calm]

Washington apparently includes a safety from liability if reporting abuse in good faith. I would assume most such laws have to include such otherwise you have reporters choosing between unlikely prosecutions for not telling and likely lawsuits imo for telling. 
 

http://depts.washington.edu/acwewa/MandatoryReporterToolkit/StudentResources/Frequently Asked Questions from Mandated Reporters.pdf

[MiserereNobis]

A faithful Catholic priest would ignore the law. Breaking the confessional seal is automatic (instant) excommunication for a priest, an excommunication that can only be lifted by the Pope. Canon law says that the seal cannot be broken for any reason, including the life of the priest or the rule of law. The patron saint of the confessional seal is St. John of Nepomuk, who was thrown into a river and drowned by his king for not revealing the confession of the queen.

This has been the Catholic position for at least 1000 years. I imagine a priest would have good first amendment grounds as a defense because of the long standing rule and the severity of breaking it. I haven't done any research into how this has played out practically in states or countries, though, but the rule is still in Canon law.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think this is unlikely to be successful given his guilt.  His crime and conviction is the cause of loss of income, it might have come to light in another way.

Yep.  In legal parlance, this issue is called "proximate cause."

Quote

Are mandatory reporters required by law to share the requirement similar to or are people assumed to know it on their own?  I am thinking something like Mirandizing?

I doubt it.  But in this case, the Church was apparently not a "mandatory reporter" insofar as it received information solely from the confessor.  It would be exempt in that case.  However, if the Church receives information about abuse from a source other than the confessor acting in a priest-penitent clergy context, then the mandatory reporting provisions kick in.

As you can imagine, there are all sorts of ways a bishop might receive information about alleged abuse from sources other than the person doing it.  If and when that happens...

Quote

Have there been any successful lawsuits similar to this?  As in someone is found guilty but successfully sues the person turning them in?  For instance, a spouse suing another spouse for violating spousal privilege.

I don't know.  It seems like the plaintiff only has a shot at winning if:

• A) the Church received information about the alleged abuse only from the perpetrator of the abuse; and
• B) the Church did not obtain the perpetrator's consent to report the allegations to law enforcement; and
• C) the Church nevertheless reported the abuse to law enforcement.

The legal question would seem to be this: Can a third party (the wife and kids) sue a church for its breach of the priest/penitent privilege?

That would take a bit of digging and research, but my preliminary response would be "Probably not."  Plenty of legal hurdles come to mind.  Lack of legal standing (the wife and kids did not hold the privilege, so they can't sue because it was breached).  Lack of proximate cause (was there a causal bridge between the Church reporting allegations of abuse and the woman and her children being "injured"?).  Lack of claim upon which relief can be granted (do Oregon state courts recognize a claim for money damages based on "breach of priest/penitent privilege"?).  Public policy (do we really want to punish clergy for reporting allegations of abuse?).  Probably more.

Quote

If this was correct, it seems to me ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ would have kicked in if the sharing of information was illegal. 

A good point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How long has Texas been doing this?  Enough to see what impact it might have?

I don't know and don't care as I am not an attorney in that state.  But it seems to me that the rule passes constitutional muster.  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

A faithful Catholic priest would ignore the law. Breaking the confessional seal is automatic (instant) excommunication for a priest, an excommunication that can only be lifted by the Pope. Canon law says that the seal cannot be broken for any reason, including the life of the priest or the rule of law. The patron saint of the confessional seal is St. John of Nepomuk, who was thrown into a river and drowned by his king for not revealing the confession of the queen.

This has been the Catholic position for at least 1000 years. I imagine a priest would have good first amendment grounds as a defense because of the long standing rule and the severity of breaking it. I haven't done any research into how this has played out practically in states or countries, though, but the rule is still in Canon law.

ETA: the reason the lifting of the excommunication is reserved to the Pope is to prevent a bishop to agree to such a law and lift the excommunications of priests in his diocese. When excommunication lifting is reserved to the Pope it means that it is very serious. I think the equivalent in your church is not allowing a stake president to lift an excommunication, but only President Nelson.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How long has Texas been doing this?  Enough to see what impact it might have?

As early as 1990s, look up Attorney Clay Dugas on martindale.com. 

Also https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/1995/6/9/19176280/lds-hotline-to-help-leaders-deal-with-abuse

[provoman]

27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't know and don't care as I am not an attorney in that state.  But it seems to me that the rule passes constitutional muster.  

I have wondered about it, absent Reynolds (Scotus anti-polygamy ruling) mandating a religion violate its tenants does not seem to have much support in the Constitution.

One the other hand would it  be a slight entanglement of religion and government so as to not offend the Constitution. 

One last thought, if Utah sought to pass the identical language of the reporting law in Texas, would a religious organization have a solid legal challenge in Utah, when the same organization was subject to Texas law and never challenged it.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

ETA: the reason the lifting of the excommunication is reserved to the Pope is to prevent a bishop to agree to such a law and lift the excommunications of priests in his diocese. When excommunication lifting is reserved to the Pope it means that it is very serious. I think the equivalent in your church is not allowing a stake president to lift an excommunication, but only President Nelson.

Yeah, and there are sins that require the approval of the First Presidency for readmittance.

[poptart]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

My thoughts are that if the bill becomes law that it won't cut down on child abuse or increase reporting of such.  What will happen is that abusers will stop confessing to religious leaders.

It may even have the unintended consequence  of increasing abuse, as some abusers may turn themselves in after speaking with a religious leaders.

Took the words out of my mouth.

 

[rpn]

I don't think most people understand how the laws prevent people from getting help to address their perversions so they don't act on them.   Lets say someone is struggling with the feelings, maybe have even acted upon them in the past, and seeks professional help.   Those professionals are mandatory reporters which means that a perp cannot fully disclose without being reported.    Some might say so what they deserve it.   But getting help means that people don't perp.   They need to have access to the few professionals who agree to provide therapy for perps  (it is hard work and few therapists are willing/able to do it).