What a Nightmare!

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

The church response was that the police WERE notified by the victim facilitated by church leaders. But I’m noticing that people on this thread keep referring to Bishop confidentiality. There is no confidentiality with any serious moral transgression.

Yes, there is.  Or there can be.

42 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

If the bishop calls a court there are automatically three or four people who will know. Minutes are (or at least used to be) taken at these meetings.

I'm pretty sure confessions maintain confidentiality in such circumstances.

We actually discussed a situation last year that involved a second counselor in a bishopric apparently "going rogue" and reporting abuse to law enforcement (see here).

42 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

If the stake president is involved then the penitent is looking at a stake presidency and an entire high Council being in the know. How on earth is that confidential? Not to mention the fact that leaders sometimes slip up and tell their wives who tell other people and on and on and on. This is not something I have experienced myself but have seen it many many times in the more gossipy wards that I have belonged to.  At any rate, I could never be a bishop. If someone confessed to me that they had molested a child, I would be on the phone with the police immediately.

And how would you feel if the case against the confessor was tossed out because you tainted the legal case against him?

42 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

And I am a person who is very good at keeping confidentialities, But my need to protect children would supersede that. Probably a good thing I’ll never be a bishop.

Attorneys, doctors and therapists regularly receive information that is a terrible burden to keep secret.  But they do it because the secrets aren't theirs to divulge.  Our legal system, and our medical and mental health systems, can often rely on confidences being kept.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And your implacable and unreasoned vilification of the Church's bishops continues apace.  Quelle surprise.

Your remark is unserious.  I am not taking you seriously anymore.

-Smac

I’m wondering if there’s a word in the English language that describes the behavior of someone who’s dependably quick to believe the worst about an organization in order to justify why they previously severed ties with that organization?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

someone who’s dependably quick to believe the worst about an organization in order to justify why they previously severed ties with that organization?

If you are implying this is why Tacenda focuses on criticism of the Church, I don’t think Tacenda is justifying her severed ties by pointing to abuse cases.  I think she severed ties because of her various issues with the Church, how she perceives the Church handling the abuse cases being one of them...having watched the process over the years. 

[katherine the great]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And how would you feel if the case against the confessor was tossed out because you tainted the legal case against him?

 

I think you missed the point of what I was saying.  No matter what the church says or what the law says, I personally couldn’t not report. Hence, my comment that I would not make a good Bishop (or psychiatrist or anyone else who is forced to protect pedophiles). This is not a criticism of Bishops. They are the salt of the earth (at least most of the ones I know). Good people. I just can’t imagine being put in that position. 

[let’s roll]

26 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I think you missed the point of what I was saying.  No matter what the church says or what the law says, I personally couldn’t not report. Hence, my comment that I would not make a good Bishop (or psychiatrist or anyone else who is forced to protect pedophiles). This is not a criticism of Bishops. They are the salt of the earth (at least most of the ones I know). Good people. I just can’t imagine being put in that position. 

As people who ARE put in that position on a regular basis (social workers, police officers, D. A.s) can tell you, the things your gut and heart tell you ought to be done immediately to protect a victim when done are, more often than you can imagine, done over the objection of the victim.  

[katherine the great]

8 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

As people who ARE put in that position on a regular basis (social workers, police officers, D. A.s) can tell you, the things your gut and heart tell you ought to be done immediately to protect a victim when done are, more often than you can imagine, done over the objection of the victim.  

Even when the victim is a child who is being sexually abused?

[Vanguard]

Part of the problem is the other extreme where bishops would be required by law to report literally any suspicion of child abuse whether such abused happened or not. In therapy circles this mandate is discussed often. The conclusion is almost always better safe than sorry as long as it was reasonable to assume the possibility of abuse. There is never the need to consider what a false allegation might do to the family. In the case of a bishop, however, the damage a false allegation lodged by him can have horrific repercusions within the ward community. It's horrific enough to almost consider turning down the calling. : (

[Ratbag]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-child-welfare/2020/04/21/bisbee-man-confesses-hes-molesting-his-daughter-church-tells-bishop-not-report-abuse/2876617001/

I've never really liked how Church legal handles reporting (it varies by jurisdiction), and I've wondered about conflict between what a bishop is told to do and doing what he feels he should, when there is a conflict. 

I feel really bad for the bishops, because I know from experience that the counsel received is "Don't report this." I know that there are issues of confidentiality, but I think that if this happened to me, I would tell the person that if he didn't turn himself in, then I would. And, I know that this is contrary to what the abuse hotline tells them. 

I think it's time to change the law.  There should be no exemption from the reporting requirements.  This causes a lifetime of problems.  Daddy and mommy may get over the pedophilia inclinations if they get the evil spirits cast out of them, but the child will deal with the consequences her entire life.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m wondering if there’s a word in the English language that describes the behavior of someone who’s dependably quick to believe the worst about an organization in order to justify why they previously severed ties with that organization?

I'm so not what you described me to be. I'm unable to see how anyone, LDS or not, can not do something when they know a 5 year old is being abused. I would try with all of my being to figure out a way to fight for that child. I understand it wouldn't be an easy task, but hopefully I'd somehow get some help for them. Isn't there a scripture out there or a saying about people that know harm is being done but do nothing? I know that it's not really the bishop's fault, but like katherine the great mentioned I couldn't be a bishop or someone that has to sit on their hands and button up. This has nothing to do with my struggles with belief in the church, but I don't want to go there. I tried to not post on this article, because I get sickened over this kind of thing. Because abuse is so rampant out there and these innocent victims need someone to care enough to get them out of their situations. This man that abused a 5 year old and a 6 week old is as evil as they come. I would think the bishop could have sensed this. And bishops could use more training in this department, and be able to understand the difference in these confessions. Sure someone that comes in and confesses to stealing or having an affair is one thing, but this sexual abuse of a helpless child is quite the other. And I have a 7 month old granddaughter that keeps entering my mind. I don't understand how Smac and a few others condemn me for having these feelings. I think like Ratbag, that some laws need to change. Thank the Lord someone caught him, who knows how long he'd be able to abuse those children through "counseling".🙄  

ETA: What about Arizona's laws, why didn't Kirton and McConkie catch this... "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion." If they had they'd have saved those children and possibly the father who later killed himself! If the bishops reported, that man would have served time in prison. Isn't that part of the repentance process, restitution?? 

What the bishop didn’t do was report the abuse to police. He didn’t have to. Although Arizona law classifies clergy, as well as many others, as mandatory reporters of child abuse, there is an exception for clergy to not report if they believe it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

Edited April 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, rpn said:

A bishop cannot violate the confessional.   But any bishop who simply sits back without doing something is nuts.   For instance, the bishop could have told mom that the kids needed to be safe and she should sleep in front of their door and even helped her get away from the husband.   Maybe contacted grandparents or others who loved the kids to tell them kiddos weren't safe and they needed to be actively involved in their lives.   The bishop could have required the father to leave the home as part of the repentance process, and facilitated mo moving mom into a shelter if mom was afraid.   The bishop could have resigned and then made an anonymous complaint that the children were in danger of sexual abuse to the hotline (maybe even accept excommunication if the church did that). 

But even if a bishop does all that, sometimes a mother refuses to believe, is too ashamed to be able to do anything for the children, or has been threatened or worn down by domestic violence or being without resources or support. 

I helped a sister and her son get away from an abusive husband. He threatened me and my family.

[Bernard Gui]

For the legal experts...could a bishop be called by the state to give testimony in a trial concerning knowledge of a crime gained through confession? Would that be hearsay?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

That is a definite concern. From the LDS perspective, I think it is **the** concern. We don't have a doctrinal sanctity of the confessional akin to the Roman Catholic Church. I think it is solely a matter of trust and trustworthiness between the person confessing and the leader. 

Is that really all it is?  And does LDS Church doctrine permit the devil may care treatment of confession?

Quote

I think most would insist on it. But if the person refuses, and the bishop believes there is a good likelihood of further abuse/danger to others? Most here seem to argue that he cannot call authorities himself then. That's what bothers me. 

What most don't understand here is key:  If anyone making a confession is engaging in a continuing criminal pursuit of abuse or other serious crime, the cleric is not bound by confidentiality.  Confidentiality only applies when it is confession to something that is not continuing.  The cleric cannot stand by and allow additional sexual abuse or murders, and no one expects him to.

Quote

We don't see it as a doctrinal mortal sin for the bishop like that. Again, I'm not sure if breaking confidence "taints" the evidence in some states. I think what you come back to is the key from an LDS perspective. 

I don't know about this. I've heard it, but I don't know that any state's law would say that broken confidentiality makes it inadmissible. ............................

See https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/02/church-confessions-admissible-in-court.html

Quote

What happens in a church confession, stays in a church confession... Right? Generally speaking, yes -- but not always.

Statements made to a minister, priest, rabbi, or other religious leader are generally considered privileged or confidential communications. State laws generally exempt a pastor from having to testify in court, or to law-enforcement, about what was discussed in a church confession.

The so-called priest-penitent privilege, however, can be challenged in court. And some states are changing their laws in response to a rash of clergy child-abuse cases.

American courts began to recognize a church confession's priest-penitent privilege in 1813, in a case called People v. Philips. The case involved Irish Catholic refugees in New York City, and held their church confessions could not be used in court. (A 2004 article in a psychiatric law journal explains the legal history.)

Fifteen years later, New York passed the nation's first law establishing a priest-penitent privilege. All 50 states now have similar statutes on the books.

Cases challenging the privilege for church confessions shed light on its limits. For example, some cases have questioned the intent of the parishioner: Was she confessing to her priest, or just seeking informal, friendly advice?

A more recent case in Michigan reveals another challenge to the privilege: Was the confession truly "confidential"? Maybe not, if a third party is in the same room at the time, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Lawmakers are also carving out exceptions for child-abuse reporting. At least six states explicitly deny the clergy privilege in child-abuse cases, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Other states have yet to address the issue.

Finally, the priest-penitent privilege can be waived. Some states require both a priest and a parishioner to waive the privilege, while others allow one or the other to grant a waiver. Because of different state laws, it may be best to consult a local attorney to see how the law handles church confessions where you live.

Other legal privileges include doctor-patient, husband-wife, etc.  There is a very good reason for such laws.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

For the legal experts...could a bishop be called by the state to give testimony in a trial concerning knowledge of a crime gained through confession? Would that be hearsay?

I'm no expert, but probably not admissible -- unless the person confessing gave permission.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

..........................

I'm pretty sure confessions maintain confidentiality in such circumstances.

We actually discussed a situation last year that involved a second counselor in a bishopric apparently "going rogue" and reporting abuse to law enforcement (see here).

...................................

I thought the presence of a third party invalidate the confidentiality of the confession.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

.......................................

What the bishop didn’t do was report the abuse to police. He didn’t have to. Although Arizona law classifies clergy, as well as many others, as mandatory reporters of child abuse, there is an exception for clergy to not report if they believe it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

A lot of people are mandated reporters, but not in the clergy confessional.  Apparently six states have an exception, but only for child abuse.  All the other states maintain strict confidentiality, except in case of a continuing criminal enterprise.

"Mandated" doesn't mean mandatory.

[Vanguard]

Way too many legal considerations/ramifications for sure!  Though probably a bit reactionary on my part and infused with much bravado, I would rather the law pertaining to the priest-penitent privilege be eliminated when it comes to abuse of minors, dependent adults, and the elderly (as currently defined by law). That this could throw a wrench into the perpetrator's desire to come clean and/or 'his' own repentence process does not trump the overarching importance of protecting these vulnerable populations. These perpetrators still have a moral obligation to come clean despite any concerns the bishop might 'rat them out'. That so many do not confess their crime and so many loved ones keep it hushed is another topic for discussion.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-child-welfare/2020/04/21/bisbee-man-confesses-hes-molesting-his-daughter-church-tells-bishop-not-report-abuse/2876617001/

I've never really liked how Church legal handles reporting (it varies by jurisdiction), and I've wondered about conflict between what a bishop is told to do and doing what he feels he should, when there is a conflict. 

I feel really bad for the bishops, because I know from experience that the counsel received is "Don't report this." I know that there are issues of confidentiality, but I think that if this happened to me, I would tell the person that if he didn't turn himself in, then I would. And, I know that this is contrary to what the abuse hotline tells them. 

I think the bolded part addresses the balance between what part of the repentance process must be shared by Church authorities with with civil authorities, and what part of breaking the civil civil crimes must be confessed by the guilty to a Church authority. It is a matter of jurisdiction (religious or secular). The doctrine would be "Render unto Caesar..." and abide the law within the one's respective delegation of authority, whether that be civil or ecclesiastical. So Church practice may differ from place to place depending on that area's civil law. In this world, the laws of course must be passed, ideally, as a matter of compromise within a constitutional framework and reflect best interests of all concerned.

Matters of conscience are more private and each individual is accountable for what he does with his conflicts.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

That this could throw a wrench into the perpetrator's desire to come clean and/or 'his' own repentence process does not trump the overarching importance of protecting these vulnerable populations.

I would like to know how many victims are found through confessions of predators overall and in comparison to other ways.  What if their confessions (often made downplaying the impact of what they are doing due to conflict between a need to confess because of guilt and a need to not due to shame ****) are a significant part of protecting victims?  Confessing to clergy is more likely to fit the needs of guilt and shame in contrast to police I am guessing. Iow, it seems likely confessions are more likely initiated by predators if they have an option of confessing to clergy.  Would we be doing unintentional harm by removing that option by equating a confession to clergy to a confession to police if the first automatically leads to the latter by law?  There must be comparisons of mandated to non mandated areas. 

****https://tinyurl.com/y8aahf3u

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Ratbag said:

I think it's time to change the law. There should be no exemption from the reporting requirements.

You mean 'change the law...again.' This is an experiment Arizona has already tried. 

If you look at the history of the state's mandatory reporting statute (e.g., here), you will see that they added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters back in 1990 only to remove them when they revised the statute again back in 2003.

I suppose they could always change their mind again. But, in my opinion, there's really no point. 

I've yet to see anything which would lead me to believe that removing the clergy-penitent privilege is a net benefit for society. It's a pretty significant intrusion on religious liberty for pretty much zero benefit to society (because once people know clergy are required to report they will just stop confessing to clergy until they have already been caught or are on their deathbed - neither of which will do anything to help victims). 

 

[california boy]

So if a person confesses to a bishop that they have had sex outside of marriage with a consenting adult, a court is called, they are excommunicated and no longer in good standing with the Church

But if a person confesses to a bishop that they had sex with a 5 year old daughter, no court is called and the person remains a member in good standing?

 

Am I hearing this right?  Or was the guy immediately excommunicated.  

[Fair Dinkum]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No matter the crime, rape, murder, etc., the priest-penitent privilege is clearly recognized in law. and the bishop or priest receiving the confession is bound to keep it completely confidential forever.  The bishop or priest is not a mandated reporter when he receives such information in the confessional.  Otherwise, no one would confess, and such sins could not be remitted.  It is completely understandable that someone who does not believe in such things would find it disgusting.  Hey, I believe and I'm disgusted.    However, that doesn't come to grips with the problem, Fair Dinkum.

You've missed my point Robert,  I lay no blame at the feet of this poor bishop, he did as he was instructed to do.   He called the hotline, sought council from the churches legal department on how he should proceed and then did as he was instructed.  Also I am well aware of the law and understand that both the church legal council given and the actions of the bishop were in compliance with the law.  That said when a law protects the perpetrator rather than the victim, then the law should change.  It also puts this bishop and the church for that matter in a difficult position. It's disgusting.

That the church is now taking some media heat however is also fitting.  In the current environment with its heighten awareness of child sexual abuse, those that give council to protect the perp should have expected some back lash once it was made public.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Am I hearing this right?  Or was the guy immediately excommunicated.  

Timing of excommunication was not stated. Just that he had been.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You've missed my point Robert,  I lay no blame at the feet of this poor bishop, he did as he was instructed to do.   He called the hotline, sought council from the churches legal department on how he should proceed and then did as he was instructed.  Also I am well aware of the law and understand that both the church legal council given and the actions of the bishop were in compliance with the law.  That said when a law protects the perpetrator rather than the victim, then the law should change.  It also puts this bishop and the church for that matter in a difficult position. It's disgusting.

That the church is now taking some media heat however is also fitting.  In the current environment with its heighten awareness of child sexual abuse, those that give council to protect the perp should have expected some back lash once it was made public.

Of course they expect backlash, but that tells us nothing about the confidentiality of priest-penitent privilege.   It only tells us about lack of legal and religious understanding of the hoi polloi.  Someone has to be blamed, and so you make the claim that it is a church trying to protect itself instead of a focus on the principle involved.  That surely does happen, and we have seen it practiced in extremis by the Roman Catholic Church, but is that all there is?  That you should characterize it as an effort to protect the perp entirely misses the point of that counsel (not council).  The advice to remain silent is actually the correct advice, both legally and religiously.

[Jeanne]

Lets put the church, the bishop, and the perp out of the equation for a bit...someone needs to speak for the children.

[rpn]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For the legal experts...could a bishop be called by the state to give testimony in a trial concerning knowledge of a crime gained through confession? Would that be hearsay?

Of course it is hearsay.    But it is also an admission against interest which is admissable (because people don't lie to get themselves in more trouble ---generally of course, some mental illnesses and mental conditions might generate that response).