What a Nightmare!

[rongo]

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. 

[rongo]

Thankfully, I never had to face this personally, but I have wondered if a bishop were told not to report and he did report, what the fallout would be? Would he be liable in a lawsuit (for breaking confidence)? Would the Church defend him (probably not --- he was told not to)? Would he be released? Formally disciplined? 

Many years ago, there was the case of Susan Brock, where she confessed to her bishop directly, following a meeting with the victim's parents, her and her husband, and the stake president. She categorically denied the allegations in the stake president meeting, so he had a case of she said, they said. But, the bishop was the one with the direct confession. She and her daughter were only arrested because the victim's parents called the police. 

https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/chandler/susan-brock-sentenced-to-13-years-in-prison/article_b8e6a136-6168-11e0-9011-001cc4c03286.html

It really is a thankless job, both on the part of priesthood leaders, and the hotline legal help. It's difficult, but I wonder if it's time to not include confession of horrible things under confidentiality "do not report" counsel.

I realize that doctrinally, this is different from the Catholic Church, where breaking the seal of confession is a mortal sin. We don't have doctrine in this regard; it's more a matter of engendering trust and trustworthiness. 

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have wondered if a bishop were told not to report and he did report, what the fallout would be?

One thing I think would happen is that people would stop confessing anything that might be considered a crime to their bishops.  I think this would be a shame as it would

1) cut off these people from the healing power of the atonement that confession to a bishop starts them on the path to receiving

and

2) close off a possible path for the perpetrator to turn himself in to the proper authorities.  Sometimes what a perpetrator may need is someone by his side when he does decide to go to the authorities.

Edited April 21, 2020 by ksfisher

[strappinglad]

Is there a bishop who, upon hearing such a confession, would not encourage/suggest strongly that the person immediately tell the authorities ?

If the man had confessed to his psychologist , is the law different ?  

[Fair Dinkum]

The bishop was instructed NOT to report to the authorities by the churches legal council?   While I understand how this might be beneficial to the church and the perpetrator help me understand how this council was in the best interest of the victim?  Disgusting.

[InCognitus]

1 hour 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. 

This story doesn't make sense given the specific training I have had in the past (mandatory reporting to authorities).  And currently the church policies REQUIRE that these things get reported based on local laws, so something doesn't sound right.  

See for example: 

38.6.2.7  Legal Issues Relating to Abuse

38.6.2.1 Abuse Help Line

Am I missing something?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Am I missing something?

The Church's response.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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 that a bishop should tell any victim to make a police report, but am not sure of the penitent-priest confidentiality rule in the law for the perpetrator.  Most Catholic priests would allow themselves to be killed before they would break confidentiality.  Can such a confession even be used in court in all jurisdictions?  Does the confessing person come to an LDS bishop assuming the rule of confidentiality?  What happens if LDS bishops flout the rule and the law?  Will parishioners feel safe confessing anything?

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The bishop was instructed NOT to report to the authorities by the churches legal council?   While I understand how this might be beneficial to the church and the perpetrator help me understand how this council was in the best interest of the victim?  Disgusting.

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.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The bishop was instructed NOT to report to the authorities by the churches legal council?   While I understand how this might be beneficial to the church and the perpetrator help me understand how this council was in the best interest of the victim?  Disgusting.

I'm not saying this was the case in this situation, but in some states, a confession to a clergy, where the clergy breaks confidentiality, is not admissible in court.  So a bishop that turned in a confidential confession could actually make things worse for the victim, legally anyway.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I realize that doctrinally, this is different from the Catholic Church, where breaking the seal of confession is a mortal sin. We don't have doctrine in this regard; it's more a matter of engendering trust and trustworthiness. 

And following the law of the state.

[rpn]

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. 

[smac97]

3 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/

We discussed this story last year (in December, I believe).  I'll see if I can find the thread.  (UPDATE: Here it is.)

Quote

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.

He should obey the law.  He should also act within the scope of his ecclesiastical calling.  It seems a rare thing to have these things be in conflict.

Quote

I feel really bad for the bishops, because I know from experience that the counsel received is "Don't report this."

I don't think that's accurate.  The counsel they receive is varied.  Sometimes reporting is mandatory.  Sometimes reporting is prohibited.  Sometimes reporting is discretionary.

Quote

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.

That is a deeply problematic attitude.  I invite you to think on it.

The priest-penitent privilege is generally not the bishop's to waive.  It belongs to the confessor.

Quote

And, I know that this is contrary to what the abuse hotline tells them. 

With respect, you don't know that.  Again, the abuse hotline provides advice based on the law, and it varies according to the circumstances of the case.  There is no one-size-fits-all instruction from the hotline's attorneys.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2020 by smac97

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We discussed this story last year (in December, I believe).  I'll see if I can find the thread.

He should obey the law.  He should also act within the scope of his ecclesiastical calling.  It seems a rare thing to have these things be in conflict.

I don't think that's accurate.  The counsel they receive is varied.  Sometimes reporting is mandatory.  Sometimes reporting is prohibited.  Sometimes reporting is discretionary.

That is a deeply problematic attitude.  I invite you to think on it.

The priest-penitent privilege is generally not the bishop's to waive.  It belongs to the confessor.

No, you don't know that.  Again, the abuse hotline provides advice based on the law.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Insane! I think something somehow should have stopped this. Such as a bishop resigning and then reporting the abuse. There were a lot of things that could stop the horrifness of these children being abused. How did the church authorities and the two bishops sleep at night? People mandating about how the bishop has to follow the law? If I were the bishop I'd take that chance.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Thankfully, I never had to face this personally, but I have wondered if a bishop were told not to report and he did report, what the fallout would be?

It could be serious.  The Church takes the priest-penitent privilege seriously.  I think it is deeply problematic for a bishop to abuse the trust the Church has reposed in him by flouting the law and/or the Church's instructions regarding maintaining confidentiality.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Would he be liable in a lawsuit (for breaking confidence)?

An interesting question.  I think there's a fair chance that such liability is possible.  And since he is functioning as an agent of the Church, the Church could be liable as well.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Would the Church defend him (probably not --- he was told not to)?

Would the Church pay the legal fees of a bishop who disregarded the instructions he received from the Church regarding confidentiality?  Hard to say.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Would he be released? Formally disciplined? 

I think those are distinct possibilities.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Many years ago, there was the case of Susan Brock, where she confessed to her bishop directly, following a meeting with the victim's parents, her and her husband, and the stake president. She categorically denied the allegations in the stake president meeting, so he had a case of she said, they said. But, the bishop was the one with the direct confession. She and her daughter were only arrested because the victim's parents called the police. 

https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/chandler/susan-brock-sentenced-to-13-years-in-prison/article_b8e6a136-6168-11e0-9011-001cc4c03286.html

It really is a thankless job, both on the part of priesthood leaders, and the hotline legal help.

It's a difficult job, but not a thankless one.  Bishops are often appreciated for their efforts.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It's difficult, but I wonder if it's time to not include confession of horrible things under confidentiality "do not report" counsel.

That is not for the individual leader to decide.  As long as he is acting in his official capacity, he is bound to observe the laws of the land, and also the doctrines and practices and guidelines promulgated by the Church.  

Church leaders who receive confessions are acting in an official capacity, not a personal one, so any "rights" which may be in play do not belong to the leader as an individual, and instead only accrue to him in his official capacity.  Therefore, the type and scope and breadth of these rights are defined by A) the Church, and B) secular law pertaining to the confessor's Constitutional right against self-incrimination, the confessor's Free Exercise rights, the LDS Church's Free Exercise rights, and so on.  That second group of things is a biggie, as the judicial system is principally interested in the rights of the confessor, and also in "Free Exercise" rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

These considerations are governed mostly by secular law, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  So when confidentiality can or must be breached varies quite a bit.  The LDS Church teaches that we are obligated to honor and uphold such laws.

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries).  

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I realize that doctrinally, this is different from the Catholic Church, where breaking the seal of confession is a mortal sin.

I think D&C 59:12 is a good place to start.

There are oodles of scriptures about "confession."  Confession to whom is usually not specifically stated.  So some exegesis is needed.  Extrapolation.  Reasoned application.  That's what General Authorities are for, I think.

2 hours ago, rongo said:

We don't have doctrine in this regard; it's more a matter of engendering trust and trustworthiness. 

Actually, I think we do have doctrine in this regard.

It's a complex matter, and one that has been given a lot of attention and thought.  So the priest/penitent privilege is really not something for which emotionalistic, knee-jerk reactions are a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Insane! I think something somehow should have stopped this.

Broadly speaking, that is what is happening now.  Bishops regularly report allegations of abuse to law enforcement.

This story has legs precisely because it is an outlier.

To be honest, I don't think this sort of story happens much ("this" being a situation where a bishop receives a confession of ongoing abuse, but can do nothing to stop it from continuing).  Bishops can usually figure something out to curtail the abuse.  He can persuade the confessor to turn himself in to law enforcement.  Or move out of the family home.  Or authorize the bishop to move the family out of the home.  

Quote

Such as a bishop resigning and then reporting the abuse.

I seem to recall talking with with you and Calm about this last December.  See here:

Quote

Quote

And if it didn't?  What if it would 'poison' any actions taken by law enforcement?  What if there was the risk of being sued for breaking privilege?  What if you were worried about the effect such a lawsuit might have on your own ability to provide for your family?  

Smac, I assume breaking privilege is a civil, not a criminal offense?

I don't know.  I haven't looked into it.

As for your comment about law enforcement acting on "poison{ed}" information, I think you are referring to the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine, summarized here:

Quote

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine was born out of fourth amendment concerns over improper police conduct in the gathering of evidence. 

Generally, evidence obtained through the exploitation of illegal police conduct must be excluded from evidence at trial. This exclusionary rule deprives the prosecution of evidence tainted by official wrongdoing and thereby discourages future improprieties. 

An exception to the exclusionary rule is the "inevitable discovery doctrine."  The exception serves to block the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained without police misconduct.  If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the evidence should be received.

The above case was in Illinois, and extended the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine to "cover more than police misconduct cases, but also violations of the clergy privilege by clergymen."

As I read this case, in Illinois, it appears that if a member of clergy notifies law enforcement about a confession of abuse, in violation of the priest/penitent privilege, then any evidence (the "fruit") collected by the police consequent to that notification (the "poisonous tree") cannot be used as evidence aggainst the accused party.

There are exceptions and limitations to this, of course.  From the same link:

Quote

In Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court recognized the "inevitable discovery" exception to the rule requiring the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The court in Nix held that evidence arguably tainted by a prior illegality may be introduced if the prosecution is able to show that "the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct." The rationale for the "inevitable discovery" exception is that, while "the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired," the prosecution should not be put "in a worse position simply because of some earlier police error or misconduct."

As you can see, the law here becomes pretty complex.  But the gist of it is that a well-meaning clergyman who violates the privilege may very well totally screw up law enforcement's ability to prosecute a wrongdoer. 

How this would turn out in Arizona, I don't know.  The law changes all the time, and varies in many ways from state to state. 

However, for those of you who so regularly fly into a rage at the idea of the Church maintaining a helpline to assist bishops in navigating these choppy legal waters, could you please take a step back and consider factors such as this? 

Could you consider the possibility that knee-jerk, off-the-handle outrage based on a single poorly-written news article might be inappropriate? 

That the Church's leaders (local and general) are also horrified at the prospect of abuse, but they also recognize that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" might play out?  That attitudes like Tacenda's "I would risk going to jail, if it meant saving those girls" may be well-intentioned, but may also have some very serious, though unforeseen in the heat of the moment, consequences (such as the Church and its bishops screwing up prosecutions of wrongdoers by disregarding the privilege)?

I bolded the last paragraph for emphasis.  I hope you give it some consideration.

I also said this to you last year:

Quote

Again, this is a very difficult topic.  All the more reason, then, to be dispassionate and patient when examining the evidence, particularly at the outset.  I don't think we can or should rush to judgment here.  We know very little about what happened in this case.  Moreover, critics and dissidents regularly rail against the Church by posting sensational stories, like this one, with the calculated purpose of inciting anger against the Church (particularly when such topics are introduced with histrionics such as "over the edge" and "cry or scream"), and more particularly, against its volunteer bishops.  The objective is to foment ill will and outrage.  And it works.  But such emotionalisms don't seem to have much utility, and even carry some real risk when regularly interposed against an unpopular (in some circles) religious minority.  So perhaps we should not immediately and reflexively rage against the Church and its bishops, and should instead wait for further information to arise.

Again, this endless effort to cast the Church and its bishops as villains, as horrible people who don't care about the welfare of children, as people to be viewed with suspicion and contempt, and in the worst possible light, is tiresome, perhaps even despicable.

...You are hindering substantive discussion of an important issue with your histrionics.

I hope you are getting past your antagonism against the bishops of the Church.  Truly.

Quote

There were a lot of things that could stop the horrifness of these children being abused.

Indeed.  One resource is for victims to disclose to their bishops.  You know, the guys you regularly slander and vilify as inchoate perverts and child molesters.  As I said last year:

Quote

Quote

Just wish there was something better out there to stop all the hurt and destruction that is overtaking the world's most precious and innocent victims.

Well, that's certainly something that we could discuss.  As it is, your endless here's-a-story-I-am-posting-to-foment-anger-and-outrage-against-the-Church-and-its-bishops schtick is appalling. 

Worse, it is counter-productive.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, and in curtailing abuse.

And yet you endlessly rail against the Church and its bishops.  You ignore all the good they do.  You instead paint them in the worst possible light. 

Please get a grip.  If anything, you are persuading others that bishops are presumptively untrustworthy, that they are actual or nascent perverts and child molesters, or that they are ennablers of such things.  You imply that you are unique in your righteous outrage, and that the Church and its bishops don't care about the welfare of innocents.  

You are affirmatively slandering and speaking against good and decent men who are situated to help detect and stop abuse, and the Church that puts them in that circumstance.  You and your perpetually blind and unreasoned outrage are, if anything, only hindering efforts to help stop and detect abuse.

Again, I hope you are changing your posture toward the bishops of the Church.  They are an overwhelmingly good influence and resource for people in need.

Quote

How did the church authorities and the two bishops sleep at night? People mandating about how the bishop has to follow the law? If I were the bishop I'd take that chance.

Sigh.

Again, from last year:

Quote

However, for those of you who so regularly fly into a rage at the idea of the Church maintaining a helpline to assist bishops in navigating these choppy legal waters, could you please take a step back and consider factors such as this? 

Could you consider the possibility that knee-jerk, off-the-handle outrage based on a single poorly-written news article might be inappropriate? 

That the Church's leaders (local and general) are also horrified at the prospect of abuse, but they also recognize that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" might play out?  That attitudes like Tacenda's "I would risk going to jail, if it meant saving those girls" may be well-intentioned, but may also have some very serious, though unforeseen in the heat of the moment, consequences (such as the Church and its bishops screwing up prosecutions of wrongdoers by disregarding the privilege)?

I wonder how you would feel if you, in exercising your righteous indignation, blew off the priest-penitent privilege, reported the abuser, and as a result killed the case against him because your disclosure violated the abuser's rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2020 by smac97

[rongo]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

One thing I think would happen is that people would stop confessing anything that might be considered a crime to their bishops.  I think this would be a shame as it would

1) cut off these people from the healing power of the atonement that confession to a bishop starts them on the path to receiving

and

2) close off a possible path for the perpetrator to turn himself in to the proper authorities.  Sometimes what a perpetrator may need is someone by his side when he does decide to go to the authorities.

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. 

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a bishop who, upon hearing such a confession, would not encourage/suggest strongly that the person immediately tell the authorities ?

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. 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Catholic priests would allow themselves to be killed before they would break confidentiality.  Can such a confession even be used in court in all jurisdictions?  Does the confessing person come to an LDS bishop assuming the rule of confidentiality?  What happens if LDS bishops flout the rule and the law?  Will parishioners feel safe confessing anything?

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. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying this was the case in this situation, but in some states, a confession to a clergy, where the clergy breaks confidentiality, is not admissible in court.  So a bishop that turned in a confidential confession could actually make things worse for the victim, legally anyway.  

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. 

1 hour 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). 

All of these suggestions either violate confidentiality, too, or cannot be enforced by him. What does/should he do then?

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It could be serious.  The Church takes the priest-penitent privilege seriously.  I think it is deeply problematic for a bishop to abuse the trust the Church has reposed in him by flouting the law and/or the Church's instructions regarding maintaining confidentiality.

An interesting question.  I think there's a fair chance that such liability is possible.  And since he is functioning as an agent of the Church, the Church could be liable as well.

Would the Church pay the legal fees of a bishop who disregarded the instructions he received from the Church regarding confidentiality?  Hard to say.

I think those are distinct possibilities.

It's a difficult job, but not a thankless one.  Bishops are often appreciated for their efforts.

That is not for the individual leader to decide.  As long as he is acting in his official capacity, he is bound to observe the laws of the land, and also the doctrines and practices and guidelines promulgated by the Church.  

Church leaders who receive confessions are acting in an official capacity, not a personal one, so any "rights" which may be in play do not belong to the leader as an individual, and instead only accrue to him in his official capacity.  Therefore, the type and scope and breadth of these rights are defined by A) the Church, and B) secular law pertaining to the confessor's Constitutional right against self-incrimination, the confessor's Free Exercise rights, the LDS Church's Free Exercise rights, and so on.  That second group of things is a biggie, as the judicial system is principally interested in the rights of the confessor, and also in "Free Exercise" rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

These considerations are governed mostly by secular law, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  So when confidentiality can or must be breached varies quite a bit.  The LDS Church teaches that we are obligated to honor and uphold such laws.

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries).  

I think D&C 59:12 is a good place to start.

There are oodles of scriptures about "confession."  Confession to whom is usually not specifically stated.  So some exegesis is needed.  Extrapolation.  Reasoned application.  That's what General Authorities are for, I think.

Actually, I think we do have doctrine in this regard.

It's a complex matter, and one that has been given a lot of attention and thought.  So the priest/penitent privilege is really not something for which emotionalistic, knee-jerk reactions are a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

NVM can't rehash this.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

People like this are inhuman to me. People need to stop it in it's tracks. God is going to punish these bishops and the church for letting it go on and on. 

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

[katherine the great]

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. 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. 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 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.

[Tacenda]

4 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. 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. 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 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.

Thanks, I needed this. 

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It could be serious.  The Church takes the priest-penitent privilege seriously.  I think it is deeply problematic for a bishop to abuse the trust the Church has reposed in him by flouting the law and/or the Church's instructions regarding maintaining confidentiality.

It's certainly not something to treat lightly, that's for sure. 

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries). 

I know this very well. I've called it many times for counsel and to report things (not always abuse; there are other legal questions bishops run into). I can tell you that the Church does not want its leaders embroiled in legal issues, called as witnesses, etc. When reporting is necessary, the K-M attorney tells the bishop that he will do it for him. But, what the leader is told is to say nothing. Upon being told, "You have no legal obligation to report that," I've asked if I have a moral or ethical obligation, and I've simply had it repeated, "You have no legal obligation to report that." 

I have also been told that the reporting laws can also vary between counties, and that Maricopa County (Arizona's largest, with Phoenix. The jurisdiction in question is rural, and near the Mexican border) is a tricky one that has sought to push the boundaries of requiring the Church to report more than others. I've also been told (and I agree generally) that the Church wants to jealously safeguard its privilege rights and doesn't want them eroded away. 

All of this gets very complicated, thought, when abuse and danger are certain, but legal counsel is still telling you not to report anything, like in this story.

 

There are oodles of scriptures about "confession."  Confession to whom is usually not specifically stated.  So some exegesis is needed.  Extrapolation.  Reasoned application.  That's what General Authorities are for, I think.

Actually, I think we do have doctrine in this regard.

I would be very interested in any statements of doctrine you are aware of, either from the scriptures or from General Authorities. I think I'm aware of any you might mention, and there is not much doctrinally established, beyond the common sense of wanting to engender trust and trustworthiness between people and their leaders. Questions such as release or discipline for leaders who breach confidentiality haven't been treated anywhere, to my knowledge; it's uncharted waters. 

 

 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

. There is no confidentiality with any serious moral transgression.

There appears to be legal confidentiality and practical confidentiality and they are often not the same.  I am primarily concerned about legal confidentiality...would a bishop telling law enforcement screw up LE's ability to respond and do something about the abuse?  Not even punishment as in screwing prosecution, but prevention.  Will LE be able to step in to protect or not.  

There is probably a difference between children and adult, as CPS probably has a different set of requirements to act than LE investigating adult crimes.

If people want legal confidentiality to change, complaining to their legislatures seems the most effective thing to do.

I wish there were studies on whether or not predators would be more likely to confess with legal confidentiality and how often this helped get the victims help vs other approaches, but don't really see how that could be studied.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know this very well. I've called it many times for counsel and to report things (not always abuse; there are other legal questions bishops run into). I can tell you that the Church does not want its leaders embroiled in legal issues, called as witnesses, etc.

This is a very understandable position to take.  Bishops are not supposed to be extensions of law enforcement.  They often receive information pertaining to a dispute between two members of the Church.  I think it's reasonable for the Church to generally want its bishops to not take sides in legal proceedings that arise from such disputes.

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

When reporting is necessary, the K-M attorney tells the bishop that he will do it for him. But, what the leader is told is to say nothing. Upon being told, "You have no legal obligation to report that," I've asked if I have a moral or ethical obligation, and I've simply had it repeated, "You have no legal obligation to report that."

So it's left to the discretion of the bishop?

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have also been told that the reporting laws can also vary between counties, and that Maricopa County (Arizona's largest, with Phoenix. The jurisdiction in question is rural, and near the Mexican border) is a tricky one that has sought to push the boundaries of requiring the Church to report more than others. I've also been told (and I agree generally) that the Church wants to jealously safeguard its privilege rights and doesn't want them eroded away. 

All of this gets very complicated, thought, when abuse and danger are certain, but legal counsel is still telling you not to report anything, like in this story.

I agree that it's complicated.

By way of a hypothetical: A bishop receives an allegation of abuse.  The purported abuse took place many years ago, such that the statute of limitations precludes prosecution.  The person reporting the allegations has a history of mental illness.  The person, an adult, is alleging misconduct by his father against his siblings.  The (adult) siblings deny the abuse occurred.  The purported abuser denies the allegations.  There is no evidence of abuse except for the uncorroborated allegations.

Assuming no legal duty to report, should the bishop nevertheless report the allegations to law enforcement?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've also been told (and I agree generally) that the Church wants to jealously safeguard its privilege rights and doesn't want them eroded away. 

By whom?

There may be very good reasons for this if true.  The hotline or other reports to SL is probably the closest thing to having a database on how many confess to bishops in locations where confidentiality is maintained vs areas of mandated reporting.  I suspect numbers are too low to rule out variables for certainty, but perhaps there are enough to at least show a hint.  They may be able to determine there is a benefit for victims to confidentiality....or it may be more about tradition, etc.  I would not be adverse to the Church explaining itself in those terms.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Calm