Mormon church sued over not reporting father's abuse

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It is literally Arizona statute. Any person who makes such a report is "is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action..." 

And you think that would prevent a lawsuit? Okay. You do you.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And you think that would prevent a lawsuit? Okay. You do you.

There's still a lawsuit now. But in this case, the children were abused for years more.  I guess the church chose what to risk.

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

The church statement only says "abuse".  I don't see the term "child abuse" in there.  And even if you assume that "abuse" == "child abuse", it doesn't indicate if it is the abuse that these specific victims were suffering.

And I'll go back to my main point.  According to the lawsuit, the bishop was also their doctor.  If he knew of the abuse as the doctor, then he should absolutely have reported it.  If he didn't, he should be sued since that is an open/shut case for breaking the law.  But since they aren't suing him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor, then it almost likely means that he actually didn't know of the abuse that this lawsuit is about.  Most likely the abuse that he knew about was old and he couldn't report on that because of the priest-penitent privilege.  Any current abuse wasn't visible to him or to anyone else, even though it looks like they were looking for it.  So they had nothing to report.

Another interesting line from the law is:

So, the priest-penitent privilege only covers communication or confession between the man and the bishop.  It doesn't include any personal observation by the bishop of the children.  I don't see how the bishop, knowing that abuse was actually happening to the children and was their doctor, could have not seen something outside of the confessional that would allow him to report.  Also, the lawsuit doesn't even try to cover this case, even though it is also an easy open/shut case.  This just continues to convince me that the bishop did not have any knowledge of the current abuse that was happening.

Reread the whole church statement. The context is child abuse.

Beyond that, you are speculating alot in your posts.

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's still a lawsuit now. But in this case, the children were abused for years more.  I guess the church chose what to risk.

And I choose to risk the chance that you just like condemning the Church and will continue pearl clutching about how awful it is no matter what the facts are. Bye.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/30/2020 at 8:35 PM, JAHS said:

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

_______________

It should have been reported by others outside the clergy privilege. I'm sure however it's a hard thing for a Bishop and the family to do, when he and the wife so desperately want to give him a chance to repent. Is it a baseless lawsuit as the church attorney claimed?

If state law does require the reporting of such crimes, and makes the bishop and others mandated reporters,  then it is a conflict between the tradition of clergy-penitent privilege and the mandated reporting requirement.  If (as portrayed) the bishop had to decide between the instructions from Kirton & McConkie lawyers and state law, he should have immediately resigned as bishop rather than ignore the abuse.  Righteousness and truth always precedes policy or law.  The bishop clearly should have risked his own excommunication rather than allow the abuse to continue unreported.  WWJD?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/30/2020 at 9:36 PM, JAHS said:

Yeah, they didn't put a date on the article so I didn't know if the article itself was new or not.  It's all been going on for a few years. Thanks for the links.

The URL has Nov 30, 2020.  Civil suits take years to file.  The award for medical malpractice will be huge.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I choose to risk the chance that you just like condemning the Church and will continue pearl clutching about how awful it is no matter what the facts are. Bye.

Your choice. I want the church to be better. If its lawyers advised against reporting when it was both the legal and moral thing to do, it should concern us all.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/25/2020 at 10:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

If state law does require the reporting of such crimes, and makes the bishop and others mandated reporters,  then it is a conflict between the tradition of clergy-penitent privilege and the mandated reporting requirement.  If (as portrayed) the bishop had to decide between the instructions from Kirton & McConkie lawyers and state law, he should have immediately resigned as bishop rather than ignore the abuse.  Righteousness and truth always precedes policy or law.  The bishop clearly should have risked his own excommunication rather than allow the abuse to continue unreported.  WWJD?

More importantly the church should risk lawsuits from abusers rather than allow abuse to continue. Then lobby all fifty states for immunity for reporters, especially in cases of ongoing abuse.

Also I wish that churches/501cs/corporations were required to disclose mediated awards for abuse cases, while making anonymous the identifying details of victims. There are cases that never become publicised and are often contingent on NDAs. So members don't have a sense of what is going on. The worse clearly-liable cases will get mediated quickly and quietly.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If state law does require the reporting of such crimes, and makes the bishop and others mandated reporters,  then it is a conflict between the tradition of clergy-penitent privilege and the mandated reporting requirement.  If (as portrayed) the bishop had to decide between the instructions from Kirton & McConkie lawyers and state law, he should have immediately resigned as bishop rather than ignore the abuse.  Righteousness and truth always precedes policy or law.  The bishop clearly should have risked his own excommunication rather than allow the abuse to continue unreported.  WWJD?

And if reporting it wouldn’t have made it stop?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/25/2020 at 10:09 AM, The Nehor said:

And if reporting it wouldn’t have made it stop?

The criminal justice system can be very harsh in such cases, so I am not sure what you suggest would happen, unless you are claiming that there would be no consequences in court. leading to a continuation of the sex abuse of children.  Is that typical?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/25/2020 at 4:59 AM, Meadowchik said:

More importantly the church should risk lawsuits from abusers rather than allow abuse to continue. Then lobby all fifty states for immunity for reporters, especially in cases of ongoing abuse.

Also I wish that churches/501cs/corporations were required to disclose mediated awards for abuse cases, while making anonymous the identifying details of victims. There are cases that never become publicised and are often contingent on NDAs. So members don't have a sense of what is going on. The worse clearly-liable cases will get mediated quickly and quietly.

I don't know about lobbying, but the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually have to make the decision as to what is more important:  clergy-penitent confessional confidentiality or the needs of justice for the victims of abuse.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The criminal justice system can be very harsh in such cases, so I am not sure what you suggest would happen, unless you are claiming that there would be no consequences in court. leading to a continuation of the sex abuse of children.  Is that typical?

They might not be able to prove it, the investigators might screw up or their might be nothing to find, CPS may not have enough for a removal, etc.

The justice system can be harsh when it is cut and dried in terms of evidence and especially if there is a lot of publicity. My experience though (working as a CASA volunteer) is that it often accomplishes little to nothing. Even in cases of abuse or neglect it is often a civil case to get custody of the kids. There is often not enough for criminal prosecution of the abuser.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know about lobbying, but the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually have to make the decision as to what is more important:  clergy-penitent confessional confidentiality or the needs of justice for the victims of abuse.

I doubt it will end up in the US Supreme Court and get a definitive ruling. Clergy-penitent laws are state laws so it is more likely to fall under the state courts. I don't see a constitutional issue that would gain any traction in the federal court system.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They might not be able to prove it, the investigators might screw up or their might be nothing to find, CPS may not have enough for a removal, etc.

The justice system can be harsh when it is cut and dried in terms of evidence and especially if there is a lot of publicity. My experience though (working as a CASA volunteer) is that it often accomplishes little to nothing. Even in cases of abuse or neglect it is often a civil case to get custody of the kids. There is often not enough for criminal prosecution of the abuser.

Gone should be the days of not doing anything for fear we're wrong about the abuse. CPS has said that even if it was a mistaken accusation, the CPS wants people to know that they will investigate and find out either way. The worst thing to do would be not to do anything for fear that someone has mistaken the abuse. And I'm not so sure it's the best thing to not report as clergy. I think there's ways around that, as Robert mentioned. Resign as a bishop then save those children. And if you think that by the bishop doing this then no one will repent or go to clergy for help, I disagree, I believe that a lot of people won't know that this information could get leaked.

I believe that there are crimes, that the clergy should keep confidential, sure. Such as an adultery, or a robbery or illegal drug abuse, etc. But it ends at child/spouse abuse. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

On 12/25/2020 at 1:13 AM, The Nehor said:

And I choose to risk the chance that you just like condemning the Church and will continue pearl clutching about how awful it is no matter what the facts are. Bye.

This isn't the only time an abuse wasn't stopped but kept happening because Kirton and McConkie said to not report to law enforcement.

 

On 12/25/2020 at 2:25 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

If state law does require the reporting of such crimes, and makes the bishop and others mandated reporters,  then it is a conflict between the tradition of clergy-penitent privilege and the mandated reporting requirement.  If (as portrayed) the bishop had to decide between the instructions from Kirton & McConkie lawyers and state law, he should have immediately resigned as bishop rather than ignore the abuse.  Righteousness and truth always precedes policy or law.  The bishop clearly should have risked his own excommunication rather than allow the abuse to continue unreported.  WWJD?

100%!!! 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Tacenda

[webbles]

On 12/25/2020 at 12:36 AM, Meadowchik said:

Reread the whole church statement. The context is child abuse.

Beyond that, you are speculating alot in your posts.

The lawsuit is speculating a lot.  They currently have no proof that the bishops knew of the horrific abuse.  They allege that lots of people knew of the abuse and not a single person acted on it.  I have a really hard time believing that out of all the people that supposedly knew, not a single person reported it.  The lawsuit is focusing on the priest-penitent privilege because it is an easy scapegoat.  Since the bishop can't tell what was actually said there and the perpetrator has died, the lawsuit can allege a lot of things about the conversations and never have to prove it.

Personally, I'm horrified that the kids were abused.  But I'm also saddened by this lawsuit.  I think that the "proof" they have is actually contra-indicative of what they are alleging.  I don't think the bishop knew as much as they are alleging.  And I think the facts that one of the bishops was their doctor and that an excommunication trial happened really hurts their case.

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Gone should be the days of not doing anything for fear we're wrong about the abuse. CPS has said that even if it was a mistaken accusation, the CPS wants people to know that they will investigate and find out either way. The worst thing to do would be not to do anything for fear that someone has mistaken the abuse. And I'm not so sure it's the best thing to not report as clergy. I think there's ways around that, as Robert mentioned. Resign as a bishop then save those children. And if you think that by the bishop doing this then no one will repent or go to clergy for help, I disagree, I believe that a lot of people will know that this could happen often. 

The bishop had no need to resign.  If he was their doctor, than he could have easily "noticed" the abuse outside of the confessional.  He could then have reported it as a doctor and not as a bishop.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

The bishop had no need to resign.  If he was their doctor, than he could have easily "noticed" the abuse outside of the confessional.  He could then have reported it as a doctor and not as a bishop.

This makes it far worse, even if he had a small inkling of abuse he should have reported.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Gone should be the days of not doing anything for fear we're wrong about the abuse. CPS has said that even if it was a mistaken accusation, the CPS wants people to know that they will investigate and find out either way. The worst thing to do would be not to do anything for fear that someone has mistaken the abuse. And I'm not so sure it's the best thing to not report as clergy. I think there's ways around that, as Robert mentioned. Resign as a bishop then save those children. And if you think that by the bishop doing this then no one will repent or go to clergy for help, I disagree, I believe that a lot of people won't know that this information could get leaked.

I believe that there are crimes, that the clergy should keep confidential, sure. Such as an adultery, or a robbery or illegal drug abuse, etc. But it ends at child/spouse abuse. 

"Gone should be the days" does not equal "Gone are the days" and I am not even sure I agree. CPS has a lot of power and I have seen the damage that a suspicion of child abuse can do to a family even if it is unfounded. Egging CPS on to investigate cases with no real evidence and to dig deep is a lot of license. It seems fair and reasonable to ignore all rights when preventing abuse to a child until you are the innocent whose rights are getting ground underfoot. It takes a lot of get a kid pulled out of a home and it should.

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This isn't the only time an abuse wasn't stopped but kept happening because Kirton and McConkie said to not report to law enforcement.

You again assume it would have stopped. Why? In most states the privilege belongs to the confessor so if the bishop ran and confessed it could very well be inadmissible.

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

100%!!! 

Resigning as Bishop would not end the existing privilege. A doctor or lawyer cannot give up their medical or law license and then just start blabbing about patient's diseases or what they said privately about the murder allegations.

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"Gone should be the days" does not equal "Gone are the days" and I am not even sure I agree. CPS has a lot of power and I have seen the damage that a suspicion of child abuse can do to a family even if it is unfounded. Egging CPS on to investigate cases with no real evidence and to dig deep is a lot of license. It seems fair and reasonable to ignore all rights when preventing abuse to a child until you are the innocent whose rights are getting ground underfoot. It takes a lot of get a kid pulled out of a home and it should.

You again assume it would have stopped. Why? In most states the privilege belongs to the confessor so if the bishop ran and confessed it could very well be inadmissible.

Resigning as Bishop would not end the existing privilege. A doctor or lawyer cannot give up their medical or law license and then just start blabbing about patient's diseases or what they said privately about the murder allegations.

I'm very impressed that you were a CASA volunteer. That took a lot of hours of your time, and clearly showed the care and concern you have for children that need an advocate. I recently listened to an audible called, "The Boy Called It", maybe that has caused my reactions to all of this. Because back in the 70's things were swept under the carpet more or less, and years he suffered with no one coming to his aid. And most definitely it wasn't an easy fix, even with the reporting of the abuse from a school teacher, it was really difficult to finally get him out and into foster care. So I understand your points. But sometimes action must be taken rather than inaction.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I'm very impressed that you were a CASA volunteer. That took a lot of hours of your time, and clearly showed the care and concern you have for children that need an advocate. I recently listened to an audible called, "The Boy Called It", maybe that has caused my reactions to all of this. Because back in the 70's things were swept under the carpet more or less, and years he suffered with no one coming to his aid. And most definitely it wasn't an easy fix, even with the reporting of the abuse from a school teacher, it was really difficult to finally get him out and into foster care. So I understand your points. But sometimes action must be taken rather than inaction.

I agree. CPS has a long history (thought not as long as it should be) and there was a lot of crazy. Back in the 70s there was generally no timetable on a CPS case so you had parents trying to get their kids back for 5 to 10 years with no real timetable. The kids were stuck in the foster system forever. A congressional investigation found that the kids in foster care were more messed up (in terms of development, grades, etc.) than equivalent kids still stuck in abusive homes. Congress also made the questionable move of allotting federal money based on how many kids were in the system which does have a perverse incentive. I don't think it led to a lot of kids being removed that shouldn't have been but I do suspect it kept kids in the system instead of going home or to adoption. Congress laid a mandate of one year for deciding the long term status of a removed child. At the time (I want to say in the 90s) CPS offices took it as shocking and the end of the world at the time. Congress did allow for extensions to 18 months or two years in extreme situations but on the whole 12 months is the standard now that the kids either go home or they are adoptable (by other family, fictive kin, or to general adoption). A lot of the work I did was trying to find dads (occasionally moms) or extended family of either parent to see if anyone would take the child.

The foster care system is also a mess. My state was privatizing it when I was a volunteer and with a little digging I found out that the companies that were monitoring foster homes meeting state standards were also the ones who owned the companies setting up foster homes and I wanted to scream. I sent what I found off to a newspaper but I don't think they ever did anything with it. Foster homes range from outstanding to abysmal. I was not at all surprised to find out that some of the yahoos who occupied that wildlife preserve a few years back had foster kids and the stipend for the kids was the bulk of their income. Abuse in foster homes is also not nearly as rare as it should be. Demand usually exceeds supply and the usual solution to that (adding money) often means you lower the quality of people wanting to foster kids.

CPS is a mixed bag. I never had a problem with a case worker but another CASA worker I made friends with had one she had to oppose regularly in court. Mom had yelled at the CPS worker once and that worker basically decided then that mom was never getting her daughter back. CPS workers also have huge caseloads. Ideally each caseworker should have 4 to 5 family groups to take care of. Where I live they usually had 25 to 35 each.

I know it is easy to take my cynicism as license for abuse but I honestly believe that bishops should have that privilege and I believe it does help kids. I have been a clerk or a ward executive secretary working with a bishop on cases involving abuse and I am convinced that the shield of confidentiality is a greater help to the kids than getting rid of it. I had one meeting (many years ago and I will keep this vague) at about 11 at night with a bishop wrestling with this. He decided that he had enough outside of meetings to get CPS involved but was unsure how best to do it. We worked out a way that bishop was not the one making the report to prevent legal challenges and tried to get the kids to a place where they would be less traumatized by the investigation. I have seen other situations. I believe most bishops are trying to deal with these situations they don't want to handle in the best way they can. It annoys me when they are assumed guilty by armchair quarterbacks. Maybe this bishop did screw up. I don't know but I hate to watch the equivalents of people I know who have looked at the wreckage of lives with confusion and sadness and a desire to help and seeing them ridiculed for doing the best they could. If there is anger turn it to the people unambiguously at fault, the abusers. The story I mention above gave me a sudden desire to punch a member of that ward every time I saw them for a long time.

Trying to get into my head that child abuse on that scale is still a forgivable sin is hard for me. At the same time I am more jaded. I have had to meet with and talk with abusers and it is so hard because they do not come across as monsters but in many ways they are. You even begin to empathize a bit when you realize the cycle of abuse often didn't start with them.

If you want a dark insight into what abusers think this person did a bit of a study on it in one of the areas where abusers are more open about who they are and what they do:

Quote

For several years now I've followed blogs about narcissists and other abusers, written by victims of abuse. They're powerful tools for recovery, and powerful testimonials to the impact of emotional abusers on other people's lives. What's been missing is the abusers' perspective on the abuse. The narcissists I see online don't write about their relationships with their children and close friends; they hardly write about their own partners, except as props in the narcissist's ongoing drama. I assumed that there was no way to get the abusers' side of the story, that abusers are smart enough to not incriminate themselves in their own blogs, and like hell would they get together with other abusers to discuss abuse.

I was wrong.

For more on this http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/index.html

This is about parents of adult children, many of whom were abused to one degree or another, but it is harder to find it for parents of minor children. Even then you would be surprised. When a family court was unclear in one case when the abuse happened I was able to find the date and approximate time by looking at the abuser's Facebook page.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree. CPS has a long history (thought not as long as it should be) and there was a lot of crazy. Back in the 70s there was generally no timetable on a CPS case so you had parents trying to get their kids back for 5 to 10 years with no real timetable. The kids were stuck in the foster system forever. A congressional investigation found that the kids in foster care were more messed up (in terms of development, grades, etc.) than equivalent kids still stuck in abusive homes. Congress also made the questionable move of allotting federal money based on how many kids were in the system which does have a perverse incentive. I don't think it led to a lot of kids being removed that shouldn't have been but I do suspect it kept kids in the system instead of going home or to adoption. Congress laid a mandate of one year for deciding the long term status of a removed child. At the time (I want to say in the 90s) CPS offices took it as shocking and the end of the world at the time. Congress did allow for extensions to 18 months or two years in extreme situations but on the whole 12 months is the standard now that the kids either go home or they are adoptable (by other family, fictive kin, or to general adoption). A lot of the work I did was trying to find dads (occasionally moms) or extended family of either parent to see if anyone would take the child.

The foster care system is also a mess. My state was privatizing it when I was a volunteer and with a little digging I found out that the companies that were monitoring foster homes meeting state standards were also the ones who owned the companies setting up foster homes and I wanted to scream. I sent what I found off to a newspaper but I don't think they ever did anything with it. Foster homes range from outstanding to abysmal. I was not at all surprised to find out that some of the yahoos who occupied that wildlife preserve a few years back had foster kids and the stipend for the kids was the bulk of their income. Abuse in foster homes is also not nearly as rare as it should be. Demand usually exceeds supply and the usual solution to that (adding money) often means you lower the quality of people wanting to foster kids.

CPS is a mixed bag. I never had a problem with a case worker but another CASA worker I made friends with had one she had to oppose regularly in court. Mom had yelled at the CPS worker once and that worker basically decided then that mom was never getting her daughter back. CPS workers also have huge caseloads. Ideally each caseworker should have 4 to 5 family groups to take care of. Where I live they usually had 25 to 35 each.

I know it is easy to take my cynicism as license for abuse but I honestly believe that bishops should have that privilege and I believe it does help kids. I have been a clerk or a ward executive secretary working with a bishop on cases involving abuse and I am convinced that the shield of confidentiality is a greater help to the kids than getting rid of it. I had one meeting (many years ago and I will keep this vague) at about 11 at night with a bishop wrestling with this. He decided that he had enough outside of meetings to get CPS involved but was unsure how best to do it. We worked out a way that bishop was not the one making the report to prevent legal challenges and tried to get the kids to a place where they would be less traumatized by the investigation. I have seen other situations. I believe most bishops are trying to deal with these situations they don't want to handle in the best way they can. It annoys me when they are assumed guilty by armchair quarterbacks. Maybe this bishop did screw up. I don't know but I hate to watch the equivalents of people I know who have looked at the wreckage of lives with confusion and sadness and a desire to help and seeing them ridiculed for doing the best they could. If there is anger turn it to the people unambiguously at fault, the abusers. The story I mention above gave me a sudden desire to punch a member of that ward every time I saw them for a long time.

Trying to get into my head that child abuse on that scale is still a forgivable sin is hard for me. At the same time I am more jaded. I have had to meet with and talk with abusers and it is so hard because they do not come across as monsters but in many ways they are. You even begin to empathize a bit when you realize the cycle of abuse often didn't start with them.

If you want a dark insight into what abusers think this person did a bit of a study on it in one of the areas where abusers are more open about who they are and what they do:

For more on this http://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/index.html

This is about parents of adult children, many of whom were abused to one degree or another, but it is harder to find it for parents of minor children. Even then you would be surprised. When a family court was unclear in one case when the abuse happened I was able to find the date and approximate time by looking at the abuser's Facebook page.

In the audible I mentioned, he did say the foster care system wasn't always the most ideal, but it beat having the monster of a mom and his lack of a good father who allowed the abuse in his life, so he could get some food, and avoid death. His mother stabbed him with a knife, makes him stay in the bathroom, while inhaling ammonia/bleach, makes him eat inhumane things and his bed was the basement concrete floor and he starved every day he was out of school and only ate when he would try to steal food out of his peers' lunches or find it in the garbage at home which was rare because his mom would make sure there was no food in the trash unless it was something really disgusting. 

Weirdly, no matter how bad his abuse he still managed to want the approval and love of his mother and father thinking it was all his fault. Such a difficult subject. I sure wish I had the skills/stamina/mental ability to help and be a CASA volunteer, because after listening to the audible, the boy had someone that was a CASA volunteer who was his savior. Maybe they called it something different back then. But it was a woman who interceded for him thankfully. 

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

The lawsuit is speculating a lot.  They currently have no proof that the bishops knew of the horrific abuse.  They allege that lots of people knew of the abuse and not a single person acted on it.  I have a really hard time believing that out of all the people that supposedly knew, not a single person reported it.  The lawsuit is focusing on the priest-penitent privilege because it is an easy scapegoat.  Since the bishop can't tell what was actually said there and the perpetrator has died, the lawsuit can allege a lot of things about the conversations and never have to prove it.

Personally, I'm horrified that the kids were abused.  But I'm also saddened by this lawsuit.  I think that the "proof" they have is actually contra-indicative of what they are alleging.  I don't think the bishop knew as much as they are alleging.  And I think the facts that one of the bishops was their doctor and that an excommunication trial happened really hurts their case.

Horrific abuse need not be known in order to necessitate reporting. The moral responsibility to report begins when there is knowledge of neglect or abuse. It sounds to me like the ward members believed they couldn't report because of what church lawyers advised and that they should just do what they could through church channels to help. It sounds like they were misguided.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This makes it far worse, even if he had a small inkling of abuse he should have reported.

"Inkling" is unclear. I would instead say any reasonable belief that neglect or non accidental injury has occurred.

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen other situations. I believe most bishops are trying to deal with these situations they don't want to handle in the best way they can. It annoys me when they are assumed guilty by armchair quarterbacks. Maybe this bishop did screw up. 

This case is one where the guidance given by church lawyers to the bishops could very well be morally wrong and not legally correct.

It is not pearl-clutching to identify such a problem.

I agree that there are systemic problems that reach far beyond churches, but it is still important to identify the cracks and harm when we are in the position to see them.