Nofear Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/may/southern-baptist-abuse-investigation-sbc-ec-legal-survivors.html It's not a good report, not good at all. If any of you see comparisons to the Church from the nay-saying side of things, please post and share. I'll be on vacation for a week and so may miss much. 2
Pyreaux Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 I read the article, I thought I wasn't going to be surprised that there were some unreported abusers, or accused abusers that exist. What surprised me was that it sounds very much like the Catholic scandal, they'd been moving accused pastors around pulpits. I'm more surprised, and want to doubt that Southern Baptists have the authoritative power and willingness to cover it up and censor people, have them agree to stay silent, that seems to be more power than I thought they even had. Beyond keeping an issue silent because of peer pressure and only enforced with the power of guilt, as opposed to being authoritatively told to be quite. I don't know. 3
Tacenda Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Nofear said: https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/may/southern-baptist-abuse-investigation-sbc-ec-legal-survivors.html It's not a good report, not good at all. If any of you see comparisons to the Church from the nay-saying side of things, please post and share. I'll be on vacation for a week and so may miss much. Religious organizations can be scary places when they are authoritative. And so many lives destroyed by these sick ba$tards using God for their own devious sexual purposes.
bluebell Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 https://www.startribune.com/former-minnesota-mormon-leader-convicted-of-sexually-assaulting-13-year-old-boy/600173140/ We don't have a great track record on this kind of stuff sometimes, but I don't think our failings have been systematic. At least not in the last couple of decades (before that, I think that there were probably few churches prepared to acknowledge the sexual predator problem in society in general, let alone in their congregations). The abuse in the article above happened 4-5 years ago, so I don't know that we can say it would happen today (since the church is much more aware and active in preventing it now), but I'm not sure how this man, a registered sex offender in Utah, was able to serve as EQ president in Minnesota. Did someone purposefully allowed it to happen or did the information fall through the cracks because of failures in the system when he moved? I really hope it was the second. 1
Pyreaux Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: https://www.startribune.com/former-minnesota-mormon-leader-convicted-of-sexually-assaulting-13-year-old-boy/600173140/ We don't have a great track record on this kind of stuff sometimes, but I don't think our failings have been systematic. At least not in the last couple of decades (before that, I think that there were probably few churches prepared to acknowledge the sexual predator problem in society in general, let alone in their congregations). The abuse in the article above happened 4-5 years ago, so I don't know that we can say it would happen today (since the church is much more aware and active in preventing it now), but I'm not sure how this man, a registered sex offender in Utah, was able to serve as EQ president in Minnesota. Did someone purposefully allowed it to happen or did the information fall through the cracks because of failures in the system when he moved? I really hope it was the second. Sex offenders join or remain active in the church but their records are marked. Only a Bishop is aware of the mark, and that is so that when extending callings they don't have a calling over children. So, not a bishop nor a councler conduct interview, so unless he becomes a clerk perhaps, he'll never become a High Priest. Ideally not a youth teacher or young men's president, etc. This was an Elder's Quorum President, that's probably allowed. What is unusual is how he became a child's "mentor",, there is no mentorship program in the church. 1
bluebell Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 17 minutes ago, Pyreaux said: Sex offenders join or remain active in the church but their records are marked. Only a Bishop is aware of the mark, and that is so that when extending callings they don't have a calling over children. So, not a bishop nor a councler conduct interview, so unless he becomes a clerk perhaps, he'll never become a High Priest. Ideally not a youth teacher or young men's president, etc. This was an Elder's Quorum President, that's probably allowed. What is unusual is how he became a child's "mentor",, there is no mentorship program in the church. I can't imagine why EQ president would be allowed. I personally know of someone who was convicted of child porn (no actual physical abuse) and he can't even be called as a finance clerk because of it. And with that calling he would have no contact with general membership at all. It's all done from the clerk's office. EQ presidencies are in charge of assigning ministering partners, including assigning teenage boys to partner with members of the EQ and minister to others. Plus, they frequently visit people in their homes, having access to their kids. I really don't believe that EQ president would be allowed for someone who was a convicted sex offender. He became an informal mentor through the parents, nothing to do with the church. But the parents likely thought it was a good idea because of his leadership calling in the ward. 2
Meadowchik Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 I think that one systemic issue the church has in this area is demonstrated with the church hotline. As far as I know, it is only intended for the use of priesthood leaders handling abuse cases or accusations of abuse. Thus there is a significant systemic feature that can disrupt the disclosure process between the potential abuse cases and upper church leadership. 3
bluebell Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I think that one systemic issue the church has in this area is demonstrated with the church hotline. As far as I know, it is only intended for the use of priesthood leaders handling abuse cases or accusations of abuse. Thus there is a significant systemic feature that can disrupt the disclosure process between the potential abuse cases and upper church leadership. The hotline is meant to make sure that whatever happens, it is what the law requires, which is different in every state in the US and every country in the world. Every state in the US protects priest-penitent privilege but some protect it more than others. In some states for example, anything a clergy member disclosed to the police without the person's permission, that was obtained during a confidential meeting between him and a member of his congregation, would automatically be inadmissible in court. So it could not be used in a hearing to convict the person of any wrongdoing. Different countries have different laws on what is legal for a clergyman to disclose and what isn't as well of course. Given that, how does the hotline itself serve as a system failure? 2
Meadowchik Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 24 minutes ago, bluebell said: The hotline is meant to make sure that whatever happens, it is what the law requires, which is different in every state in the US and every country in the world. Every state in the US protects priest-penitent privilege but some protect it more than others. In some states for example, anything a clergy member disclosed to the police without the person's permission, that was obtained during a confidential meeting between him and a member of his congregation, would automatically be inadmissible in court. So it could not be used in a hearing to convict the person of any wrongdoing. Different countries have different laws on what is legal for a clergyman to disclose and what isn't as well of course. Given that, how does the hotline itself serve as a system failure? I think there are several ways it is a bad systemic issue, probably in more ways than we can understand. But how does a person report the abuse by a leader who is part of the chain of command? Usually members are counselled to go to their local leaders. So if the hotline is not intended for use by regular members, in such case there is no way to report abuse within usual church guidelines, without going thru their alleged abuser. But even without that, there's still the issue of an abuse victim having to go through untrained laypersons in order to communicate and disclose to the full-time experienced leaders. I see this as a fundamental communication problem for an organisation. Perhaps this could be somewhat mitigated by the church hiring full-time regional ombudsman who is legally qualified and also trained to speak to abuse victims. Imo such a thing becomes a moral imperative for any organisation that facilitates intimate, authoritative access to children and other people. Such organisations, in my opinion, are more vulnerable to predatory exploitation.
Popular Post bluebell Posted May 23, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I think there are several ways it is a bad systemic issue, probably in more ways than we can understand. But how does a person report the abuse by a leader who is part of the chain of command? Usually members are counselled to go to their local leaders. So if the hotline is not intended for use by regular members, in such case there is no way to report abuse within usual church guidelines, without going thru their alleged abuser. But even without that, there's still the issue of an abuse victim having to go through untrained laypersons in order to communicate and disclose to the full-time experienced leaders. I see this as a fundamental communication problem for an organisation. Perhaps this could be somewhat mitigated by the church hiring full-time regional ombudsman who is legally qualified and also trained to speak to abuse victims. Imo such a thing becomes a moral imperative for any organisation that facilitates intimate, authoritative access to children and other people. Such organisations, in my opinion, are more vulnerable to predatory exploitation. I see what you are saying. You are asking, how does someone report the abuse of a bishop or a stake president. That's not the purpose of the hotline though. The hotline doesn't serve as a way to report abuse to the church, it only serves as a help for leaders who have members who have confessed abuse or accused other members of abuse to make sure that they proceed in a legal fashion. The hotline is to the church's lawyers (as I understand it) and not to any ecclesiastical church leader. From my perspective, if a member needed to report the abuse of a bishop they would go to the stake president. Likewise, a member could report abuse by a stake president to the bishop. If either of those options weren't seen as viable then they could report it to the area authority. Ideally though, such a member would just report the abuse directly to the police. 8
Meadowchik Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: I see what you are saying. You are asking, how does someone report the abuse of a bishop or a stake president. That's not the purpose of the hotline though. The hotline doesn't serve as a way to report abuse to the church, it only serves as a help for leaders who have members who have confessed abuse or accused other members of abuse to make sure that they proceed in a legal fashion. The hotline is to the church's lawyers (as I understand it) and not to any ecclesiastical church leader. From my perspective, if a member needed to report the abuse of a bishop they would go to the stake president. Likewise, a member could report abuse by a stake president to the bishop. If either of those options weren't seen as viable then they could report it to the area authority. Ideally though, such a member would just report the abuse directly to the police. That's basically my point, that the hotline is not intended for regular members. That means that the organisation itself does not have guidance for how regular members can report abuse to the organisation. And even if they do go to their local leaders, they'd be going to untrained laypersons. Abuse disclosures are not always obvious, and even when they are they are an extremely heavy topic that can be overwhelming to an untrained person already working a full time job somewhere else and supporting a family. 2
jkwilliams Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: That's basically my point, that the hotline is not intended for regular members. That means that the organisation itself does not have guidance for how regular members can report abuse to the organisation. And even if they do go to their local leaders, they'd be going to untrained laypersons. Abuse disclosures are not always obvious, and even when they are they are an extremely heavy topic that can be overwhelming to an untrained person already working a full time job somewhere else and supporting a family. Yep. The hotline seems designed more to alert the church to potential legal risk for the organization rather than to minister to the abused. 3
Meadowchik Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 Just now, jkwilliams said: Yep. The hotline seems designed more to alert the church to potential legal risk for the organization rather than to minister to the abused. Yes, explicitly so, too. I feel like there needs to be professionally trained support for situations of abuse, provided by the church and designated to each region--probably based on church member density and supplemented further in the cases of any apparent further need. 1
bluebell Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 Just now, jkwilliams said: Yep. The hotline seems designed more to alert the church to potential legal risk for the organization rather than to minister to the abused. Oh definitely. The hotline has nothing to do ministering to the abused. How could a hotline minister to anyone? 1
jkwilliams Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: Oh definitely. The hotline has nothing to do ministering to the abused. How could a hotline minister to anyone? Maybe they could refer the local leaders to counseling and other resources. 2
Popular Post The Nehor Posted May 23, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2022 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Ideally though, such a member would just report the abuse directly to the police. It is this. Having a church hotline for members to report abuse by leadership would (possibly correctly) be viewed as an attempt to cover up or control it. The hotline is to make sure the local leaders don’t foul up on privilege law. The protection training is clear on this. If abuse is witnessed or suspected call the police or a government line for it. The only exception is the Bishop who should call the church hotline first to get advice on how to proceed. 8
Popular Post The Nehor Posted May 23, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2022 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Yep. The hotline seems designed more to alert the church to potential legal risk for the organization rather than to minister to the abused. Ideally it keeps the bishop from doing anything that would compromise or interfere with any legal investigation and keep the bishop from doing anything that would taint a case. It is not to minister to the abused. Ideally it is to make sure the abuse is more likely to stop and the bishop doesn’t accidentally ruin a prosecution due to well-meaning but legally ignorant attempts to help. If it was primarily to protect the church we would have everyone call the hotline first and run risk assessments or whatever. 5
Popular Post Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2022 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: That's basically my point, that the hotline is not intended for regular members. That means that the organisation itself does not have guidance for how regular members can report abuse to the organisation. And even if they do go to their local leaders, they'd be going to untrained laypersons. Abuse disclosures are not always obvious, and even when they are they are an extremely heavy topic that can be overwhelming to an untrained person already working a full time job somewhere else and supporting a family. This is what is posted on the Abuse In Crisis page first thing: Quote If you or someone you know has been abused, seek help immediately from civil authorities, child protective services, or adult protective services. You may also seek help from a victim advocate or medical or counseling professional. These services can help protect you and prevent further abuse. In addition, the help lines listed below are free and are staffed by people who are trained to help. These resources are not created, maintained, or controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline (US and Canada; 170 languages): 1-800-4-A-Child or 1-800-422-4453. Crisis intervention and information, referrals to support services. Confidential 24/7 support. Child Protective Services | Childcare.gov The National Domestic Violence Hotline (200 languages): 1-800-799-7233 or 1-800-787-3224 (TTY). Advocacy information and safety planning. Email (English) and chat (English and Spanish) are also available. National Dating Abuse Helpline (200 languages): 1-866-331-9474 or 1-866-331-8453 (TDD). Email and text (English) and chat (English and Spanish) are also available. Freephone 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline (UK; English): 0808-2000-247. Email is also available. National Sexual Assault Hotline (US; English and Spanish): 1-800-656-4673. National Sexual Assault Online Hotline (US): Live chat. Help from a trained support specialist. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (US; English and Spanish): 1-800-273-8255. Live chat. 6
Popular Post Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I feel like there needs to be professionally trained support for situations of abuse, provided by the church and designated to each region--probably based on church member density and supplemented further in the cases of any apparent further need. Why provided by the Church? Seems to me there is less likelihood of concern for the Church community’s wellbeing being too much an influence in the counseling efforts over the needs of victims is unconnected to the Church than if paychecks are being paid by the Church. Better to use professional services from other sources Imo. Family Services can, of course, provide help in making connections with appropriate resources, which it does. Concern for the community is important, but I think it is asking too much of individuals to have to be the primary caregiver of both the community’s needs and the victim’s primary counseling needs. As additional support spiritually, that can be very helpful but it should never be the ‘first responder’ approach unless there is no other option because of community lacks (which should never be the case in the US, Canada or most of Europe and other developed countries I would think, countries in social upheaval might be lacking) or because the victim themselves isn’t ready to talk to anyone but their Bishop or branch President or other local leader. Edited May 23, 2022 by Calm 6
Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 Info for both members and leaders on what to do when reporting: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/counseling-resources/abuse-victim?lang=eng Quote Abuse (Help for the Victim) Help Lines Bishops, branch presidents, and stake presidents should immediately call the Church’s ecclesiastical help line each time they learn of abuse. This resource provides assistance in helping victims and in meeting reporting requirements. Go to Help Line Numbers for the help line number and more information. No Church leader should ever dismiss a report of abuse or counsel an individual not to report criminal activity. U.S. and Canada If other members learn of abuse, they should immediately contact legal authorities. They should also counsel with their bishop or stake president who will call the abuse help line for guidance in helping victims and meeting reporting requirements. Countries Outside of the U.S. and Canada Learn how and when you should report abuse. Stake presidents and bishops should immediately call the help line for guidance if one is available in their country. In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president. He will seek guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office (see General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2020), 38.6.2.1, ChurchofJesusChrist.org). Other members should comply with any legal reporting obligations and counsel with their bishops. 1
Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 Quote Church Policy and Teachings “Reports of Misconduct,” General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2020), 20.6.18 “Counseling,” General Handbook, 31.2 “Keeping Confidences,” General Handbook, 31.3 “Protecting against Misunderstandings,” General Handbook, 31.4 “Responding to Abuse,” General Handbook, 31.5 “Abuse,” General Handbook, 38.6.2 “Legal Counsel for Church Matters,” General Handbook, 38.8.27 From the same link. It appears to me the Church makes it clear officially now that counseling for the abuse should be done by non church related professional, though certainly helping financially through welfare to access these services is a possibility. Family Services is supposed to help members find outside help if they need therapy. Church leaders are there for counseling in spiritual healing, very important but should never be the primary source of counseling Imo. 2
Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 (edited) Perhaps everyone should read the policy info before continuing posting so no incorrect assumptions about current church procedures are made. The Church has made the wise move to post all this info online. The hotline provides legal advice to the reporting leader about confidentiality issues and mandatory reporting, but also provides info on providing professional help for the victim and their families. Members can also find this info help through Family Services. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/Preventing-and-Responding-to-Abuse-attachment-final.pdf I would like to see a statement about if in need or a member who is aware of abuse to go the online info to learn more of help available as well as what the Church’s role should be as standard on all Sacrament programs. I would also like to see a separate member’s ‘hotline’ (call it something else to avoid confusion between the two and to prevent assumptions it is a ‘first response’ service) for reporting abuse in a church setting or by a church leader, but it should never be considered as meant for dealing with the abuse. The service would need to make that clear, similar to the messages “if this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911” you get when calling doctors’ offices. It should be used only as a means to ensure information about predators (actual and alleged) is known to general as well as local leaders, that records get annotated when appropriate (not automatically, but after appropriate investigation to avoid abuse of the system through false reporting). I would not be surprised if we eventually end up with something like this, if only for better visible awareness by the public that the Church intends to actively track offenders. I don’t have access to data on the current effectiveness of the current system, it may be excellent. But no system is perfect, even mandatory reporting ones as evidenced by ongoing abuse still occurring on occasion with teachers in schools, etc, so I would expect to see occasional reports like this EQ Pres occurring. Edited May 23, 2022 by Calm 2
smac97 Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 4 hours ago, Pyreaux said: I read the article, I thought I wasn't going to be surprised that there were some unreported abusers, or accused abusers that exist. What surprised me was that it sounds very much like the Catholic scandal, they'd been moving accused pastors around pulpits. "Boots on the ground" local leaders are the ones interacting with the laity and hence the most likely to have opportunities to engage in misconduct. This is where we substantially differ, in terms of circumstance, with our Catholic and Protestant neighbors. Having a lay leadership creates some meaningful distinctions: A) Volunteers, not Remunerated Employees: Local leaders in the Church are volunteers, not employees. They are not housed or paid by the Church, and therefore are not reliant on the Church to sustain themselves. And local leaders are not dependent upon the Church for their housing, income, etc., there is no "moving accused {bishops} around pulpits" as we have seen in other denominations. B) Asked to Volunteer, Not Self-Appointed: Local leaders, though "volunteers," are not self-appointed, and are instead "called" to leadership positions. While certainly not foolproof, this does slow down predators from situating themselves into positions where they have better access to victims. C) Limited Time in Service: Local leaders in the Church typically function in that role for a period of years, as opposed to such a role being an indeterminate or lifelong vocation and lifestyle as in other faiths. Moreover, local leaders often have "day jobs" and family responsibilities, so they simply do not have the same "face time" opportunities in terms of sheer numbers of hours and years as compared to local leaders in other denominations. D) Improved Emphasis and Attention: I think the Church has substantially improved its handling of allegations of abuse. The bishop's hotline, for example, has likely done much to mitigate abuse, detect it earlier, provide for improved response from the Church, etc. I think the way the local leaders in the Church are situated creates a serious impediment to bad guys who may seek to use clergy positions to find victims. See, e.g., here: Quote Why Predators Are Attracted to Careers in the Clergy Some further insight into a serious phenomenon. Posted April 20, 2014 The eye-catching headline read, “Which Professions Have The Most Psychopaths?” (The Week, October 30, 2013) What ensued was quite a dialogue on the internet, as everyone seemed to have their own favorite picks or a personal horror story. The article stimulated debate, but unfortunately did not add clarity to a worthy subject. And that subject is: Why would a so-called “psychopath” be found in greater numbers in one profession versus another? According to the article, CEO positions attract the most psychopaths. Perhaps so, if one considers the history of Enron, Bernard Madoff, and movies such as “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013). But the one career that caught my eye, and that 30 years ago probably would have escaped me, is that of the clergy (8th in line behind law enforcement, according to the article). I say 30 years ago because prior to the revelations relating to Catholic priests abusing children, one would not think of predators going into the clergy, yet that is a reality. Which begs the question, why a so-called “psychopath” would be attracted to the clergy? As it turns out, there are good reasons for this; that predators understand all too well—but first some caveats. ... {W}e need to be reminded that predators seek to be in organizations (any organization) for a variety of reasons that are both useful and beneficial but that may not be clear to us; including of course so that they can better conduct their predatory activities. The reasons vary, but here are just a few: 1. Organizations provide a convenient infrastructure from which a predator can prey on others for financial gain or to otherwise exploit others (sexually, mentally, physically). This one applies less in the Church, I think, because, as noted above, a predator cannot get "financial gain" since lay leaders are unpaid. Quote 2. Membership in a legitimate institution, be it a club, a branch of the military, or a corporation, gives legitimacy to individuals. We are more respectful and trusting when we are told a certain person is a VP or head of sales for XYZ company rather than just a stranger off the street. This one can certainly apply to local leaders in the Church. Quote 3. Organizations give predators ready and easy access to an identifiable pool of individuals or potential victims. A cable television installer, for instance, can gain access to a home, assess the level of security, appraise what is of value, or determine if the person lives alone. 4. Organizations give predators access to potential victims they otherwise might not come into contact with, or might have to spend a lot of time finding. Predators may even find potential victims conveniently working two cubicles away. These are less applicable to us, I think, because of the Church's "two deep" rule. A bishop would never visit a home where a woman or child was present without being accompanied by another person (priesthood holder, or the bishop's wife). Quote 5. Alliances are easy to make in an organization. These can serve to provide the predator information about exploitable weaknesses of others, as well as proprietary, personal, or sensitive data otherwise difficult to obtain. 6. Colleagues within an organization can serve to warn or protect the predator as a result of conspiratorial alliances or because they have a fiduciary interest in those predatory practices (predatory accountants protecting predatory CEOs). Not sure how these would apply to local leaders in the Church. Local leaders are constantly shifting in and out of roles. People move, are released from their calling, etc. And local leaders don't "work" for the Church, so there really isn't much in the way of time or opportunity for predators and ennablers to form malevolent "alliances" of this sort. Quote 7. Some organizations can be very financially rewarding for predators where they can exercise their anti-social traits (e.g., lack of conscience, indifference to others, bullying, cavalier attitudes, minimal concern for the welfare of employees, narcissism, sense of entitlement, placing profits over people). Often a similarly calloused and indifferent board of directors, interested only in profits, rewards these predators and their anti-social acts. It is a toxic but profitable symbiotic relation that is all too often familiar. This one has essentially no application to the Church's organization, I think. Quote 8. Organizations often try to “handle” negative things in-house to avoid bad publicity, so they are reluctant to report even gross criminal misconduct on the part of the predators in their midst; preferring to transfer them, fire them, or have them leave quietly. 9. Organizations are sometimes structured in such a way that the predator merely has to take advantage of existing weaknesses in the organization in order to profit – as we saw with the banking debacle of 2008. I think the Church has improved on these points. Some of the credit goes to state laws mandating reports of abuse, and also the generalized societal evolution in which . The Church's hotline is intended to facilitate compliance with disclosure laws, while also preserving the priest/penitent privilege. In any event, the Church doesn't really "transfer" or "fire" an alleged abuser. Quote 10. Predators know that in civil lawsuits victims will go after the corporation with the deeper pockets rather than go after individuals with limited financial resources. Not sure how this one shakes out. Quote As we can see, there are a host of reasons why predators join organizations and if you think like a predator, it makes perfect sense. But there is something disturbing about why they would choose the clergy, or for that matter join a religious organization of any kind. It is disturbing because most of us don’t think about these things. Most people don’t think like a predator, but below are some insights that should make you think. These insights are based on conversations I and others have had with predators who intentionally sought to join religious organizations and from studying such individuals: 1. As noted earlier, within organizations, predators have access to a ready/available pool of potential victims. Within a religious order, those potential victims are identified for the predator, who knows how often they will get together and where (Sunday worship service at 11:00 am, at the local chapel, for example). Metronomic frequency of meetings creates opportunities for the predator to exploit directly, or even at a distance, such as committing burglaries based on knowing precisely when no one is home. This has some application to the Church, but I'm not sure how much. Quote 2. Some religious organizations require members to expose their faults, sins, or frailties in public. This is “manna from heaven” for predators who then use that information to better access or target their victims. Information like that serves to provide all the exploitable weaknesses a predator needs. As one predator told me, “With that kind of information I know exactly who to target and when.” This one doesn't apply to the Church, as we don't do "public" exposure of faults, sins, etc. Quote 3. People gossip in most organizations, and in religious organizations it is no different. These informal social channels can be very effective in divulging who got promoted and has extra cash; who is going on vacation; whose spouse is overseas for seven months; who is naïve or gullible: who needs financial help; or who is having marital problems and is now lonely or vulnerable. I think the types of "religious organizations" he has in mind here are ones that have full-time employees. This wouldn't seem to apply much to the Church. Quote 4. Within a religious organization, individuals of different social strata associate with one another with greater ease than in society. This gives the predator of low social status access to people who often live and socialize within restricted or gated communities and who otherwise would be impossible for them to target. In other words, if you can’t afford the country club, you can have access to those same socially higher-status people at a church gathering. This is a favored technique of conmen, grifters, and swindlers especially for Ponzi or pyramid schemes. Though I'm not sure this has much application to the Church in terms of sexual exploitation/abuse, I think it has plenty of application to us in "affinity fraud"-style scenarios. Quote 5. Many religious organizations preach forgiveness, even for felonies. For predators this is truly a godsend. This means that if they get caught, they can ask for forgiveness and chances are it will be given, in a pious but naïve effort to help the lawbreaker “learn from his mistakes.” Unfortunately, the predator sees this as an opportunity to sharpen his skills and to do his crime again, perhaps this time more carefully. This apparently is what happened so many times with Catholic priests who were eventually convicted of serial child abuse. They were systematically “forgiven” along the way and thus they left behind a Grand Canyon-sized “debris field of human suffering” – namely children scarred for life, not to mention the trauma of the childrens’ families and the crisis of faith triggered among many devout Catholics as these transgressions were exposed. If you are only casually familiar with what went on with the priests and the thousands of victims, you must read the Pulitzer prize-winning book Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church, by the superb investigative staff of The Boston Globe. And if that doesn’t rake at your heart, then Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, by Leon J. Podles should make you cringe, cry, and cogitate. I think this has happened in the Church, though not likely on the same scale as with our Catholic neighbors. Quote 6. Because religious organizations preach brotherly love, even when someone has done horrific crimes, there will be those gullible enough to defend the predator or willing to look the other way. The book Betrayal, by the Boston Globe has account after account of exactly that kind of sickening indulgence. But you don’t only have to look at religious organizations; just look at how many still defend, poodle-like, Jerry Sandusky, the convicted ex-football coach at Penn State, even after so many revelations of child abuse. In the book, Betrayal, there is example after example cited of parishioners, even fellow priests, staunchly defending priests convicted of serial offenses. This may have some application in some situations. Quote 7. Another advantage for the predator in a religious organization is that if caught, he or she can very conveniently say it was “Satan's” fault. Whether cheating, taking advantage of the elderly, conducting financial shenanigans, or even abusing children, the predator merely has to say that the “devil” tempted him or her and that’s that. Predators know they can rely on a certain portion of the population to buy into that argument, and so they use it. I don't think this applies to the Church. We aren't into exculpatory "The Devil Made Me Do It" explanations. Quote 8. If the predator is in a position of authority within a religious organization, he or she can claim persecution by the “enemies” of the church or the organization. Any outside scrutiny subjecting the predator to the sanitizing rays of light is thus characterized as, “them,” the unbelievers “against us.” This often compels the group to “circle the wagons” in support of their leader, as we saw with David Koresh and Jim Jones. And of course they will argue that it is we the “outsiders,” who are distrusting of the leader/predator, and who don’t understand, because we simply don’t have “faith,” or we are (the more trendy) “haters.” For the religious-based predator it is very convenient to label these individuals enemies of the: “the church,” “the Lord”, “the congregation,” “the prophet,” “the leader(s),” “the free practice of religion,” and an attack on the “the anointed,” “the faithful,” or the “righteous,” on and on. Once you label something an “enemy,” it truly does bring the true believers, as Eric Hoffer warned us, further together. This is exactly what happened when inquiries were first made of Warren Jeffs – later convicted of sexual assault on two girls. This is exactly the argument made by those who supported Jim Jones, many of whom are now dead as a result of his command to his followers to poison their own children and themselves. 9. If the predator becomes a leader within the organization, or if lucky, becomes the head of a church or religious group, then he or she is immediately cloaked with power and authority (moral power) that mere corporations don’t have. Keep in mind that most people still have a high respect for their church leaders and are willing to give them greater latitude and the benefit of the doubt. These don't seem to have much application. Quote 10. Predators soon realize that the ability to invoke a deity in their defense is a powerful card to hold that trumps all other arguments. They can always say, “I was moved by the lord,” to do this or that, “I was commanded by God to,” do this or that, or “it is the will of the lord,” to do this or that. That is a tough, faith/emotionally-laden argument that is difficult to refute; especially for believers that are already vested having spent time and money in an organization. Thus the rape of children is justified merely by invoking the ostensible desire and will of a deity. And let’s be clear, predators love that they can do that. Once again, this is precisely what Warren Jeffs did with the assistance of repugnantly complicit mothers who willingly offered up their daughters for his sexual pleasure. Fugitive cult leader, Victor, Arden Barnard is alleged to have invoked the same defense, that he had a right to sexually abuse children because it was “God’s word.” I don't think this applies to the Church. We're pretty clear in denouncing sexual transgressions. Quote 11. There is, it should be noted, no religion or sect that screens for psychopathy as defined by Robert Hare that I am awware of. All you need is to be ordained, or you declare yourself a religious leader and the way is clear for the predator. And so while some organizations, such as in law enforcement, screen for pathologies by using psychometric tools, very few religious organization do so. Which is why the predator would benefit from joining or leading such an organization. Across the planet, there is almost no scrutiny or due diligence that is or will be conducted. To connive, or to “con,” the predator merely needs his victim to have faith and trust in the predator something that is often easily achieved with the vestments of a legitimate religious organization. I question whether there is a feasible and reliable way for the Church to "screen for psychopathy." Have "psychometric tools" proven effective in screening out wackos from law enforcement? I do, however, think that the Church should seriously consider basic criminal background checks for local leaders where it has the capacity to obtain such information. Quote 12. To be a predator is to overvalue yourself at the expense of others – a key component of both the pathologically narcissistic and the predator (see Dangerous Personalities). Here is where a predator has an advantage because in a religious organization, this overvaluation of self is potentiated by the title that is either conferred, that comes with the office, or bestowed through ordination. For the predator, it is tantamount to being told, “you are” therefore “you can.” 13. Predators know or soon learn that society tends to revere and not question religious authority. People of high status such as famous coaches, TV personalities, politicians, and so on are often given great latitude to the point where allegations of misconduct, even serious criminal offenses are often ignored (Jimmy Savile in the UK; O.J. Simpson in the US). Not sure how or if these apply to the Church, or if they do how they play out. Quote 14. Parents may be more trusting of a religious leader than of the average person. As history has taught us, they may dismiss allegations made by their own children as to sexual abuse by a religious leader or they will remain quiescent so as to not “rock the boat.” It is very tough for parents, especially those from humble background or who are deeply religious, to go up against a popular or charismatic leader, “the church” or a large, well-financed religious order. Often, as we now well know, the fear of retribution, being ostracized or socially marginalized, or excommunicated keeps victims and parents silent. 15. In most cultures, children pay deference to authority figures, especially religious ones. Knowing this, the predator can almost certainly count on children abiding by their sordid requests and keeping such matters “secret.” There is ample evidence of this from history, social psychology, and thousands of law suits. These have some real implications for us. This is why we need to be so vigilant with the "two deep" rule and other guidelines intended to keep vulnerable members safe from predation. Quote So, where does this leave us? With the reality that predators are all around us. Anywhere from 1 to 4 percent or perhaps more of any population, according to researchers, is made up of individuals who are social predators (DSM V, 2013, 659-663). They may seek to join organizations for the additional benefits these organizations bring. It is not the organization; it is the individuals who seek to use those organizations for predation and that is the problem. Individuals who seek religious organizations because there they can more easily target victims and do so much more harm – that is our reality. We cannot prevent all crimes, nor can we always know how predators will come after us, but knowledge helps. If we are sensitized ahead of time to how predators think, how they use legitimate organizations, and take advantage of others, perhaps then we can protect one more child, or perhaps even ourselves from these social predators. Good points, these. Thanks, -Smac 4
Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 FYI, the abuse hotline is public knowledge now, so anyone could call it to report abuse if they felt it wasn’t being treated seriously enough by local leaders, though this is not stated in the info provide. I was told by a church lawyer (through a mutual friend) to tell a friend of mind to call it if they were concerned about what the Church was doing a number of years ago, but I have not heard any public statements to that effect. From the above link. Quote Policy and Legal Issues Relating to Abuse The following guidelines will help Church leaders handle policy and legal issues relating to abuse: • Immediately call the help line at 1-800-453- 3860, ext. 2-1911, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse. • For guidelines on handling situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to Handbook 1, 17.3.2. • For guidelines on handling confession, restitution, investigation, communication with aggrieved victims, and confidentiality in situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to Handbook 1, 6.4 and 6.5. • For guidelines on handling Church discipline in situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to Handbook 1, chapter 6. • Church leaders should not testify in civil or criminal cases involving abuse without first conferring with the Office of General Counsel at Church headquarters, 1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-6301. For specific guidelines, see Handbook 1, 17.1.26. 2
Calm Posted May 23, 2022 Posted May 23, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: A bishop would never visit a home where a woman or child was present without being accompanied by another person (priesthood holder, or the bishop's wife) At least if they are following the rules. And hopefully members are aware of this and would realize something was off if it happened and report it, but I wonder if a predator who managed to become a Bishop would be able to identify the vulnerable who would respond to ‘personal attention’ as a positive sign they are cared for rather than a red flag. I wonder how many members would report a violation of the two deep rule if they saw it rather than assuming there was a unforeseen problem that popped up last minute and think it was better to ‘bend the rules’ rather than not allowing kids to go to activities, etc. 25 years ago I was brushed off when I reported a Scout leader taking the group on a overnight alone. This was before two deep in the Church, but it was mandated in Scouts Canada for camping even if not for regular meetings. The Bishop brushed off my concerns as did my husband and the leader. I was not yet of the mindset to think of reporting it to the stake or Scouts. My concern was not of abuse, but of physical safety. This was before cell phones and if the leader was injured or if his old van was damaged, the boys could be left without adult supervision and care. Some of the boys were very irresponsible as well and one leader keeping an eye on 11? boys (he had a massive old commercial van, so could barely fit everyone in) was ridiculous Imo. I am very grateful the Church has changed since then, hopefully enough where even if this happened last minute instead of the leader not even bothering to try another adult to help as was the case back then, it would not be considered as appropriate by anyone, including the boys. Edited May 23, 2022 by Calm 4
Recommended Posts