SBC sex abuse report

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whatever.  You can't expect others to be persuaded by anecdotal experiences you don't share.  That's neither evidence nor reasoning.  It is an argument from authority.

I did not.

I don't think I have mocked anything.  I have, however, disagreed.

Way too vague.  Way too insinuating.  

I was once in a training of local leaders given by Elder Bednar.  He said something to the effect of "A bishop whom everyone loves is probably not doing his job right."  I think what he meant was that part of being a bishop is saying and doing things that may not be what congregants want, but which may nevertheless be neceesary to say or do.  He may have had in mind bishops who, fearing getting someone upset, becomes derelict in his stewardship and responsibilities.

A bishop doing his job will inevitably result in a bishop occasionally ticking someone off, either through error by the bishop, or through the bishop doing his job right and the individual being disgruntled nonetheless.  It's a bishop is a tough gig.  Lots of hours.  No pay.  All the while holding down a day job, taking care of wife and kids, personal interests, and so on.

And yet, the Lord expects us to work with these flawed, fatigued men.  If and when a bishop seriously and materially screws up, he needs to be held accountable for it.  Report the matter to the stake president, and on up if necessary.  But in the main, it is the responsibility of the Saints to sustain these men, even though they screw up.  Sustain them, even when a bishop says or does something that results in some sort of "simple" disagreement between him and a member.  Sustain him, despite his flaws.  Sustain him, while also counseling with him as necessary.

You have said: "I can attest that disagreements with church leaders, no matter the reason, are traumatizing."  You later backed of a little bit, saying that "Disagreements with church leaders can be traumatizing..." (emphasis added).  But you are still using inflammatory and provocative rhetoric like members of the Church being "collateral damage" and that the bishops of the Church "are not always traumatizing" members of their wards (emphasis added).

Gadzooks.  What a horrible caricature you are drawing.  What an ugly, divisive, unfair, inaccurate stereotype.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Some members are collateral damage to bad leaders. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you for remembering this, Bluebell, and for speaking up. It means alot.

I second this.  You went above and beyond in trying to work with your leaders.  It was extremely disappointing to me when there appeared to be little compassion for you and your family or recognition how they had screwed things up for you.

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Gadzooks.  What a horrible caricature you are drawing.  What an ugly, divisive, unfair, inaccurate stereotype.  

I’m only expressing things are not always  rosy out there. Do we have to pretend it’s all unicorns and rainbows all the time?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

What sort of issues are we talking about here?

The ability to effectively deal with the fallout of sexual abuse, to fill their role to support the victims in helping them be safe, feel safe at church, and help them heal rather than adding to their trauma by treating abuse like it was consensual or that the victim has responsibility that she/he needs to repent of for being abused.  Ignoring that the victim may take years or even decades to heal and instead allowing situations that treats the abuser as if nothing happened after a few months or a year so the victim sees little to no consequence to the abuser while experiencing tremendous ongoing pain themselves…plus even at times allowing the abuser to be in an authority position again, which can be interpreted as approval or dismissal of the abuse.

In my view, the discussion about abuse needs to include the reaction of leaders to it because we as a culture and officially present our leaders as appropriate spiritual counselors for victims, encourage victims to confide in them and accept their guidance as part of the healing process and if they are not, if they make it worse for the victim there needs to be a gentle, easy way for victims to seek help to get better pastoral care.  Victims of abuse are rarely in the position to speak up for themselves and push against even minor obstacles. If we are intending to mourn with those who mourn, then making it anything less than easy for them to reach out for help is not us doing our best to be there for them.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Behaving what way?

Vilifying bishops and stake presidents by accusing them of "traumatizing" members, of turning members into "collateral damage," and so on.

Diminishing and insulting their efforts by characterizing them as "not always traumatizing" members.

Disparaging these men by trying to characterize them as being part of some Good Ol' Boys system.

Trying to foment antagonism and hard feelings between members and their bishops.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’ve had some very awful experiences with Bishops. I’m still active.  

Glad to hear it.

Less glad to see you publicly and categorically disparage and denigrate the bishops and stake presidents of the Church as you have been for the past several pages.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

People have these experiences and dismissing concerns in the name of unity and not sowing division does not help those who have or are suffering from bad acts by leaders.

Using inflammatory rhetoric to insult and impugn the integrity of bishops and stake presidents does not help, either.  And yet here you are...

And again, I am not "dismissing concerns."  I am contextualizing them and differentiating them from each other.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Simple trauma counseling training for Bishops would do so much good. 

I'm open to that.

Meanwhile, members refraining from using vitriolic and provocative and overblown terms to malign bishops and stake presidents would also do much good.

Being a bishop is a tough gig, and it's not one they asked to be assigned.  A little more grace, and a bit less contempt and vitriol, would be nice to see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don’t share the adversarial picture of the Church that you have. 

I have a realistic view of the church, not adversarial.

[bsjkki]

Just now, smac97 said:

Vilifying bishops and stake presidents by accusing them of "traumatizing" members, of turning members into "collateral damage," and so on.

Diminishing and insulting their efforts by characterizing them as "not always traumatizing" members.

Disparaging these men by trying to characterize them as being part of some Good Ol' Boys system.

Trying to foment antagonism and hard feelings between members and their bishops.

Glad to hear it.

Less glad to see you publicly and categorically disparage and denigrate the bishops and stake presidents of the Church as you have been for the past several pages.

Using inflammatory rhetoric to insult and impugn the integrity of bishops and stake presidents does not help, either.  And yet here you are...

And again, I am not "dismissing concerns."  I am contextualizing them and differentiating them from each other.

I'm open to that.

Meanwhile, members refraining from using vitriolic and provocative and overblown terms to malign bishops and stake presidents would also do much good.

Being a bishop is a tough gig, and it's not one they asked to be assigned.  A little more grace, and a bit less contempt and vitriol, would be nice to see.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are a bit sensitive here. Members do experience trauma interacting with church leaders and some bad leaders do create collateral damage. It’s the truth. You can categorize this as ‘simple’ disagreements. That’s your opinion. 

 

 

[smac97]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I have a realistic view of the church, not adversarial.

"Not all men are dishonorably, abusive jerks."

"I have a realistic view of men, not adversarial."

These two statements are not really compatible.  The former is way too categorically harsh, condemnatory, vicious.

So it is, I think, with your various disparagements of bishops and stake presidents and your statement now that your view of their function and generalized behavior in the Church is "realistic."  Well no, no it's not.  The vast majority of bishops and stake presidents are good and decent and honorable men, who accept a difficult calling, and who sacrifice many hours away from their families and professions and personal time to minister to the members of their wards.

As a category, these men deserve considerable respect and gratitude for their efforts on our behalf, rather than the ugly disparagements you have been presenting for several pages now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The vast majority of bishops and stake presidents are good and decent and honorable men, who accept a difficult calling, and who sacrifice many hours away from their families and professions and personal time to minister to the members of their wards.

So you admit there are some bad apples? Bad situations? Bad decisions? 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The email one lets me forward his page to someone. The Facebook one lets me post about him on Facebook, and the what’s app one lets me send a message about him to someone else. Any other ideas?

Yes. As I have explained multiple times now, all of this information is available in the Church Directory of Organizations and Leaders (CDOL) which the church has been publishing for decades. 

Anybody serving in a branch presidency, bishopric, or stake presidency (including all of the clerks / executive secretaries at each level) can log in and locate the contact information you desire in seconds. 

If you refuse to interact with anybody at any level of leadership locally then you can simply log in with your own credentials, download the directory for the Church Office Building (which is available to all members), and then contact Salt Lake yourself to receive the information you are looking for. 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Amulek

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think most members know that if they have a disagreement with the bishop, they can take it up with the stake president.

My guess is a good portion of those members assume the SP and Bishop are friends, maybe even good friends and that the SP has extensive trust in the morality and abilities of the Bishop given the nature and relationship of the callings.  They may be fearful that the SP will naturally accept what the Bishop says happened because he knows him better and believes in him as a good man (or he would have him released I hope) where the member may have had very little, if any interaction with their SP, so the SP doesn’t have a clue if they are truthful, not overly dramatic individuals, etc.

If they are fearful of the Bishop, it can be even worse because they won’t know if the SP will assume it is just a misunderstanding and can easily be straightened out by talking to the man and do so because while it may be something confidential, they may understand the Church sees confidentiality holding if between two leaders…since there are confidential aspects of confessions that get sent to Salt Lake, correct?  I have been a member all my life, heavily into apologetics, so paying attention to how the men say things are done plus read handbooks when they have been available to me and I don’t have a clue how confidentiality works between an SP and Bishop.  Is the Bishop allowed to discuss anything with him and it still be covered legally?

Edited May 26, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’m only expressing things are not always  rosy out there.

"Not all men are dishonorably, abusive jerks."

"I'm only expressing things are not always rosy out there."

These two statements are not really compatible.  The former is way too categorically harsh, condemnatory, vicious.

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Do we have to pretend it’s all unicorns and rainbows all the time?

• "If a stake president is behaving improperly, I am pretty sure the Area Seventy and Area Presidency would want to know about it, and would have the authority to intervene if appropriate."
• "Again, just talk to your bishop.  And if the bishop is the abuser, then talk to the stake president.  And meanwhile, you can also contact law enforcement at any time."
• "People talk to bishops all the time.  If the bishop is the one being "abusive," then talk to the stake president."
• "Back to Meadow,  I again acknowledge her strong emotions, but those emotions were not, should not have been, determinative.   She had the capacity and opportunity then, as she does now, to set aside her (understandably) hard feelings and address the dispute with her stake president by by reasoning the matter through."
• "If a bishop is misbehaving, the stake president will want to know about it.  And if the stake president is misbehaving, the Area Presidency will want to know about it."
• "If a bishop has said or done something untoward or counterproductive or harmful, the stake president will want to take corrective action."
• "And if a bishop is physically violent or threatening, then that's way out of bounds.  And if a bishop is saying or doing things amounting to "sexual harassment" (see, e.g., here), that too is way out of bounds."
• "If a bishop has engaged in misconduct such that it amounts to a violation of civil law, then civil authorities can and should be contacted about it."
• "My recollection is that the stake president behaved improperly, and that he did so by withholding a temple recommend because Meadow had filed, and would not withdraw, a civil lawsuit.  I am completely on board with the idea that the SP was plainly out of bounds here.  The next step, then, should have been to notify the Area Presidency of his misconduct."
• "Again, just talk to your bishop.  And if the bishop is the abuser, then talk to the stake president."
• "And if the stake president is the abuser, then contact the Area Seventy or Area Presidency."
•  "If the 'abuse' being alleged is a matter of criminal law, there is no constraint against the individual reporting the matter to law enforcement."  
• "I have said nothing to absolve Meadow's SP.  To the contrary, I have previously said that he was plainly in the wrong, and I do so again now."
• "{I} also mildly disagreed with the notion that working out a dispute with a stake president about his improper behavior in withholding a temple recommend..."
• "{I} proposed that in not addressing a disagreement with a misbehaving SP..."
• "If a stake president misbehaves, a rare - but clearly possible - occurrence, the individual can and should take the matter to the Area Seventy or Area Presidency."
• "If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and (figuratively) "collateral damage.""
• "If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and "traumatizing" and "collateral damage.""  (I wrote this one twice.)
• "I have, instead, said that serious misconduct by bishops and stake presidents is quite rare. ... They are not perfect, and there are certainly some rotten apples out there (as there would be in any grouping numbered in the tens of thousands)."
• "In the exceedingly rare instances where a member has a disagreement with a bishop or stake president over something more than a "simple disagreement," where the bishop has engaged in patently and seriously wrongful conduct, then "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."  (D&C 121:37.)  Call the stake president and report it.  Call the Area Presidency if necessary.  Call the police if appropriate."
• "I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  "

It is on the basis of these comments that you are saying that I am "pretend{ing} it’s all unicorns and rainbows all the time."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Not all men are dishonorably, abusive jerks."

"I have a realistic view of men, not adversarial."

These two statements are not really compatible.  The former is way too categorically harsh, condemnatory, vicious.

So it is, I think, with your various disparagements of bishops and stake presidents and your statement now that your view of their function and generalized behavior in the Church is "realistic."  Well no, no it's not.  The vast majority of bishops and stake presidents are good and decent and honorable men, who accept a difficult calling, and who sacrifice many hours away from their families and professions and personal time to minister to the members of their wards.

As a category, these men deserve considerable respect and gratitude for their efforts on our behalf, rather than the ugly disparagements you have been presenting for several pages now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why are you being so defensive and hostile? Ugly disparagements? Give me a break. You don’t have to agree with others’ experiences and opinions, but there is no call for this dismissive, condescending hostility. 

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"Not all men are dishonorably, abusive jerks."

"I'm only expressing things are not always rosy out there."

These two statements are not really compatible.  The former is way too categorically harsh, condemnatory, vicious.

• "If a stake president is behaving improperly, I am pretty sure the Area Seventy and Area Presidency would want to know about it, and would have the authority to intervene if appropriate."
• "Again, just talk to your bishop.  And if the bishop is the abuser, then talk to the stake president.  And meanwhile, you can also contact law enforcement at any time."
• "People talk to bishops all the time.  If the bishop is the one being "abusive," then talk to the stake president."
• "Back to Meadow,  I again acknowledge her strong emotions, but those emotions were not, should not have been, determinative.   She had the capacity and opportunity then, as she does now, to set aside her (understandably) hard feelings and address the dispute with her stake president by by reasoning the matter through."
• "If a bishop is misbehaving, the stake president will want to know about it.  And if the stake president is misbehaving, the Area Presidency will want to know about it."
• "If a bishop has said or done something untoward or counterproductive or harmful, the stake president will want to take corrective action."
• "And if a bishop is physically violent or threatening, then that's way out of bounds.  And if a bishop is saying or doing things amounting to "sexual harassment" (see, e.g., here), that too is way out of bounds."
• "If a bishop has engaged in misconduct such that it amounts to a violation of civil law, then civil authorities can and should be contacted about it."
• "My recollection is that the stake president behaved improperly, and that he did so by withholding a temple recommend because Meadow had filed, and would not withdraw, a civil lawsuit.  I am completely on board with the idea that the SP was plainly out of bounds here.  The next step, then, should have been to notify the Area Presidency of his misconduct."
• "Again, just talk to your bishop.  And if the bishop is the abuser, then talk to the stake president."
• "And if the stake president is the abuser, then contact the Area Seventy or Area Presidency."
•  "If the 'abuse' being alleged is a matter of criminal law, there is no constraint against the individual reporting the matter to law enforcement."  
• "I have said nothing to absolve Meadow's SP.  To the contrary, I have previously said that he was plainly in the wrong, and I do so again now."
• "{I} also mildly disagreed with the notion that working out a dispute with a stake president about his improper behavior in withholding a temple recommend..."
• "{I} proposed that in not addressing a disagreement with a misbehaving SP..."
• "If a stake president misbehaves, a rare - but clearly possible - occurrence, the individual can and should take the matter to the Area Seventy or Area Presidency."
• "If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and (figuratively) "collateral damage.""
• "If and when the bishop resorts to violence or threats of violence, or sexual harassment, or verbal abuse, then I'm going to be open to the application of bombastic terms like "trauma" and "traumatizing" and "collateral damage.""  (I wrote this one twice.)
• "I have, instead, said that serious misconduct by bishops and stake presidents is quite rare. ... They are not perfect, and there are certainly some rotten apples out there (as there would be in any grouping numbered in the tens of thousands)."
• "In the exceedingly rare instances where a member has a disagreement with a bishop or stake president over something more than a "simple disagreement," where the bishop has engaged in patently and seriously wrongful conduct, then "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."  (D&C 121:37.)  Call the stake president and report it.  Call the Area Presidency if necessary.  Call the police if appropriate."
• "I further submit that virtually all disagreements with local leaders fall into the foregoing category, with exceptions being quite rare, and with exceptions attributable to the serious misconduct of the local leader to be even rarer still.  "

It is on the basis of these comments that you are saying that I am "pretend{ing} it’s all unicorns and rainbows all the time."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So my discussing my personal experience with this issue is what has upset you? I’ve had some great Bishops. Recently, it’s been tough. 

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Why are you being so defensive and hostile?

The bishops and the stake presidents of the Church are being broadly disparaged in some pretty ugly ways.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Ugly disparagements? Give me a break.

Yes, ugly.   And disparaging.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

You don’t have to agree with others’ experiences and opinions,

I figured that.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

but there is no call for this dismissive, condescending hostility. 

There is no call for categorical public disparagements of the bishops and stake presidents of the Church.  That is what I am dismissing as inaccurate, unfair, and ugly.

I don't think it is either condescending to rebut broad denigrations of the local leaders of the Church.

As for "hostility," I have not once disparaged the character or ingegrity of bsjkki, nor have I leveled any personal insults at her.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

He was stepping down because of what he did to her. He characterized it as adultery so she corrected him by pointing out she was underage. He was downplaying what he did. Someone then said she was 14 and he corrected it saying that she was 16 as if that is a mitigating factor. That is basically a confession. Why are you defending the self-confessed pedophile [smac]?

Well, the age of consent in Indiana is 16, so that would be a mitigating factor. 

Also, if we are legitimately concerned about "characteriz[ing]" things accurately, having intercourse with someone old enough to legally participate in sexual activity doesn't make you a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children - not sexually mature individuals who have yet to reach the age of majority. 

That being said, I kind of wish somebody would have walked on stage and punched his lights out. He's still a horrible person for doing what he did.  

 

[ttribe]

bsjkki - Discusses her personal experience, shares the vulnerability of her trauma, uses words which describe how she felt/feels.

Smac's response - Your words are overwrought(!), vicious(!), fomenting antagonism(!), and adversarial! Honor demands I attack you and diminish your experience, else the Church's good name will suffer unrecoverable tarnish!

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, the age of consent in Indiana is 16, so that would be a mitigating factor. 

Also, if we are legitimately concerned about "characteriz[ing]" things accurately, having intercourse with someone old enough to legally participate in sexual activity doesn't make you a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children - not sexually mature individuals who have yet to reach the age of majority. 

That being said, I kind of wish somebody would have walked on stage and punched his lights out. He's still a horrible person for doing what he did.  

 

A pretty lousy one given his clear position of authority over her.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

bsjkki - Discusses her personal experience, shares the vulnerability of her trauma, uses words which describe how she felt/feels.

Smac's response - Your words are overwrought(!), vicious(!), fomenting antagonism(!), and adversarial! Honor demands I attack you and diminish your experience, else the Church's good name will suffer unrecoverable tarnish!

Their exchange reminds me of the refrain repeated by many apostles—

“Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.”

And what it looks like when someone fails at that. 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think you are a bit sensitive here.

How dare you dismiss my experiences!  

If I overheard a friend or relative telling strangers in a public forum things like

• "My disagreements with Spencer, no matter the reason, are traumatizing to me,"
• "Disagreements with Spencer can be traumatizing because the the consequences of his bad judgement can have very personal side effects that I suffer with for a very long time,"
• "I am very happy you have not had traumatizing interactions with Spencer and I wish everyone was so lucky,"
• "Spencer needs to take a trauma counseling class so they don’t inflict more trauma on me," and
• "You know, Spencer isn't always traumatizing me," 

I think I might just take some umbrage at that. 

If they spoke about me the way you have been speaking categorically about the bishops and the stake presidents of the Church, using broad disparagements and insults, I think that response would be understandable.

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Members do experience trauma interacting with church leaders and some bad leaders do create collateral damage. It’s the truth.

Been here, done this.

26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You can categorize this as ‘simple’ disagreements. That’s your opinion. 

If someone is "traumatized" by a "'simple' disagreement" with another person, they need to get out more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So my discussing my personal experience with this issue is what has upset you?

No.  Your broad and ugly disparagements of the bishops and stake presidents of the Church have bothered me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  Your broad and ugly disparagements of the bishops and stake presidents of the Church have bothered me.

Thanks,

-Smac

And you're duty-bound to defend them to the death, right?

[Amulek]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

The ability to effectively deal with the fallout of sexual abuse, to fill their role to support the victims in helping them be safe, feel safe at church, and help them heal rather than adding to their trauma by treating abuse like it was consensual or that the victim has responsibility that she needs to repent of for being abuse.  Ignoring that the victim may take years or even decades to heal and instead allowing situations that treats the abuser as if nothing happened after a few months or a year.

In my view, the discussion about abuse needs to include the reaction of leaders to it because we as a culture and officially present our leaders as appropriate spiritual counselors for victims, encourage victims to confide in them and accept their guidance as part of the healing process and if they are not, if they make it worse for the victim there needs to be a gentle, easy way for victims to seek help to get better pastoral care.  Victims of abuse are rarely in the position to speak up for themselves and push against even minor obstacles. If we are intending to mourn with those who mourn, then making it anything less than easy for them to reach out for help is not us doing our best to be there for them.

I can get on board with all of that. 

I believe @bsjkkisuggested something earlier about having priesthood leaders be given training on how to handle abuse. I think that's a wonderful idea. Currently, bishops receive annual training on finances; there's child protection training that now needs to be completed every three years; I don't see why a training course on how to approach situations involving abuse couldn't be developed and included as part of regular ongoing trainings for bishopric members as well.

I don't know any bishops who would be opposed to being better prepared to help those who are suffering. I think most bishops are honestly trying to do right by people, and if providing them with the tools to do so more effectively will help then I'm all for it.

 

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I have been a member all my life, heavily into apologetics, so paying attention to how the men say things are done plus read handbooks when they have been available to me and I don’t have a clue how confidentiality works between an SP and Bishop.  Is the Bishop allowed to discuss anything with him and it still be covered legally?

Yes. Since the stake president makes the determination as to jurisdiction, what is and isn't on the table, etc. with sensitive matters, but the bishop is usually the first to learn of situations --- both are in the loop and in the know about the details of the matter. Both are covered by clergy privilege, and the bishop is legally and practically able to speak frankly about his appraisal of the situation before (and while) the stake president meets with the person(s). 

I think the confidentiality is seen as being within the unity of the priesthood leaders involved. When I replaced a bishop who was disciplined, a A70 and 1Q70 was brought into that loop as well (personal interviews). It isn't a breach of confidentiality that these layers gave and received passdowns and consulted. 

[Amulek]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

A pretty lousy one given his clear position of authority over her.

Morally, yes. I completely agree. 

Legally, however, possibly not. It doesn't look like clergy falls within categories of trusted persons outlined in the relevant statute (link).