AP Story about Abuse

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is confidential. The counselors are not supposed to share what goes on in a membership council and not supposed to talk about it with anyone except those involved (Bishop, other counselor, clerk recorder) including their spouse.

But who told the counselors? In my hypothetical case I told the bishop, about my ongoing adultery, but did not tell anyone else. I didn’t consent to the information being shared but it’s shared anyway to hold a disciplinary hearing. 
 

The membership council proceeding might be confidential, but my confession was not. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But who told the counselors? In my hypothetical case I told the bishop, about my ongoing adultery, but did not tell anyone else. I didn’t consent to the information being shared but it’s shared anyway to hold a disciplinary hearing. 

The legal penitent privilege allows for internal sharing amongst the clergy. That is not permitted by Catholicism but is in some other faiths. It is not a violation of the law to do so nor does it remove the legal shield.

The danger (which admittedly seems superfluous and petty compared to a case like this) is that if the church violates that privilege routinely and gives evidence to law enforcement there is no expectation of confidentiality anymore and bishops can be called as witnesses in cases as to what the person confessed. I think in the case of someone abusing a child no one would balk at this. It changes if they are trying to get someone on more petty criminal charges or if the bishop is called to testify in a civil court in a dispute that one party discussed with the bishop.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The legal penitent privilege allows for internal sharing amongst the clergy. That is not permitted by Catholicism but is in some other faiths. It is not a violation of the law to do so nor does it remove the legal shield.

I don’t disagree. I was responding to Bernard’s claim about an expectation of confidentiality not legal privilege. 

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The danger (which admittedly seems superfluous and petty compared to a case like this) is that if the church violates that privilege routinely and gives evidence to law enforcement there is no expectation of confidentiality anymore and bishops can be called as witnesses in cases as to what the person confessed. I think in the case of someone abusing a child no one would balk at this. It changes if they are trying to get someone on more petty criminal charges or if the bishop is called to testify in a civil court in a dispute that one party discussed with the bishop.

Again I don’t disagree. Not commenting on any legal matters here. I’m just saying that it’s not confidential if the person might go tell 16 friends without my permission(Stake Presidency, high council, clerks etc). 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t disagree. I was responding to Bernard’s claim about an expectation of confidentiality not legal privilege. 

Again I don’t disagree. Not commenting on any legal matters here. I’m just saying that it’s not confidential if the person might go tell 16 friends without my permission(Stake Presidency, high council, clerks etc). 

Thankfully most stake level membership councils no longer involve the High Council.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It is a legal term.  See here and here and here.  The various privileges that exist in the law protecting information from disclosure are intended to foster free and open communication (perhaps, in specific cases, with certain exceptions, as we have been discussing here) between a person who confides sensitive information to another, such as a therapist, a doctor, an attorney, or a member of the clergy. 

However you may feel about the priest-penitent privilege in this instance, would you be as inclined to be as candid as necessary with your therapist, with your doctor, or with your lawyer if those privileges didn't exist and if these parties freely could disclose sensitive information that you disclosed to them?  I submit that you would not.  And I submit that if you did not feel that, safely, you could disclose sensitive information to them, their ability to help you would be hampered severely.

True, I was having a moment. I appreciate your response though.

[bsjkki]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Right it’s privileged legally, but if it can be shared without my consent it’s in no way confidential. In your example, my lawyer can’t discuss privileged information about  my case without my consent. That’s not the case in the church. Confidentiality doesn’t exist. 

The Bishop can share information with the SP without consent. I would agree confidentiality does not exist. 
 

Legal privilege is another matter. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Lawyers?  Do we lawyers advice to do the right thing?

In priest/penitent cases we need lawyers to make sure that we don't screw up a prosecutor's ability to prosecute by doing the right thing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In priest/penitent cases we need lawyers to make sure that we don't screw up a prosecutor's ability to prosecute by doing the right thing.

Is that actually a thing in the United States? Like I genuinely don’t know. If my bishop turns me in for grand theft auto, can I get my case thrown out? I get he can’t be compelled to testify, but if he volunteers?

Edited August 5, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that actually a thing in the United States? Like I genuinely don’t know. If my bishop turns me in for grand theft auto, can I get my case thrown out? I get he can’t be compelled to testify, but if he volunteers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_privilege_(United_States)

[MrShorty]

A couple of different thoughts.

I think @rpn makes a very good point that, after calling the hotline and being told to maintain clergy/penitent confidence, the bishops did nothing more (to be fair, no one told them to do more, either and, "you can do nothing" might be taken as instruction to not actively do anything). As I'm thinking about this, it seems to me that, if a church is going to claim clergy/penitent privilege, that should be accompanied by the implication that the church believes its policies, procedures, and resources are adequate for dealing with the abuse. (edit to add)That the Church believes it has the policies, procedures, and resources to separate perpetrator and victim, investigate the claims, adjudicate, and maybe incarcerate the perpetrator (if indicated). It seems to me that the Church does not have the desire nor the resources to fully deal with abuse, so it seems prudent to use the resources of the state or community -- which requires disclosure to the state.

The wording of the AZ statute is interesting. It says that clergy may withhold information obtained during confession if the clergy determines that church doctrine dictates/permits such withholding. I notice that the lawyer for KM claimed that a bishop or the Church could get sued for violating clergy/penitent privilege as if the state would be the one to decide what Church doctrine or theology dictates. I note that the lawyer did not cite church doctrine or policy as the reason for non-disclosure. I know we don't always like to do detailed theology, but maybe it is time for the church to really delve in and decide just what our theology and doctrine are around confessions and privacy. The Catholic church can cite its canon law when someone asks how they feel about "the seal of confession". What do we cite (other than state law or generic ideas) when we claim clergy/penitent privilege in cases like this?

Edited August 5, 2022 by MrShorty

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that actually a thing in the United States? Like I genuinely don’t know. If my bishop turns me in for grand theft auto, can I get my case thrown out? I get he can’t be compelled to testify, but if he volunteers?

Sometimes yes, you can. It depends on state. To some (most I think) the privilege belongs to the penitent but in some it belongs to both and the clergy can refuse to testify even if the penitent person waives the privilege.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_privilege_(United_States)

I get that Clergy can’t be forced to divulge information (as governed by statute), but can they volunteer the information? Bluebell implied that if a member of the clergy volunteered information obtained in a confession to authorities, it “might screw up a prosecutor’s ability to prosecute.”

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is that actually a thing in the United States? Like I genuinely don’t know. If my bishop turns me in for grand theft auto, can I get my case thrown out? I get he can’t be compelled to testify, but if he volunteers?

As I understand it, it would depend on the state and the circumstances.  The testimony would certainly be inadmissible in some states.  In some states any evidence found due to the testimony might be inadmissible as well. 

In legal terms any evidence obtained by illegal means (which could include someone illegally breaking privilege), is called "the fruit of the poisonous tree".  Different states handle that issue differently, and different states have different laws regarding priest/penitent privilege.

It looks like it would depend on different factors and state/federal laws on how an individual court would view such evidence (which is why a legal helpline makes a lot of sense). 

I'm no lawyer though.  @smac97?

Edited August 5, 2022 by bluebell

[Calm]

Just in case anyone else wants to read the court documents on the mom’s mitigation and sentencing hearing as well as Dad’s indictment, this page has the links

https://www.truthandtransparency.org/news/2020/01/30/court-documents-reveal-mormon-bishops-failure-to-report-led-to-continued-abuse-and-an-additional-victim/index.html

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I get that Clergy can’t be forced to divulge information (as governed by statute), but can they volunteer the information? Bluebell implied that if a member of the clergy volunteered information obtained in a confession to authorities, it “might screw up a prosecutor’s ability to prosecute.”

It depends on state law and who holds the privilege.

[JAHS]

Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse

Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse
Church responds to recent Associated Press article about the Church's abuse help line
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse?fbclid=IwAR32QDXZjBfaVI0y56Kp8zs0LP5STZDAfD91Gq4kIds3J-fJYPrim-fZoFs

The abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse. Our hearts break for these children and all victims of abuse.

The nature and the purpose of the Church’s help line was seriously mischaracterized in a recent Associated Press article. The help line is instrumental in ensuring that all legal requirements for reporting are met. It provides a place for local leaders, who serve voluntarily, to receive direction from experts to determine who should make a report and whether they (local leaders) should play a role in that reporting. When a leader calls the help line, the conversation is about how to stop the abuse, care for the victim and ensure compliance with reporting obligations, even in cases when the law provides clergy-penitent privilege or restricts what can be shared from private ecclesiastical conversations.

The help line is just one of many safeguards put in place by the Church. Any member serving in a role with children or youth is required to complete a training every few years about how to watch for, report and address abuse. Leaders and members are offered resources on how to prevent, address and report abuse of any kind. Church teachings and handbooks are clear and unequivocal about the evils of abuse. Members who violate those teachings are disciplined by the Church and may lose their privileges or membership. These are just a few examples.

The story presented in the AP article is oversimplified and incomplete and is a serious misrepresentation of the Church and its efforts. We will continue to teach and follow Jesus Christ’s admonition to care for one another, especially in our efforts related to abuse.

[Calm]

Also:

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8/5/23293667/arizona-sex-abuse-church-responds-to-ap-story-latter-day-saints-mormon-hot-line-coverup

[Nofear]

Also:

https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/are-reported-sexual-abuse-cases-exceptional-or-illustrative-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ/

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Sometimes yes, you can. It depends on state. To some (most I think) the privilege belongs to the penitent but in some it belongs to both and the clergy can refuse to testify even if the penitent person waives the privilege.

This is how the confessional seal works in Catholicism. The priest can never divulge, even if the penitent gives permission. Breaking the confessional seal incurs automatic excommunication (automatic meaning that it happens instantly and not because someone excommunicates the priest).

[Saint Bonaventure]

I am praying for those who have been harmed by abuse.

I'll also note that some reports of this situation include a photo of an LDS temple that seems very castle like, the subtext being that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a closed off community, "behind the walls."

Explosive report claims Mormon leaders knew about child sex abuse in church — and 'let it happen' - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

Edited August 5, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I am praying for those who have been harmed by abuse.

I'll also note that some reports of this situation include a photo of an LDS temple that seems very castle like, the subtext being that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a closed off community, "behind the walls."

Looks like a stock photo of the Washington DC Temple to me. 

[HappyJackWagon]

This is reprehensible.

The bishop's mistake was that he trusted his training, which likely consisted only of "call the 800 hotline". Kirton McConkie is not in it to protect the victim, or the perp or the clergy. It's sole purpose is to protect the church.

I've had some experience with this hotline and I was extremely disappointed.

But I think it's erroneous to assume there are only 2 options a bishop has: 1 - call the cops and turn the guy in and then testify at his trial  2- encourage the perp to do the right thing but take no action

Even short of calling the police, a bishop or RS Pres. etc could contact the Division of Family Services or call in a welfare check anonymously. Doing NOTHING is shameful but the bishop followed church guidelines. He called the hotline, most likely involved his SP, and then trusted what he was told to do. The perp was a greater concern than the victim.

 

This story, on the heels this week of the other story about the BSA Bankruptcy judge rejecting the church's $250MM settlement on condition that the church wouldn't be liable for other claims. This firmed up in my mind that the church's main concern is about the money and reputation. Thankfully the church has a $100B+ slush fund to help pay out on this crap, but it blows my mind that the church would continue to be so unwilling to make some reasonable changes that would protect victims AND the church simultaneously.

 

ETA: EVEN IF the bishop couldn't go to the police based only on a confession, he could go to the police/DFC if there were any other witnesses or concerns raised, 

Edited August 5, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[mtomm]

If the Church has the resources to follow the law regarding watering lawns in every municipality in the USA it has the resources to help every single victim of abuse it becomes aware of. I really don't understand these "well, it's complicated" responses. 

If I alone am aware of three instances of abuse where the Church and it's representatives did nothing or covered it up the amount of "do nothing" out there must be massive. 

I really think we can work out a perpetrator's redemption in the next life just like so many of those other unanswered problems we plan working out then. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is this true though? If I as an elders quorum president confess to ongoing adultery to my bishop, can he pass the information on the the SP to convene a membership council? If confidentiality was a principle, the answer is surely not without my permission. No? But church policy says a council is mandatory. No?

The question, though, is what would an ecclesiastical leader be required to do if he learned that you had broken the law by harming a child.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But who told the counselors? In my hypothetical case I told the bishop, about my ongoing adultery, but did not tell anyone else. I didn’t consent to the information being shared but it’s shared anyway to hold a disciplinary hearing. 
 

The membership council proceeding might be confidential, but my confession was not. 

I feel like the church should for once admit that there is fault on the part of the church, but it doesn't happen. But we as members are suppose to and repent. Why is the church never willing to apologize and want to do better.