(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't live in an LDS dominated population area. In my small little rural community we have had a tremendous amount of church member centered turmoil over the past few months. Everything from a member being arrested on multiple counts of sxual misconduct with a minor, to a former bishop facing tax evasion charges, to a youth who has been hit on multiple occasions by her father, to the tantrum I mentioned earlier by a "good, upstanding couple". That one was by far the most minor of offenses (but there's significantly more to the story).

Members behaving badly isn't new but the reactions from other members in the ward and stake have has been disheartening. While I can understand wanting to give someone the benefit of the doubt the level of wagon-circling I've been witnessing in these situations is disgusting. In a couple of cases the accuser is the one being excoriated. 

I think there is a tendency for "good members" to trust other "good members" despite heaping piles of evidence.

I think when “good members” do that it’s really about protecting themselves, not others.

It’s painful to deal with the crimes and misconduct of those we care about and those who are connected to us in someway. It’s more personally painful to accept the charges and deal with the fall out than to deny the charges and have to deal with nothing.

I think this is often why so many members choose to deny or ignore the wrongdoing of other members.  Selfish reasons.

It really is inexcusable in most cases.

 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think when “good members” do that it’s really about protecting themselves, not others.

It’s painful to deal with the crimes and misconduct of those we care about and those who are connected to us in someway. It’s more personally painful to accept the charges and deal with the fall out than to deny the charges and have to deal with nothing.

I think this is often why so many members choose to deny or ignore the wrongdoing of other members.  Selfish reasons.

It really is inexcusable in most cases.

 

Very well said. 

[bsjkki]

It is ‘tribal’ reactions. That is why when people do horrific things, so many times the persons politics or religion is highlighted. The groups they are not a part of feel relief and are happy  to point fingers. The tables then turn. I am guilty of this. Working on it. Need to do better.
 

If an evil person does evil things and is a member of your ‘group’ it doesn’t have any bearing on you. Don’t own the actions of the bad guys. Hold them accountable. Don’t enable them. Help the victims! And, don’t vilify those trying protect others. This happens too often. Forgiveness should not enable bad people to do more bad things.

Edited April 18, 2023 by bsjkki

[Teancum]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:19 PM, webbles said:

I've wondered how a man who was a life-long member of the church can somehow not receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I always felt it was kind of forced on you.  You turn 19 and you get ordained whether you want it or not.  Especially if you are attending church frequently.

Do you not see that as weird for him to never have received the Melchizedek Priesthood?

For me, the fact that he never received the Melchizedek Priesthood is potentially a sign that many of his priesthood leaders knew something wasn't right about him.

Lots of young men are not ordained Elders. And not because there is something "not right" about them, whatever that means. They may be inactive, they may not want to be ordained, they may have some behavior the prohibits them from being ordained.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Lots of young men are not ordained Elders. And not because there is something "not right" about them, whatever that means. They may be inactive, they may not want to be ordained, they may have some behavior the prohibits them from being ordained.

So the fact that Paul Adams was never ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood isn't a sign that maybe his deviant behavior was known beforehand?  The plaintiffs have questioned along this line and I partially agree with them.  I find it odd that a fairly active man, who attended multiple wards, would not be ordained.

[ksfisher]

On 4/14/2023 at 6:19 PM, webbles said:

You turn 19 and you get ordained whether you want it or not. 

I recall having a choice.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

So the fact that Paul Adams was never ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood isn't a sign that maybe his deviant behavior was known beforehand?  The plaintiffs have questioned along this line and I partially agree with them.  I find it odd that a fairly active man, who attended multiple wards, would not be ordained.

I don't believe that Paul Adams was active at all.  The Church's press release (in response to an error-riddled report from the AP) stated that "Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders."

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't believe that Paul Adams was active at all.  The Church's press release (in response to an error-riddled report from the AP) stated that "Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders."

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case

He was not fully inactive either.  He attended church enough that the ward members knew him and it looks like he had the calling of building specialist or building cleaner.  When he was going through a disciplinary process at his job, multiple members of the ward submitted letters of recommendation for him, including at least one leader.  He also attended church before the Bisbee ward.  He met his wife through church activities.

[Dario_M]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:01 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

If you're gonna get personally insulting, then I'm done.  If you're gonna continually misstate what I have said (when I am AGREEING with you) then I'm done.  This is my last word on the subject.  

If you are so much agree with my posts about this subject then why on earth are you going after me to have this ridicelous discussion, with me?

I'm sorry.. but i really find that you make no sense. At all. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

5 hours ago, Dario_M said:

If you are so much agree with my posts about this subject then why on earth are you going after me to have this ridicelous discussion, with me?

I'm sorry.. but i really find that you make no sense. At all. 

I believe that the structure of an argument is as important as the conclusion. I agreed with your conclusion, but found that the logical structure you used to get there was faulty. It's because I believe in that conclusion that I want to see it supported with the strongest, most logically valid arguments possible. 

That, and I'm just annoyingly pedantic.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, webbles said:

So the fact that Paul Adams was never ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood isn't a sign that maybe his deviant behavior was known beforehand? 

That is not what I said.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Who knows.  Do you?

23 hours ago, webbles said:

 

 

The plaintiffs have questioned along this line and I partially agree with them.  I find it odd that a fairly active man, who attended multiple wards, would not be ordained.

[Dario_M]

19 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I believe that the structure of an argument is as important as the conclusion. I agreed with your conclusion, but found that the logical structure you used to get there was faulty.

There is nothing faulty about it. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that the chance that a Mormon with the whole package can go bad. Same chance as a Mormon without garment and priesterhood can also go bad. I don't need to give you logical structure. I allready get that. So why don't you get it?? Even a dog with IQ 20 can figure that out. 

19 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's because I believe in that conclusion that I want to see it supported with the strongest, most logically valid arguments possible. 

Is it perhaps a bit dificult for you to think logic? 

19 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

That, and I'm just annoyingly pedantic.

You need to work on that. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Dario_M

[Stormin' Mormon]

Never mind.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

The lawsuit against the Church has been dismissed:

Quote

An Arizona judge has dismissed a high-profile child sexual abuse lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ruling that church officials who knew that a church member was sexually abusing his daughter had no duty to report the abuse to police or social service agencies because the information was received during a spiritual confession.

I can't say I'm surprised by this.  In another thread I recently made this comment:

Quote

At present I am in-house counsel for a company that owns several hundred "low income" housing units.  I do a few evictions each month, and I am likely over 100 at this point.  I think there have only been one or two that we have not won.  Again, not because I am the best lawyer around, but because my client tailors its business practices to conform with the law, and so tends to have a superior factual and legal position in litigation.

So it is, I think, with the Church.  It tailors its policies, procedures, etc. to conform with the law, and as a result it tends to do well in litigation.  This is not always the case, of course.  The Church has limited control over its agents and members, and so sometimes is held legally accountable for their misconduct (the McKenna Denson case, for example).  And sometimes the Church screws up in a legal sense.  The Main Street Plaza matter and, more recently, the SEC issue illustrate that.  However, overall the Church follows the law, and therefore largely enjoys its protections.  Such will, I think, be the case in this lawsuit.

I suspect some online commenters will be grumbling about the dismissal of this lawsuit, perhaps even suggesting some corruption or malfeasance by the Church or the judge.  But I don't think such sinister/cynical explanations hold much water.  A more likely explanation is that the Church tailors its policies, procedures, etc. to conform with the law, and as a result it tends to do well in litigation.  For example, here the Bishop's Hotline apparently gave sound legal advice relative to the law in Arizona.  

Quote

In a ruling on Friday, Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy ****erson said the state’s clergy-penitent privilege excused two bishops and several other officials with the church, widely known as the Mormon church, from the state’s child sex abuse mandatory reporting law because Paul Adams initially disclosed during a confession that he was sexually abusing his daughter.

“Church defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe 1 by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception,” ****erson wrote in his decision.

Huh.  I wonder if this will be upheld on appeal.  

Quote

Lynne Cadigan, an attorney representing the Adams children who filed the 2021 lawsuit, said she will appeal the ruling.

Her clients certainly have that right.

Quote

“How do you explain to young victims that a rapist’s religious beliefs are more important than their right to be free from rape?” she asked.

Well, you start by explaining how the law actually works, without mischaracterizing it and distorting it with emotionalisms.

Quote

Cadigan also said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would “completely eviscerate the state’s child protection law.”

Overwrought.

Quote

In a prepared statement, the church said, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Contrary to some news reports and exaggerated allegations, the court found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy handled this matter consistent with Arizona law.”

There are pretty solid policy grounds to uphold the privilege, and the evidence is rather scant that endlessly widening the "mandatory reporters" category is doing any good (in fact, this may be doing some real harm).

Quote

An investigation by The Associated Press last year cited the Adams case while revealing a system the Mormon church uses to protect itself from costly lawsuits by keeping instances of serious child sexual abuse secret, at times allowing the abuse to continue for years, harming or endangering children.

And this course of action protects the Church from litigation . . . how, exactly?

Quote

The investigation highlighted the use of a church Helpline used by bishops to report instances of child sex abuse to church officials in Salt Lake City. Church workers fielding the calls keep no records, or destroy them at the end of each day, according to church officials. And they refer serious instances of abuse to attorneys for the church, who rely on a second privilege, the attorney-client privilege, to continue keeping the abuse secret.

Boy, this is dumb.

Quote

The AP found that 33 states exempt clergy of any denomination from laws requiring professionals such as teachers, physicians, and psychotherapists from reporting information about child sex abuse to police or child welfare officials if the abuse was divulged during a confession.

Notably absent: lawyers.  They are also exempt.  And nobody is claiming the sky is falling because of this.

Quote

Cadigan argued that the church interpreted the clergy-penitent privilege more broadly than the state legislature intended in the Adams case by applying it to others in the church, in addition to Herrod, who learned of Adams' confession.

Yeah, good luck with that.  If prosecutors were allowed to circumvent the attorney-client privilege by compelling the attorney's paralegal or secretary divulge what would otherwise be "confidential" communications, the privilege would collapse in on itself.

Overall, a terrible story.  But the article is trying to incite antipathy in some problematic ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[helix]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Overall, a terrible story.  But the article is trying to incite antipathy in some problematic ways.

Yes, Rezendes was a horrifically sloppy journalist, making error after error after error in his reporting. And when he wasn't doing that he was essentially writing op-eds.  I wonder how many more articles he's going to publish with what remains of this case.

[Diamondhands69]

“In a prepared statement, the church said, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Contrary to some news reports and exaggerated allegations, the court found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy handled this matter consistent with Arizona law.”

I imagine Jesus isnt pleased.

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

“In a prepared statement, the church said, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Contrary to some news reports and exaggerated allegations, the court found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy handled this matter consistent with Arizona law.”

I imagine Jesus isnt pleased.

 

I didn’t think you believed that Jesus actually exists?

[Diamondhands69]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn’t think you believed that Jesus actually exists?

Cfr…. If you can’t find any evidence I ever said Jesus doesnt exist, then explain why you feel I believe that way. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The lawsuit against the Church has been dismissed:

I can't say I'm surprised by this.  In another thread I recently made this comment:

I suspect some online commenters will be grumbling about the dismissal of this lawsuit, perhaps even suggesting some corruption or malfeasance by the Church or the judge.  But I don't think such sinister/cynical explanations hold much water.  A more likely explanation is that the Church tailors its policies, procedures, etc. to conform with the law, and as a result it tends to do well in litigation.  For example, here the Bishop's Hotline apparently gave sound legal advice relative to the law in Arizona.  

Huh.  I wonder if this will be upheld on appeal.  

Her clients certainly have that right.

Well, you start by explaining how the law actually works, without mischaracterizing it and distorting it with emotionalisms.

Overwrought.

There are pretty solid policy grounds to uphold the privilege, and the evidence is rather scant that endlessly widening the "mandatory reporters" category is doing any good (in fact, this may be doing some real harm).

And this course of action protects the Church from litigation . . . how, exactly?

Boy, this is dumb.

Notably absent: lawyers.  They are also exempt.  And nobody is claiming the sky is falling because of this.

Yeah, good luck with that.  If prosecutors were allowed to circumvent the attorney-client privilege by compelling the attorney's paralegal or secretary divulge what would otherwise be "confidential" communications, the privilege would collapse in on itself.

Overall, a terrible story.  But the article is trying to incite antipathy in some problematic ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

A tough issue that clergy-penitent privilege is IMO.  While I understand it I find that it can protect the offender and obstruct assistance for the abused. 

Also, I find the church abuse hotline really not at all helpful for the bishop calling the line when it comes to helping out the parties in this situation. It seems more a legal program designed to protect the church. At least that was my experience as a bishop and also what I have read at least anecdotally from others.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Cfr…. If you can’t find any evidence I ever said Jesus doesnt exist, then explain why you feel I believe that way. 

Then my thinking was wrong.  I knew I could be wrong which is why I specifically didn't frame it as a statement of fact (which would require a reference to support), but instead stated it as a possibility I wasn't positive about.

I thought you had mentioned somewhere that you were not Christian but I probably have you confused with a different critic.

 

[Diamondhands69]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then my thinking was wrong.  I knew I could be wrong which is why I specifically didn't frame it as a statement of fact (which would require a reference to support), but instead stated it as a possibility I wasn't positive about.

I thought you had mentioned somewhere that you were not Christian but I probably have you confused with a different critic.

 

Yea you can spend a lifetime looking for a statement coming from my mouth saying I don’t believe in Jesus. You will never find evidence of that. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Diamondhands69

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Yea you can spend a lifetime looking for a statement coming from my mouth saying I don’t believe in Jesus. You will never find evidence of that. 
 

 

I'm going to spend zero time trying.  I'm good taking you at your word.  

Edited November 9, 2023 by bluebell

[webbles]

Where did they find the ruling?  The case record at azcourtdocs.org doesn't have any documents from November.  The latest is the summary judgement for Shaunice Warr (the visiting teacher).

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

A tough issue that clergy-penitent privilege is IMO. 

I think it is a tough emotional issue.  I am less persuaded that it is a tough legal issue.  Several reasons for this:

First, I have not seen any competent evidence that the State endlessly expanding the pool of "mandatory reporters" is improving the State's detection of and intervention in abuse cases.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In particular, Pennsylvania expanded its definitions of mandatory reporters, requiring child abuse awareness training for any licensed health care professional in the state and significantly expanding mandatory lay reporters to include essentially any individual in contact with children, rather than specifically those in contact with children by virtue of their profession. In Philadelphia, these new reporting requirements have flooded the reporting hotline, contributing to excessive waiting times, unanswered calls, spurious calls, and unnecessary reports, leading to the inability to pursue many of these reports.
...
There is no indication that the increase in reporting has improved the safety of Philadelphia’s children, and there is reason to believe it may detract. 
...
Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect has a history of over 5 decades in the United States. Yet this policy, like many other approaches in the field of child abuse policy, is lacking in evidence.
...
Over the past decades, most states have considerably expanded their mandatory reporting laws in both domains, although none have proven the effectiveness of this approach.
...
The majority of North American child welfare experts believe that mandatory reporting laws are an important measure in identifying child maltreatment, and dissent is rare.  Indeed, the policy has broad ethical and moral appeal. Yet no clear endpoints have been recognized as useful indicators of the efficacy of this approach, and no data exist to demonstrate that incremental increases in reporting have contributed to child safety.
...
Rates of the substantiation of reports may indicate the successful identification of abused or at-risk children, yet increased mandatory reporting requirements have not been consistently proven to correlate with higher rates of substantiated cases.
...
Despite a dearth of data, at any juncture at which child abuse policy is debated, the result is nearly always additional expansion of the requirements for mandatory reporting. This expansion seems to make for good politics, because child abuse legislation garners broad bipartisan support, but is it good policy?

Second, there is some evidence that expanding the pool of "mandatory reporters" may be doing more harm than good.  Again, from the above article:

Quote

There is no indication that the increase in reporting has improved the safety of Philadelphia’s children, and there is reason to believe it may detract. 
...
Lax legal statutes have not been proven to be a barrier to reporting, and there is no evidence to suggest that changes in mandatory reporting requirements will address the problem of physician nonreporting. In contrast, mandatory reporting by the lay public is more likely to result in spurious reports.
...
Actively increasing the number of reports from nonspecialized individuals may cause harm in a number of ways. Most saliently, mechanisms to increase reporting do not necessarily include increased funding or additional personnel dedicated to children’s services.  Accordingly, increased reporting depletes resources that are already spread thin and diverts attention away from children who need it the most. 
...
Reports of neglect disproportionately target low-income families, who may experience a Child Protective Services intervention as an additional hardship, both emotionally and sometimes financially.
...
Children subjected to questioning, physical exams, and occasionally temporary removal from their homes experience this as a traumatic event. 
...
Well-intentioned individuals may be more inclined to report suspicions of maltreatment rather than attempt to assist families, a concern that is particularly relevant in cases of low-income families suspected of neglect.  Rather than stepping in to assist needy families with resources, the new mandatory reporting laws may lead individuals to report underfed or poorly dressed children. 
...
Fear of reporting may prevent families from seeking help, whereas assurance of confidentiality has been shown to increase help-seeking behaviors.

Third, the impulse to continue expanding the pool of "mandatory reporters" is, it seems, driven primarily by emotional (of the "the government isn't doing enough!" variety) and political considerations (no politician wants to be seen as opposing something intended to help curb the abuse of children), and not by competent evidence (see above article). 

To be clear, I am not diminishing the difficulty of the issue by demarcating it as "emotional."  But emotion is only one of a larger set of considerations in play in this, the legal sphere.  Lawyers and judges (and legislators, and law enforcement, etc.) can be as affected as anyone else by the terrible impact of child abuse, but our job is to work within the confines of the law, and that often requires either setting aside emotional considerations, or subordinating them or confining them to their proper sphere of influence.  Emotional impulses come from a good place (concern for children), but of themselves can be quite misguided.  We need to be guided by data and evidence more than emotionalisms.

Fourth, the priest-penitent privilege is not, as some news outlets have characterized it, a "loophole."  This is very incorrect.  This privilege is not a whoopsy-daisy.  It is not an error or oversight.  It is, instead, a law (sometimes also a rule of evidence and/or procedure) which has been specifically and intentionally created, with the First Amendment being the jurisprudential basis.  All 50 states, plus DC and the federal government, have enacted forms of this privilege "providing that at least some communications between clergyman and parishioners are privileged."

A "loophole" is inadvertent and ought to be closed when detected.  That is not the case with specifically-and-intentionally-crafted laws governing privileged communications.

Fifth, there are substantial "policy" grounds for the privilege, some of which are constitutional.  The First Amendment is one of the greatest and most important pieces of law ever created.  It is central to the American Experiment and is a bulwark to protect the citizenry from overreach by the State.  It is not absolute, but we must be constantly vigilant against efforts to erode it, even when resisting such erosion is beneficial to someone we don't like. 

Religious liberty is a vital component of the First Amendment.  History has taught us, over and over, of the risks of entangling the State with Religion, or vice versa.  Substantially weakening or abolishing the priest-penitent privilege would effectively turn clergy into agents of the State, which in turn would rather quickly make "penitents" far less likely to confess to serious misconduct.  These developments would greatly enhance the power and authority of the State at the expense of the First Amendment right of its citizens, while at the same time greatly reducing disclosures of misconduct to clergy.

However, other policy grounds for privileged communications are both practical and substantive.  One of the most basic rationales for the privilege is the idea that John Q. Public ought to have some resource or outlet to confide in that is immune from the intrusive and coercive power of the State. 

Doctors and mental health therapists need their privilege so that patients can feel more comfortable and forthcoming in describing the circumstances of their medical and mental/emotional health needs. 

Lawyers need their privilege so that the client can be candid about the facts of the case and, in doing so, feeling safe from the State or the opposing party finding out. 

Are doctors and lawyers sometimes instrumental in detecting abuse?  Yes.  Such disclosures can be a natural byproduct of communications with the patient/client. 

Are doctors and lawyers sometimes instrumental in stopping abuse?  Also yes.  The abuser's most potent tool to enact abuse on a child is to keep it secret.  An abuser who has divulged his misconduct to his doctor or lawyer has, in doing so, weakened the potency of secrecy.  That this has happened in a "safe" environment (as opposed to a coercive one involving the State) means that the doctor or lawyer might be able to persuade or induce the abuser to stop the abuse, or to move out (if the abuse is against a family member), or to turn himself in to law enforcement, etc.

Do doctors and lawyers always succeed in curbing or stopping abuse which has been disclosed to them?  Sadly, no.  But is this a sufficient basis to abolish their respective privileges?  I think not.  Again, abolishing the privilege would very quickly result in patients not disclosing abuse to their doctors/therapists and client not disclosing abuse to their attorneys.  Abolishing the privilege would not eviscerate the (admittedly limited) ability of these professionals to mitigate or stop abuse, it would do tremendous damage to the doctor-patient relationship (and, hence, to medical and mental/emotional health care that often relies heavily on cooperation and disclosures of the patient) and to the attorney-client relationship and the legal system in general.

Do these policy grounds have some application to the clergy-penitent privilege?  Yes.  Very much so.  People avoid going to a doctor or lawyer all the time, as it typically entails paying a doctor or lawyer (who often has little or no personal relationship with the patient or client) for professional services.  Or they may just not have any particular occasion to go to a doctor or lawyer.  Visiting or talking with "clergy," meanwhile, is free.  And there is often a personal relationship between the two.  And clergy are situated to bring moral/ethical issues to the attention of the abuser, and to use them to persuade or induce the abuser to stop the abuse, or move out, or turn himself in, etc.  All this, however, hinges on the "penitent" having a substantial measure of trust in the "clergy" to keep confidences.  This trust would be gutted by abolishing the privilege, and with it goes all the potential good clergy can do to detect, curb or stop abuse.

Sixth, I find much of the critical discussion and commentary about the clergy-penitent privilege to be pretextual, to be a protracted expression of thinly-veiled prejudice against religious groups.  Nobody is voicing strident denunciations against, or demanding the abolition of, privileged communications to doctors and therapists and lawyers, all of whom are situated to have special and unique access to the "secrets" of their patients/clients.  The same goes with the spousal privilege. 

There is likewise no broad disparagement or vilification of the character and decency of doctors and therapists and lawyers who keep confidences in accordance with laws governing privileged communications.  

The only form of privilege being so targeted is the clergy-penitent privilege.  The only meaningful distinction I can see between this privilege and the ones noted above is a generalized antipathy and contempt against one side of the privilege.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

While I understand it I find that it can protect the offender and obstruct assistance for the abused. 

You are quite correct.  However, I think we cannot take a "the ends justify the means" approach here.  The attorney-client privilege can also be characterized (unfairly, IMO) as "protect{ing} the offender and obstruct{ing} assistance for the abused," but nobody is calling for the abolition of it.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Also, I find the church abuse hotline really not at all helpful for the bishop calling the line when it comes to helping out the parties in this situation.

I think it is a tremendously helpful resource, as most bishops are not situated to understand often extensive legal complexities involved in understanding and applying the privilege.  Complying with the law in such situations is a very important consideration, and bishops ought not be left to their own devices when fulfilling their ecclesiastical duties potentially implicates complying with, or violating, laws.

As for "helping out the parties," that is not really the point of the helpline, which is intended to provide legal guidance, not pastoral.  The bishop has alternative resources to help the parties in the situation.  I spent five years as a bishop and had several specific experiences in which the helpline was, well, helpful.

Actually, I think the Church would be derelict in its responsibilities in not providing bishops legal assistance via the helpline.  As regarding the McKenna Denson matter, i recall reading something about Joseph Bishop saying that his "counseling sessions" with missionaries (which is, I think, how he came to interact with Ms. Denson, the particulars of that interaction still being unclear and unestablished) arose because he was the president of the MTC, and because the MTC in the 1980s had no resources or mechanisms in place to help elders and sisters who were dealing with mental/emotional health issues while in the MTC.  I also recall that Mr. Bishop said he sent the Church requests that it provide funding and resources to meet this need, but that he was turned down.

We can, in "hindsight is 20-20" / "armchair quarterback" mode, discern that the Church - as with the rest of society - needed to improve on this issue.  And it has.  A lot.  A big part of that improvement has been providing additional resources for missionaries.  For example, my in-laws spent their mission in Texas with my MIL as the "Mission Nurse."  I'm not sure what it was called, but basically her job was to field calls from missionaries regarding physical and mental/emotional health issues, and to provide them with guidance and resources. 

The same can be said for the Church's improved track record of providing resources for bishops, including the helpline.  This is, in my view, a very good thing.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems more a legal program designed to protect the church.

I have never understood this line of reasoning. 

How is a helpline designed to assist bishops in navigating choppy legal waters regarding abuse claims a bad thing?

Would bishops be better off just guessing about legalities when trying to figure out how they should proceed?

Should bishops, in addition to sacrificing all sorts of time and effort for their calling, also dip into their own pockets to pay for legal advice on these issues?

If the Church eliminated the helpline, wouldn't it be likely that critics would lambaste the Church with rhetoric like "the Church is leaving its bishops to deal with legal issues on their own!" or "the Church is too greedy to provide the bishops with resources they need to do their job!"?

As for characterizing the helpline has "protect{ing} the church," such "protection" amounts to complying with the law.  Why is such protection a bad thing?

It seems like the unspoken premise of this argument is something like: "The Church doesn't really care about the welfare of children, so it created the helpline not to provide legal guidance to bishops, but to ferret out each and every way the Church can avoid disclosing abuse allegations to law enforcement."  I cannot think of an alternative premise.  So if I am correct about this, it is a monstrous falsehood. 

Do you fault a doctor who seeks out legal advice on the complexities of privileged communications? 

I suspect hospitals and clinics have attorneys on hand to provide legal guidance comparable to what is meted out via the Church's helpline.  Do you therefore characterize these hospitals and clinics as only being out to "protect" themselves (as opposed to, say, complying with often complex legal technicalities in high-stakes situations)?

Do you think that the average bishop is indifferent to abuse victims, and calls the helpline so as to find a way to justify not providing help/resources?

Compliance with the law is an important, but not the sole, component of how a bishop addresses allegations of abuse.  A natural and foreseeable result of such compliance is that the Church is "protect{ed}," but in my view the Church ought not be faulted for seeking protection of the law by complying with it.  I was grateful for the helpline when I was serving as my ward's bishop, and I suspect most other bishops feel the same way.  I did not check my humanity at the door to the bishop's office, but I recognized that allegations of abuse need to be carefully addressed.  I was then able to proceed in providing pastoral guidance to the abuser and/or pastoral care to the victim. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

At least that was my experience as a bishop and also what I have read at least anecdotally from others.

My experience was quite different, then.  I have not polled other bishops of my acquaintance, but none has ever expressed dislike or distaste for the Church providing them with resources, including the helpline.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 9, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Also, I find the church abuse hotline really not at all helpful for the bishop calling the line when it comes to helping out the parties in this situation. It seems more a legal program designed to protect the church. At least that was my experience as a bishop and also what I have read at least anecdotally from others.

I have heard at least a half dozen current and former bishops state they found the opposite.  It may depend on where you live perhaps or maybe just the lawyer at the other end.