(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

I think this might be arising more as a matter of unrealistic or misplaced expectations.  The helpline is intended to provide bishops with guidance on legal matters, not pastoral care, so it doesn't seem right to fault the Church for having a helpline that isn't providing services it was not intended to provide.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

The utter lack of humanity in this statement is...astonishing.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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.

The utter lack of humanity in this statement is...astonishing.

Your emotionalisms don't work, either.

I was critiquing a lawyer for failing to address how the law actually works, and particularly her substantial mischaracterization and distortion of the proceedings.

These are weighty issues, and they ought to be treated with seriousness and decorum by those officers of the court who are involved - including Ms. Cadigan.  Her public comment was an attempt to sensationalize and inflame.  There is nothing inhumane in disagreeing with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 9, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

 

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The utter lack of humanity in this statement is...astonishing.

I don’t think it helps victims, young or old, to create false expectations of the law, which is how I interpreted Smac’s comment as at least partly referring to.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have never understood this line of reasoning. 

Ok.  So?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I was a bishopp from 2003 to 2009. I had NO training on issue of sexual abuse.  In fact I had not official training at all as a bishop other than prior leadership positions. And then I had monthly bishop council meeting with the stake presidency and a PPI with the SP once in a while.

I don't know how long the abuse hotline was in effect at the time but I had been given the impression that it was there to help bishops navigate such situations and the help them help ALL parties involved. Maybe it is my fault that I had the expectation but I found the times I called it to be nothing of the sort.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Would bishops be better off just guessing on how they should proceed?

Did I say that?

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

My experience was more that again, it was to protect the church. In one case I was told not to council with the alleged perpetrator any more or I might be stick being called as a witness on the case.  I guess where I live that could happen for a a clergy hearing a confession. So not only was I told to cut the confessor off but I was given no advice on how to help the alleged victim.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

Did I say that?  But certainly when I was a bishop there was no training at all regarding this  very difficult area of my ministry.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Did I say that?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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)?

Did I say that?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

Did I say that?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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. 

Ok.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The utter lack of humanity in this statement is...astonishing.

I don’t think it helps victims, young or old, to create false expectations of the law, which is how I interpreted Smac’s comment as at least partly referring to.

Yes, that.

And also the "attempt to sensationalize and inflame" thing I noted above.  Cases like this are already emotionally difficult and precarious.  The attorney, as an officer of the court, ought not be trying to stoke more hard feelings and hostilities.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 10, 2023 by smac97

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Just sharing my experience.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this might be arising more as a matter of unrealistic or misplaced expectations.  The helpline is intended to provide bishops with guidance on legal matters, not pastoral care, so it doesn't seem right to fault the Church for having a helpline that isn't providing services it was not intended to provide.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or perhaps, at least when I was bishop, not being trained on what the hot line was really for. All I knew was to call the number and get help. Again maybe it was my own misunderstanding or perhaps not being told what the actual purpose was.  But this begs the question.  Where does the bishop get help on the pastoral care in abuses situation?  My experience was the stake president and on my own.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or perhaps, at least when I was bishop, not being trained on what the hot line was really for.

I was told about it, and told to call it whenever I encountered allegations of abuse.

Interestingly, here is an article from 1995 which announced the creation of the hotline:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has established a telephone help line for lay leaders attempting to deal with cases of abuse, especially child abuse.

Child advocates and counselors praise the concept, but several question the church's motives.  A May 10 internal memorandum from the church's Presiding Bishopric mandates that local ecclesiastical leaders in the United States and Canada who become aware of abuse involving church members are to call the toll-free help line.

"This will enable the caller to consult with social services, legal and other specialists who can assist in answering questions and in formulating steps that should be taken.

"Information about local reporting requirements will also be provided," and the calls will be confidential, the memo concludes.

"{L}ocal ecclesiastical leaders in the United States and Canada who become aware of abuse involving church members are to call the toll-free help line."

Not a lot of nuance there, nor need for much training.  Just call the number.

Also this bit: "Child advocates and counselors praise the concept, but several question the church's motives."  Sheesh.  Even in 1995 we had this inanity going on. 

"You are going to the specific effort to create a helpline for bishops to help them address allegations of sexual abuse?  How dare you!"

By the time I became bishop (2013-2018), I think the "consult with social services" component had been changed a bit, as I never received input on that score, nor did I feel it necessary.  Training and online resources had, I think, largely superseded the need for such consultations.  Additionally or alternatively, the Church may have run into issues with such "consultations" adversely affecting the privilege or drawing bishops and the Church's "social services" folks into litigation.  I'm curious about that.

Quote

Church spokesman Don LeFevre said the church published a pamphlet 10 years ago that gives ecclesiastical leaders guidance on dealing with child abuse cases. The hotline was implemented recently as an additional resource, he said.

So the Church's efforts were preceded by this pamphlet in 1985?  Cool.  The Church was obviously becoming aware of, and taking affirmative steps to address, these issues.  Good on it.

Quote

Counselors and attorneys who deal with child sexual abuse cases unanimously praised the idea of a hotline, although some characterize it as belated and merely an attempt to ward off legal liability.

"Belated."

"{M}erely an attempt to ward off legal liability."

Sigh.  Heads we lose, tails we lose.

Quote

Others believe the church should insist its leaders immediately call the proper police or social agency as required in the child abuse laws of most states.

As we have seen, there are plenty of reasons why the clergy-penitent privilege exists.

Nobody, now or then, "insists" that doctors and lawyers "immediately call the proper police or social agency" because they receive information about abuse via confidential communications.  Funny, that.

Quote

"Far be it from me to question their motives," said Marion Smith, a retired sex abuse counselor and founder of the Intermountain Sexual Abuse Treatment Center.

I sense a "but" coming.  As if "question{ing} their motives" is not very "far" from her at all.

Quote

"But

And there it is!

Quote

it concerns me that they feel it necessary to run it through their team instead of saying that any abuse has to be reported to police, which is the protocol anyway.

I am curious what the status of the privilege was in 1995.

Quote

The memorandum, signed by Presiding Bishop Merrill J. Bateman and counselors H. David Burton and Richard C. Edgley, terms abuse of any kind "tragic" and "in opposition to the teachings of the Savior."

It instructs bishops and counselors in stake presidencies to consult with their stake president (who oversees several congregations) about "incidents of abuse that come to their attention."
...

The church has long struggled with the topic of abuse. The conflict is often magnified because those church leaders who most often deal with it firsthand are those least prepared to do so. The church's bishops and stake presidents are laymen appointed to their positions.

"This is a challenge of lay leadership with no training in pastoral care," said Brigham Young University sociology professor Larry Young. "Clearly this would be something you would expect to see."

Perhaps "lay leadership with no training in pastoral care" might benefit from resources provided by the Church, such as . . . the helpline.

Quote

Utah law mandates that anyone who learns of child abuse - including doctors, social workers and teachers - must immediately report it to the Division of Family Services or police.

There is one exception: Confessions given by a perpetrator to a priest. The Utah Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that the priest-penitent exception extends to LDS lay leaders.

Huh.

Quote

Even so, LDS bishops and stake presidents need to act responsibly with that confidential information, said Kristen Brewer, who directs the Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem, a group of attorneys appointed to represent a child's best interests in court.

"If the perpetrator is seeking forgiveness, then the minister needs to tell them that the only way to be forgiven is to go to the authorities and instruct them to do that," Brewer said. "I've known bishops who have done that."

Although I wholeheartedly agree with the substance of these sentiments, I find them a bit disconcerting coming from an agent of the State of Utah.  Since when is the director of the Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem situated to instruct religious leaders on what they "need" to tell penitents?  Or that "the only way to be forgiven is to go to the authorities"?  Since when do agents of the state make public pronouncements on religious doctrine?

Quote

And if the bishop or stake president learns about the abuse from another source - say, the victim - then they are obligated to report, she said.

Yep.  Hence the value of the helpline.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I just came across this article: Why the Mormon Church Abuse Hotline Hasn’t Helped Victims

Quote

The Church’s official purpose for establishing the helpline is to advise bishops (who, unlike most other religious organizations’ leaders, are not professional clerics) on how to comply with local laws regarding sexual abuse reports.

And, despite the Church’s website claiming that it maintains a “zero tolerance” policy regarding sexual abuse, its actions towards its hotline are in direct contradiction of that claim.

Court testimony in one case claimed that it is instead used to protect the Church from potential lawsuits that could result in financial losses.

Oh.  "Court testimony {} claimed" this.  That makes it official, I suppose.

Does the helpline "protect the Church from potential lawsuits that could result in financial losses"?  Sure, that was likely a consideration when the Church created it in 1995.  But how could such "potential lawsuits" arise and "result in financial losses?"  My off-the-cuff response would be: When the bishop fails to report abuse he is legally obligated to report.  To the extent the "helpline" would help avoid a lawsuit, it would do it by telling the reluctant or confused bishop to report the abuse when doing so is required by law (or report it on his behalf).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

ought to be trying to stoke more hard feelings and hostilities.

Ought not? (Let me know if you catch this kind of stuff eventually so I don’t need to point it out as it seems too nitpicky, but when such a different meaning, it sets off an alert in my head….)

Edited November 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Just sharing my experience.

Me too.    It does not surprise there are variable experiences.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ought not? (Let me know if you catch this kind of stuff eventually so I don’t need to point it out as it seems too nitpicky, but when such a different meaning, it sets off an alert in my head….)

Yep, correct.  Thx.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just came across this article: Why the Mormon Church Abuse Hotline Hasn’t Helped Victims

Oh.  "Court testimony {} claimed" this.  That makes it official, I suppose.

Does the helpline "protect the Church from potential lawsuits that could result in financial losses"?  Sure, that was likely a consideration when the Church created it in 1995.  But how could such "potential lawsuits" arise and "result in financial losses?"  My off-the-cuff response would be: When the bishop fails to report abuse he is legally obligated to report.  To the extent the "helpline" would help avoid a lawsuit, it would do it by telling the reluctant or confused bishop to report the abuse when doing so is required by law (or report it on his behalf).

Thanks,

-Smac

That abuse line, gives authority over the decisions, or I mean it's a dang attorney's office. You'd think it would be a member of the church that has been trained in abuse or that isn't about the money in case the church may be sued. 

The bishop in this case, gave up his God given intuition...to an attorney's office. I'm sure if it were up to him, he'd called the cops on that sicko immediately. I have for the longest time felt that bishop was so wrong in not immediately helping that family and stopping the abuse stat, how could he sleep at night knowing what was going on? I believe he gave up that intuition or that moral compass to a church, that is more worried about being sued. Where is the hero in this story, where is the rescuer? It wasn't the church, a supposedly led by God church. The church should pay for their sins. And this was a big one. By church, I mean leaders who are not infallible, like so many on here give them an out to be.

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That abuse line, gives authority over the decisions, or I mean it's a dang attorney's office. You'd think it would be a member of the church that has been trained in abuse or that isn't about the money in case the church may be sued. 

The bishop in this case, gave up his God given intuition...to an attorney's office. I'm sure if it were up to him, he'd called the cops on that sicko immediately. I have for the longest time felt that bishop was so wrong in not immediately helping that family and stopping the abuse stat, how could he sleep at night knowing what was going on? I believe he gave up that intuition or that moral compass to a church, that is more worried about being sued. Where is the hero in this story, where is the rescuer? It wasn't the church, a supposedly led by God church. The church should pay for their sins. And this was a big one. By church, I mean leaders who are not infallible, like so many on here give them an out to be.

The bishop did continue helping the family.  He thought the abuse had ended.

[ttribe]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your emotionalisms don't work, either.

I was critiquing a lawyer for failing to address how the law actually works, and particularly her substantial mischaracterization and distortion of the proceedings.

These are weighty issues, and they ought to be treated with seriousness and decorum by those officers of the court who are involved - including Ms. Cadigan.  Her public comment was an attempt to sensationalize and inflame.  There is nothing inhumane in disagreeing with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

18 hours ago, Calm said:

 

I don’t think it helps victims, young or old, to create false expectations of the law, which is how I interpreted Smac’s comment as at least partly referring to.

1 - You have no idea if the lawyer had those discussions with her clients.

2 - We are talking about traumatized children who were the victims. The law may be cold-hearted, but that does not require your commentary to be.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

1 - You have no idea if the lawyer had those discussions with her clients.

We were not talking about that.  We were talking about her emotionalistic, inflammatory, published-to-the-world rant.

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

2 - We are talking about traumatized children who were the victims.

Nope.  We are talking about an attorney, an officer of the court, making a public statement calculated to sensationalize and inflame in an already-challenging set of circumstances.  

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

The law may be cold-hearted, but that does not require your commentary to be.

Oh, brother.  As I previously noted: "Overall, a terrible story."  I have started and/or participated in multiple threads about this story:

• April 2020: What a Nightmare! (also discussed here)
• December 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. 
• April 2022: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case.
• August 2022: (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• August 2022: AP Story about Abuse
• October 2022: Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse
• December 2022: (4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• December 2022: AZ appeals court issues ruling on the Bisbee abuse case
• April 2023: (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

This story has affected me deeply.  I have dozens and dozens of posts in these various threads in which I have examined in detail the legal and "human" components of this terrible story.  Perhaps, before making further public pronouncements about my supposed "inhumanity" and "cold-hearted{ness}" (because I was not, in your blinkered opinion, sufficiently emotionally expressive in one sentence in one post among many dozens), you could take time reading these various threads and my statements in them, as they flesh out my perspective on this matter.  A sampling:

• "All in all, a terrible story.  I am saddened by it."
• "What a terrible, terrible thing for these children to endure."
• "Anyway, a truly terrible story, but I thought you all might want to know."
• "'What are we going to do to stop it.'  That was a good question, except that they didn't do anything to stop the ongoing abuse.  For years.  And they could have.  That's the terrible part.  The bishop and the mother could have worked together to get the children into a safe situation."
• "I am at a loss to understand why the bishops did not report, and why the helpline did not instruct them to report.  In fact, per one of the bishops he was instructed by the helpline to not report."
• "I am at a loss as to why the helpline did not instruct them to report the ongoing abuse based on the father's confession, as there was no legal constraint against that."
• "I appreciate that the priest/penitent privilege is very important, as is the doctor/patient privilege (the AZ statute likewise includes an identical "may withold" provision for physicians, psychologists and behavioral health professionals).  But where the law allows (as in does not prohibit) a clergy or doctor from reporting ongoing abuse, I think the welfare of the child supersedes all other considerations."
• "Unequivocally terrible.  I don't know what else to say."
• "Returning to the original story, it is a terrible thing.  It is very distressing to hear that bishops knew about, but did not stop, ongoing abuse of children.  It is perplexing and troubling to think that the bishops were told by the helpline attorneys to not report the abuse.  I'm sure we don't have the full story, but what we do know is very difficult to bear."
• "I think the {Church's} policy framework is presently quite sound, but we need to figure out why it went so terribly wrong in this instance."

And yet, according to you, I am "inhumane" and "cold-hearted."

And, as it turns out, much of my above commentary turned out to be misplaced/inaccurate because I was relying on poor reporting of the facts by media outlets who, like Ms. Cadigan, were attempting to inflame and sensationalize this matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

2 - We are talking about traumatized children who were the victims. The law may be cold-hearted, but that does not require your commentary to be.

But we aren't talking to them on this thread.  Neither is their horrible and utterly heartbreaking ordeal the topic being discussed.  It's not cold-hearted to discuss the realities of the law and what an attorney's responsibility is to help people (especially her clients) understand those realities, in a discussion about the legalities of a specific court case.

[jkwilliams]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or perhaps, at least when I was bishop, not being trained on what the hot line was really for. All I knew was to call the number and get help. Again maybe it was my own misunderstanding or perhaps not being told what the actual purpose was.  But this begs the question.  Where does the bishop get help on the pastoral care in abuses situation?  My experience was the stake president and on my own.

It is a little concerning that you were never given any training about sexual abuse issues. “Just call the hotline” seems too little and too late, as it happens after the report of abuse. Seems like a terrible disservice to bishops and abuse victims alike. Here’s hoping the situation is better now. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It is a little concerning that you were never given any training about sexual abuse issues. “Just call the hotline” seems too little and too late, as it happens after the report of abuse. Seems like a terrible disservice to bishops and abuse victims alike. Here’s hoping the situation is better now. 

Not one bit of official training. Zippo. But patting myself on the back a bit. I knew when someone needed council beyond my ability and often referred people to professionals. 

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Not one bit of official training. Zippo. But patting myself on the back a bit. I knew when someone needed council beyond my ability and often referred people to professionals. 

You’d think with a lay clergy there would be an emphasis on training. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That abuse line, gives authority over the decisions, or I mean it's a dang attorney's office. You'd think it would be a member of the church that has been trained in abuse or that isn't about the money in case the church may be sued. 

Are you sure they are taking over the decision and not just informing the bishops what the law says?  In some cases the law takes the decision away, as when requiring mandatory reporting.  In others the law prevents the bishop from sharing when it leaves the choice with the confessee, not the confessor (the person who hears the confession).  In other cases, it’s a grey issue.

Quote

The bishop in this case, gave up his God given intuition...to an attorney's office. 

Or the law.

Quote

have for the longest time felt that bishop was so wrong in not immediately helping that family and stopping the abuse stat, how could he sleep at night knowing what was going on?

The bishop was told the abuse had happened once iirc, definitely it had happened in the past.  The mother assured him she had taken measures to prevent her husband from being alone with the daughter and did not discuss any abuse with the bishops after that point or with anyone else according to court testimony.  The children said nothing.
 

How could he have stopped the abuse?  The husband obviously didn’t listen to him, the wife wasn’t listening to him either.  If he had decided to report the one instance of abuse he was told of (and can’t remember if we know the details of how it was described there, but even confessing abusers are notorious for downplaying the abuse), is there any guarantee that this would have stopped the abuse?  There are cases where abuse was reported and CPS started an investigation that went nowhere.  In the largest case, I believe CPS even went to the home on multiple occasions after neighbours reported it and yet it wasn’t until the kid escaped imprisonment that they were removed and the abuse stopped.  This was much earlier in the case and my guess is even if CPS had shown up due to the report of a past incident of child sexual abuse that the mother would have denied it (as she did to officials until the husband was dead), the father would have denied it and the kids would have said nothing just as they said nothing to friends and teachers.  Speculation:  Evidence in the home was probably not there as he obviously wasn’t as blatant and callous back then since he confessed to something.

So how would the bishop in this case have stopped the abuse?  The wife wouldn’t leave the husband even when he was out of town for months (helping his parents) and her visiting teacher promising she would help her get things and take her to her family out of state wearing her gun to protect the family.
 

He assumed unfortunately that the mother was telling the truth and only learned he was wrong when everyone else learned it, from the news Adams was arrested.  So he likely slept fine (at least due to this case) prior to the arrest.  After the arrest, his nights were likely highly disturbed, his mind as filled with “what ifs” as anyone else’s.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

How could he have stopped the abuse?  The husband obviously didn’t listen to him, the wife wasn’t listening to him either.  If he had decided to report the one instance of abuse he was told of (and can’t remember if we know the details of how it was described there, but even confessing abusers are notorious for downplaying the abuse), is there any guarantee that this would have stopped the abuse?  There are cases where abuse was reported and CPS started an investigation that went nowhere.  In the largest case, I believe CPS even went to the home on multiple occasions after neighbours reported it and yet it wasn’t until the kid escaped imprisonment that they were removed and the abuse stopped.  This was much earlier in the case and my guess is even if CPS had shown up due to the report of a past incident of child sexual abuse that the mother would have denied it (as she did to officials until the husband was dead), the father would have denied it and the kids would have said nothing just as they said nothing to friends and teachers.  Speculation:  Evidence in the home was probably not there as he obviously wasn’t as blatant and callous back then since he confessed to something.

The CPS actually went to the family in Bisbee.  Someone had reported physical child abuse (not sexual).  The CPS investigated and found nothing.  This was after the man's excommunication and he was probably sexually abusing his daughter at that time.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

The CPS actually went to the family in Bisbee.  Someone had reported physical child abuse (not sexual).  The CPS investigated and found nothing.  This was after the man's excommunication and he was probably sexually abusing his daughter at that time.

I had remembered that, but wasn’t sure and was too lazy to look it out, so relied on a better memory.  Thanks for confirming. My speculation nothing would have been found in the home can be changed to fact.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

Massimo Introvigne:

Quote

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

Ms. Introvigne has weighed in on this story: The Paul Adams Case: Once Again, Courts Protect the Secret of Confession

Quote

Some just do not get it, but the inviolability of the secret of confession does not depend on the nature of the crime. The horrific nature of child sexual abuse is currently used as a picklock to unhinge the door of the confessional secret. But one breach would destroy the whole door. Today it is child sexual abuse, tomorrow it will be rape, drug dealing, serial killing, or terrorism. In the end, there will be no secret of confession at all.

He's not wrong, methinks.

Quote

“Bitter Winter” reported in April this year that the Arizona Supreme Court had judged  that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, popularly known as the Mormon Church) was authorized not to disclose information given to it in confession by a man called Paul Adams. He had routinely raped his two daughters before being arrested in 2017 and committing suicide in jail. At the time of the arrest, Adams was no longer a member of the LDS Church, having been excommunicated in 2013, but he committed some of his crimes when he was still a Mormon.

As a logical consequence of the Supreme Court ruling, on November 3 Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy ****erson dismissed a lawsuit filed by the two daughters of the deceased abuser against the LDS Church and several of its representatives involved in the case. The judge confirmed that, as horrible as Adams’ crimes were, the LDS Church was exempted from the general duty of reporting them to the police because the corresponding information was obtained in a situation of confession.

Introvigne is fairly uniquely situated to speak intelligently on this topic (extensive training and experience in both the law and in religious communities), and I'm glad he has.

Quote

The Arizona decisions in the Paul Adams trials are important for two features of the case. First, the criminal posted in the dark web videos where he publicly confessed and documented his crimes. The attorneys for his daughters argued that he had thus waived his right to be protected by the secret of confession. However, the Arizona judges maintained that Adams might have waived its rights but the LDS Church and its representatives did not. They remained protected by the principle of the secret of confession.

I've never fully bought this "waiver" argument, as "waiver" typically requires a voluntary relinquishment of a known right.  My understanding is that Adams posted the content anonymously, which to me suggests that he was not intending to waive, well, anything (such as his identity, or his disclosures to the bishop).

Quote

Second, while laws protecting the secret of confession were written having in mind the Catholic model, where one penitent confesses to one priest, in the Adams case several LDS representatives became aware of his confession. In fact, the local LDS bishop (whose position is similar to a Catholic parish priest) even consulted with his church’s authorities in Salt Lake City. Unlike in the Catholic confession, a significant number of LDS representatives become aware of the confession, and written documents about it were generated. This did not destroy the confessional privilege, the Arizona courts said.

I think he is quite correct on this point.  By way of analogy, a client may make a confidential communication to his attorney, and other attorneys in that law firm (and even some support staff) might become aware of the communication.  The privilege is still there, though, and these other parties could not be compelled to testify.

Quote

The point is important because in California an anachronistic law only protects the secret of one-on-one Catholic-style confession. This law should be amended. In a situation of religious pluralism “confession” has meanings going well beyond the Catholic sacrament, and all religions are entitled to equal protection. The secret of confession, under assault in several countries, deserves more protection, not less.

I agree with this sentiment.  

And the oddity of the law in California only further demonstrates the need for the Church to have the Helpline in place.

Thanks,

-Smac