(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[webbles]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

I think Mr. Introvigne got this part wrong.  The appeals court actual said that if Adams had waived his rights, the Church and its representatives wouldn't have had any right.  See subnote 2 at https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-unpublished/2022/2-ca-sa-2022-0047.html

Quote

This  court  has  rejected  the  argument  that  these statutes  provide  a  basis  for  a  priest  to  refuse  to  testify even when  the penitent has waived the priest-penitent privilege.  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saintsv. Superior Court, 159 Ariz. 24,32(App. 1988).  Given our disposition of this matter, we need not reach LDS’s argument that that case was  wrongly  decided and  that  priests  have  an  “independent right  to maintain confidentiality of confessions.

As for the waiver, it is possibly unique to AZ.  The court case that controls it is Church of Jesus Christ v. Superior Court (yes, another case against the Church involving child abuse).  https://casetext.com/case/church-of-jesus-christ-v-superior-court has the decision and the applicable part is:

Quote

We disagree. We hold that the clergyman/penitent privilege, like other privileges, is susceptible to implied waiver through conduct inconsistent with the maintenance of conversational privacy, and we find such waiver in the conduct of Ray.

They reference an AZ law that gives an implied waiver for attorney/client and physician/patient privileges (A.R.S. § 12-2236)

Quote

A person who offers himself as a witness and voluntarily testifies with reference to the communications referred to in § 12-2234 and 12-2235 thereby consents to the examination of such attorney, physician or surgeon.

So, AZ does allow implied waivers for privileged communication.  In Adams case, the appeals court ruled that Adams disclosed his crimes but NOT what he had confessed to the bishop.  So he didn't waive the privilege.  I bet if he had said something like "I told the bishop that I had abused my daughter" that would have waived the privilege.  But he didn't do that.

 

[helix]

43 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, AZ does allow implied waivers for privileged communication.  In Adams case, the appeals court ruled that Adams disclosed his crimes but NOT what he had confessed to the bishop.  So he didn't waive the privilege.  I bet if he had said something like "I told the bishop that I had abused my daughter" that would have waived the privilege.  But he didn't do that

I'm trying to ensure I have a correct understanding of the distinction between 1) being allowed to refuse to testify in court, and 2) being required to report.

As I'm understanding it so far, the Arizona government can compel someone to testify in court, so long as the guilty party essentially implied a waiver by telling others publicly about what was confessed. But a government still cannot "deputize" religious clergy into reporting to the government any listed crimes the government wants reported to them. So in the latter, if the church doesn't report, then an implied waiver occurs by the abuser, the church can't be sued for not reporting.

[helix]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Yes, the one thing I've observed avoided by the "priests must be compelled to report or go to jail" crowd is the full list or limit on what things the government can compel a person to report. Right now the conversation is centered around child abuse. But what of other crimes? Where does the state's power to compel the speech of others trail off? Or, is there no limit, and the state has the right and power to compel priests into reporting any crime they encounter?

Edited November 14, 2023 by helix

[webbles]

44 minutes ago, helix said:

I'm trying to ensure I have a correct understanding of the distinction between 1) being allowed to refuse to testify in court, and 2) being required to report.

As I'm understanding it so far, the Arizona government can compel someone to testify in court, so long as the guilty party essentially implied a waiver by telling others publicly about what was confessed. But a government still cannot "deputize" religious clergy into reporting to the government any listed crimes the government wants reported to them. So in the latter, if the church doesn't report, then an implied waiver occurs by the abuser, the church can't be sued for not reporting.

I am not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong, but AZ can deputize religious clergy into reporting crimes.  Clergy are already required to report all child abuse unless the confessor told them.  If a child came to the clergy and tells of their abuse, the clergy is required to report.  If a wife came to the clergy and told of her husband's abuse, the clergy is required to report.  If the man confessed and the child later came to the clergy, the clergy is required to report.  The confessional privilege could also be removed for the reporting requirement.  Several states have already done that and when this case showed up, there were several discussion in AZ about removing it.

In this case, the plaintiffs weren't arguing that the bishop was required to report because of the confession from Adams.  He (and the church) weren't liable for not reporting that confession.  BUT, they argued that there were other meetings that weren't covered under the confessional privilege.  These included a meeting between the bishop, Adams, and his wife; the excommunication meeting and its appeal; and communication between the bishop and the stake president.  The problem they had, though, was they couldn't prove that the child abuse was ever mentioned in those meetings.  For those who knew, their testimony either said that it wasn't mentioned (I remember one testimony where the plaintiffs were shocked that a member at the excommunication appeal didn't know about Adams' child abuse until he was arrested) or that it was privileged communication.  The plaintiffs needed a waiver from Adams to be able to force testimony of what occurred in those meetings OR they needed the judge to rule that those meetings weren't privileged.  It looks like the plaintiffs were unable to convince the judge that those meetings were not privileged and since they also couldn't show any other means by which the bishop could have learned of the abuse, then the bishop was not liable.  I haven't seen the actual case documents with the decision so I'm not sure if the bishop's medical practice is still being sued since he could have learned about it as the doctor.  I know the visiting teacher's suit was also ruled not liable because she didn't have any information to require a reporting.

[smac97]

Boy, the knives are really out for the Clergy-Penitent Privilege.

Here:

Quote

An Arizona child is raped. The clergy stays silent. Then comes the truly shocking part

Opinion: A bishop stays silent for seven years while a little girl is being raped. Arizona law allowed him to say nothing and here's the real stunner, a key legislator wants to keep it that way.

My understanding is that the bishop had no knowledge that the abuse was ongoing.

Also, I have previously commented on the flaws with this sort of provocative alarmism:

Quote

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...
...
Second, there is some evidence that expanding the pool of "mandatory reporters" may be doing more harm than good. ..
...
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). ..
...
Fourth, the priest-penitent privilege is not, as some news outlets have characterized it, a "loophole."  This is very incorrect.
...
Fifth, there are substantial "policy" grounds for the privilege, some of which are constitutional...
...
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.

The article, however, really gets inflammatory (and inaccurate):

Quote

A creeper confesses to his bishop. He’s raping his 5-year-old daughter.

I believe Adams confessed to a single instance of abusing his daughter.  

Quote

For seven years, the bishop tells no one outside his church — remaining silent, as a church lawyer advises him to do — and the abuse continues.

I believe the bishop had no awareness that this was going on.

Quote

Then the creeper starts raping another daughter, just 6 weeks old.

The bishop did not know anything about this, either.

Quote

Last week, a Cochise County judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by several of the creeper's children against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It’s galling, though not surprising, that a judge would decline to hold the church responsible.

"Galling" means "annoying; humiliating."  That doesn't quite fit here.

And if a psychiatrist or lawyer had received, and not divulged, a privileged communication like the one the bishop received, this journalist would not be venting her spleen.

Quote

While Arizona has a mandatory reporting law for teachers and doctors and such, members of the clergy are not required to report a confession that a child is being abused.

What is shocking — stunning, really — is that a key state legislator won’t even consider changing the law to carve out an exemption that might have protected that 5-year-old girl, her sister and God only knows how many other children.

Rapist's rights trump those of his victim

“The seal of confession is a sacred, sacred part of the Catholic church,” Rep. Quang Nguyen, who is Catholic, recently told Capitol Media Services Howard Fischer.

Put another way, a rapist’s sacred religious rights trump a child’s sacred right to be protected from a sexual predator? Really, sir?

Shocking and stunning.

Well, no.  As noted above, this is an emotional argument, not a reasoned or evidence-based one.

The tension between the competing interests here - the right of Party A to have privileged communications versus the right of Party B to compel the disclosure of those communications, has existed for many years.  This case really didn't plow any new legal ground.

Quote

Church's silence let abuse to go on for years

The abuse went on for another seven years until finally in 2017 Adams was arrested. It seems he videoed his perverted attacks of his children and posted them on the internet.

Authorities in New Zealand and the U.S. traced one of the videos to Adams, who later died by suicide in jail while awaiting trial.

Three of Adams’ six children sued the church, the bishops and other church officials in 2021, accusing them of negligence and conspiring to cover up child sex abuse to avoid “costly lawsuits” and protect the church’s reputation.

In a Nov. 3 ruling, Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy ****erson threw out the lawsuit, saying the church had no legal duty to report that a child was being raped.

“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.

And not only that, the privilege belongs to the penitent:

Quote

In a civil action a clergyman or priest shall not, without the consent of the person making a confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his character as clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs.

Adams did not give his consent.

Quote

Lawmaker thwarts bill for clergy to report abuse

Church officials, who apparently sleep quite well at night, pronounced themselves “pleased” with the decision.

“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,” the church said in a prepared statement.

Which bring us back to Arizona law and the people who make it at the state Capitol.

Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Phoenix, introduced a bill this year to require a member of the clergy to report abuse learned about during a confession or confidential communication “if there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that the abuse is ongoing, will continue or may be a threat to other minors.”

It didn’t even rate a hearing. Didn’t even get assigned to a committee.

It may be worthwhile to examine why the bill "didn't even get assigned to a committee."

Hint: The reasons probably do not include indifference to the welfare of children.

Quote

His rationale: Victims can turn to others for help

And, apparently, it won’t go anywhere next year either, as Rep. Quang Nguyen, the Prescott Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, says he won’t give the bill a hearing. (He did say he would at least speak to Travers, so I guess there’s that.)

Nguyen, in his interview with Capitol Media Services, said he believes the bill “is an attack on the church” and he questioned why members of the clergy would need to call the police or state Department of Child Services.

“The victim has the parents, the victim has the teachers, the victim has friends, the victim has relatives that he or she is close to,’’ Nguyen said. “So, it doesn’t need a priest to be able to go to court and testify.’’

Tell that to the 5-year-old Bisbee girl who would endure seven years of assaults while devout daddy’s bishops stayed silent.

Again, this is an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.

And Adams was not remotely "devout."

Quote

“They just let it keep happening,” the girl told the AP last year. “They just said, ‘Hey, let’s excommunicate her father.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Let’s have them do therapy.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Hey, let’s forgive and forget and all this will go away.’ It didn’t go away.”

For her, it likely never will.

Perhaps Rep. Nguyen can explain to her that her father’s rights were sacred.

“The seal of confession is never to be broken,” he said. “And priests will go to jail for it.”

And children will live in hell because of it.

For shame, Rep. Nguyen.

Emotional, not reasoned.

Here's a more reasoned piece, published yesterday (11/16) in the Deseret News: Perspective: As a survivor and Latter-day Saint, here’s what I think AP missed in Arizona abuse case

Quote

I’m a survivor of sex abuse at the hands of a youth pastor. I was a teenager in a broken home. It feels trite to say abuse is traumatic. The fact is it alters a young person’s life for years. 

My own personal journey of healing led to later work as a therapist supporting victims and advocating for additional ways to protect children in religious settings. I’ve also conducted research with an eye toward identifying systems and best practices to deter abuse.

As an adult, I converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While no organization operates perfectly, and there’s always room for improvements, I’ve been impressed by a range of effective systems and practices implemented to protect children in the global church.

And yet, in some quarters, the Church gets no credit for this "range of effective systems and practices."

Quote

This is why I was confused to read a recent Associated Press news report characterizing the church as having “a system” to “protect itself from costly lawsuits” by keeping abuse “secret.” In addition to casting suspicion on church motivations, the reporting failed to mention numerous best practices I’ve observed in the church and which I believe should be adopted by organizations more broadly.

Earlier this month, an Arizona judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day responded improperly after a congregant confessed a past instance of abuse against his own daughter. The Cochise County Superior Court dismissed the case and found “Church Defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe I by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception in the Mandatory Reporting Statute.”

 

As the Deseret News reported, in 2011 the abuser Paul Adams told his Latter-day Saint bishop at the time of a “‘single past incident of abuse of one child’ and the bishop encouraged Adams and his wife Leizza to report the abuse. Both refused to do so. Adams was excommunicated in 2013, according to church officials, and Leizza Adams ‘later served time in prison for her role.’” Paul Adams took his own life while awaiting trial. 

The details of the Adams case are unquestionably heart-wrenching, and it’s understandable to look for who is to blame for not stopping this abuse sooner.  

This is true.  But to her credit, she proceeds in her assessment where the writer of the first piece above stops and fumes and vents her spleen.

Quote

The Associated Press’ Michael Rezendes used the Arizona case as the centerpiece of an investigation into the church’s practices around reporting abuse. Rezendes is known for his Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative work at the Boston Globe, helping expose sex abuse by Catholic clergy in the city. 

I certainly respect Rezendes’ journalism credentials and applaud his admirable history of work in this arena. Yet the articles on the Arizona case, even after it was dismissed, have insinuated local leadership had been aware of the details of ongoing abuse — despite available evidence suggesting otherwise. And the church itself is seemingly portrayed as somehow eager to cover up this abuse, without identifying what would motivate such behavior especially given that the perpetrator seems to have been a lapsed congregant with infrequent ties to the community. 

"have insinuated local leadership had been aware of the details of ongoing abuse — despite available evidence suggesting otherwise" - The author of the first article above goes beyond insinuation.

And I too have noted the rather bizarre accusation that the Church is "somehow eager to cover up" abuse, often with vague allusions to the Church wanting to "protect itself from lawsuits."  This makes no kind of sense to me, as the Church would do far better in avoiding lawsuits like the current one by reporting allegations of abuse, as it frequently does.  That it does not do so in some (limited) circumstances belies the narrative about the Church's "eager to cover up" proclivities.

Quote

At times, it has felt like the reporter sought to apply a certain template of what happened in Boston to a very different set of facts of what occurred in Arizona and how the Latter-day Saints operated. 

Yeah, that makes sense.  To a man with a hammer...

Quote

Nuance matters in seeking truth and stopping abuse. And there are certain fundamentals we know that help protect children. For instance, it’s been well known for years that abuse is less likely when children reside in safe environments. Strong home and faith communities can be a part of this.

There are also a unique set of systems and specific safeguards operating within Latter-day Saint congregations that help deter abuse. Though I’ve written about some of these before, they merit revisiting at greater length: 

1. Geographical organization and member-number system. Compared with allowing people to worship wherever they want, established geographical boundaries provide unique protections by helping leaders and congregants alike be more aware of who attends, who leads and who interacts with children. And, the church’s member-number system allows leadership to make a confidential annotation on a person’s file that will follow the person from congregation to congregation if they are not safe to be around children. Advocates for safer practices in churches have long encouraged denominations to implement a similar member-number system.

And yet, in some quarters, the Church gets no credit for having these systems in place.

Quote

2. Parental participation and “two deep” leadership. Since 2018, the church has ensured a two-deep leadership model throughout any youth organizations, mandating that at least two adults be present in all activities that involve youth or children. This means if there’s a Sunday school class for children or young adults, two adults must always be present. This same policy has been increasingly adopted by other organizations working with youth. 

Additional changes to interviewing policies in the church encourage parents to attend a youth interview with a bishop if they prefer. If a young person wants to speak alone with clergy (which may facilitate young persons speaking candidly about abuse at home), parents or guardians are still asked to remain close by.    

And yet, in some quarters, the Church gets no credit for having these policies in place.

Quote

3. A system of public callings and sustainings. The calling system in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in which unpaid congregants are assigned volunteer roles in the congregation) serves as another structural safeguard that throttles would-be abusers by making access to young people significantly harder. Simply put, no one can serve alongside children merely by volunteering. They are only asked to serve in such a position after consideration by both male and female church leaders, usually who also have families and children in the congregation. The fact that every new calling is presented for a public sustaining vote in front of the full congregation is also significant — since everyone has a chance to know about it (and congregants have a chance to object if they know of any reason to be concerned either publicly or in private).

Callings being offered, rather than volunteered for, mitigates the risk of predators gaining access to prospective victims.

Quote

4. Windows in doors of Sunday school and primary classrooms. The church has now ensured that windows are standard on doors where children are taught. This allows for parents to easily monitor their children and classroom activities. Older chapels are receiving retrofitting. 

Cool!  I am glad to hear about the retrofits.

And yet, in some quarters, the Church will likely not get any credit for these efforts.

Quote

5. Unpaid bishops leading congregations. Bishops almost always have a history as longtime members of their congregations prior to being asked to serve. The same is true of other church leaders. Since they are all unpaid, there is also no financial incentive to protect their ecclesiastical position or guard the ward’s bottom line or their own. They also know their role is temporary, and their actions are subject to review by successors and fellow leaders, both male and female, serving with them in the ward. 

Another benefit to this arrangement is that limiting the time of service as a bishop reduces incentive for the Church to sweep a bishop's misconduct under the rug (as compared to the lifelong "tenured" role of priests in the Catholic Church, which sadly created troubling incentives to move misbehaving priests around, sweep things under the rug, etc.).

Quote

6. A formalized helpline prioritizing victim safety. However helpful vigilant local leaders can be, things could be missed in helping victims. That’s why I’ve been grateful the church has prioritized for three decades now a dedicated helpline which ensures a consistently high-quality standard of care by connecting lay leaders with experts who can guide them on handling cases skillfully. Yes, these experts seek to help bishops comply with the law, but their first priority is always to protect any victim.

As I’ve written with a co-author previously, “When a help line call is answered, the conversation focuses on safety first. If there is any indication that a child is, or may be, in imminent danger, authorities are notified immediately — regardless of whether a report is mandatory under applicable law.” One of the women who has worked on the helpline, Kate Taylor Lauck, likewise an abuse survivor, describes the other experts staffing the helpline as “diligent, competent, compassionate and deeply committed to the work of protecting kids from abuse.” 

And yet, in some quarters, the Church will likely not get any credit for these efforts (or worse, it is vilified based on these efforts).

Quote

7. Direct female supervision. In my observation, it’s also significant to have multiple women in formal leadership positions working with Latter-day Saint girls and young women throughout their adolescence. From monitoring the children in Primary, to the ministering and care of leaders in the Young Women and Relief Society organizations, this ensures additional female mentorship at every stage of the life of young women — who are statistically most vulnerable to abuse. 

This is a solid point.

Quote

8. The safeguard of confession. Too often, commentators quickly assume that mandatory reporting is the one fail-safe solution to deter abuse. While it’s clear why this has become a push for many activists, scholars focused on mandatory reporting have cautioned against simplistic conclusions. One study, for example, found measurably fewer confirmed reports of child maltreatment in the 11 states requiring clergy to report all or some of the time — compared with states without the requirement.

Wow.  I had not seen this study.

The impulse to abolish privileged communications, to endlessly expand the pool of "mandatory reporters," is understandable, but way too emotional.  It needs to be examined before being acted on.  And I think when such examination takes place, we see privileged communications being preserved.

Quote

What people may not understand is that by forcing clergy to become mandated reporters, we could inadvertently keep even more abuse hidden as abusers go underground. Likewise, it’s possible that a space for open confession may provide additional protection to victims by ensuring space exists for clergy to encourage bad actors to turn themselves in or helping to catch and deter concerning behaviors that could spiral. 

I have raised these points many times.  Good to see them getting to a wider audience.

Quote

9. Four decades of repeated leadership training. After my baptism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was struck to learn how long the church has been educating members directly about deterring abuse — dating back to a 1985 training booklet addressing child abuse. That text emphasized the importance of trusting victims and taking their words seriously, and compassionately connecting them with professional help. It also instructed leaders to know and follow the reporting requirements in their state. The church handbook for leaders and members, going back at least two decades, has read, “in instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse” 

And yet, in some quarters, the Church will likely not get any credit for these efforts.

Quote

10. Membership-wide training, especially for those working with youth. A mandatory online training course was launched in 2019 for all adults who interact with children and youth in their church assignments. And the challenging topic of abuse has been repeatedly and emphatically brought up in the faith’s general conference. In my experience, this frequency and consistency with which abuse has been addressed is remarkable.

In addition to these safeguards against abuse, I’ve been struck at how receptive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been to emerging practices. While it’s impossible to say how much potential abuse has been thwarted, it’s almost certain that in combination these practices have acted for decades now as a strong deterrent. This is why I wasn’t surprised in my own analyses to find abuse rates measurably lower in Boy Scout of America troops associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Good points.

Quote

I have to wonder how many other young people would be protected if these practices were shared widely. These are the kinds of things that I would hope journalists and others would pay attention to in seeking to deter abuse and help victims. In addition to raising our voices against abuse, and telling the stories of victims which deserve to be heard, let’s also spread greater awareness of practices and systemic safeguards that protect the precious dignity and safety of all God’s children.

Jennifer Roach is a licensed mental health counselor who lives in American Fork, Utah.

"{L}et’s also spread greater awareness of practices and systemic safeguards that protect the precious dignity and safety of all God’s children."

Well said!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

Other than providing the context for the horror in Bisbee that inspired the Travers bill, this story has a surprising lack of LDS players.  

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/11/01/travers-pushing-for-exception-to-state-laws-that-allow-clergy-to-hide-abuse-confessed/

Rep. Nguyen, who is Catholic opposes the bill, and as chairman of the judiciary committee can ensure it never gets a hearing. Major lobbying against the Travers bill (and its predecessors) has come from the Arizona Catholic Conference. In contrast, the LDS spokesman contacted for this story had no comment about the bill.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Other than providing the context for the horror in Bisbee that inspired the Travers bill, this story has a surprising lack of LDS players.  

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/11/01/travers-pushing-for-exception-to-state-laws-that-allow-clergy-to-hide-abuse-confessed/

Rep. Nguyen, who is Catholic opposes the bill, and as chairman of the judiciary committee can ensure it never gets a hearing. Major lobbying against the Travers bill (and its predecessors) has come from the Arizona Catholic Conference. In contrast, the LDS spokesman contacted for this story had no comment about the bill.

I think our Catholic friends have a considerably more emphatic religious/doctrinal attachment to the confessional privilege.  The Church's stance on it is more from a pragmatic/legal standpoint (though it also has a significant doctrinal component).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Good to see them getting to a wider audience.

For those who would like to see them in another format, Jennifer presented her research at FAIR this year.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023/shedding-light-on-the-complexities-understanding-abuse-within-the-lds-church

She is very dedicated to this cause (understandably so as a clergy abuse survivor herself and as a mental health counselor) and getting the right info out there so beneficial action can be taken as opposed to gut satisfying, but detrimental to actual efforts action.

She has only been a member of the Church for 4 1/2 years (maybe 5 by now as it has been 3 months) and has had experience in how other churches approach this issue plus is a mental health professional, so I see her insight as especially valuable and relevant.  And I have personally seen her put much time and effort into this (and she no doubt puts much, much more than that I have observed).

other DN articles contributed to by Jennifer:

https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/21/23313518/the-vandals-who-desecrated-latter-day-saint-buildings-are-wrong-associated-press-vandalism
 

https://www.deseret.com/2023/7/18/23789815/me-time-self-care-womens-retreats-bed-rotting (I hate the term “bed-rotting”, probably because it hits too close to home)

Edited November 18, 2023 by Calm

[helix]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think our Catholic friends have a considerably more emphatic religious/doctrinal attachment to the confessional privilege.  The Church's stance on it is more from a pragmatic/legal standpoint (though it also has a significant doctrinal component).

I will fight hard for the priest-privilege exemption for several reasons. But most important for me is protecting the religious right of Catholics.

[Snodgrassian]

If a Bishop does not receive divine guidance in a case like this, then when do they receive? The excuse that the bishop believed that the abuse had ended is not good enough, hard stop. This child life continues to be destroyed by something that could have been stopped years earlier, plus there was an additional victim. The advice from the hotline put the bishops in a difficult position, the threat of losing legal protection, but more importantly these bishops failed their flock and failed human kind from not doing the right thing.

in my opinion, you can share all the legal reasons why the church was on the right side of the law, but it 100% failed the children in this situation. What would Christ have done if he was the Bishop? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

If a Bishop does not receive divine guidance in a case like this, then when do they receive? The excuse that the bishop believed that the abuse had ended is not good enough, hard stop.

So if the bishop was required to report***, do you believe this father would have then originally confessed?  Do you think the mother would have?  The kids?

All evidence points to it wouldn’t have happened given they lied and denied every other time confronted about it, the father until he was arrested and shown they had evidence iirc, the mother not till the father killed himself even when urged to do so, even when offered protection (granted it would have been limited).  The mother lied when asked by the bishop if she had followed through on her promise to prevent her husband from being alone with the oldest daughter. 

The father was not active, just came on occasion.  He was well known known for having affairs (one of them got him fired due to some inappropriateness involving his job, iirc it was giving his lover a car he shouldn’t have).  He was known for his violence, another thing that got him suspended iirc or was going to).

We also know the Child Protective Services came by for some reason and checked out the home, possibly interviewed the parents and children at least in passing.  And they did nothing.

So what do you think would have been different if the bishop had been required to report?

I do think there are cases where the bishop knew enough or the other parent or child would likely have not resisted reporting if professionals were involved.  This was very, very likely not one of them.

***We don’t even know exactly what the bishop would have been able to report except one case of abuse iirc.  We also don’t know what the father did to the eldest daughter at that point.  The details of what the abuse was confessed was never shared, except maybe by the mother and she was known to lie or just look at the whole thing weirdly.  According to the court report, even after the father was arrested and the mother had seen the evidence, the daughter reported when the daughter talked about being raped by him to her mother, the response from the mother was to stop making things up, she had never been raped.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

What would Christ have done if he was the Bishop? 

He probably would have struck the father ‘deaf and dumb’, perhaps healed the mother of whatever were her issues (possibly autism, but maybe borderline personality disorder or an emotional attachment disorder). Healed the daughter of her pain. He would have had no need to rely on a legal system which did nothing when abuse or suspicion of abuse was apparently reported until there was something much more significant known.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

He probably would have struck the father ‘deaf and dumb’,

I thought a millstone around the neck and tossed into the sea was the preferred method…

[Tacenda]

On 11/17/2023 at 1:57 PM, smac97 said:

Boy, the knives are really out for the Clergy-Penitent Privilege.

Here:

My understanding is that the bishop had no knowledge that the abuse was ongoing.

 

Isn't once enough?

Also, the problem was the fatal phone call on the church's hotline. Had the lawyer for the church just saw that AZ was a reporting state, or the choice was there, the girl wouldn't have suffered 7 more years and a six week old baby as well. 

And I want to say the bishop was only following orders as the church rules IMO, he could have been the life saver for the children instead and could have followed the Saviour. And would be able to look himself/themselves in the mirror.

I'm sure all in this case were traumatized over their horrible decisions. 

The church saying they were pleased with the outcome and not apologetic is a disgrace.  

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Isn't once enough?

Also if the bishop had any type of training or coaching on the issue, they would have known that almost all initial confessions are limited and minimized, and that abuse rarely just stops on its own without significant intervention. 

[helix]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

he could have been the life saver for the children instead and could have followed the Saviour. And would be able to look himself/themselves in the mirror.

Underlying all of this is this blind assumption that if we just regulate church and confessions better, we could have easily fixed this. That any kind of confidentiality privilege is a deep societal mistake, and the more we force reporting felonies, the more crimes we get reported, and the more crimes we stop, and the better society will be.

The reality:

• The father almost certainly would not have confessed had he known it would result in him being automatically reported to the police.
• Others went through his home and saw the father openly engaged in awful sexual acts in open view of his children on numerous occasions. That was not enough to generate government action. (For all you self-appointed regulators out there, I haven't heard a peep of frustration at the failings of the government here. All the anger is directed solely at *religion*.)
• The mother refused to call the police despite pressure to do so.
• One of the sisters in the ward suspected more, and she had training in this area. She routinely found moments to gain the children's trust and pried, and the children stayed silent. (The AP reporter lied and threw her under the bus saying she knew and deliberately destroyed evidence. She also got sued for her troubles trying to help.)
• The bishop had to work with what he had: a limited confession for one event about something in the past. The bishop checked more and the mother said she was keeping the kids out of his way. Beyond that, he received no further updates. The father was loosely attached to the church and tight lipped. He later got excommunicated. (From the limited evidence we have, it seems as though it was for his numerous affairs, which seems to have also included his own mother.)

The following shouldn't be considered a benefit, but it is accurate: Suppose churches are forced to report confessions, then this would benefit churches because abusers would stop going to their priest for confession, and now religions are free from armchair cynics and all the news headlines that go with it. Abused children, however, won't be helped by this policy, as two prior academic studies on this issue already suggest.

Edited November 19, 2023 by helix

[let’s roll]

13 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

If a Bishop does not receive divine guidance in a case like this, then when do they receive? The excuse that the bishop believed that the abuse had ended is not good enough, hard stop. This child life continues to be destroyed by something that could have been stopped years earlier, plus there was an additional victim. The advice from the hotline put the bishops in a difficult position, the threat of losing legal protection, but more importantly these bishops failed their flock and failed human kind from not doing the right thing.

in my opinion, you can share all the legal reasons why the church was on the right side of the law, but it 100% failed the children in this situation. What would Christ have done if he was the Bishop? 

Doesn’t this line of thinking lead to placing the blame on God’s doorstep?  You say no divine direction was given to the Bishop.  If not, God’s fault?  You ask what Christ would have done if He were the Bishop, with the omniscience of Deity, weren’t God and Christ aware of whatever was happening and with the omnipotence of Deity certainly they were able to whatever was needed to be done, with or without the aid of the Bishop.

In short, why limit your condemnation to the Bishop and the Church, isn’t your real beef with Deity?
 

All thoughtful believers, to remain believers, do well to thoughtfully ponder and pray regarding the role mortal pain and suffering play in our eternal existence along with the inevitable tension between power and staying of one’s hand and the depth and breadth of Divine comfort and healing.

In my efforts to do so, I benefited from the story of HJG’s staying of his hand and comforting his children during his wife’s illness and passing.  Also, Mitch Albom’s novel The 5 People You Meet in Heaven provides a thought provoking viewpoint on the last element noted above.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also if the bishop had any type of training or coaching on the issue, they would have known that almost all initial confessions are limited and minimized, and that abuse rarely just stops on its own without significant intervention. 

This might have made a difference, but I still believe based on his behaviour overtime that if Paul Adams had known the bishop was required to report, he would have never confessed in the first place.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, helix said:

Others went through his home and saw the father openly engaged in awful sexual acts in open view of his children on numerous occasions.

CFR please.  I know this was the conclusion when they went to the house after they had viewed the video, but was this the case for the first CPS visit?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, helix said:

One of the sisters in the ward suspected more, and she had training in this area. She routinely found moments to gain the children's trust and pried, and the children stayed silent. (The AP reporter lied and threw her under the bus saying she knew and deliberately destroyed evidence. She also got sued for her troubles trying to help.)

She was both the Primary teacher of the kids (some of them at least) and the visiting teacher of the mom, so she would visit the home on a few occasions when the father was not around (since the mother had warning for the visits, no doubt the house was in order).  She offered to protect the mother and kids (she was border patrol as well and worked with the father), but the mother never opened up to her.  I feel bad for her if her own testimony is accurate (and I think there is little reason to doubt it).  I think she tried hard to help and probably did a lot over the years and for that, she gets sued.  Talk about discouraging people from getting involved.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Doesn’t this line of thinking lead to placing the blame on God’s doorstep?  You say no divine direction was given to the Bishop.  If not, God’s fault?  

Seems fair. People seem awfully quick to give God all the credit for every turn of good fortune in their life. If She controls so much, seems like She deserves some of the blame when stuff goes the other way. 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Isn't once enough?

Also, the problem was the fatal phone call on the church's hotline. Had the lawyer for the church just saw that AZ was a reporting state, or the choice was there, the girl wouldn't have suffered 7 more years and a six week old baby as well. 

And I want to say the bishop was only following orders as the church rules IMO, he could have been the life saver for the children instead and could have followed the Saviour. And would be able to look himself/themselves in the mirror.

I'm sure all in this case were traumatized over their horrible decisions. 

The church saying they were pleased with the outcome and not apologetic is a disgrace.  

 

We have a letter from Adams to his wife while he was in jail and he says that after his confession, he was turning the corner.  He stopped doing anything (besides minimal pornography) and was becoming a better person.  But then, the excommunication destroyed him and he let himself become consumed by his addiction.  If that is true, then it would mean that the confession and the bishop did help the girl.  It wasn't until Adams was excommunicated that he then went on and did more abuse.  So maybe we should blame the excommunication?

I've attached page 2 and 3 from the letter (I couldn't do the entire file as it was over the size limit even after compression).

Here's the transcription of two relevant paragraphs:

Quote

Leizza, you may recall that the church court was held perhaps a year or two after my confession of the sins that lead to it.  At that time, though still working to overcome my pornography addiction, I had repented of and not repeated any other major sins and was indulging in pornography but very little and infrequently. <In fact, I don't believe I was even looking at images or videos, but only occassionally giving into temptation to read erotic stories online. Progress!>  I was entirely headed in the right direction and progressing towards blessed victory.  You may recall our relationship was generally good and not so strained as it became afterwards.  I was doing well, but it took everything I had; all the energy of my soul.  I was also attending church regularly and fulfilling callings and assignments faithfully.

Quote

Excommunication made us, Leizza, unequally yoked as to the church.  I became angry, bitter, and rebellious towards the church.  Our relationship worsened and we stopped communicating in any meaningful way.  I returned to all my former sins and addictions, now unrestrained since falling into deep despair and depression, losing hope, and losing the light of the gospel in my life.  I shut you out and turned to my addiction to attempt to soothe the profound pain, loss, and inadequacy I felt. I delved deeper into my sins and sex addictions, though they ultimately caused more pain. Such is the insanity of the addiction cycle, but I was trapped and could not escape at that time.

 

AdamsLetter-2-compressed.pdf AdamsLetter-3-compressed.pdf

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This might have made a difference, but I still believe based on his behaviour overtime that if Paul Adams had known the bishop was required to report, he would have never confessed in the first place.

So two thoughts. First, my post said nothing of privilege. I merely pointed out that it’s foolish to take an abuser at their word. If they confessed to once, it’s overwhelmingly likely it’s much more serious and ongoing than stated. Aside from not telling authorities, there is much much more that the bishop could have been counseled to do.
 

Second, while it’s certainly true he may not have confessed without the presumed privilege, we know with 100% certainty that the privilege being in place did nothing to help the girl in this case. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

It wasn't until Adams was excommunicated that he then went on and did more abuse.  So maybe we should blame the excommunication?

Does this match what we know about his work issues due to his affair?

I find it very hard to trust anything this guy said.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

we know with 100% certainty that the privilege being in place did nothing to help the girl in this case. 

Long term wise it did not, but I don’t think we have knowledge of short term.  We do not know if the mother actively worked at keeping the daughter safe to begin with, that she told the truth when asked that first time or if he stopped abusing for a time.  It may have made no difference.  It may have helped for a brief time or even for years if Adams was honest in his letter (I think not, but could be wrong).