Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen

[inho]

AP published an article based on leaked legal documents:
https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-churc ... 001bd50e3

[Artaxerxes]

AP published an article based on leaked legal documents:
https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-churc ... 001bd50e3

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

[inho]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

[Artaxerxes]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

[EmmaLee]

From the article in the OP -

"That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

[inho]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

The welfare of the child should be more important. It is simply unacceptable to let abuse go on for years.

[InfoWarrior82]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

What is the church policy of such confessions?

*Edit*

Nevermind. The policy is for the bishop to call a "help line" where that person run it up the chain of command where it will be determine d if the police should get involved. Yikes.

[inho]

In the end, putting stop to the abuse is best for the spiritual welfare of the abuser. Letting him continue sinning (in a way that hurts children) doesn't do any good to anyone.

[Artaxerxes]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

The welfare of the child should be more important. It is simply unacceptable to let abuse go on for years.

That's why I say that we may not like the law as it is. Our not liking it doesn't change it.

[Artaxerxes]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

What is the church policy of such confessions?

32.4.4
Confidentiality

Bishops, stake presidents, and their counselors have a sacred duty to protect all confidential information shared with them. This information may come in interviews, counseling, and confessions. The same duty of confidentiality applies to all who take part in membership councils. Confidentiality is essential because members may not confess sins or seek guidance if what they share will not be kept confidential. Breaching a confidence betrays members’ trust and causes them to lose confidence in their leaders.

Consistent with their duty of confidentiality, a bishop, stake president, or their counselors may share such information only as follows:

They need to confer with the member’s stake president, mission president, or bishop about holding a membership council or related matters. The stake president may also confer with his assigned Area Seventy. If needed, the Area Seventy refers the stake president to the Area Presidency. Only the stake president decides if a council should be held or its outcome.


The person moves to a new ward (or the priesthood leader is released) while membership action or other serious concerns are pending. In these cases, the leader notifies the new bishop or stake president about the concerns or pending action (see 32.14.7). He also informs the leader if the member may pose a threat to others.


A bishop or stake president learns that a Church member who lives outside the ward or stake may have been involved in a serious sin. In that instance, he confidentially contacts that member’s bishop.


It is necessary to disclose information during a membership council. All information gathered and shared as part of a membership council is confidential.


A member chooses to give permission for the leader to share information with specific persons. These may include parents, Church leaders, or others who may provide support. The leader does not share information beyond the permission the member has given.

It may be necessary to share limited information about the decision of a membership council (see 32.12.2).


In all other situations, the leader should refer to 32.4.5. These cases include when the law may require that a crime, such as child abuse, be reported to government authorities.

To assist leaders in protecting others and complying with the law, the Church provides help from trained professionals. To receive this guidance, leaders promptly call the Church’s abuse help line where it is available (see 32.4.5 and 38.6.2.1). Where it is not available, the stake president contacts the area legal counsel at the area office.

In only one situation should a bishop or stake president disclose confidential information without first seeking such guidance. That is when disclosure is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance. In such cases, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.

If leaders keep notes or communicate with each other electronically, they safeguard access to this information. They also delete or destroy the information when they no longer need it. They do not unnecessarily share personal information.

Civil authorities might challenge the confidentiality required of a priesthood leader. If this occurs in the United States and Canada, the stake president seeks legal advice from the Church’s Office of General Counsel:

[inho]

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

The welfare of the child should be more important. It is simply unacceptable to let abuse go on for years.

That's why I say that we may not like the law as it is. Our not liking it doesn't change it.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the confession can be used as evidence in the court. One should still report. Then it is up to law enforcement to gather evidence that can be used.

[sevenator]

From the article in the OP -

"That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

But they aren't immune to losing their membership or even having their own membership record annotated.

[inho]

What is the church policy of such confessions?

32.4.4
Confidentiality

Bishops, stake presidents, and their counselors have a sacred duty to protect all confidential information shared with them. This information may come in interviews, counseling, and confessions. The same duty of confidentiality applies to all who take part in membership councils. Confidentiality is essential because members may not confess sins or seek guidance if what they share will not be kept confidential. Breaching a confidence betrays members’ trust and causes them to lose confidence in their leaders.

Consistent with their duty of confidentiality, a bishop, stake president, or their counselors may share such information only as follows:

They need to confer with the member’s stake president, mission president, or bishop about holding a membership council or related matters. The stake president may also confer with his assigned Area Seventy. If needed, the Area Seventy refers the stake president to the Area Presidency. Only the stake president decides if a council should be held or its outcome.


The person moves to a new ward (or the priesthood leader is released) while membership action or other serious concerns are pending. In these cases, the leader notifies the new bishop or stake president about the concerns or pending action (see 32.14.7). He also informs the leader if the member may pose a threat to others.


A bishop or stake president learns that a Church member who lives outside the ward or stake may have been involved in a serious sin. In that instance, he confidentially contacts that member’s bishop.


It is necessary to disclose information during a membership council. All information gathered and shared as part of a membership council is confidential.


A member chooses to give permission for the leader to share information with specific persons. These may include parents, Church leaders, or others who may provide support. The leader does not share information beyond the permission the member has given.

It may be necessary to share limited information about the decision of a membership council (see 32.12.2).


In all other situations, the leader should refer to 32.4.5. These cases include when the law may require that a crime, such as child abuse, be reported to government authorities.

To assist leaders in protecting others and complying with the law, the Church provides help from trained professionals. To receive this guidance, leaders promptly call the Church’s abuse help line where it is available (see 32.4.5 and 38.6.2.1). Where it is not available, the stake president contacts the area legal counsel at the area office.

In only one situation should a bishop or stake president disclose confidential information without first seeking such guidance. That is when disclosure is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance. In such cases, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.

If leaders keep notes or communicate with each other electronically, they safeguard access to this information. They also delete or destroy the information when they no longer need it. They do not unnecessarily share personal information.

Civil authorities might challenge the confidentiality required of a priesthood leader. If this occurs in the United States and Canada, the stake president seeks legal advice from the Church’s Office of General Counsel:

This is also relevant:
General Handbook 38.6.2

When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse.

[EmmaLee]

From the article in the OP -

"That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

But they aren't immune to losing their membership or even having their own membership record annotated.

So? A man is RAPING his 10 year old daughter and 6 WEEK old daughter, and posting the videos of these RAPES online (which is finally how the bastard got caught) - and anyone should give a damn if the bishop, or anyone else loses their f*cking church membership??? REALLY???

[Artaxerxes]

From the article in the OP -

"That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

But they aren't immune to losing their membership or even having their own membership record annotated.

Right. Because the privilege is about disclosure outside the church, not within it.

[Lizzy60]

AP published an article based on leaked legal documents:
https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-churc ... 001bd50e3

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Bishops are lay ministers and in many states such confessions are NOT protected. There is no protection for any confessions to Bishops in Texas, where I live. Bishops here know that if there is any hint of abuse, especially of a minor, the first call is to the police, and the police takes over.

[Artaxerxes]

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

The welfare of the child should be more important. It is simply unacceptable to let abuse go on for years.

That's why I say that we may not like the law as it is. Our not liking it doesn't change it.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the confession can be used as evidence in the court. One should still report. Then it is up to law enforcement to gather evidence that can be used.

Disclosing it may in fact imperial any investigation. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that any evidence that is obtained because of information that was improperly received can be suppressed. So however well meaning, the court may find they an entire investigation is trained by an improper disclosure.

[WikiUp]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

Do you realize what you are advocating? That it is acceptable to hide an abuse situation. To let a victim continue to be victimized. For what purpose? To protect an abuser. To protect an organization. That is completely unacceptable. That is evil in the worst degree. That Church policy is without empathy for the victim. For the Church to use the "legal" system to override morality to absolutely wrong. May heads roll in eternity for hiding abuse.

[sevenator]

From the article in the OP -

"That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

But they aren't immune to losing their membership or even having their own membership record annotated.

So? A man is RAPING his 10 year old daughter and 6 WEEK old daughter, and posting the videos of these RAPES online (which is finally how the bastard got caught) - and anyone should give a damn if the bishop, or anyone else loses their f*cking church membership??? REALLY???

I wasn't making excuses. Just telling you about the realities of "Church culture". When fearing for the good-standing of your membership is what drives everything, it's a problem. If you're a member, don't try to tell me you don't know people like that.

If it were me, and I served in a bishopric with a bishop who would have reported it, I'd do everything I could to see that he was brought to the firmest justice available under the law.

Also, as noted above, confessional conversation is protected, much like lawyer-client privilege.

[sevenator]

AP published an article based on leaked legal documents:
https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-churc ... 001bd50e3

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Bishops are lay ministers and in many states such confessions are NOT protected. There is no protection for any confessions to Bishops in Texas, where I live. Bishops here know that if there is any hint of abuse, especially of a minor, the first call is to the police, and the police takes over.

That's the way it should be whether we're talking lay-ministers or "professional" ministers. They should all be mandated reporters.

[Artaxerxes]

AP published an article based on leaked legal documents:
https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-churc ... 001bd50e3

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Bishops are lay ministers and in many states such confessions are NOT protected. There is no protection for any confessions to Bishops in Texas, where I live. Bishops here know that if there is any hint of abuse, especially of a minor, the first call is to the police, and the police takes over.

That is 100% false. There is no state like that. Definitely not Texas. See Texas Rule of Evidence 505, and Snyder v State, 68 S.W.3d 671.

[Artaxerxes]

Someone's confession can't be used against them. Whether we like it or not, someone's confession to their bishop or Catholic priest or whatever is privileged.

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

Do you realize what you are advocating? That is acceptable to hide an abuse situation. To let a victim continue to be victimized. For what purpose? To protect an abuser. To protect an organization. That is completely unacceptable. That is evil in the worst degree. That Church policy is without empathy for the victim. For the Church to use the "legal" system to override morality to absolutely wrong. My heads roll in eternity for hiding abuse.

I'm not advocating any position, just stating what the law actually is. It is privileged, whether we want it to be or not.

The church isn't hiding anything. It's following the law.

[Lizzy60]

Clergy are mandated reporters in many states (but not Utah as of 2019).

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/clergymandated.pdf

Regardless, any person who would allow children to stay in a home like the one in the article has a special place reserved in hell.

[inho]

The welfare of the child should be more important. It is simply unacceptable to let abuse go on for years.

That's why I say that we may not like the law as it is. Our not liking it doesn't change it.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the confession can be used as evidence in the court. One should still report. Then it is up to law enforcement to gather evidence that can be used.

Disclosing it may in fact imperial any investigation. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that any evidence that is obtained because of information that was improperly received can be suppressed. So however well meaning, the court may find they an entire investigation is trained by an improper disclosure.

Bishops are not trained in law. Guess who are? The law enforcement. If the bishop hesitates about what he can say and what not, the law enforcement officials are more than happy to help him. That is their job, after all.

[Lizzy60]

Still, it shouldn't excuse the bishop or priest from reporting.

Why not? If it's protected, it's protected.

Do you realize what you are advocating? That is acceptable to hide an abuse situation. To let a victim continue to be victimized. For what purpose? To protect an abuser. To protect an organization. That is completely unacceptable. That is evil in the worst degree. That Church policy is without empathy for the victim. For the Church to use the "legal" system to override morality to absolutely wrong. My heads roll in eternity for hiding abuse.

I'm not advocating any position, just stating what the law actually is. It is privileged, whether we want it to be or not.

The church isn't hiding anything. It's following the law.

The Church is breaking the law in over half of the US.