Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[LVAllen]

A more accurate title would be: This is a terrible story of the complicity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the sexual abuse by a father. That story was hard to read. It revolves around the Church's Help Line, which bishops use to receive guidance on how to handle confessions of sexual abuse. Particularly bothersome to me was this excerpt:



The Church considers sexual abuse allegations a matter of risk management? WTF?

The helpline exists to assist bishops in meeting their legal obligations. If bishop hears about it because the abuser is in their office, confessing and seeking spiritual assistance, does the bishop have the ability and the duty to disclose it to law enforcement? Would doing so violate clergy-penitent privilege, if any? Has the privilege been waived, as in the case of true repentance per the General Handbook, authored by K&M? What are the ramifications to the case against the abuser if the privilege is broken? These are the questions the helpline are intended to answer, not questions about how best to serve the victim or which therapist to recommend.

If the bishop learns about it literally any other way, they fast-track notification to law enforcement and the abuser can go to hell after a long stint in prison.

[tooblue]

Everything about that story is terrible.

Is this really possible?



Who is right here, the church lawyers or the county attorney?

Also, irrespective of whatever best practices might dictate, this just seems sketchy:

Laws are different in every state, province and country. In some places, the Bishop could face criminal charges if the abuse is not reported to authorities. In these situations, there is no ecclesiastical right to privacy or law deeming what is said under the umbrella of clergy-penitent dialogue as protected. In other places, that may not be the case, and it is important to note the Bishop individually/personally can be held legally responsible for divulging something said in confidence where that communication could be considered privileged.

It is not as cut and dry as some want to portray. And I promise you there is no passiveness—it is a gut wrenching and perilous circumstance to be involved in.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ugh... Tons of really bad takes on social media on this. I think I will stay off twitter today.

[Moliere]

The guy molested his six week old daughter??



The church seems have really screwed this one up, at least based on the reported story.

[Northwestcoug]

Laws are different in every state, province and country. In some places, the Bishop could face criminal charges if the abuse is not reported to authorities. In these situations, there is no ecclesiastical right to privacy or law deeming what is said under the umbrella of clergy-penitent dialogue as protected. In other places, that may not be the case, and it is important to note the Bishop individually/personally can be held legally responsible for divulging something said in confidence where that communication could be considered privileged.

It is not as cut and dry as some want to portray. And I promise you there is no passiveness—it is a gut wrenching and perilous circumstance to be involved in.

I’m interested in this one specific question: is the county attorney correct, in the state of Arizona, that the bishops are exempt from the clergy protections when dealing with child abuse?

if he is, then In this instance, the church’s hotline apparatus gave the bishops incorrect and terrible advice.

Edit: Actually I'm interesting in more things. Two bishops did what they were supposed to do. And it failed to protect those children. If the church lawyers erred in their interpretation of Arizona law, that is catastrophic. If they were 'correct' in their advice, then that is a clear failure to protect the most vulnerable in the church.

Here's my back of the envelope solution. The church lets the worldwide leadership know that any member who comes to confess criminal abuse, the leader stops and tells them they cannot hear the confession until they go to the authorities first. Emphasize the doctrine that forgiveness requires restitution. And in this case, members have to pay restitution before the church even considers a spiritual repentance process.

[LVAllen]

I’m interested in this one specific question: is the county attorney correct, in the state of Arizona, that the bishops are exempt from the clergy protections when dealing with child abuse?

if he is, then In this instance, the church’s hotline apparatus gave the bishops incorrect and terrible advice.

Edit: Actually I'm interesting in more things. Two bishops did what they were supposed to do. And it failed to protect those children. If the church lawyers erred in their interpretation of Arizona law, that is catastrophic. If they were 'correct' in their advice, then that is a clear failure to protect the most vulnerable in the church.

Here's my back of the envelope solution. The church lets the worldwide leadership know that any member who comes to confess criminal abuse, the leader stops and tells them they cannot hear the confession until they go to the authorities first. Emphasize the doctrine that forgiveness requires restitution. And in this case, members have to pay restitution before the church even considers a spiritual repentance process.

A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest may otherwise make of the minor.

The bishop can't be compelled to testify about the confession of the member. ARS 14-4062(3). The bishop may withhold reporting of the confession if it's necessary within the concepts of the religion. The bishop is compelled to report suspicions based on his personal observations of the minor.

In general, I think society wants people to stop doing evil shit. We arrest them for doing that. It's hard to arrest everyone. If people being willing to confess to a confidential spiritual advisor leads to them doing less evil shit, that's a good thing. If people do the same or more evil shit because they aren't willing to talk to a spiritual advisor for fear of said spiritual advisor informing against them, that's a bad thing. Certain places have decided that, on balance, we prefer arresting more people for doing evil shit rather than rely on nebulous beliefs that some small percentage may reduce the number of acts if they have access to a confidential spiritual advisor.

[Northwestcoug]

The bishop can't be compelled to testify about the confession of the member. ARS 14-4062(3). The bishop may withhold reporting of the confession if it's necessary within the concepts of the religion. The bishop is compelled to report suspicions based on his personal observations of the minor.

In general, I think society wants people to stop doing evil shit. We arrest them for doing that. It's hard to arrest everyone. If people being willing to confess to a confidential spiritual advisor leads to them doing less evil shit, that's a good thing. If people do the same or more evil shit because they aren't willing to talk to a spiritual advisor for fear of said spiritual advisor informing against them, that's a bad thing. Certain places have decided that, on balance, we prefer arresting more people for doing evil shit rather than rely on nebulous beliefs that some small percentage may reduce the number of acts if they have access to a confidential spiritual advisor.

Do you think that the 'personal observation of the minor' might be the interpretation that church lawyers struggled with?

[clackamascoug]

Do you think that the 'personal observation of the minor' might be the interpretation that church lawyers struggled with?

Or it could be the out they need - to turn in the dirty deed doers.

[Non Sequitur]

The helpline exists to assist bishops in meeting their legal obligations. If bishop hears about it because the abuser is in their office, confessing and seeking spiritual assistance, does the bishop have the ability and the duty to disclose it to law enforcement? Would doing so violate clergy-penitent privilege, if any? Has the privilege been waived, as in the case of true repentance per the General Handbook, authored by K&M? What are the ramifications to the case against the abuser if the privilege is broken? These are the questions the helpline are intended to answer, not questions about how best to serve the victim or which therapist to recommend.

If the bishop learns about it literally any other way, they fast-track notification to law enforcement and the abuser can go to hell after a long stint in prison.

Good thing we have the law firm of Kirton McConkie to instruct us on the legal ramifications of true repentance.

[Green Monstah]

I could be wrong, but I think AZ law changed on clergy privilege in the last decade or so. I know a guy who prosecuted sex crimes in PHX and is now a defense attorney. I am sure he's being bombarded, but when this settles down, maybe I'll reach out and get his take.

[Maximus]

I don't see how one can defend the church on this. Knew from.a bishop a 5 yr old was getting abused and actively let it continue

[All-American]

I could be wrong, but I think AZ law changed on clergy privilege in the last decade or so. I know a guy who prosecuted sex crimes in PHX and is now a defense attorney. I am sure he's being bombarded, but when this settles down, maybe I'll reach out and get his take.

There was a bill to change AZ law to make it a mandatory report-in-all-cases state, but that bill failed.

Here is the current law, with pertinent quote.

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

A. Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under section 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer, to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest may otherwise make of the minor.

[All-American]

There was a bill to change AZ law to make it a mandatory report-in-all-cases state, but that bill failed.

Here is the current law, with pertinent quote.

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

A. Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under section 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer, to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest may otherwise make of the minor.

Seems to me the real problem is that, being told not to report, the bishops were given incorrect legal advice.

[Northwestcoug]

Seems to me the real problem is that, being told not to report, the bishops were given incorrect legal advice.

Thanks for your opinion.
terrible all around.

[All-American]

Thanks for your opinion.
terrible all around.

Ok, fine, the real problem is that a dude was abusing his daughters.

But it looks like the bishop was given incorrect legal advice.