Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how [Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division] Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John [Goodrich]’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. In particular, the church would discourage [Bishop Michael] Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea {Goodrich}'s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.
Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
Wow, that’s good!
I read the title without the word “claims” and was pleasently confused for a second.
Unfortunately, the Associated Press returns to grind this tired axe. It claims that the bishop couldn’t testify against the abuser because the Church wouldn’t allow him, but in reality the Church has no such influence over bishops, which are volunteers. The real reason the bishop couldn’t testify was because of a state law requiring the accused to release the bishop from clergy-pentitent privilege first, which the accused refused to do. So blame the abuser and the law, not the Church.
Clergy should not have more confidentiality than a therapist. You tell a therapist you are raping babies, they have to call the cops. Confession is no different.
Sure thing. The article could have been about the state law that requires this confidentiality, but instead it tries (and fails) to make the Church appear to be a protector of child abusers. The truth is that a state law is the protector in this instance.
When the LDS church’s legal council, “advised the bishop not to report the abuse to civil authorities … that failure to report allowed the church member, the late Paul Adams, to repeatedly rape his two daughters and allegedly abuse one of his four sons for many years,” then, yes, I will be blaming the church.
I think you’re confusing the inability for prosecutors to hold “clergy volunteers” accountable for failure to report with being a decent human being and reporting the monster. You may think that Adams is getting his full torment in the Outer Darkness in death, but a surprising percentage of the US would like to see others like him face their torment in this life as well.
Did you even read the article? You’re talking about an entirely different situation in a different state.
They are pointing out the pattern the church follows. The church protects child rapists and leaves the children to twist in the wind.
That’s not really true, but it is the narrative that the Associated Press is attempting to spin with this article. However, this is all irrelevant to the actual topic which is being discussed. You can find the link to the Associated Press article being discussed at the top of the page.
What constituency would be supportive of that bill in the first place?
What constituency would not?
The state mandating church administration is no better than the church dictating matters of state.
I’m not in favor of a carve out that allows a rapist or murderer to confess their crimes to a religious person and that religious person is not bound by any law to divulge it specifically because they are a religious person. What or whose purpose does that serve?
Is this a free speech issue for you? Must we have the speaking right to confess rape and murder without consequence? Is this a religious freedom issue? Must a child rapist be permitted to talk about their rape freely with their religious establishment? Is their right to do that more important than a raped child’s right to justice?
The church needs to be a safe space for rapists and murderers or else our rights have been infringed?
I honestly don’t know where you were going there.
What purpose does it serve to deny confession? Does the removal of the religious practice deter or prevent crimes? Catch criminals?
The ability to confess isn’t enabling criminals. Your logic, if we accept it as valid (and frankly, im not gonna say I don’t…) would suggest that the concept that God forgives sinners is the actual enabling mechanism, and that any church suggesting such is complicit simply by existing.
If the state is responsible for ensuring religion doesn’t enable crime, then why not simply make religion illegal? Because reasons? Whatever those reasons are, is exactly why church and state need not be given any reign over one another.
So let’s say confession (which is not in the Christian bible in any way, shape, or form) didn’t exist previously and we were coming up with it now. You and I had decided that this was an important right for religious people. We tell the state that we no longer want our members to be bound by mandatory reporting laws because God forgives sinners and confessing your crimes to a religious member isn’t enabling crime anyway.
And at some point, someone would ask if we also meant no mandatory reporting for child sex abuse crimes and we’d be like hell yea man. This is our religious and this is religious freedom and it’s important.
And then we would be laughed out of the room and every other room on this planet. We would be personas non-grata, because seriously who the hell would argue for something like that?
Traditionalism doesn’t do anything for me, and the state having a muscular, aggressive response to mandatory reporting laws (of which I am also bound as a sports coach for middle schoolers) is A-OK with me.
I’d argue it’s actually much better that the state mandates church administration than the church dictating matters of the state.
The law makes it so the clergy doesn’t have to report it. If the church wanted to, they ABSOLUTELY could have reported it. The church chose to hide it and that response is systematic.
Sure, we should absolutely have a law that compels clergy to report such things, but the church is also still responsible for systematically choosing to enable rapists and abusers.
The Church had nothing to do with Bishop Miller’s decision to not testify against John Goodrich. Idaho’s Clergy-Penitent privilege law did.
This isn’t an instance of someone not reporting abuse. The abuse was already reported, and charges were filed against Goodrich. Because Goodrich’s confession to Bishop Miller was protected by clergy-penitent privilege, it wouldn’t be admissible in court without the accused giving permission for it to be shared. Which, obviously, he was unwilling to do.
Hm, I wonder which very large, politically influential, interested organization based in Utah might be responding for a state law like that?
This is Idaho, but mormon influence is strong there as well.
