lds "hotline" for bishops questioned in lawsuit

[Res Ipsa]

Question, does the visiting teacher, being female in a religion where women cannot hold the priesthood, have this privilege protection? She knew, as did many others. The lds church not only tolerated the abuse, but in this case they facilitated it for years.

Also, what happens when there is a conflict between the bishop's legal obligation tor report because he was the doctor of the children, and his volunteer position as bishop to the abuser of the children?

And didn't holding an lds court and telling many people about the abuse override the privilege already? I thought that's why mandated reporters are asked not to serve in Mormon disciplinary courts.

Can the penitent reasonably expect that a visiting teacher be included in the collective bubble of privacy with the priest? Can the visiting teacher be reasonably expected to understand the private nature of the confessional disclosures from the bishop?

The above, however it is, says nothing about what the visiting teacher learns from personal contact. She is nowise a priest in the church; there is no concept of confessional via a visiting teacher.

Just to emphasize a good point: the privilege covers communication of information. If the Bishop sees, for example, evidence of abuse in the form of injuries to the children or sexualized behavior in the children, the privilege would not preclude him from contacting the appropriate state agency.

[Meadowchik]

Also as I pointed out elsewhere, there's a difference between being required to report and being allowed to report. Bishops might not be required to report under narrow conditions, but they are still allowed to report abuse. Specifically they would be immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting abuse:

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

"A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question."

[Moksha]

Does privilege extend to enabling a criminal enterprise?

Yes, it can. Each state has its own law, so you have to check.

So Bob's point is well taken about keeping their mouths shut in regard to ongoing crime. Wish Kirton McConkie cared as much about protecting victims as it does potential Church liability.

[Res Ipsa]

Also as I pointed out elsewhere, there's a difference between being required to report and being allowed to report. Bishops might not be required to report under narrow conditions, but they are still allowed to report abuse. Specifically they would be immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting abuse:

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

"A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question."

They would in Arizona.

[Meadowchik]

Also as I pointed out elsewhere, there's a difference between being required to report and being allowed to report. Bishops might not be required to report under narrow conditions, but they are still allowed to report abuse. Specifically they would be immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting abuse:

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

"A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question."

They would in Arizona.

Where the lawsuit is.

[Bought Yahoo]

Also as I pointed out elsewhere, there's a difference between being required to report and being allowed to report. Bishops might not be required to report under narrow conditions, but they are still allowed to report abuse. Specifically they would be immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting abuse:

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

"A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of immunity, and these kind of statutes are not found in other states.

Again, under Catholic canonical law, breaching the confessional seal is a mortal sin. The clergyman can expect to be dismissed.

[Meadowchik]

Also as I pointed out elsewhere, there's a difference between being required to report and being allowed to report. Bishops might not be required to report under narrow conditions, but they are still allowed to report abuse. Specifically they would be immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting abuse:

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

"A person who furnishes a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, or a person who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation resulting from a report, information or records required or authorized under this section, is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action unless the person acted with malice or unless the person has been charged with or is suspected of abusing or neglecting the child or children in question."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of immunity, and these kind of statutes are not found in other states.

Again, under Catholic canonical law, breaching the confessional seal is a mortal sin. The clergyman can expect to be dismissed.

Mormonism is not Catholicism. Do you have any sources for the secrecy of LDS confession? Because it seems to me there is no hard line.

[Moksha]

Do you have any sources for the secrecy of LDS confession? Because it seems to me there is no hard line.

Would you like Bob to quote the Fight Club manual or from the Code of Omerta in the Unwritten Rules?

[Meadowchik]

Seven involving Boy Scouts:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/Mormon-churc ... se-arizona

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, is facing at least seven new lawsuits that accuse it of playing a role in covering up sex abuse among Boy Scout troops in Arizona.

Earlier this year, the Boy Scouts filed for bankruptcy amid tens of thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits implicating troop leaders and other volunteers in incidents stretching back decades. Accusers' current ages range from 8 to 93.

"The Boy Scouts filing for bankruptcy doesn’t end the investigation, as far as who knew what was going on, as far as these little kids being abused in scouting, when they knew it, and what they should have done to stop it," attorney Mark McKenna told Fox News Tuesday.

His law firm, Hurley McKenna & Mertz, is representing dozens of victims. In addition to the seven new lawsuits, it also has pursued cases against local scouting councils, and a number of Roman Catholic dioceses and archdioceses in similar Scout abuse cases across multiple states.

The new lawsuits allege that Mormon officials ignored reports of abuse from youths, and that troop leaders and volunteers remained in the Scouts organization despite allegations against them.

Another link for the Boy Scout case here: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/12/l ... sex-abuse/

Another suit filed in Arizona involving three separate cases:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/202 ... sC9gy6f0QM

Summary of new lawsuit:

Three cases, first:

"One of the victims was a nine-year-old girl, named in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, whose repeated rape and abuse was not reported to authorities by a local bishop who knew of the abuse in 1987, according to the lawsuit."

Second:

"Also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are two teenaged boys, referred to as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, who say they were the subject of “international kidnapping and perpetual rape” by a Mission President from 1991 to 1995. The lawsuit alleges the abuse was financed by the Church.

“Two young boys from an underprivileged background were unsure how to react to President P.E.’s predatory sexual advances,” the lawsuit states. “Eventually, President P.E. trafficked the boys, taking them with him on his trips between missions. The rapes would also occur frequently in hotels while they traveled together for church events.”

Several high-ranking church leaders observed “the improper and highly suspicious relationship,” according to the lawsuit. There is no indication that any of the abuse occurred in Cochise County or Arizona."

Third:

"The Church is also accused of engaging in a cover up in 2018 of the alleged drug trafficking by another Mission President, although the complaint makes no mention of where the activity occurred.

“Plaintiff alleges that this drug trafficking scheme involved two separate instances of international trafficking, first from Mexico to the United States, and then from the United States to another foreign country,” the lawsuit states. “The Church took steps to protect this Mission President from criminal liability and cover up this international crime.”"

Changes in AZ law:

"Previously the law required such victims to sue before their 20th birthday, but the Arizona Child Victims Act changed the deadline to one’s 30th birthday, with the new deadline being retroactive. In addition, a one-time window was opened until Dec. 31, 2020 for victims now older than 30-years-old to pursue civil legal action no matter how long ago the abuse may have occurred."