The Church and Child Abuse: An Experimental Argument

[huckelberry]

Let me provide what I believe is the first, most obvious (at least to me) and honest response to your post:

The LDS Church needs to protect itself in order to have the resources to continue serving the largest number of endangered children. If it yielded on clergy penitent privilege, then it would sacrifice its freedom of religion and make itself vulnerable to manipulation by governmental agencies and federal authorities to the point that it would be unable to accomplish any of its missions. It is sad to say, but when you have one child tied to the tracks on that fork, and a whole church with its millions of children tied to the other branch of track, well, we all know what most people will do. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Excellent and thank you. Let's call that Kish Counter 1. I was first tempted to say that it applies to point 6, which asserts "the church can..." But that functions as the conclusion, and a counter should be responsive to part of the argument. So, I'd say I have a missing premise that I need to supply. Does that sound right?

Res Ipsa, I thought Kishkumen’s comments might be intentionally absurd but you invited comment, I hope this is not too elementary.

I find myself very doubtful that yielding clergy penitent privilege would lead to a serious erosion of religious freedom. I can see that it could erode a religious privilege to ignore requirement of law. To my understanding the supreme court decision concerning polygamy address the question. Citizens must obey law even if they hold contrary beliefs due to their religious faith. A person might argue that one law requiring action in a religious context, mandatory reporting of specific crimes, invites further laws. I think that there is always a possibility of a draconic and unfair law being created whatever the precedents. That danger can only be addressed at the creation level or criticized to request legislative redress.

[Res Ipsa]

Excellent and thank you. Let's call that Kish Counter 1. I was first tempted to say that it applies to point 6, which asserts "the church can..." But that functions as the conclusion, and a counter should be responsive to part of the argument. So, I'd say I have a missing premise that I need to supply. Does that sound right?

Res Ipsa, I thought Kishkumen’s comments might be intentionally absurd but you invited comment, I hope this is not too elementary.

I find myself very doubtful that yielding clergy penitent privilege would lead to a serious erosion of religious freedom. I can see that it could erode a religious privilege to ignore requirement of law. To my understanding the supreme court decision concerning polygamy address the question. Citizens must obey law even if they hold contrary beliefs due to their religious faith. A person might argue that one law requiring action in a religious context, mandatory reporting of specific crimes, invites further laws. I think that there is always a possibility of a draconic and unfair law being created whatever the precedences. That danger can only be addressed at the creation level or criticized to request legislative redress.

Thanks Huck. Not too elementary at all. This issue involves a fairly complex interplay of legal issues, which I think the church uses to mislead its members. I’m going to have to unpack that. I think Kish intentionally included an obvious slippery slope argument, which is great because many counters will be of that form. It’s an expected response to any proposal for change, and one that will have to be addressed. It’s Huck Argument 1, which will go in the discussion of the priest-penitent privilege.

[I Have Questions]

Test arguments:

The Church has an obligation to comply with the law. It also has an obligation to insist its officers and representatives comply with the law - both as a protection for the Church as an organisation, and for the individual acting on behalf of the Church in a volunteer capacity.

The Church has to prioritise legal compliance above moral duty when it comes to making judgements about actions.

The Church only provides guidance for individuals behaviours, and a mechanism for religious confession. The organisation cannot be held responsible for choices its members make in their own homes.

[Res Ipsa]

Test arguments:

The Church has an obligation to comply with the law. It also has an obligation to insist its officers and representatives comply with the law - both as a protection for the Church as an organisation, and for the individual acting on behalf of the Church in a volunteer capacity.

The Church has to prioritise legal compliance above moral duty when it comes to making judgements about actions.

The Church only provides guidance for individuals behaviours, and a mechanism for religious confession. The organisation cannot be held responsible for choices its members make in their own homes.

Thanks, IHQ. Are you offering these as arguments the church would make in response?

[I Have Questions]

Test arguments:

The Church has an obligation to comply with the law. It also has an obligation to insist its officers and representatives comply with the law - both as a protection for the Church as an organisation, and for the individual acting on behalf of the Church in a volunteer capacity.

The Church has to prioritise legal compliance above moral duty when it comes to making judgements about actions.

The Church only provides guidance for individuals behaviours, and a mechanism for religious confession. The organisation cannot be held responsible for choices its members make in their own homes.

Thanks, IHQ. Are you offering these as arguments the church would make in response?

Yes. Sort of thinking what “legitimate” responses they might have were they to actually try to tell the truth for a change.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, IHQ. Are you offering these as arguments the church would make in response?

Yes. Sort of thinking what “legitimate” responses they might have were they to actually try to tell the truth for a change.

Thanks. They’ll be IHQ Counterarguments 1, 2 and 3.

[I Have Questions]

The Church lays claim to being the only organisation on the planet with a divinely mandated interface with Jesus/God. The Church claims to be led, directly, by God, through His appointed spokesperson - the Prophet. Therefore one would expect the Church’s child protection protocols to be, not just the best in the world currently, but also be protocols that protect the children coming in the future. They should be ahead of the risks and threats now and in the future, never needing to play catch up, never needing to take other organisations processes for copying.

Church Leaders only appoint people to work with minors after much prayer and consideration, and only after receiving the trustworthy confirmation of the Holy Spirit. So nobody would be appointed to work with children if they had previously harmed children, nor if they would have the propensity to harm children in the future, even if records of wrongdoing were not available.

The Church, led by Jesus, would never operate a programme that placed children in harms way.

[malkie]

The Church lays claim to being the only organisation on the planet with a divinely mandated interface with Jesus/God. The Church claims to be led, directly, by God, through His appointed spokesperson - the Prophet. Therefore one would expect the Church’s child protection protocols to be, not just the best in the world currently, but also be protocols that protect the children coming in the future. They should be ahead of the risks and threats now and in the future, never needing to play catch up, never needing to take other organisations processes for copying.

Church Leaders only appoint people to work with minors after much prayer and consideration, and only after receiving the trustworthy confirmation of the Holy Spirit. So nobody would be appointed to work with children if they had previously harmed children, nor if they would have the propensity to harm children in the future, even if records of wrongdoing were not available.

The Church, led by Jesus, would never operate a programme that placed children in harms way.

Alternatively - not an exhaustive list:

• Jesus approves of such a program - it allows the wicked to demonstrate their characters, and merit condemnation - and harmed children are collateral damage in the functioning a "law" that is more important than their suffering
• the confirmation of the Holy Spirit is not trustworthy

[Dwight]

What does the church gain by not reporting when they don't need to? They claim the abusers will feel more okay confessing their sins to get help, but the church has failed to help stop the abuse. They maybe get tithing from the abuser to keep coming in, which must be weighed against future losses of the abused quite possibly leaving the church. I think someone once said the church doesn't want bishops having to be involved in court cases as witnesses, but we've seen lots of cases that bishops and wards send letters of support for an abuser. Also just reporting and saying hey this was part of the religious thing I can't verify it seems there is an out, instead that CPS/police can go in and investigate and determine if there was anything to the confession anyway, at that point the bishop is irrelevant to the case. Increasingly the statute of limitations is being eliminated or extended such that the abusers are more likely to end up in court. In cases of sexual assault employers have some immunity, but generally not if negligence can be proven. Which makes me wonder does the church actually gain more protection for their money and image by trying to hide things. I suppose if the abuse never makes the headlines, and there is no day in court they win, no settlement. Though I've heard there are a lot of settlements reached, but maybe those are cheaper the longer it has been, or the less press.

I have wanted to participate, but finding it difficult to nail what to say or how to put it. I know if I were a parent that I would feel much better about a church that quickly works to protect children than one that seemingly always sides with the abuser. As someone who doesn't consider themselves a follower of Christ, but think there are still beautiful things attributed to that figure, I wonder about Jesus's clear admonition about the care of children and causing them to stumble.

[Res Ipsa]

What does the church gain by not reporting when they don't need to? They claim the abusers will feel more okay confessing their sins to get help, but the church has failed to help stop the abuse. They maybe get tithing from the abuser to keep coming in, which must be weighed against future losses of the abused quite possibly leaving the church. I think someone once said the church doesn't want bishops having to be involved in court cases as witnesses, but we've seen lots of cases that bishops and wards send letters of support for an abuser. Also just reporting and saying hey this was part of the religious thing I can't verify it seems there is an out, instead that CPS/police can go in and investigate and determine if there was anything to the confession anyway, at that point the bishop is irrelevant to the case. Increasingly the statute of limitations is being eliminated or extended such that the abusers are more likely to end up in court. In cases of sexual assault employers have some immunity, but generally not if negligence can be proven. Which makes me wonder does the church actually gain more protection for their money and image by trying to hide things. I suppose if the abuse never makes the headlines, and there is no day in court they win, no settlement. Though I've heard there are a lot of settlements reached, but maybe those are cheaper the longer it has been, or the less press.

I have wanted to participate, but finding it difficult to nail what to say or how to put it. I know if I were a parent that I would feel much better about a church that quickly works to protect children than one that seemingly always sides with the abuser. As someone who doesn't consider themselves a follower of Christ, but think there are still beautiful things attributed to that figure, I wonder about Jesus's clear admonition about the care of children and causing them to stumble.

My argument is that the church doesn't get something out of not reporting unless legally required -- it avoids something. The first is bad PR when the abuser has been appointed to a leadership position that involves contact with children. The second is a civil suit for breach of promise by the abuser who confesses. I don't think tithing enters into the decision.