The Church and Child Abuse: An Experimental Argument

[Dwight]

Thanks for wading through what I posted and restating your argument. I think it added clarity to me.

First one I suppose I hadn't thought of it this way, if you are the bishop that called someone to scout/young mens leader then it possibly reflects poorly on you. You'd want to deal with it as quietly as possible. Even though I think most people rationally could step back and agree that it would be better to deal with it in ways that would attract attention.

On the second point it feels like the other side would never realistically get tested, when the bishop breaks his confidentiality and lets slip to his wife or the ward council things that should have been kept confidential due to confession. Proving it and the damages are probably not going to align.

[Jersey Girl]

I'll use this OP as the "construction site, with additional posts used to receive and discuss feedback, hash out subarguments, etc. So, the rough outline is:

1. There are inherent conflicts between the stated goals of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the church") to protect children from child abuse on the one hand and to protect its image and preserve its assets on the other.

2. The church has a significant number of different approaches it could take to resolve those conflicts.

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

4. There is no doctrinal impediment to placing the well-being of the child above the church's public image and money.

5. The church deceives its members into believing that the church has fewer choices than it actually does.

6. When the well being of a child or children conflicts with the church's interest in preserving its money and public image, the church can and should place the children first.

I think that nothing will be done to effect change until Utah State Law changes and unless it's already changed, If I recall correctly clergy is exempt from mandatory reporting of child abuse. That is to say, the church will always have the "out" of referencing state law.

I don't know if this fits your work in progress argument. I read the OP and it ticked me off all over again so I threw the above on the pile.

[Res Ipsa]

I'll use this OP as the "construction site, with additional posts used to receive and discuss feedback, hash out subarguments, etc. So, the rough outline is:

1. There are inherent conflicts between the stated goals of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("the church") to protect children from child abuse on the one hand and to protect its image and preserve its assets on the other.

2. The church has a significant number of different approaches it could take to resolve those conflicts.

3. When these interests come into direct conflict, the church chooses to place a higher value on protecting its image and money than it does on the well-being of the child.

4. There is no doctrinal impediment to placing the well-being of the child above the church's public image and money.

5. The church deceives its members into believing that the church has fewer choices than it actually does.

6. When the well being of a child or children conflicts with the church's interest in preserving its money and public image, the church can and should place the children first.

I think that nothing will be done to effect change until Utah State Law changes and unless it's already changed, If I recall correctly clergy is exempt from mandatory reporting of child abuse. That is to say, the church will always have the "out" of referencing state law.

I don't know if this fits your work in progress argument. I read the OP and it ticked me off all over again so I threw the above on the pile.

I've been trying to puzzle out a piece of this whole mess: why weren't the social workers who answered calls on the hotline mandatory reporters under Utah law? Utah was one of the first three states to enact legislation making "all persons" mandatory reporters. It did that back in the '70s. To avoid being a mandatory reporter, one had to fall within specific classes, including attorneys. Currently, on Utahs, Clergy are mandatory reporters of present and past child abuse, except if they receive the information as a confession. A law was introduced to eliminate that exception earlier this year. It didn't make it to the floor.

The same thing happened in Washington this year. Our law is behind the modern trend -- it applies only to specified classes of people. If I recall correctly, those classes don't include clergy. After a sex abuse scandal involving Jehovas Witnesses, a bill was introduced to add clergy as mandatory reporters. It got hung up on the issue of whether it should also create a child abuse exception for the priest-penitent privilege. It passed the House but not the Senate, faced by strong lobbying by the Catholic Church, the JWs, and the LDS church.

The trick is in the referencing of state law. I've yet to see a state law that prohibits clergy from reporting abuse learned of in a confession. That's why the church is very careful (and I would say, misleading to the average person) how it references state laws. In the Arizona case, it described it's non-reporting as "consistent with state law." That is misleading because reporting would also have been consistent with state law.

I need to research the history of the mandatory reporter laws in Utah to find out what they said when the hotline was established.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for wading through what I posted and restating your argument. I think it added clarity to me.

First one I suppose I hadn't thought of it this way, if you are the bishop that called someone to scout/young mens leader then it possibly reflects poorly on you. You'd want to deal with it as quietly as possible. Even though I think most people rationally could step back and agree that it would be better to deal with it in ways that would attract attention.

Just given what we know about hierarchical, patriarchal religious organizations, I think we should expect that men who have abused children have been able to make their way, to some extent, up the leadership ladder, at least to some extent. George P. Lee was a member of the First Council of the '70s. When they are placed in any leadership situation -- especially ones involving contact with minors -- it's a PR train wreck for an organization that insists its leadership decisions are divinely inspired. The church itself lists its image as one of three reasons for subjecting members to church discipline.

On the second point it feels like the other side would never realistically get tested, when the bishop breaks his confidentiality and lets slip to his wife or the ward council things that should have been kept confidential due to confession. Proving it and the damages are probably not going to align.

I don't think the potential pocketbook risk is those kinds of disclosures. It's disclosure to law enforcement of confidential confessions to the bishop.

[Res Ipsa]

Note: In 1977 (original version), Utah had a universal mandatory reporter law, with no exception for clergy. The Priest-Penitent privilege law barred only testimony, not disclosure. When was this changed? https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... 20abuse%22

[Jersey Girl]

Currently, on Utahs, Clergy are mandatory reporters of present and past child abuse, except if they receive the information as a confession. A law was introduced to eliminate that exception earlier this year. It didn't make it to the floor.

I hadn't considered the hot line workers that you mentioned. I was too busy focusing on my deep disgust re: mandated reporter clergy exemption. I'm not at all surprised to hear that the proposed law was shot down.

I'd bet my actual house that the Utah Law is never changed to include clergy. It's their perpetual "out" and probably always will be.

Note: The first child abuse case in the U.S. had to be prosecuted using the cruelty to animals law/act. That's right. The animals were protected from abuse before human children. So perhaps there is hope for the children of Utah as well.

I'd apologize for my absolute snark but I'm not sorry for it. Children First* my foot.

*That was the phrase for an old campaign. Late 90's early 2000's. See how far we've come? I'll get off your thread now or I won't stop.

[Res Ipsa]

Currently, on Utahs, Clergy are mandatory reporters of present and past child abuse, except if they receive the information as a confession. A law was introduced to eliminate that exception earlier this year. It didn't make it to the floor.

I hadn't considered the hot line workers that you mentioned. I was too busy focusing on my deep disgust re: mandated reporter clergy exemption. I'm not at all surprised to hear that the proposed law was shot down.

I'd bet my actual house that the Utah Law is never changed to include clergy. It's their perpetual "out" and probably always will be.

Note: The first child abuse case in the U.S. had to be prosecuted using the cruelty to animals law/act. That's right. The animals were protected from abuse before human children. So perhaps there is hope for the children of Utah as well.

I'd apologize for my absolute snark but I'm not sorry for it. Children First* my foot.

*That was the phrase for an old campaign. Late 90's early 2000's. See how far we've come? I'll get off your thread now or I won't stop.

No need to stop. I know how you feel about protecting children.

[Jersey Girl]

Note: In 1977 (original version), Utah had a universal mandatory reporter law, with no exception for clergy. The Priest-Penitent privilege law barred only testimony, not disclosure. When was this changed? https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... 20abuse%22

Have you gone directly to the statue? Maybe you can see the change from any person to clergy exempt there.

[Jersey Girl]

No need to stop. I know how you feel about protecting children.

Nah, I'll pop the entire thread off the planet.

[Jersey Girl]

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title80/Chapt ... -S602.html