The Judge only interpreted the law and probably didn't have much of a choice here (correct me if I'm wrong). The Church (all of them) believes they should be exempt from reporting child abuse and have lobbied lawmakers to continue to be exempt. Lawmakers abide. Religious freedom or child abuse? Hard choice, right? https://apnews.com/article/mormon-sex-abuse-de446ad8212b6ca50ecbaaf222c35e7e An Arizona judge has dismissed a high-profile child sexual abuse lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ruling that church officials who knew that a church member was sexually abusing his daughter had no duty to report the abuse to police or social service agencies because the information was received during a spiritual confession. In a ruling on Friday, Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy Dickerson said the state’s clergy-penitent privilege excused two bishops and several other officials with the church, widely known as the Mormon church, from the state’s child sex abuse mandatory reporting law because Paul Adams initially disclosed during a confession that he was sexually abusing his daughter. “Church defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe 1 by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception,” Dickerson wrote in his decision. Although the church excommunicated Adams, its decision to withhold his abusive behavior from civil authorities allowed him to continue abusing his daughter for seven years, during which he began abusing a second daughter, starting when she was just 6 weeks old. Adams recorded his abuse of his daughters on video and posted the pornographic videos on the internet. The abuse stopped only when Homeland Security agents arrested Adams in 2017 in Arizona, after authorities in New Zealand and the United States traced one of the videos to him. Adams died by suicide in custody while awaiting trial. Lynne Cadigan, an attorney representing the Adams children who filed the 2021 lawsuit, said she will appeal the ruling. “How do you explain to young victims that a rapist’s religious beliefs are more important than their right to be free from rape?” she asked. Cadigan also said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would “completely eviscerate the state’s child protection law.” In a prepared statement, the church said, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. Contrary to some news reports and exaggerated allegations, the court found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy handled this matter consistent with Arizona law.” An investigation by The Associated Press last year cited the Adams case while revealing a system the Mormon church uses to protect itself from costly lawsuits by keeping instances of serious child sexual abuse secret, at times allowing the abuse to continue for years, harming or endangering children. The investigation highlighted the use of a church Helpline used by bishops to report instances of child sex abuse to church officials in Salt Lake City. Church workers fielding the calls keep no records, or destroy them at the end of each day, according to church officials. And they refer serious instances of abuse to attorneys for the church, who rely on a second privilege, the attorney-client privilege, to continue keeping the abuse secret. During the course of its investigation the AP revealed that a retired Utah legislator, an attorney with the law firm of Kirton McConkie, advised Bishop John Herrod not to report Adams’ abuse to civil authorities, after Herrod contacted him through the church Helpline. In the Mormon church, a bishop’s responsibilities are roughly equivalent to those of a Catholic priest, although Mormon bishops are lay people. Church records disclosed during the lawsuit showed that attorney Merrill Nelson held multiple conversations with Herrod and a second bishop, Robert “Kim” Mauzy, over a two-year span and recommended they withhold the information from civil authorities, based on church doctrine and the clergy-penitent privilege. The AP found that 33 states exempt clergy of any denomination from laws requiring professionals such as teachers, physicians, and psychotherapists from reporting information about child sex abuse to police or child welfare officials if the abuse was divulged during a confession. Although child welfare advocates in some states have backed legislation to eliminate the privilege, lobbying by the Catholic Church, the Mormon church, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses has successfully persuaded lawmakers to maintain the exemption. This loophole in mandatory child sex abuse reporting laws has resulted in an unknown number of predators being permitted to continue abusing children for years, despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials. In some cases, the privilege has been invoked to shield religious groups from civil and criminal liability after the abuse became known to civil authorities, the AP found. Cadigan argued that the church interpreted the clergy-penitent privilege more broadly than the state legislature intended in the Adams case by applying it to others in the church, in addition to Herrod, who learned of Adams’ confession. They included Adams’ wife, Leizza, and members of the church disciplinary council that excommunicated Adams. But Dickerson ruled that those exchanges collectively amounted to “a confidential communication or a confession.”
stuff like this is why people are leaving religion in droves a priest isn’t obligated to tell the authorities about known child abuse because it was said during a confession…MFer, please just so nonsensical and abhorrent
I truly wonder how some of these priests sleep at night…cover up rampant sexual abuse happening in your own house, and basically do nothing when made aware of horrible actions because it was said during confession U know that child is being sexually abused, and u do what? Just pray on it? Gimme a break…
There should be no loopholes period. Nobody should be exempt from having a duty to report someone raping, abusing, or molesting children. Nobody!
The levels of sexual abuse are actually higher in the majority of Protestant churches and more secular establishments, including public schools. It is a problem all across society.
I'd take the sanctity of the confessional over the duty to report. I would also not put a duty on a psychotherapist. These are both roles that are there to help sinners fix themselves. With this obligation, abusers just won't admit their problem in confession. Clergy will still be unable to report the abuser to law enforcement, only now it's because they aren't trusted and not because they keep the confession. But they also cannot encourage the abuser to repent, to turn themselves in, or whatever. I see little benefit to violating the confessional and likely much harm. In this particular case, any effort the church made to get him to confess to authorities or stop his abuse had obviously failed. And, this man was not caught in some other way for quite a long time. Obviously everyone is worse off in this case for not having reported. (In their shoes, I might be tempted to give police an anonymous tip, so I could have my cake and eat it too -- preserve the appearance of the silence of the confession while at the same time make sure this guy gets put away.) But that doesn't mean forcing people to report is always a winner either. I'm sure there are counter-anecdotes of abusers who were encouraged to turn themselves in to save themselves from sinning and they did so.
This crossed my mind. It's built upon a huge assumption rooted in perhaps thousands of years of religious culture—an assumption that I think might be completely wrong and do more harm than good. We have no idea if the allowance of secret confession yields better outcomes. It may, in fact, be the very opposite—repenting through confession might make one feel better (or believe they may be forgiven) and continue happily down the road of doing more of the same (toward more kids).
So whoever a criminal tells about their crimes should be charged with a crime if they don't report it?
Right now some have protection from that. I think anyone should have to report knowing someone's raping and molesting children, or be held liable for allowing a predator to keep doing what he does without police being notified.
Hard to know, since the sanctity of the confessional results in a lack of data. I'm sure sociopaths could see forgiveness in such a transactional way. I think most people feel a duty to try to do better. And like they say in AA, the first step is acknowledging you have a problem -- which the confessional does. Maybe it doesn't work, I don't know. But this is a sacrament we've been practicing for centuries, and using it as a vehicle for a sting operation seems inappropriate.
It is everywhere, but religious institutions have far more cover under the law. Personally, it seems far worse coming from religious institutions especially with how morally superior too many Christians are becoming.
I guess you'd have to believe that if a pedophile confesses his sins that he will stop raping kids, and ask yourself if you feel more comfort protecting the church by law than you do your own kids. I just think God might forgive them, but that doesn't mean their twisted brain will untwist because they confessed their sins or taught a bible study class. I don't personally believe pedophiles stop molesting kids because they go to church or confession. So, you either make the laws to protect the pedophiles and the ones they confess their sins to, or change the laws to protect the children. It boils down to that. So far the old ways haven't stopped the millions of church going pedophile predators.
The sanctity of confession makes it challenging to directly study. We simply don't know, whatever the claims may be. But we cannot ignore the undeniable harm inflicted upon abused children. When faced with the choice between the unknown consequences of maintaining the confidentiality of confessions and the known devastation experienced by the child and their family, the decision becomes straightforward. Although the practice of confession has a historical legacy spanning centuries, this alone is insufficient justification to continue exempting it from reporting sexual abuse. Many practices with long histories have been later recognized as extremely harmful. The argument here is not to liken confession to a sting operation; rather, it's about addressing the inconsistency in exempting certain institutions, like religious ones, from reporting child abuse when others are held accountable.
Assuming that people are protecting the church instead of kids assumes the pedophile - who didn't tell anyone else about his crimes - would still confess if he knew that he would be liable. If he wouldn't, then changing the law doesn't necessarily help protect kids - it just stops the pedophile from going to confession. On the opposite side, if Osama Bin Laden went into confessional and told a priest about his plan for 9/11, should the priest be obligated to report that?
This seems like an argument that appeals to emotion instead of logic. There are lots of non-religious pedophiles that don't go to confession and also don't stop molesting kids, so we don't know whether confession encourages or discourages pedophiles to continue their behavior.
The same argument could be made with the exemptions for lawyers. If a lawyer knows their client is a repeat murderer, should they be obligated to report that because they are likely to murder again, or is their job to provide the best defense possible?
I never meant that confessions discourage or encourage pedophiles. I believe they will do what they do until they are caught and locked up, or die. I also don't believe that it makes a difference if they are religious or not. They are sick in the head, and their brains are wired differently. They get sexual urges for children like normal people do for adults. I'm just glad I don't work in an occupation that forces me to live with knowing they will go out and do it again to some poor victim after they confess their predatory thoughts.
I understand the comparison between attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality of confession. But I think there are crucial distinctions that make them not entirely analogous. Attorney-client privilege exists to facilitate the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection under the law. It allows open communication in building a defense, which the 6A guarantees defendants a right to counsel for. In contrast, the secrecy of confession serves a solely religious purpose unrelated to legal proceedings. Attorney-client privilege is not absolute. Exceptions exist where future harm may occur or crimes are ongoing. Some States even require breaking privilege to prevent harms. This balances open communication with public safety. Confession's secrecy is seen as limitless by the Church, even when weighed against preventing child abuse. While the details of discussions are not public due to the protection of attorney-client privilege, the crime being charged is already known publicly through the legal system. Crimes confessed in the confessional remain completely secret. While both involve confidentiality, attorney-client privilege enables constitutionally-mandated due process and legal defenses. Confession serves a purely religious role untethered to rights like due process, and its benefits (or harms) remain speculative, while the harms of child abuse are conclusively known.
