Posted by:
Nightingale
(
)
Date: March 14, 2024 05:16PM
Church statement on child abuse by church members:
https://news-ie.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/child-abuseExcerpts:
“Simply put, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to child abusers. When abuse is suspected, the Church directs its members to first contact the legal authorities and then their local bishop for counseling and support. The Church cooperates fully with law enforcement in investigating incidents of child abuse and bringing perpetrators to justice.
“Members of the Church found guilty of child abuse are also subject to the laws of God. President Hinckley has said: "Our hearts reach out to the offender, but we cannot tolerate the sin of which he may be guilty. Where there has been offense, there is a penalty." Convicted child abusers are excommunicated, the highest possible discipline our faith can impose. Excommunicated members cannot take part in Church meetings or hold responsibilities of any kind within the congregation.
“Can child abusers who have paid the legal price for their crimes and gone through a rigorous repentance process with local Church leaders become members of the Church again? Yes. As Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But can they ever again, in their lifetime, serve in any capacity that would put them in direct contact with children? Absolutely not. Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin. Protection of the family is a first principle of the Church.
“Since 1995 the Church has placed a confidential annotation on the membership record of members who previously abused children. These records follow them to any congregation where they move, thereby alerting bishops not to place them in situations with children. As far as we know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the first religious institution to create such a tracking mechanism. We hold the family sacred and protect its children. This explains why the Church is one of the few denominations that imposes formal ecclesiastical discipline on mere members (as opposed to official clergy) for sexually abusive conduct.”
-----
Some of the statements in the church article may seem contradictory and may also not match the real life experiences of some victims and their family members. For example:
"The more difficult moral issue is whether a bishop should report abuse information to public authorities when he has obtained that information in an official capacity in the privileged context of a private confession. Apart from the difficult religious issue involved, some churches and professionals believe that to force clergy to report a private confession makes it less likely that child abusers will come forward to get help. They will likely continue to abuse. Others argue that law enforcement needs to be involved quickly because of the high risk of repeat offenders. There is no consensus on this difficult issue."
-----
I don't think you can say you take the problem seriously but then hedge about whether it's a reportable incident or not. I do understand that there are complexities. I don't have enough knowledge about the workings of the church to know how effective their approach is regarding this issue.
I also think that there is a HUGE difference between trained clergy and volunteers or recruits with no particular expertise in the kinds of issues that may come up in a church setting. I don't think they should be given equal status at all but that is certainly the way this church article presents their view on the matter.
I'm more in favour of people having formal training in the fields they're ploughing than in relying on some nebulous idea that any random person in a congregation who is assigned a task is endowed from on high with relevant knowledge and ability.
And what do church leaders in each congregation do if they know there is a child molester in their fold? Just avoid formally assigning the person to callings that may bring them into contact with kids? Not guaranteed to be the most effective deterrent I wouldn't think.