https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/court-reverses-35m-verdict-against-jehovahs-witnesses



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2020 11:34AM by Lethbridge Reprobate.

I think that decision SUCKS; Deferring a person's wrongs to a 'church' is s terrible, misleading pattern. I hope the Montana legislature changes this with legislation.

Everyone in Montana should be ashamed.

This is hard to believe. I checked twice that the article is serious. Even the fact that the ruling is unanimous is astounding - not a single dissent? The reason they give for their decision (that reporting abuse is not required due to the organization's doctrine of non-disclosure) is seriously bizarre. What about the JW doctrine that members should refuse blood transfusions, extending to parents choosing abstention for their children? I think it is well established precedent that a child's well-being trumps a parent's right to freedom of religion. So in that one instance alone, a religion's teachings do not override a child's medical needs. Abuse of any kind surely cannot be enshrined within a religious group's midst, untouchable by greater society and the rule of law (not to mention common sense and human decency).

Society doesn't do enough to protect children in cloistered groups (i.e. fundamentalist Mormon polygamous communes). Now when an adult reports the abuse she has suffered there is still no protection and recompense? Outrageous. (And we can be sure she is, by far, not the only one who suffered, and will suffer, such a fate, especially if outside authorities refuse to act, even when people make the supreme effort to report).

I'm sure an appeal will be forthcoming. And that this verdict will be overturned. It is beyond belief that it can be for real and that this obviously bone-headed court decision will stand.

Nightingale-

I'm sorry to disappoint, but chances for the USSC to accept this for consideration are nearly zero:

the conservative USSC is likely to defer to Montana, this isn't a criminal matter.

There are prior decisions that defer to organized religions / churches

I don't see that there's any 'Federal Issue' to be addressed here.


Religion is taking over America, including Canada & Mexico plus the U.S.A. IDK about other American countries.

'Lord, protect me from those who pretend to act for you.'

Thank you for the information and opinions. I had assumed that the laws and procedures in our two countries (in North America) are similar. Unfortunately, apparently not.

Note: It sounds as if child abuse is considered a civil matter in this particular jurisdiction at least? I assumed, again, that it is categorized as criminal in both our countries. I believe that here in Canada, though, the distinction doesn't matter for this or any other subject, as citizens have leave to appeal civil and criminal matters to the Supreme Court of Canada. (However, I could easily be mistaken on this point - no time right now to check it out comprehensively, sorry). However, true enough, the SCC grants appeals only under strict guidelines which does limit a person's ability to be heard there.

On the face of it, the matter described in the OP seems blatantly unjust. It's hard to imagine that this situation could be tolerated.

Following are excerpts from two articles I have recently come across that touch on this topic:

From an Ontario, Canada government site re a citizen’s duty to report child abuse (NB: Duty to report is similar across the country):

“Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect: It's Your Duty”

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/childrensaid/reportingabuse/abuseandneglect.aspx


Excerpts:

“The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) recognizes that each of us has a responsibility for the welfare of children.

“We all share a responsibility to protect children from harm. This includes situations where children are abused or neglected in their own homes. Ontario's CYFSA provides protection for these children.

“Section 125 of the CYFSA states that the public, including professionals who work with children, must promptly report any suspicions that a child is or may be in need of protection to a children's aid society (society). … It includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, neglect, and risk of harm.

“Anyone who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection must promptly report the suspicion and the information upon which it is based to a society.

“It is not necessary for you to be certain a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a society.

"Reasonable grounds" refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report.

“The duty to report applies to any child who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 years.

“On January 1, 2018, Ontario raised the age of protection from 16 to 18. A professional, or member of the public, who is concerned that a 16-or 17- year-old is or may be in need of protection may, but is not required to, make a report to a society and the society is required to assess the reported information.

“Even if you know a report has already been made about a child who is under 16, you must make a further report to the society if there are additional reasonable grounds to suspect that the child is or may be in need of protection.

“You have to report directly to a society. You must not rely on anyone else to report on your behalf.

“Professionals and officials have the same duty as the rest of the public to report their suspicion that a child is or may be in need of protection. However, the CYFSA recognizes that people working closely with children have a special awareness of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and a particular responsibility to report their suspicions. Any professional or official who fails to report a suspicion is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5,000, if they obtained the information in the course of their professional or official duties. Reporting is not mandatory in the case of 16- and 17- year-olds and the offence/penalty provisions do not apply.”

“Who does the CYFSA consider a person who performs professional or official duties?

*health care professionals, including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and psychologists

*teachers and school principals

*social workers and family counsellors

*religious officials

*operators or employees of a child care centre or home child care agency

*youth and recreation workers (not volunteers)

*peace officers and coroners

*child and youth service providers and employees of these service providers

*any other person who performs professional or official duties with respect to a child”

“In addition to the professionals and officials outlined above, directors, officers or employees of a corporation also have a legislated duty to report if they have knowledge that a child who is under 16 is or may be in need of protection.

“A professional must report that a child is or may be in need of protection, even when the information is otherwise confidential or privileged. This duty overrides any other provincial statutes, including the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, and specifically overrides any provisions that would otherwise prohibit someone from making a disclosure. Only lawyers may not divulge "privileged" information about their clients.”

-----

I haven't searched (yet) for articles directly concerning religious bodies on this issue. It is my impression though that there are no circumstances in Canada under which one may legally withhold information pertaining to the existence of child abuse. If someone knows otherwise please enlighten me.


As someone mentioned the RCC and as this topic is front and centre for them now, here is an article from the Catholic News Agency, Australia, July 29, 2018 – discussion re duty to report (or not) disclosures of abuse heard in confessional:

https://grandinmedia.ca/australian-archbishop-supports-duty-to-report-child-abuse-but-not-when-admissions-made-in-confessional/


Excerpts:

“A new law in Australia will require Catholic priests in Canberra to break the seal of confession to report child abusers, drawing adamant opposition from Church officials.”

“Priests are bound by a sacred vow to maintain the seal of confession,” said Archbishop Christopher Prowse of Canberra and Goulburn, adding “without that vow, who would be willing to unburden themselves of their sins?”

“On June 7, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Legislative Assembly in Canberra passed a law requiring religious organizations to fall under the legal requirements of the mandatory Reporting Conduct Scheme. Religious groups and their “activities, facilities, programs or services” will be required to report any allegations, offences or convictions of child abuse within 30 days.This legislation extends to the seal of confession, making it illegal for priests to fail to report the confession of a child sexual abuse crime. The confession provision will take effect March 31, 2019.

“ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay said the situation is “complex” and must be discussed “with community and religious leaders” over the course of the coming months. Ramsay also noted he would be meeting with Archbishop Prowse to discuss the new law.

“In a June 6th article for the Canberra Times, Prowse cautioned that “the government threatens religious freedom by appointing itself an expert on religious practices and by attempting to change the sacrament of confession while delivering no improvement in the safety of children.”

“Sadly, breaking the seal of confession won’t prevent abuse and it won’t help our ongoing efforts to improve the safety of children in Catholic institutions,” Prowse continued.

“The archbishop said the Catholic Church shares the government’s concern to protect the safety of children and wants to be a part of the solution. “The draft laws are a consequence of the profound failure of the leadership of the Church and the duty of care we owe to children,” he admitted.

“It is a failure that will haunt the church for decades, and which has haunted many survivors for even longer. For these failures, the Church is sorry. I am sorry.

“At the same time, we are doing all that we can to make sure our schools and parishes are safe places and our protocols and procedures for responding immediately to such issues are in place. We have heard the Australian community, including the very concerned Catholic community, we have learned, and responded on a practical level. I am committed to continuing this important work.”

“When the government scheme to report all child abuse allegations to the ACT Ombudsman did not include parishes and communities of faith, I called for that anomaly to be rectified and strengthened. But I cannot support the government’s plan to break the seal on religious confession.”

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him,” due to the “delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons.”

“The Code of Canon Law states that “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” A priest who intentionally violates the seal incurs an automatic excommunication.

“In the Archdiocese of Edmonton, policies aimed at preventing child abuse require church employees and volunteers to report allegations or admission of abuse to civil authorities.
“Whenever someone becomes aware that a child is in need of protective services, the obligation to report arises,” states the policy on Intervention – Children. “Any person who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a child is in need of intervention, must by law report it to a Child and Family Services Authority under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act without delay.”

“The exception is when such an admission is made in the confessional, in which case the priest is to encourage the penitent to confess to outside authorities: “The seal of confession is inviolable regarding information received in the confessional (cc. 983; 984) despite the requirements of civil law, including the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The penitent is to be strongly encouraged to make disclosure outside of the confessional.” (Allegation Assessment Protocol)”

-----

It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to juggle competing interests comprehensively, accurately, fairly, justly; hence the need to continually review and revise legislation. However, one can hope, expect, demand that the vital need for protection of children be the primary concern of all parties. Obviously, there is work to do yet in this regard. "Suffer the little children ..." - indeed.

"Religion is taking over America, including Canada & Mexico plus the U.S.A. IDK about other American countries."

{{Bristle}}: "America" denotes USA to non-USA-dwellers. It does not generally, in my (admittedly humble) experience, include "Canada & Mexico". Out of interest, what are "other American countries"? Just a friendly question.


On another note, I must disagree that Canada is being "taken over" by religion.

I believe we separate church and state quite well in Canada, even in Quebec where formerly the Catholic Church predominated. In my experience, Canadians consider their country to be secular. However, there is wide latitude to embrace the concept of freedom of religion as well. But, at least theoretically, that does not translate into freedom of religion to abuse children. Unfortunately though, there is still work to do in this regard; for example, within the polygamous Mormon communities such as Bountiful, B.C. where children are isolated and vulnerable and where reports of abuse have been made over the years (but not comprehensively investigated and rooted out, to date, most unfortunately). The ideals are laudable but the execution, so far, is less than perfect.

I would disagree, though, that Canada is marching towards a religious “takeover”. Of course, situations can change unexpectedly at lightning speed, as we have seen in many instances. Thus our need to be ever vigilant and to strive to protect the rights of all in order to protect all rights, into the vast foreseeable and even unforeseeable future to the utmost of our ability.

I think most would agree that Canada is a secular nation. Here's an interesting blurb I found:

By Rosalie Jukier and Jose Woehrlinger: Religion and the Secular State in Canada.

“Canada is a country of 33.8 million people populating a vast geographic area of almost 10 million km, stretching 8,000 km from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. Its current demographic composition is both a natural consequence of its founding peoples, the French Roman Catholics who settled New France (or Lower Canada, now the province of Quebec), the English Protestants who settled Upper Canada (now Ontario) and the aboriginal communities that lived here for millennia, as well as the product of a robust immigrant population from around the world. These complexities make it difficult to pinpoint the religious and social composition of Canada in just one or two sentences. It would be most accurate to describe Canada as a bilingual, multicultural federation operating within a pluralistic society.”

“The notion of secularism is “generally understood to mean the ordering of public life exclusively on the basis of non-religious practices and values. It is viewed by many as a neutral ground that stands outside religious controversy.”

“According to the Commission, the four key principles constituting any model of secularism are: the moral equality of persons; freedom of conscience and religion; state neutrality towards religion; and the separation of church and state.”

https://www.mcgill.ca/law/files/law/jukier_2015_religion_and_the_secular_state.pdf



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2020 07:20PM by Nightingale.

> I'm sure an appeal will be
> forthcoming. And that this
> verdict will be overturned.
> It is beyond belief that it
> can be for real and that
> this obviously bone-headed
> court decision will stand.


The decision will stand. It is a State issue, so this was the final court of appeal; only the people via their legislature can change what this finding enshrines.


I get the outrage...

If you'll read the citation I put up, you'll get what the court was up against and why it was a 7-0 decision.

Here's what I think happened:

The facts agreed upon are that the pedo-guy did horrible things and then 'confessed' to a church elder. Montana law says this is protected communication, that no matter the content of the confession, the confessor (kind of confusing, but the confessor is the one who hears the confession) does not have to pass along the information he hears.

In this case, the one JW elder who heard the confession brought the matter up with his council of elders, and the plaintiff in the instant case said that this broke the confessor privilege and the matter could then be passed on to the police and in failing to do so, the JW congregation failed to do the right thing and became vulnerable to the verdict that went against them. I think it was with that interpretation that the trial court and the intermediate appellate courts agreed.

The final court of appeal took a broader interpretation and said that the JW approach, in which multiple confessors now existed, still fell within the parameter of the law, and its intent, that repentant people would have their religious confessions protected.

It's that simple.


The hard part, for religious people, is agreeing that the confessor protection law needs to be either tossed out or modified to protect third parties, i.e., if a priest is told "I killed so&so" he keeps his mouth shut, but if the priest is told, "I'm going to kill so&so", he tells the cops.

Simple in concept...

The atheist point of view would be, 'hear something, say something', no exclusions, no protected parties.

From Montana and ASHAMED!

I was unaware of this law until this recent story. I'm not surprised in that many Montana towns have a strong Catholic history and background. We all know how they've tried to hide church based abuse.

I just read up on that, too. The law needs to be changed.

The ideas you harbor that the law needs to be changed are best kept between you and your confessor!

That's what I was doing, Padre!

But what about religious rights? Elder Oaks would be appalled.

There should be a disclaimer required to join a religion:

I _______ consent to this religion endangering children. I am in agreement that children are less important than the religion being able to operate in secret or the reputation of the religion. I consent to the religion collecting money for its own perpetuation at the cost of taxpayers subsiding the religion. I realize by joining this religion I enable the religion to make every effort to impose their religious beliefs upon others, including influencing laws. I am in favor of divisiveness caused by religious beliefs. I am in favor of allowing this religion to interpret what God wants everyone to be doing. I will defend the ability of religion to operate without scrutiny and will demand everyone respects religion.
Signature________________

Strange is man as he seeks after his Gods

Montanan here.

This ruling was 7-0.

The court followed Montana state law precisely.

Montana law (currently) expressly states that clergy is exempt from mandatory reporting rules regarding confessions.

Hopefully this ruling will incite legislative changes to the law.

I would expect this law in Utah, but not in Montana. Hit me by surprise.

The most protected class is the religious one.

"It is better that little child should suffer rather than that one religion be denied all the favoritism society can give it."
   --Judic West, Arch-Deacon of Porridgeshire & Duke of Whimsy

I thought the Duke of Wimsy was named Peter.

At least that was the case in a series of books that some joker once recommended. . .

Peter Death Bredon... Yes...

'Judic' is him being anonymous, or as members of the British upper class say, 'anonymitious'.

Thank you, o master of all things Wimsical!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It is better that little child should suffer
> rather than that one religion be denied all the
> favoritism society can give it."
>    --Judic West, Arch-Deacon of Porridgeshire &
> Duke of Whimsy

It should be re-stated as "It is better that many, many, countless children should suffer horrific abuses rather than..."

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2279129,2279343#msg-2279343

so does the woman discussed in the thread above have a case? based on the montana supreme court decision ------

Her case is not in Montana. The decision by the Montana supreme court is not binding outside of Montana.

what if she moves and her husband does it again in Montana . . . . ?

Well, her husband is currently in prison for 15 yrs. Who knows what the law in Montana will be by then.

Can the US Supreme Court strike down Montana law if it got that far?

They could if they conclude that the Montana law violates the US Constitution.

Yes, the general rule is that if a state constitution may be more restrictive of state power than the Bill of Rights. Thus some states are more protective of freedom of speech than others.

In this instance the Montana supreme court is probably on solid ground. States handle most criminal statutes and procedures, including trial processes and guarantees, statutes of limitations, etc. In this case the Montana legislature decided to protect religious institutions (freedom of religion) from state interference (prosecution).

If there were national laws that Montana was violating, the outcome would probably be different. But here the state is deciding how to handle state prosecutions and thereby strengthening a Bill of Rights protection. That is probably not reversible.

The remedy would be for the Montana legislature to change the law, which would help prospectively but not retrospectively.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2020 01:46AM by Lot's Wife.