That's not quite what the judge ruled. The judge decided that the privilege had been voluntarily ceded by the molester and hence could no longer be invoked to preserve the secrecy.
There are several interesting points in that article. The first and most important is the fact that clergy-penitent privilege belongs not to the clergy but to the penitent. That's really important because it means the church's wishes are irrelevant. What matters is whether the molester (I don't want to use his name)surrendered his rights by posting video and verbal accounts of his crimes. The judge acknowledged the obvious by stating that publishing his personal exploits vitiates any privilege he once had. The judge will almost certainly allow the church to appeal the issue, but I don't see how they can win on this point.
Second, the church claims that all calls that the help line forwards to Kirton McConkie are covered by attorney-client privilege and hence must remain secret. A lot of this depends on AZ law, but it will be interesting to see whether an organization like the church gains control over communications by members because it sent those people to the church's law firm. The privilege inheres in the client, but who exactly is the client here--the reporting party or the church? Is there not a potential conflict of interest between the reporters and the church?
Third, the article notes that while the church says the AP story was flawed and led to inaccurate conclusions it also says the church provided no evidence or arguments about those flaws. It was, in other words, a non-denial denial.
Fourth, and baldly ironic, is the fact that the help line is housed within the church's "risk management department." Clearly that is a public relations disaster, belying the protestations that the Bat Phone is intended to protect the victims. Goebbels must have been home with the flu the day the church named that department.
The mormon church response sickens me, but if someone read the social media posts by the molester and did nothing they're deficient in humanity as well.
He appears to have belonged to some private groups with similar interests. He was ultimately caught because law enforcement in New Zealand stumbled across one of his videos and alerted Homeland Security. That was years after the LDS Church discovered that he was currently, and continually, violating the children.
But there are questions here. Are not the people who staff the hotline mandatory reporters? Since they are playing a counseling role, arguably, perhaps they should be.
Since they are aware of accusations of child abuse, is it acceptable that they destroy their records daily? Can the law be changed to prohibit that practice?
Since the attorneys involved are paid by and substantively represent the church, does the attorney-client privilege cover the hot line staff? And if the reports are the product of those hot line staff, can the church legitimately control those reports?
The law should be clarified. The staff should be mandatory reporters, their reports should be retained rather than destroyed daily, and the pretense of the church's having privilege over the reports be explicitly rejected.
Regardless of legal issues, ramifications, or defining intent of the law, I personally would only adhere to one thing.
As I would never tolerate watching someone being abused, and if I ever encountered a situation like that Bishop did, I would never ever allow such a thing to continue, the law or church policy be dammed.
The church tried to defend itself by saying that the pervert ONLY confessed to raping his five-year-old daughter ONE time.
As if that makes anything better.
The bishop knew more was going on. He brought the wife in, he tried to get them to report it, he told the incoming bishop. What he didn't do was have the balls to get the authorities involved...because church headquarters told him not to.
I believe this scandal could be the worst yet. It could do the church grave damage not only in the public eye but also in terms of member loyalty.
Multiple bishops, parents, and others sitting aside as innocent children were abused and exploited for years is more than irresponsible negligence: it is unforgivable, knowledgeable complicity. The church will of course absolve itself and its representatives, but society won't.
Once again the church proves that its moral standards are far lower than those of the broader community.