https://www.ksl.com/article/50588547/adams-says-ending-exception-for-child-abuse-reporting-forces-clergy-to-choose-between-faith-jail

From the story

"Why the bills haven't advanced

Adams said that if clergy are forced to report child abuse, it would remove the incentive for people to confess abuse, and clergy would be less able to provide support to congregants. He reiterated that clergy would face a choice of being excommunicated from their faith or serving jail time for violating state law.

"I've heard from many religious organizations and those are the options for them," Adams said. "I would say, too, that religious organizations do a great job. There's no one that likes abuse. No one would want to tolerate abuse. But many times if you have perpetrators, if they really believe in repentance, or believe in trying to make things better, they'll go to the authorities. And that's the ultimate goal, is to get it stopped and go to the authorities."

He said he had spoken with a "broad base of religious organizations," but wouldn't specify which churches were involved."

Really, the reason they haven't advanced is that LD$, Inc.'s lobbyists told the legislators not to a;;ow it.

. . . one body at a time.

That is pure evil.

Yep.

Disgusting

It may prevent the perp from confessing to the abuse, but it would encourage the abused to report it. Big difference.

It's all about saving face for the LDS.

Who will Pay The Price for this.

Victims will

From the article --

"Utah code stipulates the reporting requirement 'does not apply to a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession, if:

The perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy; and
The member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of the confession.'"

My question is, are Mormon bishops compelled by any church doctrine or policy to keep confessions confidential? I remember the old joke, that if you want gossip to get around a ward, "telephone, telegraph, or tell a bishop." Based on what I've read on this board over the years, I would never tell a Mormon bishop anything that I wanted to be held in confidence.

Washington state is headed in the other direction....


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wa-senate-unanimously-passes-bill-requiring-clergy-report-child-abuse-neglect

The problem is he doesn't know or explain Who The "Authorities" Are. Nobody knows-

They don't want to take away each other's possible privileges?

It's my understanding that a serious breach of rules/laws confessed to your bishop has to be recorded; it has to go on your permanent record, as it were.

I'm told that this means writing about it in that part of the member's church file accessible only to bishops, and higher.  The reason for this does have some validity.

But once the bishop who heard the confession does this, how can he, with regard to civil and criminal laws, be allowed to use the 'under the seal of the confessional' argument?  The Catholics do not do this.

I would at least like those who support the legislature's role in this to acknowledge that the reputation of the church is more important than the lives of however many members might perish in the shoals for lack of rescue.


"The church must be seen as true and correct 100% of the time, and this value far exceeds however many souls may perish due to the frailties of Man."

--Kirkland-McCosto, the true and expensive law firm

> But once the bishop who heard the confession does
> this, how can he, with regard to civil and
> criminal laws, be allowed to use the 'under the
> seal of the confessional' argument?  The
> Catholics do not do this.

Wow. That's a very important observation.

Does the confessional privilege apply to clergy who were not part of the confession? Does the fact that the member of the clergy shared the information with others--in fact any secretary who might see the file--vitiate the legal confidentiality?

I wonder if that has been litigated anywhere before. . .

One issue would be "What was the expectation of the penitent?"

An argument can be made that within mormonism, in a normal ward, "...everyone knows that news of the sin will soon be public!"

Not that it means anything, other than how fun it is to think it and then type it: "In Catholicism, there are no married priests*; in mormonism there are no bachelor bishops."


I wonder how much consideration is given by the church's legal defenders in the case of potential/real lawsuits to the overall makeup of the average jury pool where the lawsuit is filed?





*yes, yes, I'm aware of the occasional blip in the matrix involving Episcopalians...

>Does the confessional privilege apply to clergy who were not part of the confession?

Not in Nebraska evidently.

https://www.wowt.com/2023/04/17/priest-talks-allowed-court-bellevue-double-murder-case/

"According to court records, Price talked to two California priests in person before he was arrested. His defense argued those statements were made in confidence and cannot be used in court.

But Sarpy County District Court Judge George Thompson said he’ll allow it because, in his view, what Price told the priests did not take place during confession, so it’s fair game."

"Father Foley said there’s a difference between talking to someone to offer spiritual guidance and the sacrament of taking a confession, adding he’s not bound to the seal of secrecy for what he deemed spiritual guidance.

Another California priest, Father D’Aquila, told investigators that Price had come to him as well about harming someone. The priest told officers that if Price had asked him for absolution he would have had a duty to keep secret the contents of their conversation."

That's a good argument, along with the fact that anything confessed to a Mormon bishop often gets around the ward.