State supreme court rules in case of two bishops who were silent about three children abused by Mormon parents
Clergy members in Arizona who learn of child abuse in the context of religious confession are not required to report it, the state’s supreme court has said in a ruling that protects what church leaders call the “seal of the confessional”.
The panel’s ruling ends a long-running case in which three children who were sexually abused by their parents sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church, and two bishops who became aware of the crimes but remained silent.
The case has parallels in a short-lived 2025 law in Washington state that would have compelled clergy members there to report sexual abuse. That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.
In a statement, the LDS welcomed the unanimous ruling by the state supreme court on Thursday that exempts clergy members as “mandated reporters” if they learned of the abuse of minors in the confession booth or through other “confidential” methods.
Once again special privileges for religion.
There’s a difference between “are not required” and “are not allowed”. If a confession and crime is particularly heinous or serial, in the knowledge of the priest, the priest should have the moral discretion to report it if he thinks that’s the best decision for public safety.
But aren’t we kidding ourselves a little in expecting child molesters to confess their crimes?
I think anyone hearing of any abuse heard in any context should be legally required to report it.
This is one of those things we’ve learned to do not out of ideal moral principles, but because the consequences of not doing it are so much worse.
The first beginnings of what would grow into modern concepts of religious liberty in Europe came out of the Thirty Years War. Millions died in the fighting, most civilians. When both sides think God’s on their side, and that giving in will mean eternal damnation? It’s gonna be ugly. Through this and other wars of religion, we learned the hard way to take a “live and let live” attitude with certain religious practices.
Religion makes people do terrible things. When someone truly believes their eternal soul is on the line, there’s very little you can actually do to change their behavior. There is no punishment you can apply to them that is greater than an eternity in literal Hell.
I’m in favor of letting priests keep their confessions secret. First, forcing them to reveal confessions isn’t going to actually help catch any abusers. If you establish that policy, even if you get the priests to go along, all that will happen is that priests will tell people before every confession. “Please note, there are some crimes I’m required by law to report.” In that case, no abuser will confess their crimes to a priest. At least now there is a chance the priest can convince the abuser to seek out redemption and turn themselves in for their crimes. And if someone cares enough about religion that they’re willing to confess molesting a child, they’re probably on the verge of turning themselves in anyway. I would rather the priest be able to hear the confession and tell the molester, “the only way you will not go to hell for this is if you turn yourself in.” That would at least result in a nonzero amount of predators being caught.
But historically, forcing people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs rarely works well. It’s a short hop from “I will die for my religious beliefs,” to “I will kill for my religious beliefs.”
I don’t support forcing priests to reveal any crimes confessed to them. Ultimately it won’t catch many criminals, and it comes with a lot of risks. On the low end you end up risking locking up nonviolent priests for decades for no other crime than sticking to their sacred vows. On the high end you risk religious violence.
It’s not something I support in principle, but merely out of practical reality. I’m agnostic myself. I just think forcing priests to report does more harm than good.
Damn, when I read the post and first comment I was ready to grab the pitch fork… After reading your very well reasoned, logical, argument that deals with the nuance of this situation. I completely agree with you.
Disappointed by how presumptuous and fast-to-anger I was.
Edit: word
It’s a hard thing. Like, from pure moral principles? No. I don’t think priests should get any exceptions. But simply from balancing the positive and negative consequences of forcing them to testify? It’s not worth doing. There’s a lot of religious practices that wouldn’t exist in my ideal world.
For example, in an ideal world, I wouldn’t let parents force their children to attend church. Ideally religion would be something you actively have to seek out, rather than something forcibly imposed on you by your parents.
But I shudder to think at what horrors would be unleashed if you actually tried to ban parents from taking their kids to church. From their perspective, without baptism, their kids would be one fatal accident away from an eternity in Hell. That kind of pressure will motivate people to do unspeakable things. It is terrifying to think of what someone who truly believes, “you are trying to damn my child to Hell,” is capable of.
You just have to do a cost/benefit on it. It is practical to ban certain religious practices. If someone wanted to build a pyramid and start sacrificing people to the Sun god, even willing people, we wouldn’t allow that. But we wouldn’t allow that because:
-
The consequences of allowing it are extreme. (People are being murdered.)
-
The consequences of banning it are minor. (Not many people actually want to sacrifice people to the Sun god. There’s few enough of them that they do not present a threat to the rest of society. We can easily arrest the handful of people that engage in human sacrifice without tearing society apart.)
-
If you therapists and priests are made untrustworthy, no one will trust them. If they are meant to work as a valve for suppressed psychological issues and decrease the probability of patients getting overwhelmed by their urges, they need to be trustworthy.
I assume that in general, therapists and priests do actually work to stabilize their patients in a lot of cases and by that prevent a lot of damage from happening. Obviously, if that isn’t the case (I expect it to be, but I don’t actually know), then making them generally untrustworthy doesn’t hurt.
The LDS Church is a huge source of Christofascist content online. They push all of the purity stuff and a lot of the Trad wife stuff is Mormons who don’t tell you what they are. They’re rich as hell and they want all the same regressive stuff as the rest of MAGA. Know your enemy.
In the 23-page ruling, John Lopez, the supreme court vice-chief justice, said the US constitution’s first amendment – which addresses religious freedom – prevented courts and juries from assessing religious doctrine when considering a clergy member’s reasons for choosing not to report abuse.
This seems backwards to me. If the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” then that should mean that one’s religious faith should have no bearing on the enforcement of the law. Granting church members exclusion from mandatory reporting laws is giving particular religions a special class with regard to such laws. No religion should get special benefits or restrictions under the law and this ruling is the opposite of that.
The fact that the LDS church considers confession to be sacred should not mean that members should be allowed to remain silent when they learn about heinous abuse that any other member of society would be required to report.
Religion really does deserve to be treated as a special class though. It’s pretty unique. I don’t believe this out of reverence or respect for it, but simple practical reality. Messing with people’s religious beliefs never turns out well. When you truly believe your eternal soul is on the line, that will make you do some pretty wild things.
For example, if you force a priest to report, you’re putting them in a very tough position. They’ve taken a holy vow to never reveal what is confessed to them. They believe they will personally go to Hell if they do. There is no punishment you can apply to a priest that will be greater than a literal eternity in Hell. You can lock up a priest until they’re willing to testify, but all you’ll accomplish is locking up a nonviolent person who is just trying to follow their faith.
At some point, it just becomes an exercise in abusing the mentally ill.
Weird use of the Fifth Amendment.
We could confiscate every church and house the homeless. Dont worry, their religions want us to do it. Ideally it would be the believers, but they have abdicated their duties.
In the US there’s already more vacant housing than homeless people. A lot more.
Good thing I was smart enough to report my own abuse and people believed me. God forbid a kid try to say something and people ignore them. I’d be a lot more fucked up than I am if nobody listened to me or reported it.
So I can get excused from my heinous crimes if I belong to cult that doesn’t mind?
There’s a reason they’re full of pedophiles
No, only your religious confession can’t be disclosed to the authorities.
What a travesty. It’s not surprising that a religion that advocates beating children (Proverbs 13:24 & 20:30) would not want to report parents who abuse children.
Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son. But he who loves him urgently instructs him.
The rod is a metaphor for discipline and instruction
Proverbs is full of parables
The rod is a metaphor
Lies.
urgently instructs him
if it was an actual rod, why would they be instructed instead of beaten?
“I got some metaphors for you son.”
The rod is a metaphor for discipline
It’s not a metaphor, they would beat their slaves with the same rod, see Exodus 21:20.
Stop sanewashing your stupid death cult. It’s all about normalizing abuse, and fuck you for participating in that.
Exodus 21:20 Whoever strikes his male or female servant with a staff, and if they have died by his hands, he shall be guilty of a crime.
guilty of a crime
and a SERVANT
and it is a metaphor
if it isnt, you’d also have to say that there is actually a woman called wisdom and she actually throws a banquet
Metaphorical slaves can be beaten, just not to death?
It was not metaphorical. Stop pretending the bible says what you prefer instead of what it says. It’s a book about normalizing, even glorifying abuse.
Is the servant a free person or a slave?
Its a metaphor (as per your interpretation)
Being guilty of a crime, as above is also a metaphor, its a stupid fairytale book.
they are with guilt, right? Thats what it says
There are so many phrasing variants depending on translation. Do we believe the bible, or the actions of people who claim to be Christians? Many Christian parents have historically interpreted the bible advocacy not as metaphor for instruction, but of severe physical discipline and corporal punishment. 2000 years surely is long enough for Christians to refine their game to your gentler and kinder interpretation, yes?
See Religion and Child Abuse, Perfect Together, by Donald Capps.
There are plenty of Christians with that kinder interpretation though. You think Ms. Rachel is advocating for child abuse because she’s Christian?
The “/r/atheist” position is to tell those that are religious what they believe. It’s like telling someone what their music taste is. If a Christian is using their religion to justify their bigotry or abusive behavior; you can call that out. But religion isn’t a strict adherence to a religious text. It’s significantly more about community and unique to every person.
Edit: I’m not a Christian or religious. I just believe people when they tell me what they believe. I don’t try to tell them they believe something else.
You think Ms. Rachel is advocating for child abuse because she’s Christian?
I’m quickly starting to take the ACAB approach to religions. If they’re not actively trying to weed out their own rotten apples, they’re part of the problem. Locally if they’re everyday people, but at a much wider scale if they have a platform.
The the equivalent of including anyone that’s ever called 911 in ACAB.
Not at all, people calling 911 aren’t other police officers.
It’s an analogy mate. “Them not being police officers” is a difference not important to the core of the analogy.
You’re looking at something like “a pen is to write as a knife is cut” and saying “a knife can write by carving”.
But it would be dumb to generalize all “911 callers” as ACAB. It would be correct to criticize the “911 callers” that use the institutions of white supremacy to harass and abuse black people. That’s the point. There is a line between “Christian church attendees” and “the church” itself. That line is can be crossed by attendees. But they are not the church themselves.
Same goes for “911 callers”. All pay taxes and some benefit and exploit the the structures of white supremacy.
I’m all for “all Catholic priest are bastards” as their relationship with the church cannot exist without knowledge of its crimes and the institutional backing of those crimes. They uphold the structures directly.
But to say that “all Catholics are bastards” would be removing the material reasons for the ACPAB and instead placing the claim within the framing of Idealism
I see LDS and I already know its a horror story.
Imagine if there were people that spent their entire lives interpreting it and can guide you?
theyre called priests.
Also, most Catholics dont hold the corporal punishment interpretation
Oh, I went to Christian private schools, I’ve had my fill of their BS. “Preach the new testament, practice the old.” That’s Christianity in a nutshell.
thats american puritanism in a nutshell
Dumb fuck, that’s you, too. You’re defending a baby-murdering god in our other thread.
How do you know catholicism is correct and LDS is wrong? They have exactly as much evidence for their claims as you do.
Stop defending death cults.
We have a LOT more theological evidence
Peter is literally cephas, the rock of the church.
He was literally told “feed my sheep”
Freedom of religion was a mistake. Idgaf what your imaginary friend says, if you know a kid is being abused and you keep it to yourself Hell should seem like a vacation you get to run off to when the prison system is done with you.
It’s beyond fucked up. Kids are let down by everybody in power. How come the pedos organise society and nobody stop them?
Why aren’t you stopping them? That’s probably why nobody else is.
well, for one I’m not american.
You’re lucky
Capitalism (and most other organized hierarchical power structures) favor and reward sociopathy. Sociopaths might not be any more likely to have pedophilic inclinations than anybody else, but they are more likely to act on those inclinations if they have them, while others – who have functioning empathy – are more likely to realize it’s wrong and resist those urges if they have them.
The disorders that make someone more likely to act on pedophilic impulses are the same disorders that help someone climb the hierarchy and claim dominance.
And the empathy and human decency that holds most people back from the ruthless pursuit of power are the same factors that can make someone with pedophilic attraction less likely to act on that attraction.
That’s why we’re ruled by pedophiles – not just now, but for pretty much all of recorded history.
Narcissists too
And they wonder why their congregation age averages 85.
Fucking cultists. What an utterly unhinged ruling.
Our society has prioritized a priest’s desire to remain part of the Catholic church over the very real torture of children. This doesn’t prevent a priest from going to heaven, just from being part of the church. As long as the priest repents at the end of his life, he’ll still go to heaven.
Now, where it gets tricky is if the priest doesn’t actually repent. Then he is choosing between his belief in a hypothetical god and his hypothetical eternal soul… and the very real torture of children. If he, again hypothetically, believes he did the right thing and doesn’t repent, then his soul will be damned… hypothetically.
If the only real lasting punishment for a priest is if they do not repent, then the people who support this KNOW that they SHOULD report it and that they would NOT repent doing it. They just don’t care.
