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 That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.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.
USA seems otherworldly to me
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?
Once again special privileges for religion.
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.
Weird use of the Fifth Amendment.
I think anyone hearing of any abuse heard in any context should be legally required to report it.
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.
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.)
-
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.
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.
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.
If one of the sacraments of the largest denomination of the largest religion on Earth wasn’t protected by the first amendment, then religious freedom would truly be dead.
And absolutely nothing of value would be lost.
Why do you think this would catch a single molester? Every therapist that is a mandatory reporter starts their first session with a disclaimer saying, “I am a mandated to report certain crimes…” And it would be no different for priests in confession. At least now, there’s a nonzero chance the priest can convince the molester to turn themselves in. The priest can tell the person, “I will only grant you absolution if you immediately go to the police and confess your crimes. My absolution will not take effect until you do this.”
Will that work with most child molesters? Probably not. But it will work on some of them. After all, they’re obviously religious if they’re at confession. I’ll take a handful of wins over no wins at all.
As an atheist (one of the most hated religious groups in country), I deeply value the freedom of religion.
You got it right. This entire comment section is why an independent judiciary is protected from the public when they make unpopular rulings.
No, you value freedom from religion.
We absolutely need a lot more of that, but the only freedom of religion that should be guaranteed is that no one will be persecuted for a belief. As soon as that belief turns into an action or inaction that is harmful to others that freedom should evaporate fast.
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.
“confidential” fuckwads all of them. All personal communication with members of any organization is confidential.
To be honest, the Seal of Confession applies to EVERYTHING but only if you actually hate your sin and repent
if someone walks up to a priest and confesses they abuse kids and love doing it, theyre getting reported
if someone walks up to a priest and confesses they abuse kids and love doing it, theyre getting reported
Or maybe the priest will ask to get in on it.
And they wonder why their congregation age averages 85.
