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 That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.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.
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.