Should religious leaders report child abuse?

[MillCreek]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/09/wife-sues-mormon-church-after-revealing-husband-sexual-abuse/

I will be interested to see how this plays out.  In healthcare, we are generally obligated to report, even if it is told to us in the context of a privileged communication with the patient. And I see that in this case, the member of the lay board that made the report was a pharmacist who has an independent obligation to report. 

I have read in my legal and risk management journals about the tons of lawsuits that happen when churches fail to report abuse, and some of those suits do include reports made in the confessional context.  So from that standpoint, I can see why the church took the actions that they did.

[dogmush]

I can't read that article, because a paywall keeps popping up.

But.....

How is this a question?  Yes they should, unless they have some other way of guaranteeing the abuse stops.

If you knowingly allow a child to continue to be abused I question your morality and honor. 

[MechAg94]

I can't read that article, because a paywall keeps popping up.

But.....

How is this a question?  Yes they should, unless they have some other way of guaranteeing the abuse stops.

If you knowingly allow a child to continue to be abused I question your morality and honor. 

Agreed.  I get the impression some people want to treat it like alcoholism or drug abuse.  Even if you think it is something that can be cured or rehabilitated, the abuse needs to stop immediately and not allowed to reoccur. 

[lupinus]

I have no particular love these days for organized religion, but that woman's argument is straight up BS. It's not the reporters fault your husband's in jail, it's your husband's fault for deciding to violate a child.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

   
Should religious leaders report child abuse?

Yes.

[makattak]

While I understand the sentiment, I know it is a serious sin in the Catholic Church to reveal ANY sin confessed in a confessional:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_in_the_Catholic_Church

I'm fairly certain most priests will choose to go to jail, rather than commit (what they believe to be) a major sin.

[charby]

Yes

[cordex]

I'm fairly certain most priests will choose to go to jail, rather than commit (what they believe to be) a major sin.

How major of a sin is it to beat the confessee into a coma with a crucifix so long as they don't say why?

I mean, if they're ready to go to jail anyway ...

[Ben]

Catholic priests are the first people I thought of regarding this being a quandary.

I also learned something new - I had no idea Mormons did confession.

[dogmush]

While I understand the sentiment, I know it is a serious sin in the Catholic Church to reveal ANY sin confessed in a confessional:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_in_the_Catholic_Church

I'm fairly certain most priests will choose to go to jail, rather than commit (what they believe to be) a major sin.

Don't care. "I really really believe it" is not a valid excuse for immorality.

The Screaming Beards think it's a sin to let gays live.  Lots of religions through the years have had sincere beliefs to justify hurting people, or standing by while others do. They're all wrong too. I'm sure somewhere along the line there was a Catholic priest that learned of a colleague buggering a kid during a confessional and hid behind that to justify inaction.  That priest is scum.

If your god requires you to let children be abused either your god sucks, or you badly misunderstand them.

[lee n. field]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/09/wife-sues-mormon-church-after-revealing-husband-sexual-abuse/

I will be interested to see how this plays out.  In healthcare, we are generally obligated to report, even if it is told to us in the context of a privileged communication with the patient. And I see that in this case, the member of the lay board that made the report was a pharmacist who has an independent obligation to report. 

I have read in my legal and risk management journals about the tons of lawsuits that happen when churches fail to report abuse, and some of those suits do include reports made in the confessional context.  So from that standpoint, I can see why the church took the actions that they did.

To read later.

Above the congregational level, variations in church polity make these things complicated.   Compare the Roman Catholic Church, with a large extensive authority structure, with the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a loose group confederated together for the purpose of supporting missions.

[Ron]

If vigilante justice is off the table then yes.

[Hawkmoon]

Yes.

On reflection, I have to reconsider this. In the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, confession is made with the understanding that the confessor (the priest or minister) is sworn never to reveal the confessions of the penitent. I know that in the medical and psychiatric field there is also an expectation of confidentiality and that doctors and shrinks are (if I understand it correctly) legally required to report admissions of certain criminal activity. I don't know how I feel about extending that to clergy in denominations where the tenets of faith purport to guarantee privacy and confidentiality.

When asked by the Pharisees whether or not the Jews should pay taxes to Rome, Jesus showed them a Roman coin and He asked, "Whose face is on this coin?" When the answer was "Caesar," Jesus then said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is God's." In other words, follow God's laws when they apply, and follow civil laws when they don't interfere with God's laws.

So this presents a conflict: The clergyman may be subject to two conflicting laws: civil law says to report, church law says to maintain confidentiality. Which is "right"? The answer may depend on the clergyman's discernment of whether the penitent is sincere in seeking forgiveness and absolution, or if he is going through the motions but is not sincere in regretting the action and in committing not to repeat it in the future.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

[dogmush]

So this presents a conflict: The clergyman may be subject to two conflicting laws: civil law says to report protect the child from harm, church law says to maintain confidentiality allow a predator to return to their victim with no guarantee the abuse will stop. Which is "right"? The answer may depend on the clergyman's discernment of whether the penitent is sincere in seeking forgiveness and absolution, or if he is going through the motions but is not sincere in regretting the action and in committing not to repeat it in the future.

Let's rephrase the question a bit.  I think picking "right" will be clearer.  As for the sincerity of the forgiveness seeker, that matter not.  Christians are forever telling me that humans are flawed, and sin.  I know plenty of folks that sincerely seek redemption for their bad behavior only to repeat it later for a variety of reasons.  That's fine when the issue is the penitent seeking to better themselves, but I am unwilling to pretend it's OK to subject a child to the threat of continued abuse on the chance that this might be the time the abuser manages to reform.  If they were sincere in seeking forgiveness, they can take that up with the gods after a lengthy prison term.

I'll again point out that this really has the appearance of being a tough question because it's a mainline christian denomination.  If we were discussing whether an African priest should report a congregant that plans to circumcise his daughter, this wouldn't be a question.

Or try this one on:  Islam has a slightly different version but still confesses.  If a young man comes to his Imam in NYC and confesses that he built and delivered a bomb for a group of his cousins friends, and he realizes it was wrong and would like Allah's forgiveness, should the Imam call the authorities?

Bottom Line:  If you use your religion as a screen to justify hurting children, or failing to act when you know children are in danger, you are a bad person.  Regardless of the shape of your collar.

[Hawkmoon]

Let's rephrase the question a bit.  I think picking "right" will be clearer.  As for the sincerity of the forgiveness seeker, that matter not.  Christians are forever telling me that humans are flawed, and sin.  I know plenty of folks that sincerely seek redemption for their bad behavior only to repeat it later for a variety of reasons.  That's fine when the issue is the penitent seeking to better themselves, but I am unwilling to pretend it's OK to subject a child to the threat of continued abuse on the chance that this might be the time the abuser manages to reform.  If they were sincere in seeking forgiveness, they can take that up with the gods after a lengthy prison term.

I'll again point out that this really has the appearance of being a tough question because it's a mainline christian denomination.  If we were discussing whether an African priest should report a congregant that plans to circumcise his daughter, this wouldn't be a question.

Or try this one on:  Islam has a slightly different version but still confesses.  If a young man comes to his Imam in NYC and confesses that he built and delivered a bomb for a group of his cousins friends, and he realizes it was wrong and would like Allah's forgiveness, should the Imam call the authorities?

Bottom Line:  If you use your religion as a screen to justify hurting children, or failing to act when you know children are in danger, you are a bad person.  Regardless of the shape of your collar.

You are assuming that your opinion of what's right is right. I respectfully submit that it's not that easy.

There is a dilemma because, if you are the confessor, the penitent would not have made you aware of the transgression without the assurance of privacy and confidentiality. The rules under which you wear your clerical collar (if your denomination's clergy wear clerical collars) require you to maintain the confidentiality of the confessional. Struggling to reconcile or resolve the clear conflict between church law and man-made law is a dilemma. To characterize that as "using your religion as a screen to justify hurting children" is IMHO manifestly unfair.

I don't know what the answer is. My denomination doesn't practice formal confession with guaranteed confidentiality so I have never had to consider the question. I have a friend who is an Episcopal priest, so perhaps I'll run the question by him for an opinion -- but that will only be one opinion. I don't know any Roman Catholic priests well enough to ask for an opinion from that corner.

In my state, clergy are included in the list of mandatory reporters, and the state law provides legal immunity. Accordingly, a lawsuit such as the one under discussion would (or should) be dismissed in this state. The moral dilemma that presents for clergy remains the same -- do you follow man-made law or God's law? If your answer is God's law -- then you have to ask is the church doctrine of confessional confidentiality God's law, or is it church doctrine that doesn't override man-made law?

[dogmush]

You are assuming that your opinion of what's right is right. I respectfully submit that it's not that easy.

To be fair, the it's a discussion forum, and we are discussing each others opinion.  So, yeah, IMO my opinion of what is right is correct.

But on a less superficial level, we each judge the world around us based on our personal value system, as influenced by religion, morals, learned mores and the like.  Some cultural relativism is a good thing.  If someone does something different with you and it does no one direct harm, then it's probably best to not interfere, and let them do their thing. That attitude can go to far though.  If people are getting hurt because someone's beliefs are different, then it's probably time to not pretend that those beliefs are "OK" (at a minimum).

I understand that the priest in question may find themselves in a moral dilemma weighing their interpretation of gods law, church doctrine, and secular law on deciding whether to protect children.  I however have no such moral dilemma.  Hurting children is wrong.  Allowing children to be hurt by your inaction is wrong. My gods require no dithering on this subject.  So I can pretty safely say that a person, priest or not, that doesn't stop child abuse (or prevent potential child abuse) that they know of is immoral.  A church that requires this of their clergy is an immoral institution.  If, as Ron alluded to, the church were to stop it outside the secular authorities I might reconsider, but we have ample evidence that churches (and other organizations, to be fair) don't do that.  So we are back where we started: they need to report it to someone that can stop it.

In this case the priest and the LDS did the right thing, and protected children.  I'm glad, and I hope they prevail in court, but even if they don't and have to pay something, they were correct.


In the spirit of discussion I am going to circle back to your comment on my opinion of right (pretty aggressively, I admit):

OK, maybe I am wrong in this hypothetical.  On one side, a clergy breaks the seal, involves authorities, and removes an abuser from contact with children.  On the other side, the clergy maintains silence, (presumably) councils the abuser to help them stop and earn divine forgiveness, and sends them back into the situation they abused children in.

Choice A:  Abuser is removed, child sees justice happen, child learns that adults will protect them.
Choice B: Abuser may earn divine forgiveness but faces no immediate consequences for their crime, child sees no Justice, child is at risk for future abuse.

I repeat my first comment:  How is this a question?

[Fly320s]

This case brings up two questions, not just the one in the title.

Should religious leaders report child abuse?

Yes.  Absolutely, regardless of how the information was obtained, is my opinion.

Which leads to the second and third questions:

Should religious leaders be legally required to report child abuse?
Should religious leaders be legally protected if they don't report child abuse learned about in confession or other "privileged" discussion?

That is where it gets tricky.  Some professions are required to report abuse, and some are not allowed/protected by law to report abuse.  Doctors are required to report abuse, unless that doctor is a psychologist/psychiatrist treating a patient, then that is privileged information. (At least that is my understanding).  Then you have lawyers who are defending a client.  They can't report the abuse and could be in legal trouble if they do.

If there are a select few groups who are not required to report, such as psychiatrists and lawyers, then I can see extending that same legal protection to the privileged conversation of the confessional.

[dogmush]

This case brings up two questions, not just the one in the title.

Yes.  Absolutely, regardless of how the information was obtained, is my opinion.

Which leads to the second and third questions:

Should religious leaders be legally required to report child abuse?
Should religious leaders be legally protected if they don't report child abuse learned about in confession or other "privileged" discussion?

That is where it gets tricky.  Some professions are required to report abuse, and some are not allowed/protected by law to report abuse.  Doctors are required to report abuse, unless that doctor is a psychologist/psychiatrist treating a patient, then that is privileged information. (At least that is my understanding).  Then you have lawyers who are defending a client.  They can't report the abuse and could be in legal trouble if they do.

If there are a select few groups who are not required to report, such as psychiatrists and lawyers, then I can see extending that same legal protection to the privileged conversation of the confessional.

I don't have the time to look up lawyers rules right now but from a google:

Not everything you share with a therapist can be kept confidential.

What an individual tells his or her therapist is confidential; however, there are limitations to the confidentiality between a therapist and a client.  Laws in all 50 states require a therapist to contact authorities if a patient is a danger to him/herself, to others, and/or if the therapist suspects that a known child is being abused. These reporting laws, as they are applied in your state, are explained to all adults and to guardians of children who seek professional counseling for any reason. Understanding this limitation to confidentiality is important, and applies to anyone seeking medical care or mental health services.

[Ron]

Jesus was condemned for healing on the Sabbath. Also for picking food to eat when hungry on the Sabbath.

He responded by explaining that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Slavish devotion to a religious tradition, at the expense of a child(ren) of all things, is Satanic to the core.

It's an inversion of morality.

Just like the Pharisees.

[MillCreek]

Dogmush is correct vis a vis the obligation of healthcare providers, amongst other professions, to mandatorily report.  It is one of the situations in which we are obliged to breach therapeutic confidentiality.
 
And it has been a very long time since legal ethics, but as I recall, if someone confessed past crimes to me, that was under attorney-client privilege and thus confidential.  If someone told me of their clear and specific intent to commit a future crime or harm someone, that was not under privilege and was not confidential and I may have an obligation to report.  However, under Washington state law, at least, attorneys are not mandatory reporters for child or vulnerable adult abuse.  Breaching attorney-client privilege is a very big thing, and you are advised to first consult with an expert before doing so.

[Ron]

I guess you have to weigh out the importance of following protocol and principle (ie tradition) vs the protecting of the defensesless and innocent.

And we wonder how the pedophile priest scandal or payoffs in the scouts can happen?

Here ya go ...

[Fly320s]

Dogmush is correct vis a vis the obligation of healthcare providers, amongst other professions, to mandatorily report.  It is one of the situations in which we are obliged to breach therapeutic confidentiality.
 
And it has been a very long time since legal ethics, but as I recall, if someone confessed past crimes to me, that was under attorney-client privilege and thus confidential.  If someone told me of their clear and specific intent to commit a future crime or harm someone, that was not under privilege and was not confidential and I may have an obligation to report.  However, under Washington state law, at least, attorneys are not mandatory reporters for child or vulnerable adult abuse.  Breaching attorney-client privilege is a very big thing, and you are advised to first consult with an expert before doing so.

Good to know, thanks.

IMO, that is the way it should be.  Also, IMO, child abusers/molesters should be taken outside and shot in the head.

[Ron]

Cognitive dissonance much?

[Fly320s]

Cognitive dissonance much?

Who?  Where?

[Ben]

Dogmush is correct vis a vis the obligation of healthcare providers, amongst other professions, to mandatorily report.  It is one of the situations in which we are obliged to breach therapeutic confidentiality.
 
And it has been a very long time since legal ethics, but as I recall, if someone confessed past crimes to me, that was under attorney-client privilege and thus confidential.  If someone told me of their clear and specific intent to commit a future crime or harm someone, that was not under privilege and was not confidential and I may have an obligation to report.  However, under Washington state law, at least, attorneys are not mandatory reporters for child or vulnerable adult abuse.  Breaching attorney-client privilege is a very big thing, and you are advised to first consult with an expert before doing so.

So playing devil's advocate, what's the difference between an attorney and a priest?

If it really is about protecting innocent children, and you, as an attorney have a client that tells you he is in fact guilty of sexually assaulting children, shouldn't you immediately drop him as a client and report what he told you (different from representing a client that claims innocence)? How does attorney-client privilege trump priest-confessor privilege, other than we, in the US, just decided it did? I mean, wouldn't a defense attorney in Japan turn his client in?