State supreme court rules in case of two bishops who were silent about three children abused by Mormon parents

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 That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.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

  • dogslayeggs
    1·
    5 days ago

    A) The priest does not believe it condemns them to eternal damnation. They know they will get excommunicated, but that does not mean they will go to hell. They can repent and be forgiven and go to heaven, just not eat a wafer at church. They can even still go to Catholic mass! They just can’t eat the wafer. That’s the entirety of their punishment, as long as they repent of their sin. If they are fighting so hard to protect child molesters because they don’t want to get kicked out of church, then clearly they would repent being forced to follow the law instead of following their god’s law.

    B) This is allowing very real torture of a child because an adult has a hypothetical belief. In your analogy of a schizophrenic, you complain about “You’re basically locking someone up for the crime of being mentally ill.” Turn that around to be the more correct analogy: You’re basically condemning a child to sexual abuse and a lifetime of mental torture because you didn’t want to lock up a mentally ill person. Being mentally ill is not a crime. Acting out something that harms another person IS a crime. Yeah, maybe priests don’t get sent to prison, but maybe they get sent to a mental health facility where they can talk about why their god cares more about protecting pedophiles instead of innocent children.

    C) I don’t know if the priest would have to give that disclaimer. That isn’t settled law anywhere. Also, in your hypothetical, the confessing person is religious and believes that if they don’t confess this sin they will go to hell. So their choice is between going to hell for eternity or telling a priest who will report them to the police, who may or may not be able to get a conviction depending on the evidence. If a person is religious enough to be confessing pedophilia, that person will believe that eternal damnation is worse than 20 years in prison.