(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . AZ Supreme Court enables sex abuse in the Mormon Church [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-04-13 Paul Adams Arizonan Paul Adams started sexually abusing his older daughter in the early 2010s. The abuse lasted for seven years. Later he started assaulting his other two children. We know he did because he posted videos of himself sexually abusing his daughters online and boasted about his crimes on social media. In 2017, he confessed his depravity to the authorities. Adams is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — a Mormon. He had told the Church of his crimes against children. They did not report his actions to the police. As a result, Lynne Cadigan, an attorney for the three children, sued the Church . Cadigan summed up the entire case in the first paragraph of her complaint’s introduction. “This case involves horrible sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of children between the ages of six (6) weeks and twelve (12) years old that went on for seven (7) years. The biological father of these victims made videos of his rapes and now these videos are everywhere on the world wide web. The perpetrator admitted his abuse and crimes to his Mormon Church and received counseling for his crimes. The Mormon Church leaders knew about the abuse and yet no one reported these crimes to the authorities. The Mormon Church leaders gave guidance and care to these children for seven (7) years, sat next to them in Church, and allowed these vicious crimes to continue.” Cochise County Superior Court Judge Laura Cardinal ruled that Adams had waived his right to keep a 2010 confession to Bishop John Herrod secret. She said in her ruling. "Taken together, Adams' overt acts demonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregard. His acts can only be characterized as a waiver of the clergy penitent privilege." The Church appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court overturned Cardinal and declared that the Church did not break the law when it covered up the crimes. And further, it did not have to turn over documents or answer any questions regarding the crime. In Arizona, the law requires the clergy to report any information about child sexual abuse or neglect to law enforcement or child welfare authorities. The only exception is a loophole known as the "clergy-penitent privilege." This get-out-of-jail-free card allows members of a church who learn of abuse through spiritual confessions to keep it secret to enable followers to confess their sins without fear of legal action. Even if you accept that confessions are rightfully protected, how can you claim that protection exists after the penitent confesses to the crime — and boasts of it on social media? In this case, the abuser Adams has committed suicide. Whose interests are the Church authorities protecting? The answer is despicable. They are desperate to conceal their complicity in child abuse. They enabled a man — one of their own — to terrify, mortify, and psychologically, possibly even physically, scar three young children with no more concern than swatting a mosquito. Maybe they felt terrible in private — we will never know. Most people hearing this story will assume that the Arizona Supreme Court is made up of conservative religious zealots, much as the US Supreme Court is. It would be better if it were. In Arizona, a bipartisan panel creates a list of candidates for the Court. The governor must select from that list based on merit. After an initial period, the voters can remove a justice by a majority vote in a retention election. In short, this religious exemption is not a facet of theocracy but is mainstream judicial orthodoxy. In addition, the suit claimed that the Church knew of Adams's actions through counseling sessions. Not from the confession box — or however Mormons arrange it. Regardless, the Court extended privacy to cover these non-penitent sessions. I am neither a lawyer nor have I read the rationale of the Church’s decision. However, if these Judges have interpreted the law accurately, the legislature needs to change it. As a national of rights, we must reconsider the concept of confession and its legal protections and incorporate limits to protect the innocent. Religious absolutists will howl about religious freedom. They will point to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) as justification for criminal coverups. But there is a limit to religious freedom. You cannot claim that you have the religious freedom to rape strangers. So how can you justify a claim that your religion has the right to enable someone to rape their kids? It is one thing to cover up a confession to bank robbery, adultery, or lusting after your neighbor. It is another to cover up child abuse — especially as this is rarely a one-time event. Why is confession protected at all? Granting absolution for committing crimes seems like enabling behavior. Our conscience is an effective tool for keeping us on the straight and narrow. Does not having the safety valve of being forgiven for sin blunt that conscience? Food for thought, anyway. As an interim measure, Churches that provide confession need to have exceptions. Lawyers and psychiatrists cannot cover up or enable future crimes. Churches must also tell the authorities if they know a member is an ongoing criminal. The right of someone not to be the victim of a heinous crime must outweigh the religious rights of the criminal. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/13/2163704/-AZ-Supreme-Court-enables-sex-abuse-in-the-Mormon-Church Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/