Push to Require Clergy to Report Child Rape Stalls in Mormon Utah

A push to mandate members of religious clergy report child sexual abuse when it's brought to their attention is facing pushback from churches throughout the United States

By Associated Press

March 1, 2023, at 1:01 a.m.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Lindsey Lundholm looked out over hundreds of people at the Utah State Capitol last year and felt a deep sense of healing. Abuse survivors, religious leaders and major party politicians were all gathered to rally for an end to a legal loophole that exempts religious clergy from being required to report child sexual abuse once it comes to their attention.

Lundholm, one of the rally's organizers, recalled telling the crowd how, growing up as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Idaho, she told her bishop about her painful abuse only to see it go unreported.

Unearthing the trauma wasn't easy, but back in August she hoped reforms could be forthcoming so others would not face what she did.

“There was really a lot of momentum," said Lundholm, now a teacher in northern Utah. “Everyone we were talking to was like, ‘This is a no brainer. This is something that needs to be changed.’”

It hasn't.

Proposals to reform laws that exempt clergy from child sex abuse reporting requirements went nowhere in Utah’s statehouse this year, failing to receive even a hearing as lawmakers prepare to adjourn for the year. Efforts were stymied by a coalition of powerful religious groups, continuing a yearslong pattern in which Catholics, Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses have defended the exemptions as survivors like Lundholm fight for reform.

In Utah, where the majority of lawmakers are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, state law requires most professionals — therapists, doctors and teachers among them — report abuse, yet clergy are exempt from alerting authorities about abuse they learn of through confessions.

Republicans and Democrats announced plans last year to reform laws that exempt religious clergy from reporting child sexual abuse cases revealed in conversations with parishioners.

Behind-the-scenes conversations between legislative leaders in Utah and what Senate President Stuart Adams said was “a broad base of religious groups” helped thwart four separate proposals to add clergy to the list of professionals required to report child sexual abuse.

“I think they have First Amendment rights and religious protections,” Adams, a Latter-day Saint himself, said, noting fears among religious leaders that clergy could be punished for breaking vows of confidentiality.

Each proposal was introduced or announced after an Associated Press investigation found that the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' sexual abuse reporting hotline can be misused by its leaders to divert abuse accusations away from law enforcement and instead to church attorneys who may bury the problem, leaving victims in harm’s way.

In lawsuits detailed in the investigation, attorneys from the faith widely known as the Mormon church have argued clergy-penitent privilege allows them to refuse to answer questions and turn over documents about alleged sexual abuse.

Church officials declined to comment about the stalled legislative efforts. The Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City did not respond to requests for comment but campaigned against them, saying in January that priests and clergy were different from other professionals mandated to report sexual abuse.

“Legislation that would require a priest to (report sexual abuse) violates our right to practice our religion,” Bishop Oscar Solis, of the Salt Lake City Diocese, wrote in a Jan. 25 letter to parishioners.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox last month said he “had no problem with the bills moving forward” and receiving consideration in the statehouse.

“I think it’s an important conversation to have. We’ve encouraged the Legislature to look at this and make sure that our model is the right model,” he told reporters.

Marci Hamilton, chief executive of the abuse prevention nonprofit Child USA, said churches have maintained the same playbook for decades in opposing more disclosure.

Routinely it involves a two-pronged approach, defending clergy-penitent privilege in statehouses and using it to avoid damaging disclosures in court cases, said Hamilton, also a University of Pennsylvania law professor.

"They have not veered from it. Both institutions are hoping that time will simply let everybody start trusting them again," Hamilton said, referring to Catholics and Latter-day Saints.

But, she added, "by preventing the public — and especially the sincere believers — from getting the full story you don’t create the accountability that these organizations should be held to and the secrets continue.”

“The problem in the United States — and this is particularly acute in state like Utah — is that the lobbying power of these religious organizations is so extraordinary,” Hamilton said.

Laws in 33 states exempt clergy — regardless of religion — from laws requiring people report child sexual abuse allegations to authorities. Religious leaders have systematically fought efforts to expand the list of states. They currently oppose efforts from Vermont to Washington, where a proposal advanced through the state Senate Tuesday.

Kansas lawmakers introduced multiple proposals on penalties for not reporting suspected child sexual abuse, including one in the state Senate that would have added clergy to a list of mandatory reporters. It faced especially fierce public rebukes from Catholic leaders because it didn’t exempt confessions. No proposal received even a hearing before an initial deadline this year.

In the wake of the AP's investigation last year, Republican state Rep. Phil Lyman and Democratic Rep. Angela Romero announced plans to reform Utah's clergy-penitent privilege loophole. Lyman, who served six years as a Latter-day Saints' bishop, said at the time lawmakers should want to reexamine the loophole “regardless of religious or political affiliation.”

“People should be able to go and confess their sins to their bishop without fear of being prosecuted up until when they are confessing something that has affected someone’s else life significantly,” he told the AP in August.

Lyman ultimately released a proposal that broadly affirmed clergy's exemption from mandatory reporting. It didn't advance or receive any hearing as lawmakers prepare to adjourn Friday. He did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Proposals from Democratic Reps. Romero and Brian King, and Sen. Stephanie Pitcher to close or narrow the loophole have also not moved forward amid opposition from religious groups.

Both Pitcher and Romero, who is Catholic, said they planned to reintroduce their proposals next year.

“With AP uncovering what they uncovered, you'd think this would be a matter of urgency for this Legislature and for Legislatures across the country. But again we are allowing these institutions to dictate what we mandate,” Romero said, referring to the Catholic Church.

Several Utah lawmakers told AP that opponents of limiting clergy-penitent privilege regarding child sexual abuse had circulated research that they claimed suggests mandatory reporting reform doesn't result in more confirmed reports of sexual abuse and may deter perpetrators from speaking to clergy.

“What most of the research shows is that if people aren’t able to come to them for fear of being reported on, they’re not able to provide the help and support they need,” Sen. Ann Milner said.

However, conclusions drawn from the study, which the Catholic Diocese also circulated in opposition to a similar bill from Romero in three years ago, have been challenged by its authors.

University of Michigan law professor Frank Vandervort and his co-author, Vincent Palusci, a pediatrics professor at New York University, told the AP last year the study was limited, partly because churches often wouldn’t give them access to relevant data.
“A single article should not be the basis for making policy decisions,” Vandervort said. “It may be entirely the case that there’s no connection between the changing of the laws and the number of reports.”

Lundholm said Utah lawmakers adjourning without having a “true public discussion” on any clergy-penitent privilege reform proposal provoked eerily familiar feelings for survivors. Though she never expected political change to happen overnight, she said survivors like her who had abuse go unreported — once again — feel unheard.

“Maybe the worst part is that this is something that survivors experience often, and unfortunately, it’s rare when their stories are heard,” she said.
___
The story has been updated to correct the spelling of the first name of Lindsey Lundholm.
___
Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti in Lansing, Michigan, and John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, contributed to this report.
Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
@SSj_Ness
Because the case is made that the priest can release whatever is told to him "with enough pressure". It doesn't have to be because of the state's guns that he does so.

This is the kind of realization that led to the excess of the Donatist controversy-- being able to be cowed into complying with the state when it critically interferes with your rites does understandably undermine the trust that your flock has in you (of course, it doesn't outright mean you've done something unforgivable or something that invalidates the rites you administer).

I don't think a reasonable version of a law compelling criminal reporting would even include lesser offenses such as theft. Murder and rape are quite a bit different.
Murder, rape, and theft are all felonies. In terms of raw damage, murder is categorically worse, but we recognize the peculiar damage rape can cause.

No right is absolute, I don't mind the state interfering in religions concealing rapists and killers--
It isn't about the rapists and killers, and it isn't just about religion. Rapists and killers will be the stark minority of people affected by removal of these privileged communication exceptions. On top of this, in these specific contexts, a priest normally won't even get enough information beyond the person saying that they raped/murdered/stole from someone in the first place (the priest outright does not want that specific information and usually will not ask for it).

The only net value in forcing the violation of this confidentiality is the undermining the professions that rely on it to operate, because that's the only thing gained. The state either forces them to break their confidentiality, or lie.

When you get railroaded on bogus charges for whatever reason, you'll value not having your private conversations (whether or not you committed a crime) with your attorney being picked apart by a third party that wouldn't have known of them otherwise.

The duty is arbitrary if therapists have it too.
The professions and other circumstances that create relationships wherein privilege can be claimed, are specifically those where the expectation of willing confidentiality is integral to the basic function of the job or circumstance, because the professional needs as much information as possible to effectively do their job-- or because privacy prevents the constant undermining of relationships via state pressure. Without it, you have:
  • husbands being forced to testify against wives, and vice versa
  • therapists or doctors being forced to testify about a time where-- say-- their patient expressed suicidal or homicidal urges, regardless of whether it was demonstrably transient
  • lawyers being forced to testify about another crime the client spoke of committing-- or any other information-- even if it's can't/won't contribute to culpability
There is nothing that a teacher does that requires them to have privileged communications. I explained why.
 
Last edited:
All I'm getting from this thread is that resident Catholics think the technical institutional guideline for a sacrament is more important than stopping a child from being raped, killed etc. Yeah way to fight stereotypes. It's not like Catholics don't already have the reputation of looking the other way when children are molested, but you had to say you agree with it 100 percent in this thread.
 
@SSj_Ness

Because the case is made that the priest can release whatever is told to him "with enough pressure". It doesn't have to be because of the state's guns that he does so.

This is the kind of realization that led to the excess of the Donatist controversy-- being able to be cowed into complying with the state when it critically interferes with your rites does understandably undermine the trust that your flock has in you (of course, it doesn't outright mean you've done something unforgivable or something that invalidates the rites you administer).


Murder, rape, and theft are all felonies. In terms of raw damage, murder is categorically worse, but we recognize the peculiar damage rape can cause.


It isn't about the rapists and killers, and it isn't just about religion. Rapists and killers will be the stark minority of people affected by removal of these privileged communication exceptions. On top of this, in these specific contexts, a priest normally won't even get enough information beyond the person saying that they raped/murdered/stole from someone in the first place (the priest outright does not want that specific information and usually will not ask for it).

The only net value in forcing the violation of this confidentiality is the undermining the professions that rely on it to operate, because that's the only thing gained. The state either forces them to break their confidentiality, or lie.

When you get railroaded on bogus charges for whatever reason, you'll value not having your private conversations (whether or not you committed a crime) with your attorney being picked apart by a third party that wouldn't have known of them otherwise.


The professions and other circumstances that create relationships wherein privilege can be claimed, are specifically those where the expectation of willing confidentiality is integral to the basic function of the job or circumstance, because the professional needs as much information as possible to effectively do their job-- or because privacy prevents the constant undermining of relationships via state pressure. Without it, you have:
  • husbands being forced to testify against wives, and vice versa
  • therapists or doctors being forced to testify about a time where-- say-- their patient expressed suicidal or homicidal urges, regardless of whether it was demonstrably transient
  • lawyers being forced to testify about another crime the client spoke of committing-- or any other information-- even if it's can't/won't contribute to culpability
There is nothing that a teacher does that requires them to have privileged communications. I explained why.
A priest, bishop, whoever the holy man is, is someone you should inherently trust NOT to spill their guts. It's not just about murder or rape, but your inner demons, that are of no harm to others since you have no intent on acting on them, but they bug the hell out of you, and make you feel terrible. The MOMENT the state gets involved, it will get political, ask questions on people it doesn't like. "Hey I guess Joe just hates dogs. Animal abuser. Lock him up" Do you see how easily this can go awry?
 
Because the case is made that the priest can release whatever is told to him "with enough pressure". It doesn't have to be because of the state's guns that he does so.
Wait, so the priest can already can turn them in? Why wouldn't he if he can?

Murder, rape, and theft are all felonies. In terms of raw damage, murder is categorically worse, but we recognize the peculiar damage rape can cause.
IIRC, theft is different than robbery, the latter including the use or threat of force. Theft is quite a bit below not only murder and rape, but robbery too.

It isn't about the rapists and killers, and it isn't just about religion. Rapists and killers will be the stark minority of people affected by removal of these privileged communication exceptions.
They don't need to be removed, just altered for the sake of exceptions which include violence. The only people that would change anything for are people who need to be in jail.

On top of this, in these specific contexts, a priest normally won't even get enough information beyond the person saying that they raped/murdered/stole from someone in the first place (the priest outright does not want that specific information and will not ask for it).
The rest is the job for investigators anyway.

When you get railroaded on bogus charges for whatever reason, you'll value not having your private conversations (whether or not you committed a crime) with your attorney being picked apart by a third party that wouldn't have known of them otherwise.
If I'm innocent then I'd send out copies of my conversations upon request, and send it to news stations without request. And I don't see why a lawyer would divulge anything unnecessarily to begin with, it'd be a blatant conflict of interest unless I admitted guilt.

The professions that create relationships wherein privilege can be claimed are professions where the expectation of willing confidentiality is integral to the basic function of the job or circumstance. because the professional needs as much information as possible to effectively do their job. Without it, you have:
  • husbands being forced to testify against wives, and vice versa
  • therapists or doctors being forced to testify about a time where-- say-- their patient expressed suicidal or homicidal urges, regardless of whether it was demonstrably transient
  • lawyers being forced to testify about another crime the client spoke of committing-- or any other information-- even if it's can't/won't contribute to culpability
There is nothing that a teacher does that requires them to have privileged communications. I explained why.
I suppose the one exception which makes sense is marriage exceptions against testifying in court (though I'm all for making fags testify against each other).

Urges aren't against the law, so they shouldn't even factor in, only intent should matter. If a therapist is told that a murder is about to take place, we really should not value their confidentiality above the lives of others. Even a spouse should be held liable for not reporting a serious crime about to happen (I believe the gunman's wife in the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre didn't call police, that's nuts).

As for teachers, I suppose you're right today concerning their modern roles, but you can look back to Confucian ethics (or even just teaching roles in early American history) and see how different things have become. Not to weeb out, but I think the anime Great Teacher Onizuka must have been somewhat influenced by these traditional notions of teaching extending beyond rote arithmetic. You can see a sort of perverse, twisted, bizarro world version of this in modern libtard teachers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkling Yuzu
I'm saying if you enable child sexual abuse you should be shot. Not reporting child sexual abuse to the authorities you know about is enabling it. What is hard to understand about that? Are you a pedophile?
Whistleblower priests have been known to be suicided. Added to that certain bishops make sure that the cops are their pals via things like effective chaplaincy and support to the social service side of policing. And abusers (Ted McCarrick for example) would handled any prospective colleague priest grassing on them by making their confession to that priest putting the whole admission under the Seal of Confession. Now Confession of something someone intends to do again shows a complete lack of sincere repentance so would seem invalid, but another weapon Uncle Ted was energetic networking. Reports on him landed on the desks of his pals, who at most might send it to an understanding officer whispering that the report originates with a crank. Sometimes a lack of reporting can be a result of a cynical realisation that there result will be between zero or might rebound on the victim or whistleblower. It's all sort of shit.
 
All I'm getting from this thread is that resident Catholics think the technical institutional guideline for a sacrament is more important than stopping a child from being raped, killed etc. Yeah way to fight stereotypes. It's not like Catholics don't already have the reputation of looking the other way when children are molested, but you had to say you agree with it 100 percent in this thread.

This argument is just the BAN GUNS NOW!!!! argument after a school shooting. The 2nd Amendment is bigger than the death of a kid, sorry. The sanctity of the act of confession is bigger than a diddled kid. Again, the example of lawyer-client confidentiality and doctor-patient privilege were brought up and are valid.

I am not a catholic, or even a christian. But this tired old "won't someone think of the children" bullshit is tiresome.
 
IIRC, theft is different than robbery,
They're both felonies, and they're both crimes to begin with.

They don't need to be removed, just altered for the sake of exceptions which include violence.
Why specifically those, versus any other felony-- or any other criminal offense, for that matter?

If I'm innocent then I'd send out copies of my conversations upon request, and send it to news stations without request.
How is this different than saying "if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide"?

Urges aren't against the law
That you admit to them in a specific context can be used against you if the information is gotten ahold of, even if they themselves are not crimes. This is related to why you don't talk to cops when you're being arrested-- because anything you say can be used against you, in the way the state wants to and is able to use it against you.

If a therapist is told that a murder is about to take place--
--then it's not privileged communication. This is an exception to privileged communication, along with admission of crimes in progress at the time of admission, as well as the stated intention to cover up a completed crime (something that is itself a crime). On the other hand, admissions of thitherto completed crimes (whatever constitutes an offense count) are covered by therapist-patient privilege.

Even a spouse should be held liable for not reporting a serious crime about to happen
See above.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
Reactions: Mothra1988
The sanctity of the act of confession is bigger than a diddled kid.
I can't think of anyone who would type this setence other than a pedophile. Stay way from kids please. Also I'm pretty sure covering for a child rapist who will likely continue victimizing that child is a bigger sin than a priest breaking some technical rule regarding a Catholic sacrament. You people are absolute lunatics.
 
They're both felonies, and they're both crimes to begin with.
Jaywalking is a crime, nobody's interested in getting priests to fess up to any crime that doesn't involve hurting other people.

Why specifically those, versus any other felony-- or any other criminal offense, for that matter?
"Thank you Father, we'll be sure to haul in the man whose library late fees added up"

How is this different than saying "if you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide"?
A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include explicitly hiding crimes.

That you admit to them in a specific context can be used against you if the information is gotten ahold of, even if they themselves are not crimes. This is related to why you don't talk to cops when you're being arrested-- because anything you say can be used against you, in the way the state wants to and is able to use it against you.
In what context can they be used against you if you don't commit a crime? If I get urges of killing my neighbor then it's of no consequence unless I do, or at least attempt to.

--then it's not privileged communication. This is an exception to privileged communication, along with admission of crimes in progress at the time of admission, as well as the stated intention to cover up a completed crime. On the other hand, admissions of completed crimes (whatever constitutes an offense count) are covered by therapist-patient privilege.
So there's already exceptions? Well, I don't think I need to spell out my argument from here, then.
 
Last edited:
--then it's not privileged communication. This is an exception to privileged communication, along with admission of crimes in progress at the time of admission, as well as the stated intention to cover up a completed crime (something that is itself a crime). On the other hand, admissions of thitherto completed crimes (whatever constitutes an offense count) are covered by therapist-patient privilege.
Child abuse is almost never a one and done crime. It's an ongoing pattern of continued abuse in most cases. IB4 you ignore this like the last time I brought it up.

A priest, bishop, whoever the holy man is, is someone you should inherently trust NOT to spill their guts. It's not just about murder or rape, but your inner demons, that are of no harm to others since you have no intent on acting on them, but they bug the hell out of you, and make you feel terrible. The MOMENT the state gets involved, it will get political, ask questions on people it doesn't like. "Hey I guess Joe just hates dogs. Animal abuser. Lock him up" Do you see how easily this can go awry?
>the state shouldn't be involved in murder or rape because it will get political
Yeah, okay, Mormon. lol
 
Murder and rape should always be reported and prosecuted and never hand waived no matter the justification. You have no moral fiber, which is not surprising given your background.
Spare me. Unlike you I do have a backbone. Rights before safety. End of discussion. The priest isn't required to give up his 1st amendment rights for your feelings. Fuck your argument, exact same shit with guns. You wanna solve the sex assault problem, actually give a damn about raising the younger men instead of hating them.
 
Actually, Joseph Smith claimed an angel named Moroni visited him. It also doesn't look like moron developed as a pejorative for Mormons either: https://www.etymonline.com/word/moron. I kind of like to imagine Mormons get a few points deducted for this...
The term "mormon" came from all the mobs yelling that at us while they came to kill us. Officially we are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or LDS for short.
 
Spare me. Unlike you I do have a backbone. Rights before safety. End of discussion. The priest isn't required to give up his 1st amendment rights for your feelings. Fuck your argument, exact same shit with guns. You wanna solve the sex assault problem, actually give a damn about raising the younger men instead of hating them.
How does allowing murder and rape to occur without recourse refer to "rights before safety." It's other people's right to not be murdered and raped being taken from them. It's their safety being violated, and they should be protected above anything else if society works. If that does not occur, society is broken. Dude, you are really bad at debating. You always prove you're fine with the lowest denominator you are accused of, and now you're saying not reporting murders and rapes is okay. It's insane. No real Christian talks like this.
 
How does allowing murder and rape to occur without recourse refer to "rights before safety." It's other people's right to not be murdered and raped being taken from them. It's their safety being violated, and they should be protected above anything else if society works. If that does not occur, society is broken. Dude, you are really bad at debating, you always prove you're fine with the lowest denominator you are accused of, and now you're saying not reporting murders and rapes is okay. It's insane. No real Christian talks like this.
Actually no. It's their right to defend themselves. No where in the constitution does it say you have a right to safety. You do have a right to speak and practice your religion however. Read the laws moth.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Mothra1988
Actually no. It's their right to defend themselves. No where in the constitution does it say you have a right to safety. You do have a right to speak and practice your religion however. Read the laws moth.
Providing safety is the most basic service government is supposed to provide. It's why most governments exist. Imagine defending murders and pedophiles and thinking you're on the side of the lord. The Bible also said people should follow the law of the government, but apparently Catholics and Mormons think they know better than the Bible and Paul's epistles.
 
Providing safety is the most basic service government is supposed to provide. It's why most governments exist. Imagine defending murders and pedophiles and thinking you're on the side of the lord. The Bible also said people should follow the law of the government, but apparently Catholics and Mormons think they know better than the Bible and Paul's epistles.
The "government " being the Roman's, killed christ, killed the apostles, nearly wiped Christianity out- I don't even need to get into the Mormon shit. Government Is a nessicary burden, and nothing more. Buy a gun. Have 911 on speed dial. Defend yourself. You are wicked and selfish trying to get society to bend to your whims.
 
Back