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.
 
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.

I just thinking you are bringing up an incredibly rare specific occurrance. And simply using that as a cudgel to attack Catholicism. Like how many times do you actually think a child has gone to a confessional. And apparently this child has no freedom of movement or a phone so they can't go to the cops. So the Priest can't advise them to report themselves. And the Priest has to be such a piece of shit, that he doesn't even bother making something like an anonymous tip due to the extreme nature of the situation?

This is the bizarrely unlikely scenario you are describing is the point you've been pushing to have a go at Catholicism for several pages.
 
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.
The government prosecuting murder and rape is not a necessary burden, it's the basic function of government. Trying to have child rape stopped is not "wicked and selfish," what you are advocating for, letting child rape and murder occur, is certainly wicked and selfish. Trying to protect children from Mormons or anyone else raping them is not "trying to get society to bend to my whims."

Okay, now you're saying Paul was wrong. Yeah, I'm going with what Paul said in Romans over the conman with 40 wives, Joseph Smith, and his magical underwear and buried gold tablets.
 
I just thinking you are bringing up an incredibly rare specific occurrance. And simply using that as a cudgel to attack Catholicism. Like how many times do you actually think a child has gone to a confessional. And apparently this child has no freedom of movement or a phone so they can't go to the cops. So the Priest can't advise them to report themselves. And the Priest has to be such a piece of shit, that he doesn't even bother making something like an anonymous tip due to the extreme nature of the situation?

This is the bizarrely unlikely scenario you are describing is the point you've been pushing to have a go at Catholicism for several pages.
Agree, there are so many options before the government has to fist the priest into compliance on this pretty small issue.
The government prosecuting murder and rape is not a necessary burden, it's the basic function of government. Trying to have child rape stopped is not "wicked and selfish," what you are advocating for, letting child rape and murder occur, is certainly wicked and selfish. Trying to protect children from Mormons or anyone else raping them is not "trying to get society to bend to my whims."

Okay, now you're saying Paul was wrong. Yeah, I'm going with what Paul said in Romans over the conman with 40 wives, Joseph Smith, and his magical underwear and buried gold tablets.
Ok, put down the 5th keyboard you've smashed today, jerk off or whatever, and Believe what you want to believe, because you just want to bash Catholicism as nothing bit pedo protectors, same with Mormons. You cannot be reasoned with.
EDIT: The underwear let's me fly like Harry Potter on his broom, that's why all Mormons have it.
 
Agree, there are so many options before the government has to fist the priest into compliance on this pretty small issue.

Ok, put down the 5th keyboard you've smashed today, jerk off or whatever, and Believe what you want to believe, because you just want to bash Catholicism as nothing bit pedo protectors, same with Mormons. You cannot be reasoned with.
You're literally defending not reporting child rape (and even murder). I didn't make you do that, you did that on your own.

The priest, if he wasn't a godless piece of shit, should report the child raping to the police so the child is protected from future harm. The fact you need a law to cuase that happen is pathetic, and so are you and the Orthodox guy defending the idea that child rapsits shouldn't be reported.

>you're angry and smashing keyboards
Nice, projection, Mormon. lol
 
You're literally defending not reporting child rape (and even murder). I didn't make you do that, you did that on your own.

The priest, if he wasn't a godless piece of shit, should report the child raping to the police so the child is protected from future harm. The fact you need a law to cuase that happen is pathetic, and so are you and the Orthodox guy defending the idea that child rapsits shouldn't be reported.

>you're angry and smashing keyboards
Nice, projection, Mormon. lol
You ignored everything @870EVO Said. And jokes on you. I'm phone posting. You're the only one with a keyboard to smash. So if the shoe fits...
 
This is autism right? How can you have this little self awareness?

And looks like you are out of ammo again and have no retorts left. Great job, Mormon. Just stop defending pedophile rapists please.
YES, mega autism *extreme scarcasm*. And I gave you my retort, you've just been staring at that monitor too long.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Mothra1988
YES, mega autism *extreme scarcasm*. And I gave you my retort, you've just been staring at that monitor too long.
What you said for the past several replies was just offtopic crying and had nothing to do with what I said. You literally cried about me not responding to some other autist to take the heat off yourself.
 
I'd have respect for the church if they actually held people responsible for their confessed crimes. None of this "you are forgiven, as long as you recite the rosary 50 times and pinky promise to never do it again" bullshit. Priests should be telling criminals: you need to report yourself to the local authorities, and only then will God forgive you.

Reporting your crimes is the prerequisite for your forgiveness. If you don't confess to the police, then you don't get to go to heaven, and don't bother returning to my church, rapist scum.

The church gets to keep their weird confidentiality rule, and rapists either 1) face legal consequences, or 2) burn in hell forever (if you believe in that)

Do clergy not have the power to do this? and if they do, why do they still insist on shielding rapists?
 
Seeing as you're seething about stickers, let me actually explain something. I wasn't negrating you because I'm a child rapist, instead mandatory reporting isn't as effective as you seem to think, and there are valid reasons to not want to report something. The most obvious is that if one suspects a person is lying, or otherwise the claims might be bogus, you wouldn't want to be compelled to report it.

However more substantively, and this I can back with some evidence, the already extant mandatory reporting for instances regarding child abuse do not seem to be effective according to research. In fact (although I'd put this source lower down the evidence totem pole) it might actually make things worse. A meta analysis of articles also seems to indicate that the supermajority of articles regarding the topic are suggesting negative outcomes in fact.

So no, you are being a shrieking pansy over nothing. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile.
 
The priest...should report the child raping to the police so the child is protected from future harm...need a law to cuase that happen...
This is idiotic dripple.

Let's assume some things
1) The law you want gets passed, it's now mandatory for a priest to report abuse
2) A child tells a priest of the abuse after the law is passed
3) This priest for whatever reason, doesn't tell anyone, let alone the authorities.
4) The child later tells some person who does report the abuse and tells them that they already told the priest
5) The abuse is found genuine and the pedo is convicted

At this point and only at this point is it possible for this law to serve any use to anyone. But now, it's dependent on local prosecutors ignoring other cases to go after the priest and prosecuting that priest for the crime of not reporting. And for what outcome? A fine, or prison time? And how long, if prison time. A year or five or a decade?

All of which will only happen in all likely hood that the DA is a soro's DA and which means this law or laws like it are nothing more than cudgels to be used against Christians practicing their faith.
 
Seeing as you're seething about stickers, let me actually explain something. I wasn't negrating you because I'm a child rapist, instead mandatory reporting isn't as effective as you seem to think, and there are valid reasons to not want to report something. The most obvious is that if one suspects a person is lying, or otherwise the claims might be bogus, you wouldn't want to be compelled to report it.

However more substantively, and this I can back with some evidence, the already extant mandatory reporting for instances regarding child abuse do not seem to be effective according to research. In fact (although I'd put this source lower down the evidence totem pole) it might actually make things worse. A meta analysis of articles also seems to indicate that the supermajority of articles regarding the topic are suggesting negative outcomes in fact.

So no, you are being a shrieking pansy over nothing. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile.
Child rape accusations should always be investigated by the police, because protecting children and stopping abuse is important. The police will be able to tell if its a lie or not. Also why the fuck would a person go to confession and lie? Wouldn't' they just not go to confession then? WTF is the point? This is a retarded argument and seems to be a figleaf at most. The fact you had fudged garbage stats that say child abuse should go unreported is highly suspicious.

I don't care if it pulls up some false positives, because A. the police will figure it out, and B. if it saves one child from sexual abuse it is worth the effort

>lolicon avatar person getting personal over being told that child rape should always be reported
>you're a pansy for wanting child rapitss punished
Yeah, notthing suspicous going on here. lol
 
Jaywalking is a crime, nobodies interested in getting priests to fess up to any crime that doesn't involve hurting other people.
Jaywalking is punished at all because of its potential to hurt other people by way of provoking traffic accidents. Jaywalking is also a "petty offense" that won't even call for a jury trial, if any trial is called for.

"Thank you Father, we'll be sure to haul in the man whose library late fees added up"
This isn't even a civil offense, let alone criminal-- your account would be sent to collections for this, and you'd be harassed by debt collectors.

This isn't a relevant example at all.

A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include explicitly hiding crimes.
The professional allowed to invoke privilege isn't involved in the commission of the completed crime. They're not hiding anything; they're allowed to not divulge communications between them and their client outside of broad exceptions, communications which consequently may include a confession to a crime already completed (something that by itself will not suffice for conviction, since you still need to prove that the person committed the crime).

Individuals also have the right to not be compelled to say that they committed a crime. This is particularly relevant: unlike therapists or priests, detectives and police officers do not establish a relationship with a suspect that necessitates privacy in the same way-- they are state agents that work to build a case against you, and they will literally cut up and take out of context statements you made to them in order to accomplish this.

Without communication privilege, the state will also do the exact same thing with normally private communications you've had between professionals with whom you share all kinds of details (because they're necessary for them to do their job on a basic level). They can even do this with your spouse. This is regardless of whether you even stated you did something criminal, because they need to access those communications in the first place to determine whether you stated any such thing.

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.
If you're falsely arrested for a murder attempt on your neighbor, the jury learning that you "plotted to kill your neighbor" (really, you made an offhand empathic comment to your therapist about wanting to strangle your neighbor because he constantly causes noise disturbances) is not going to help your case.

So there's already exceptions?
You have this weird sense of communication privilege itself being created to "hide crimes" rather than protect a potentially innocent individual from a state looking to throw the book at him using whatever they can get their hands on.

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.
When charged and convicted, a count of child abuse (in any of its works) is one occurrence of such-- a completed crime, regardless of whether it's part of a string of occurrences. I ignored you the last time because you could have searched up the distinction on your own to talk about, if you were somehow not able to understand how charges work. I don't imagine you don't understand, because I assume you're an adult.

Then again, you posted an article that falsely implied that therapists and doctors don't also have the same communication privilege that priests have in the state of Utah, you ignore contrary arguments not already answered to (unlike anybody else here), you're mooing about "real Christianity" and "what Jesus and Paul said" while being a self-avowed active lesbian, and you've never valued being correct versus winning an argument by your own admission.

I'm uninterested in arguing with fem-Vaush.

Do clergy not have the power to do this?
They do, but this is besides the point. We're not talking about absolution-- we're talking about the confessional seal wherein they have to hear that the penitent committed a crime in the first place before they do anything else.
 
This is idiotic dripple.

Let's assume some things
1) The law you want gets passed, it's now mandatory for a priest to report abuse
2) A child tells a priest of the abuse after the law is passed
3) This priest for whatever reason, doesn't tell anyone, let alone the authorities.
4) The child later tells some person who does report the abuse and tells them that they already told the priest
5) The abuse is found genuine and the pedo is convicted

At this point and only at this point is it possible for this law to serve any use to anyone. But now, it's dependent on local prosecutors ignoring other cases to go after the priest and prosecuting that priest for the crime of not reporting. And for what outcome? A fine, or prison time? And how long, if prison time. A year or five or a decade?

All of which will only happen in all likely hood that the DA is a soro's DA and which means this law or laws like it are nothing more than cudgels to be used against Christians practicing their faith.
Pretneding liket his is the only or likley scenairo is dumb. Here are some other ones:

1) Pedo feels guilty and confessed to priest.
2) Preist forgives him.
3) Pedo gets urge to molest again and more children are victimized.

Here's another one:

1) Child who looks up to priest as someone that can help them tells priest about the sexual abuse.
2) Priest does nothing.
3) Child ends up dead or continues to be abused after feeling helpless.

Like I said the fact, you need a law to make this happen is patheitc. My assumption is that priest are bad people just trying to play a role then and are more concerned with avoiding controversy to protect a hierarchy than helping people.
 
Child rape accusations should always be investigated by the police, because protecting children and stopping abuse is important. The police will be able to tell if its a lie or not. Also why the fuck would a person go to confession and lie? Wouldn't' they just not go to confession then? WTF is the point? This is a retarded argument and seems to be a figleaf at most. The fact you had fudged garbage stats that say child abuse should go unreported is highly suspicious.

I don't care if it pulls up some false positives, because A. the police will figure it out, and B. if it saves one child from sexual abuse it is worth the effort

>lolicon avatar person getting personal over being told that child rape should always be reported
>you're a pansy for wanting child rapitss punished
Yeah, notthing suspicous going on here. lol
Why don't you care about the fact that the evidence seems to be pointing to your position leading to more children being abused and harmed? I'm literally here arguing for the position the evidence seems to be indicating leads to less child rape.

You certainly seem to be the only one so solidly determined to push for the position that makes child rape worse. The retard doth protest too much methinks.
 
@Zero Day Defense

When charged and convicted, a count of child abuse (in any of its works) is one occurrence of such-- a completed crime, regardless of whether it's part of a string of occurrences. I ignored you the last time because you could have searched up the distinction on your own to talk about, if you were somehow not able to understand how charges work. I don't imagine you don't understand, because I assume you're an adult.

The point is the perpetrator isn't convicted yet and is likley to continue abusing this child if the priest does not report it. As much as you disagree with me, I thought you were smarter than this. This is an awful argument that absolutely no one would buy into.

Why would people rape children? Or kill their wives? Or commit embezzlement? Or be a woman?

People lie. Especially li'l taddletales spreadin' stories. They shouldn't be taddlin' like that!
On the other hand, only a complete psycho would lie about raping children. So it would still be the right thing to report it so they get psychiatric help. As for a child that tries to get help from an adult, the first instinct of that adult should be to help them. If it's completely made up, then the crime shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm pretty sure the prisons are not filled with innocent child molesters, sorry.
 
On the other hand, only a complete psycho would lie about raping children.
Oh well it's a good thing we don't have any of those in the world.
So it would still be the right thing to report it so they get psychiatric help.
This is pretty insidious. Should priests be mandated reporters of all mental illnesses, then? You're willing to call the van in over lies? What if somebody's suicidal, or has intrusive violent thoughts, or is a woman? Should we call the van then?
 
Oh well it's a good thing we don't have any of those in the world.

This is pretty insidious. Should priests be mandated reporters of all mental illnesses, then? You're willing to call the van in over lies? What if somebody's suicidal, or has intrusive violent thoughts, or is a woman? Should we call the van then?
Oh no, someone's dog died, their feeling down, quick, get the feds, pump him full of meds!
 
Back