Recordings show how the Mormon church protects itself from child sex abuse claims
Paul Rytting listened as a woman, voice quavering, told him her story.
When she was a child, her father, a former bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had routinely slipped into bed with her while he was aroused, she said.
It was March 2017 and Rytting offered his sympathies as 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich spoke. A Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division, Rytting had spent about 15 years protecting the organization, widely known as the Mormon church, from costly claims, including sexual abuse lawsuits.
…
Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. In particular, the church would discourage Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea’s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a member of clergy should be allowed to hear an adult say, "I molested that child last week" and not have to report it?
Is that what you are saying? I want to hear it from you straight.
That is not what I'm saying. I have no qualms with mandatory reporting when it comes to child abuse. I am simply explaining the law in Idaho, which states that a clergy members must have permission from a penitent in order to divulge the contents of a confession. I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm saying it is that way. That's how it works right now, and that's why Bishop Miller could not testify against John Goodrich.
Also, this is not a case of "I molested a child last week." This is a case of "I molested a child a decade ago." I'm not saying it's less bad, I'm just saying it's different. The urgency of removing a child from that situation doesn't exist when the victim is no longer a child and no longer a subject of abuse.
Okay, and if it happened years ago but the victim is now 14 instead of 6 and they're still in the same environment as their abuser?
"Giving (potential) victimizers a line of support via organized religion to try to help them not commit sex crimes against children (in the future, or again)" is not a good argument because it has been shown time and time again that religious institutions cannot be trusted to reliably take the correct course of action and be accountable. That is the role of the government and law enforcement. It is unacceptable to put the feelings of adults over the safety of children and other victims, and organized religions have a tendency to protect those with power and influence over protecting the vulnerable.
Still not the same thing. We're not talking about a 14 year old still living in the same environment as their abuser, we're talking about a 31 year old not living in the same environment as their abuser.
Yeah I don't care. I'm not here to make exceptions for pedophiles and abusers.