Barry Duke, the Angry Atheist

Search

Search

1. 

   “The curriculum had already drawn tensions among the county’s religious parents, with some worrying about appropriateness and arguing the material…

2. 

   As someone who produced dozens of nativity plays as a teacher and a Sunday School leader, that title ‘A Gay…

3. 

   The defence of a Christian view never seems to be settled by debate: exchange of facts, reference to historical events.…

4. 

   But …… Rwanda is a safe place: Parliament says so.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/contentsSafety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 S 2 Safety…

5. 

   Religion can survive only on the most unquestionable assumptions. The statements made on Sundays on the BBC as if they…

IF The Church of Latter-Day Saints had reported to authorities that one of its members—Paul Douglas Adams—was a child rapist, his two daughters may have been spared years of sexual abuse.

The church was fully aware that Adams began abusing one daughter from the age of five until she was 11. He also abused her infant sister, whom he reportedly found difficult to penetrate.

He frequently recorded the abuse on video and posted footage on the Internet.

But because the Mormons allows members of the clergy, who learn of the abuse through “spiritual confessions”, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling this week that said the church was not obligated to disclose Adams’ crimes to the authorities, citing “clergy penitent privilege.”

The lawsuit, brought before the court by the Adams girls and one of their brothers, said that the failure of the church and two of its bishops to report Adams allowed him to continue the abuse for years.

Adams escaped justice

Image via YouTube/AP

Adams, above, a US Border Patrol agent, committed suicide in late 2017 while awaiting trial on state and federal charges.

He was arrested for sharing several videos of the abuse, including a graphic nine-minute video filmed inside the family’s Bisbee home which federal authorities used to identify him.

He later admitted abusing his 11-year-old daughter for several years. He even described to investigators the difficulty he had trying to vaginally penetrate his recently-born infant daughter.

Image via YouTube

Lynne Cadigan, above, an attorney for the Adams children , criticised the court’s ruling

Unfortunately, this ruling expands the clergy privilege beyond what the legislature intended by allowing churches to conceal crimes against children.

The church based its defense on the “clergy penitent privilege”, asserting that Bishop John Herrod and a second bishop—Robert “Kim” Mauzy— who learned of Adams’ confession, had no legal obligation to report him for the abuse.

The Arizona Supreme Court agreed. It ruling that the church can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law that exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting.

The AP reports that the seven years of secrecy in the Adams case began when church attorneys in Salt Lake City advised Herrod and later Mauzy thay they were exempt from reporting requirements under the state’s child abuse reporting law because of “clergy-penitent privilege”.

Herrod said he was told during an interview with federal investigators:

You absolutely can do nothing.

Writing for the AP, Michael Rezendes said Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law, and similar laws in more than 20 states, says clergy, physicians, nurses, or anyone caring for a child who “reasonably believes” the child has been abused or neglected has a legal obligation to report the information to police or the state Department of Child Safety.

But it also says that clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions ‘may withhold’ that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is ‘reasonable and necessary’ under church doctrine.

An attempted ‘money grab’

An Arizona attorney, William Maledon, who defended the bishops and the church told the AP that Herrod and Mauzy—and by extension the church—were acting within the law and in accordance with their “religious principles.”

These bishops did nothing wrong. They didn’t violate the law, and therefore they can’t be held liable.

He also called the Adams children’s lawsuit “a money grab.”

You can also support my work via a one-off donation via PayPal, Buy Me a Coffee or GofundMe.

If you spot any typos in this report, please alert me via email: freethinkered@aol.