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.

  • Jonny@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Those laws exist because they were lobbied for. It is not bigoted to hate laws that exist to protect abusers or those who are happy to use them. And I am not American, fortunately no such evil protections have been allowed in my country.

    Also thinking it is extremist and bigoted to be against laws that exist to protect abusers and those that support them is certainly a take…

    I also assume you have taken it as bigoted because you are American and assume that this applies to all clergy. But there are in fact clergy in the world that don’t support such thing. And shockingly many other countries where such disgusting laws don’t exist.

    • BaldProphet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s worth pointing out that the only person actually protected here is the accused. The clergy-penitent privilege law doesn’t actually protect the Church at all in this case.

      • Jonny@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is also worth pointing out that, that changes nothing about what I said. It all still applies.

      • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s worth pointing our again to you that it’s a granted exemption from reporting, it does not bar that clergy from reporting it mearly gives them a legal excuse not to report. But go on about how it’s not protecting the clergy or church from disclosure.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          Wrong. The Bishop cannot divulge the contents of the confession without permission from the penitent.

          • fsmacolyte@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • BaldProphet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • fsmacolyte@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.