Paragons of Virtue Arrested

588 readers

3 users here now

It's time to name and shame the self-proclaimed paragons of virtue. Keep it civil, though.

Stories are about those who have been placed in positions of trust, and then abused that trust.

Feel free to add stories of the self-righteous from other walks of life.

New rule: With regard to stories of particularly, but not only, female teachers sexually assaulting students. Any comments similar to "where were they when I was in school" will earn you the right to find another forum.

#notadragqueen

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DevCat@lemmy.world

125

Recordings show how the Mormon church protects itself from child sex abuse claims (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/priest_arrested@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how [Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division] Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John [Goodrich]’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 [Bishop Michael] 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 {Goodrich}'s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What constituency would be supportive of that bill in the first place?

[–] aelwero@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What constituency would not?

The state mandating church administration is no better than the church dictating matters of state.

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not in favor of a carve out that allows a rapist or murderer to confess their crimes to a religious person and that religious person is not bound by any law to divulge it specifically because they are a religious person. What or whose purpose does that serve?

Is this a free speech issue for you? Must we have the speaking right to confess rape and murder without consequence? Is this a religious freedom issue? Must a child rapist be permitted to talk about their rape freely with their religious establishment? Is their right to do that more important than a raped child's right to justice?

The church needs to be a safe space for rapists and murderers or else our rights have been infringed?

I honestly don't know where you were going there.

[–] aelwero@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What purpose does it serve to deny confession? Does the removal of the religious practice deter or prevent crimes? Catch criminals?

The ability to confess isn't enabling criminals. Your logic, if we accept it as valid (and frankly, im not gonna say I don't...) would suggest that the concept that God forgives sinners is the actual enabling mechanism, and that any church suggesting such is complicit simply by existing.

If the state is responsible for ensuring religion doesn't enable crime, then why not simply make religion illegal? Because reasons? Whatever those reasons are, is exactly why church and state need not be given any reign over one another.

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So let's say confession (which is not in the Christian bible in any way, shape, or form) didn't exist previously and we were coming up with it now. You and I had decided that this was an important right for religious people. We tell the state that we no longer want our members to be bound by mandatory reporting laws because God forgives sinners and confessing your crimes to a religious member isn't enabling crime anyway.

And at some point, someone would ask if we also meant no mandatory reporting for child sex abuse crimes and we'd be like hell yea man. This is our religious and this is religious freedom and it's important.

And then we would be laughed out of the room and every other room on this planet. We would be personas non-grata, because seriously who the hell would argue for something like that?

Traditionalism doesn't do anything for me, and the state having a muscular, aggressive response to mandatory reporting laws (of which I am also bound as a sports coach for middle schoolers) is A-OK with me.

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'd argue it's actually much better that the state mandates church administration than the church dictating matters of the state.