- — - — - — -
I've edited here, two days later, to add these two paragraphs. A new Associated Press article, published Aug. 18, 2022 describes the lengths the church is going legally and financially to protect the confidentiality of the deceased abuser. Really it is the confidentiality of the two bishops and priesthood leaders they seem to want to protect. This feels like they are fighting directly against the victims here instead of for them. It feels like the church's actions are not lining up with the words in their second response.
My husband and I were talking about how the church is fighting more to maintain the general right for clergy-confession confidentiality, because it can be a slipery slope precedent later on for any confidentiality protections. Maybe their hope is that there will be more motivation for congregants to confess “sins" knowing it will stay confident. But to what purpose? If the clergy can't or won't report afterward, where lies the purpose of confidential confession!? Confidentiality does not protect victims, it does not motivate more reporting; it does seem to protect both clergy and confessor though. This confidentiality is what our church is paying abundantly to protect rather than victims. It would be nice instead to see the church use their legal resources to fight for more manditory reporting laws amongst clergy.
- — - — - — -
I’ve already hashed out what I thought of the church’s original response. So here’s my opinion on their second attempt. It was definitely better than the first response. Not great, but better.
I’ve categorized my observations from this second response, graded them, and given my insights on each one (I’m in back-to-school mode, I guess, ha ha.)
Clarification (A-)
I appreciated the more transparent detail and timeline that was given in the church’s full-length response. It helped put some things into better perspective, provided some understanding, and erased a few inaccurate assumptions many of us had from the AP article.
Passion (B)
I appreciated the passionately strong language used against any tolerance of any abuse. That strong tone was nice to hear reiterated.
The quotes from Gordon B Hinckley and Patrick Kearon were a good emphatic touch at the end of the response. In some ways though, it was too much. It was beating the dead horse by then. And the quotes didn’t help answer some of my main questions like how can we do better, why won’t the church apologize, and why does the church underreport?
And then they turned that nice, passionate energy against the media next . . .
Blaming / Accountability (D)
A good chunk of the response covered all the ways the AP article “got it wrong” and how the church is getting it right. It would have been nice to see more accountability or a little fallibility in this one instance. Instead we got a lot of justification for their actions. No matter how valid the justifications, it would have been nice to see them admit a few ways the church procedures/policies “got it wrong,” and how we can improve these policies so that future children are protected above all else.
Unfortunately, the response also plays on the all too prevelant scare tactic of “fake news."
Most importantly, their response purposefully leaves out an important clarification that in Arizona, it’s not illegal for clergy to report, it’s just not mandatory (Rev. Stat. § 13-3620(A), (L)). That is a BIG difference! Yes, there is a loophole for lay clergy, but it doesn’t make reporting illegal, just optional. So why did our church choose not to report? That is the biggest, most unsettling question, one that could have used more explanation and an apology.
Intent vs. Result (C)
The new church response lists its three responsibilities related to abuse:
- Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped;
- Help victims receive care, including from professional counselors; and
- Comply with whatever reporting is required by law.
Also, this list is reprioritized in the stated helpline purposes, with “compliance of laws” being its number one purpose. So that’s a little confusing and slightly disheartening.
Empathy / Humility (C)
Besides the quotes at the end from Patrick Kearon, this is the only really empathetic statement I could find: “Our hearts are broken as we learn of any abuse.”
After the response describes the purposes of the helpline, it proclaims how “regularly praised” the helpline is. I don’t know if that’s as encouraging as it’s meant to be, especially to abuse victims.
Defensiveness / Apology (D-)
This whole second response reeked of defensiveness, especially in its attack against the AP news article.
I was hoping for at least a subtle apology or something for the massive failure to help protect those girls. The closest thing was the declaration that “what happened to the Adams children in Arizona at the hands of their parents is sickening, heartbreaking and inexcusable.”
But then the very next sentence gets very defensive again, almost attacking: “there can be no mincing of words, no hint of apathy, and no tolerance for any suggestion that we are neglectful or not doing enough on the issue of child abuse.”
Yes there can! I will not mince words or be at all apathetic when I say loudly and clearly that we are not doing enough as a church institution to protect our children and youth!!
Resolve for Future Improvement (C)
We can do more. The closest thing is the church’s response to this effect was a very generic, and general statement: “We are constantly striving to be better and do more, and we invite others to join us in such efforts.” To that I would ask, how? What is the church institution doing to be better and do more? I’m not seeing it. It seems like we’re only doing the bare minimum.
A 25-minute animated training video, every three years, doesn’t cut it. The Catholic church for example provides an in-depth training over an hour long, and afterward, requires a new 5-minute training module monthly. California is now requiring background checks on any volunteer child/youth teacher or leader. If our church was serious about youth protection, maybe we’d do background checks regardless of what state or country we lived in. Maybe we’d sponsor regular sensitivity and social/emotional training for our leaders too, with training on mandatory reporting and signs to look out for from everything from anxiety and depression, to bullying, to suicidal ideation, to abuse or neglect.
Welcoming Feedback (F)
Once again, no comments were allowed in any of the church’s social media posts of this response. Why? Why does our church make feedback and suggestions for improvement so hard to give? We won’t improve without listening to our members and giving ways to allow feedback and suggestions.
In Summary
Overall, for a second attempt, I was hoping for more empathy, more apology, more conviction in improved policies. Instead it felt like the church was claiming to be the victim in this. Ugh. No. Those girls were the victims. Period. End of story.