WA State LDS Sexual Abuse Case
 

Sorry, I had no idea this was going on, let alone that it was going on in the same ward I grew up in. It's a little agonizing to see names of friends' dads (the two bishops in the case) get spread coast-to-coast as what'll likely get perceived as knowing condoners of sexual abuse. They're very good guys, friends of my parents, and sure don't deserve that.

O

link?
 

i haven't heard

Link from SLTrib
 

Another link, this one from the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._abuse22m.html

In short, the church is on the hook for $4.2 million to two girls whose stepfather sexually abused them because one of the girls says that she told her bishop and her bishop didn't do anything about it.

Money heals all wounds, I hear. Oh wait -- no it doesn't.

o

One strange point which is unclear
 

is the timing of the alleged abuse. If 1988 is the time, then at that time, the Church did not have the same procedures which are now in place.

To have a jury impose modern procedures on old facts seems unjust.

Do you honestly think the Church bears no responsibility? You can argue that $4.2 million is excessive, but it's pretty tough to say that the Church shouldn't shoulder some of the blame.

The bishop acted inappropriately. The fact that he was disfellowshipped demonstrates that the Church reconizes that he acted inappropriately. When a bishop acts as a representative of the Church and screws up, then the Church shares some of the blame.

If what the Times article implies is true (and I'm understanding it correctly), that the RCC is paying an average of $100K per instance where a professional priest actually, himself, abused a child, then the $2.5M (or $4.2M) award for a lay bishop handling a difficult situation somewhat incorrectly (assuming the girls haven't created their memories of the discussions they had) is a little stupid.

Then again, the case was apparently tried in a People's Republic of Seattle court, so... Maybe the church should just pull out of King County altogether. You know, like when we ditch the BSA.

o

I especially like the part in the times article that points out that the abusive stepfather is a Mormon priest, and then in the next paragraph references Catholic priests, as if they are the same thing.

I'm guessing that the stepfather was probably not a 16 year old at the time, and that he was not exactly an active, PH-magnifying individual when the abuse was taking place.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the case itself, but it certainly will alter the publics perception of the abuse if they think that a grown man who is a priest is something similar to a Mormon bishop.

Do you honestly think money heals all wounds? I guess that if they'd received $3.9 million the past sexual abuse wouldn't have gone away, but with the $4.2 million, they'll have forgotten it ever happened.

The bishop wasn't disfellowshipped, the abuser was disfellowshipped. That's a pretty big difference. As far as the church is concerned, there's no evidence that they believe the bishop acted inappropriately.

OTOH, I like it when you post, b/c I always know I'm going to disagree with you.

o

You're correct, it was the father that was disfellowshipped. But that does not change the fact that the bishop should have reported the abuse. Do you dispute the assertion that the bishop failed to report the abuse?