State supreme court rules in case of two bishops who were silent about three children abused by Mormon parents
Clergy members in Arizona who learn of child abuse in the context of religious confession are not required to report it, the state’s supreme court has said in a ruling that protects what church leaders call the “seal of the confessional”.
The panel’s ruling ends a long-running case in which three children who were sexually abused by their parents sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon church, and two bishops who became aware of the crimes but remained silent.
The case has parallels in a short-lived 2025 law in Washington state that would have compelled clergy members there to report sexual abuse. That proposal was permanently withdrawn in October after legal action by the Catholic church.
In a statement, the LDS welcomed the unanimous ruling by the state supreme court on Thursday that exempts clergy members as “mandated reporters” if they learned of the abuse of minors in the confession booth or through other “confidential” methods.
I see LDS and I already know its a horror story.
Imagine if there were people that spent their entire lives interpreting it and can guide you?
theyre called priests.
Also, most Catholics dont hold the corporal punishment interpretation
Oh, I went to Christian private schools, I’ve had my fill of their BS. “Preach the new testament, practice the old.” That’s Christianity in a nutshell.
thats american puritanism in a nutshell
Dumb fuck, that’s you, too. You’re defending a baby-murdering god in our other thread.
How do you know catholicism is correct and LDS is wrong? They have exactly as much evidence for their claims as you do.
Stop defending death cults.
We have a LOT more theological evidence
Peter is literally cephas, the rock of the church.
He was literally told “feed my sheep”
Theology is not science. Theology is “well, we start with the baseless claim that god exists, then we build more baseless claims on top.”
It’s lying to protect lies.
baseless? no.
To claim that God does not exist is a logical contradiction
to be created of yourself, and not of a creator is to rely on nothing.
We rely on a LOT of other things. Actually, everything relies on other things, except God.
Yes. There is no evidence of god, no observable base, yet you make an assumption and treat it as a fact.
No, it is not. All of the data my brain has parsed over my entire lifetime suggests to my current self that there is no god. Humans made it up.
I was birthed by humans. Who created god? Himself? Or was he always there? Either way, we can make the same guesses about the universe itself, no god necessary.
And god’s dad. And god’s dad’s dad. Etc.
God exists of himself. That is why he relies on nothing. All evidence points to an omnipotent creator
Why were we made unique in the eyes, tongue and hands?
(retinas, fingerprints and tongueprints)