AZ Supreme Court Decides for Religious Secrecy Over Safety of Children

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled this past Thursday, that religious institutions may decide when their doctrines require them to keep secret, confessions about child abuse. They also can decide who beyond actual members of the “clergy”, are exempt from reporting requirements.

The case in question involved two Mormon bishops who will now not have to stand trial for failing to tell authorities that a Bisbee man was sexually abusing his daughters. It also however, creates a new binding precedent for all future cases in which religious institutions and other religious groups may claim immunity based on what their faith requires and not what a jury decides.

Lynn Cadigan, the Tucson attorney representing the victims of the unreported sexual abuse, said the “This gives all religions absolute immunity to keep child abuse secret, and makes Arizona a very dangerous state for children.”

In a written statement, a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spokesman said, “Today’s decision affirms that these religious protections are to be respected alongside society’s shared commitment to protect the vulnerable.”

Unfortunately, no one protected the young victims in this case. In 2011, Paul Adams confessed to his bishop, John Herod that he had sexually abused one of his daughters. The bishop asked Adam’s wife Liezza to join them in a discussion and Adams repeated his confession. Herrod advised Adams to turn himself in or his wife to report him, but neither took any action. The church ultimately excommunicated the Adams’ two years later without any reporting of the abuse to authorities.

Adams continue to rape that daughter for a seven more years and began abusing an infant sister, recording the abuse and posting it online. He was arrested in 2017 in New Zealand when officials found a video online and ultimately killed himself in jail. Liezza was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison after admitting she didn’t report the abuse.

Arizona law requires anyone who reasonably believes a minor has been the victim of abuse to “immediately report or cause reports to be made.” It also though, allows clergy receiving “a confession or confidential communication” to not report if they “determine it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts” of the religion.

In explaining their decision, Justice John Lopez referred to the First Amendment which he said gives religious institutions “and independence from secular control or manipulation.” He went on to write that “Put simply, the Religion Clauses give religious institutions the power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

Cadigan argued that the “confession” between Adams and Herrod was not “confidential” as Adams’ wife was involved and lay members of the church were told of the abuse during the excommunication hearing. Also, Adams made it public himself when he posted his videos online and that more than 300 other people were charged with crimes for watching those videos.

In the end, the Lopez said on behalf of the Court, “We must defer to the church’s doctrine concerning confidential communications.”

Cadigan has said she will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is of course, no guarantee of a different decision with this current SCOTUS. But, back in 1879 in Reynolds v. United States, SCOTUS drew a sharp distinction between religious beliefs and religious actions. Beliefs, they said, are protected—government cannot interfere with what a person believes or thinks. Actions however, that violate social duties or disrupt the public order, can be regulated.

SCOTUS also argued that allowing citizens to break laws based on religious beliefs would make religious doctrines superior to federal law. Reynolds v United States, was a landmark case resulting in the outlawing of polygamy in the United States. It had been brought by George Reynolds, a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who volunteered to be prosecuted in a “test case” brought by church leadership to challenge the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws.

One must wonder, how polygamy is a bridge too far for religious freedom, but child abuse is not.