Confession & the Law

[Gregory Matthews]

The following article addressed the issue as to whether or not clergy my lawfully be required to report to civil authorities abuse.  The article is of value and is interesting. My personal position is that under the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution, clergy may not be required to report such abuse if that information is obtained in an attempt of the person to get right with God.  However, information obtained outside of a confessional setting, may be required to be reported. This was the position that I taught at the Army Chaplain School and my position was fully supported by my legal advisors.  In addition, I have seen clergy prosecuted for not reporting information that came to them outside of a confessional setting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/churches-defend-clergy-loophole-in-child-sex-abuse-reporting/ar-AA12kvHz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cde9c73e5221436f92c715c6e43cff51

 

 

[phkrause]

Personally I think all child abuse should be required to be reported to the authorities!!

[GHansen]

I worked at a major medical center in a large American city. The first time I met the RC chaplain, I thought of Joe Montana, the football great.  He was physically quite large but not fat; also, a very handsome man.  He was employed by the RC church, receiving no salary from the hospital. He had a car service provided for transportation. His presence was basically advertising for the papacy. A tall, good-looking guy walking around in a clerical collar was a positive for his denomination.

After I resigned, I noticed his name in an article in the newspaper that implicated him in the RC pedophile scandal. I was really shocked. He was eventually sentenced to prison. Years later, his name came up again, saying he was convicted of a single incident. Actually, he was convicted of a single incident because most of the molestation had taken place too long ago for him to be charged. Turns out he was transferred to the hospital due to molestation issues. He was judged too dangerous to work in a parish or school. Unfortunately, the hospital had a pediatric unit, which gave him access to children.

What could go wrong? Well, at least one molester dressed up as a doctor, gained access to ill children in a hospital, and then molested them. He was also in prison. The perverse depths to which individuals of this bent will sink is unimaginable to most people.  

 

[NOTE:  For legal reasons, I have removed a photograph of a clergy person--Gregory Matthews.]

[Gregory Matthews]

Abuse potentially has existed in all denominations.  This included the SDA denomination.  I am personally aware of such from SDA clergy.

NOTE:  Abuse sometimes involves adults and does not always involve children.

 

[GHansen]

17 hours ago, GHansen said:

NOTE:  For legal reasons, I have removed a photograph of a clergy person--Gregory Matthews.]

There are pictures of the perp with details of his case all over the internet, including at least one law office website. The CBS news website also includes his photo and descriptions of his crimes.  Strange that it is "illegal" to post his picture here but apparently legal everywhere else. 

[Gregory Matthews]

It is not a violation of the law to post such a picture.

My decision, which I continue to hold, was related to other legal issues.  People are welcome to find such photos elsewhere.

 

[GHansen]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

My decision, which I continue to hold, was related to other legal issues.

I'd like to know what "other legal issues" there are. As Moderator, of course you can do as you like but when you reference "legal issues" as the basis of your decisions, it would be nice to know what they are.

[Gregory Matthews]

From the ethical standpoint, we need to be very careful that every aspect of what we post here about a person is totally accurate.  You tell us, or imply, that the Roman Catholic Church transferred him as they considered him to be "too dangerous."  Regardless of what you may have seen in print, I strongly doubt that you can prove such a statement.

From a legal standpoint, any statement in your post that is not accurate could result in a lawsuit due to your making a false statement.  That above statement about the RC Church transferring him due to him being a danger is likely a statement that you cannot prove, and could subject this forum to a lawsuit.

In actual fact, it is not an absolute fact that proving a statement to be true is a defense against a lawsuit for definition of character.  Your use of the word "perp" could be said to be an attempt to defame his character.  Under the common definition of the word "perp" it could be said that some definitions are accurate.  However, it could also be said that some of the common definitions are not accurate.

The above are examples and should not be considered to cover all problematic issues in your post.

It certainly could be said that the person you referenced would have a very low chance of actually collecting a judgment.  However, there are people who would make every attempt to collect, even if the chance was small.  The legal expenses of anyone defending themselves against such a lawsuit would be very high.  On a personal basis I do not want either Stan or I to be the subject of such litigation.

Further on a personal basis:  When I was hired to work at a VA hospital on a 16 hour per week basis, a person who was not hired filed a lawsuit in Federal Court charging that my selection was in violation of the law.  The Federal District court ruled against that person.  That decision was appealed to the Federal Appellate Court who upheld the decision of the District Court.  Fortunately I did not have to defend that litigation.  It was the Federal Government that incurred the legal costs.  The person who filed the litigation had very little chance of winning.    But, on the basis that one aspect of my selection appeared on the surface to be true, that person found an attorney who took the case on a contingency basis.

In the final decision the Federal Court, did find that one aspect of my selection was in violation of the law, but ruled that such did not entitle the other person be selected.  It simply ordered the Federal Government to make changes in its selection process.  As to the aspect that the person charged was in violation of the law, the Court did not rule due to the fact that it was not going to overturn my selection.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For those of you who are interested to knowing what aspect of my selection was in violation of the law, the Court ruled that in my selection  the VA had discriminated against women and against denominations that do not ordain women.  The Court ordered the VA to make changes.  As a result, the Federal Government made major changes to include outside of the VA.

However, the Court also ruled that the woman who had filed the litigation had been lawfully not selected.  That left my selection in place.  The Court did not address the charge of racial and age bias in my selection.   NOTE:  I was in the same age group as was the woman.

 

 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

You tell us, or imply, that the Roman Catholic Church transferred him as they considered him to be "too dangerous."  Regardless of what you may have seen in print, I strongly doubt that you can prove such a statement.

You are right. The expression "too dangerous" was my choice of words. Since he returned to active ministry as a hospital chaplain after spending time in a rehab center for pedophiles, I assumed he was "too dangerous" to be allowed access to children in a parish ministry. As for the term "perp" I learned that from Sipowicz on NYPD Blue. I might have used a different term. I was simply trying to illustrate that some pedophiles look like regular people. Sorry if my post put anyone at risk of litigation.

Ex-treatment center for priests in Jemez Springs sued | AP News

[Gregory Matthews]

From the realistic standpoint, you probably did not endanger anyone.

I was looking out for the extreme example which can happen.  Attorneys will sometimes take the extreme example thinking that they can settle out of court and get something.  In my VA case that I mentioned, the attorney for the litigant was convinced that he could prove racial and age bias.  After, all the evidence was there.  Or, was it?     The only problem was, that attorney did not have the whole story.  No age bias because I was in the same age group as his client.  Racial bias never considered  because it was clear that his client would never have been selected.  Period.  End of case.

NOTE:  In attempt to do "due diligence," the attorney sent someone to the hospital to look me over:

*  Yes, I was of a different racial group than his client--true.

*  Yes, I appeared to be younger than his client--false.  I only looked younger than his client.

*  Yes, I was of another racial group than his client--true.

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As some of you may know, I am not an attorney.  But, I have legally represented clients before administrative law judges in the area of Federal employment law.  NOTE: I no longer do that.  With that background, I do have an interest in labor law.  I still am notified of decisions that are made by the MSPB which serves aq=s an administrative law court.

A decision that was published today (September 30, 2022) illustrates the foolishness of some issues that are litigated.  NOTE:  If you want to further study this case, it is:    2022 MSPB 33, Docket #  DE-0752-13-1551-1-1.

Briefly:  The appellant was injured and legally took time off from work under the applicable law.  When the agency (the VA) decided he could return to work, they directed that he do so.  He responded that if he were forced to return to work at that time, he would probably kill someone.  The agency promptly terminated his employment.

The appellant then charged that his termination was not legal and that his statement about killing someone was conditional upon his returning to work, and as he did not return to work it was not an actual threat.

In the decision released today the MSPB ruled that the termination of his employment was legal.

My point:  A person may have a foolish case, and be able to find someone who will represent them in an applicable court.    A licensed attorney would likely have charged over $50,000 to take the case.  In my representation of employees, my services were free to them.  But, a person with my level of ability to practice might have charged them between $5,000 and $10,000.  It is expensive to litigate.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As to legal expenses:  I am personally aware of an attorney who took a case to the MSPB and won a partial decision.  That attorney was awarded a fee of $73,000 for representing the client, again, it was only a partial win.