The abuse help line and clergy privilege
A Church-run, lawyer-staffed help line told an Arizona bishop he need not report a confessed child rapist, and courts have upheld the Church's privilege claim.
What the Church claims
The Church has zero tolerance for abuse and its help line exists to ensure abuse is reported and victims protected.
Once the evidence is in, this claim: Weak. The page documents institutional failure and the use of legal privilege to contain it. Measured against the claim as stated, zero tolerance and a help line that ensures abuse is reported, that record is damaging. Weak rather than untenable, because the failure is in how the policy operates rather than in what it says.
The record
- In Bisbee, Arizona, Paul Adams confessed to Bishop John Herrod in 2010 that he was sexually abusing his daughter; the abuse continued for as many as seven years and extended to her infant sister. Adams was arrested by federal agents in 2017 'with no help from the church' after posting videos online.
- A 2022 AP investigation reported that the bishop called the Church's help line, staffed through the law firm Kirton McConkie, and was told he need not report; the Church's 2022-08-05 response said the help line was 'seriously mischaracterized' and 'is instrumental in ensuring that all legal requirements for reporting are met'.
- On 2023-04-07 (released 04-11) the Arizona Supreme Court held that the Church could refuse to disclose or testify under the state's clergy-penitent privilege, reversing a trial judge who had found Adams waived the privilege; the children's lawyer said the ruling 'expands the clergy privilege beyond what the legislature intended'.
- The General Handbook (38.6.2) instructs bishops and stake presidents to call the help line 'for details about mandated reporters and other legal requirements' and states 'The Church's policy is to obey the law'.
The moving target
- 2022-08-05: AP story 'oversimplified and incomplete'; help line ensures legal reporting requirements are met; abuse is inexcusable.
- current: Leaders call the help line; the Church obeys the law.
The exchange
Church Newsroom 2022; Church counsel
The help line connects untrained lay bishops with professionals so that reporting happens wherever the law requires; in Arizona the law itself exempted confessional communications, and the Church cannot be faulted for following state law upheld by the state's highest court.
The answer: The design question is the problem: routing bishops to lawyers retained by the Church, whose duty is to the client, rather than to child-protection professionals, predictably yields advice that minimizes institutional liability. In Adams the law allowed reporting and the Church chose privilege; years of abuse followed. Winning the privilege argument in court is not the same as protecting children.
What they get right: Arizona's statute genuinely permitted non-reporting, and the Church has since publicized that it supports mandatory-reporting reforms in some states.
Church Newsroom (2022); General Handbook 38
The help line demonstrably produces reports. It exists because volunteer bishops cannot know fifty states' reporting law, and in most states it tells them to report.
The answer: This is the strongest defense available and it may well be true in the ordinary case. Nobody can check it, because the Church has never published how many calls end in a report. The objection survives anyway, because it is about design rather than averages: the line routes a bishop to attorneys retained by the Church, whose professional duty runs to the client, instead of to child-protection professionals, whose duty runs to the child. In the one case that produced a full public record, that design kept a father's abuse of his daughters unreported for years while it continued. A system that works on the easy calls and aligns with institutional liability on the hard ones is not zero tolerance.
What they get right: Arizona's clergy-penitent exemption is real and the state's supreme court upheld it. The Church did not invent the privilege it relied on.
Both cases at full strength
The skeptics' case
On undisputed facts, a bishop who knew a child was being raped did not report because the Church's lawyers said he need not; the Church then litigated to keep those communications secret and won. Whatever the legal merits, an institution claiming prophetic guidance and 'zero tolerance' chose its lawyers' privilege over a child's safety, then described the resulting reporting as mischaracterization.
The apologetic case
The Church trains leaders, funds counselling for victims, supports reporting where legal, and built the help line precisely because volunteer bishops cannot know fifty states' laws. The Adams case turned on a confession protected by Arizona law, the abuser deceived his bishop about ending the abuse, and the Church has repeatedly said it would have reported had the law required.
What would change this
Records showing the help line advised reporting in Adams and the bishop declined; or data showing help-line calls produce reports at rates comparable to secular mandated reporters.
Sources
- Arizona Supreme Court upholds clergy privilege in Mormon help line abuse case
- Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse
- Arizona Supreme Court upholds Latter-day Saint clergy privilege in child abuse case
- General Handbook 38: Church Policies and Guidelines
- High court says churches, not judges, define a 'confession' when it comes to reporting child abuse
An independent project. Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with any organization cited here. Summaries are written here; short quotations are attributed and linked. Every page names its sources so that it can be corrected, and every page can be challenged.