Paul Rytting listened as a woman, voice quavering, told him her story.

When she was a child, her father, a former bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had routinely slipped into bed with her while he was aroused, she said.

It was March 2017 and Rytting offered his sympathies as 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich spoke. A Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division, Rytting had spent about 15 years protecting the organization, widely known as the Mormon church, from costly claims, including sexual abuse lawsuits.

Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. In particular, the church would discourage Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea’s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.

  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Re-read the report. Bishop Miller would have testified if the law permitted him to do so. The problem is the abuser had to give permission first, which he obviously wasn’t willing to do.

    • Jonny@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I stand by my statement. If your institution has such a law to protect it, it is gotta be pretty evil.
      In my country and in my profession (teacher), it is stated in law that I am required to report (and testify if needed) any suspicion of child abuse. It is absolutely abhorrent to me that someone wouldn’t be required to. Never mind be protected from it.
      Regardless of Bishop Miller’s opinion, that law is exists and is evil. And it taints all those who it protects.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Your view is extremist and bigoted, but you’re entitled to it. Assuming you’re a United States citizen, your logic makes everyone evil because there are laws that have the effect of protecting people who commit heinous acts, including about half the Bill of Rights. Labeling religious people evil because there are laws that protect them is bigotry.