Guilt by association? What is this ESPN writer up to? If he has information
about institutionally protected child abusers, and fails to come forward,
isn't this the same failing that Penn State officials are accused of? This
is just innuendo and some kind of politically motivated smear. If ESPN has some
specifics let it come forward. Otherwise the comment needs to be retracted and
the reporter reprimanded for rumor mongering.
I think that this shows how far college sports and all sports have gone to cater
to the winner. I think that maybe BYU does help its players become better men
but has the school gotten sucked into the worldly feeling of win at all costs? I
don't think anything wrong has happened at BYU. But with all the
maneuvering to change conferences, build a bigger stadium etc. where are their
real priorities. I also feel that some college coaches are paid way too much,
way too much and that leads to the opposite of humility in a lot of cases. You
can't tell me a coach is worth more than a math teacher or science teacher.
Where are we going with all this, I hate to see it.
Business week article less than accurate and does the author realize the true
church goes out of its way to keep people accused of sexual abuse away from
@Mike in Ceder CityHave you not noticed the story not too long ago in Utah
about a Bishop charged with not reporting a case of abuse?
I don't think guilt by association has anything to do with it. Human
behavior can be nasty regardless of religious preferences.The thing
we are losing sight of is there was a mean spirited article on byu by espn. I
thought they were bff's?
@Mike in Ceder CityExcept that these two situations are not very similar.
The bishop issue was not an institutional issue related to a cover up of
internal abuse. It was a situation with a bishop who had abuse reported to him
and chose not to report it. Breaking a confession confidence can only be done
in certain instances. It can be a difficult analysis and if a bishop
wasn't informed or sought sufficient help in making a decision, mistakes
could be made. That does not always suggest an intentional cover up. In fact,
virtually all of those situations happen because of a mistake in understanding
legal requirements of when you can and can't disclose. Failed
reports happen in many different religions and also in psychiatric situations
because that line isn't always easy to determine. In other words, covering
up for internal abuse and failing to break a legally protected confidence
usually have very little in common.
It is interesting to note that the updated story has removed the Mormon
reference and has replaced it with the Boy Scouts....hmmmm.
Atl134. In truth I am not familiar with that incident. I need to check the
facts on that case, but Fulprae is probably right. This Bishop's mistake
was probably not done for protection of the institution. In in the Mormon
Church Bishops have little or no formal training in how to handle these kinds of
situations. And they are "lay" leaders and not compensated by the
institution. And if that was what the author was talking about he should have
said so. His failure to be specific is what made it seem to; be a smear.
Mormon Bishops are trained on what to do and have ready access to some one to
give counsel on these matters -- they only need to read the handbook and follow
the guide lines.This is especially true in the last decade. They have a lot more
knowledge than they uded to have and the church is very specific as to their
actions and responsibility,and in the case of any questio as to that
responsibility they ,as I have stated, have easy access to those who can
help.However it is an awesome responsibility and they are human and I'm
sure mistakes have been made but hopefully not intentional.
Charges were dropped against that Bishop. Simply not a case of institutional
@ Mike in Cedar City: It is not the author who is covering things up - nor is
he making unsupported accusations. His comment also does not necessarily
reference the case of the Bishops here in Utah who did not pass on to the
authorities accusations of abuse that they had received.It is a well
documented fact that when allegations of clergy abuse were made to authorities
in the Catholic Church, they would move the accused priest to a different parish
- with no warning to the new congregation that there had ever been a problem and
no discipline of the accused priest. Because of this behavior by the Catholic
Church, many new youth were victimized.The Catholic Church was as
aware of problem as the officials at Penn State - and they took very little
action to protect those who should have been protected, choosing instead to
protect the perpetrators.
The reference to the LDS Church comes from the Washington State LDS Scoutmaster
case (and similar cases) - which seems similar in that no action was taken when
the abuse was first reported - thereby allowing access to other youth.