Are churches responsible for abusive ex-members?

[Blondie54]

Josh, yes the priests are represented by the church; however, imo, it's not normal for them to remain single. The church should allow married priests . Oops now Im getting off topic. I had a cousin who was a priest. He died already. I also have a cousin that's a Baptist minister.

[steve-in-kville]

For the purpose of this discussion, misconduct by ordained leaders such as ministers or lay leaders such as Sunday school teachers is not on topic. Please discuss when a lay member engages in disgraceful or sinful conduct. As nonresistant Anabaptists, we cannot force someone to obey. And it is unclear if we have a duty to run to the police and report every single thing we see happen.

To answer the original question, I know of one such example where a man was disfellowshipped and held back from Lovefeast/communion. Him and his wife still attended (she was also disfellowshipped for other reasons down the road). This church used segregated seating and he had an "assigned" seat way up front right behind where the ministry sat.

Although his transgressions were not reportable, he was under a close eye at all times when interacting with women and children.

[Josh]

To give you an idea of what church leaders deal with, one ex-member claims a Mennonite church should “do something” because she believes another ex-member in the church uses “mind control”, sorcery, and is in cahoots with local government and police. Once talking about sexual abuse became fashionable, as it is now, she levelled accusations of that (going back 20 years). What on earth do you expect church leaders to do?

"What on earth do you expect church leaders to do?"

Report the accusations if they think they are remotely credible. That is mainly what their obligations are.

“Remotely credible”?

To extend this standard, every church member should bring legal counsel along before talking to church leadership, lest they find themselves reported to the police, right?

[Josh]

I wonder if Josh is mad about this August article from MAP about abuse cases in the Holderman Church.

https://www.themaplist.org/the-map-list ... ennonites/

From MAP’s account, all four cases mentioned either involved leaders who failed to report abuse they were aware of or abuse that happened in the church. The documentation provided by MAP includes news articles about lawsuits against the Holdermans for failing to report as well as the church’s current policy.

Correction: “allegedly aware of”.

If people want things reported to the police, then they should go report them to the police.

[Ken]

I wonder if Josh is mad about this August article from MAP about abuse cases in the Holderman Church.

https://www.themaplist.org/the-map-list ... ennonites/

From MAP’s account, all four cases mentioned either involved leaders who failed to report abuse they were aware of or abuse that happened in the church. The documentation provided by MAP includes news articles about lawsuits against the Holdermans for failing to report as well as the church’s current policy.

Correction: “allegedly aware of”.

If people want things reported to the police, then they should go report them to the police.

That is actually the ONLY legal obligation that clergy have in these cases. To report. At least that is the case in many states. And it doesn't matter whether the abuser is a member, ex-member, or not a member at all.

There are legal exceptions for information obtained in the confessional. But that is more of a Catholic thing than Mennonite. I would presume that most if not all of the examples listed in MAP did not involve information obtained by clergy in the confessional.

The problem, of course, is that many Menno clergy have done the exact opposite. Not only have they failed to report instances of abuse that they have become aware of, they do the exact opposite and cover it up. Often by gaslighting victims and siding with abusers.

[Josh]

That is actually the ONLY legal obligation that clergy have in these cases. To report. At least that is the case in many states. And it doesn't matter whether the abuser is a member, ex-member, or not a member at all.

And exactly what good does it do to convert the clergy into some kind of untrained extension of the police? If people want to report a crime, they should go tell the police - not a pastor, their yoga instructor, their barista, their Sunday school teacher, or their church's janitor.

What this is really about is finding liability and someone to blame other than the perpetrator themselves (because going after perpetrators is hard work). The job of churches and clergy is not to be investigators who try to investigate crime and narc people out to the police, and it's ridiculous to expect that. Overall, it harms trust in both police and in clergy and long term leads to more abuse going uncovered and unreported.

[Gene]

being Perhaps a little cynical about church management in general, maybe unfairly, it seems that if the church, and more broadly the philosophy behind it, would care to take credit for lives reformed in a positive sense, it is only reasonable that the responsibility for those who subsequently run afoul of the mores of decent society, falls partially at the feet of those who had the task, and failed, to quickly enough apply ecclesiastical discipline. You can't brag of success and not own the failure.

[Ken]

That is actually the ONLY legal obligation that clergy have in these cases. To report. At least that is the case in many states. And it doesn't matter whether the abuser is a member, ex-member, or not a member at all.

And exactly what good does it do to convert the clergy into some kind of untrained extension of the police? If people want to report a crime, they should go tell the police - not a pastor, their yoga instructor, their barista, their Sunday school teacher, or their church's janitor.

What this is really about is finding liability and someone to blame other than the perpetrator themselves (because going after perpetrators is hard work). The job of churches and clergy is not to be investigators who try to investigate crime and narc people out to the police, and it's ridiculous to expect that. Overall, it harms trust in both police and in clergy and long term leads to more abuse going uncovered and unreported.

You can argue with it all you want. I'm just pointing out that the actual legal obligation for clergy in most states is to report instances of child abuse if they become aware of it. Doesn't matter if it is a member, ex-member, or someone who isn't a member at all.

If children aren't involved then the legal issues are different.

[temporal1]

That is actually the ONLY legal obligation that clergy have in these cases. To report. At least that is the case in many states. And it doesn't matter whether the abuser is a member, ex-member, or not a member at all.

And exactly what good does it do to convert the clergy into some kind of untrained extension of the police? If people want to report a crime, they should go tell the police - not a pastor, their yoga instructor, their barista, their Sunday school teacher, or their church's janitor.

What this is really about is finding liability and someone to blame other than the perpetrator themselves (because going after perpetrators is hard work). The job of churches and clergy is not to be investigators who try to investigate crime and narc people out to the police, and it's ridiculous to expect that. Overall, it harms trust in both police and in clergy and long term leads to more abuse going uncovered and unreported.

You can argue with it all you want. I'm just pointing out that the actual legal obligation for clergy in most states is to report instances of child abuse if they become aware of it. Doesn't matter if it is a member, ex-member, or someone who isn't a member at all.

If children aren't involved then the legal issues are different.

i don’t know which church Ken attends, but i doubt it’s any church that this OP/topic is questioning. (i don’t understand) this topic to be focused on legal requirements, police reporting, but moral, ethical, scriptural requirements/response (in Amish, plain Mennonite groups) which many churches no longer delve into. On any matter.

being Perhaps a little cynical about church management in general, maybe unfairly, it seems that if the church, and more broadly the philosophy behind it, would care to take credit for lives reformed in a positive sense, it is only reasonable that the responsibility for those who subsequently run afoul of the mores of decent society, falls partially at the feet of those who had the task, and failed, to quickly enough apply ecclesiastical discipline. You can't brag of success and not own the failure.

(i believe) this speaks to moral responsibility, not letter of the human law.

[HeIsRisen]

I've been thinking of this topic a little and wonder if anyone here knows what data (if any) there is to show the incidence of abuse + cover up in church settings vs the world. I tend to believe that the world treats sin in the church more harshly because it seems hypocritical and they can use it as an excuse to discredit Christianity. However, I don't think that there is a higher incidence of these events in the church (and it might even be lower).

The reason I started thinking about this was because of the existence of the MAP list. If there are abuse scandals in the world of similar nature, why isn't there a huge database to outline every single known sex transgression of that person? Do people just use maybe state resources? Or what about public schools-teachers get in trouble for this sort of sin frequently, do they need to be on a list aside from the sex offender registry to reveal to the world every sex transgression possible?

I am often troubled by these types of stories of abuse and coverup, but I think it is very easy to fall into the sin of unforgiveness by having lists like these that go above and beyond state provided tools. Something just doesn't sit right with me about them.