In Minnesota, leaders of an Old Apostolic Lutheran Church community enabled a child abuser by telling his victims that once the sins were “washed away in the blood of reconciliation,” they could never speak of them again.
  • Protecting an Abuser: Leaders of a Minnesota church didn’t report a parishioner to police though they knew he’d sexually abused girls for years and had been told reporting it was their duty.
  • Forgive and Forget: Church leaders held meetings where children were told to forgive the man who sexually abused them and forget the abuse. If they spoke of it, the sin would be theirs.
  • Missed Opportunities: Prosecutors had at least one opportunity to intervene but hoped educating church leaders about their duties would encourage them to cooperate with authorities.
  • rainwall@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    14 hours ago

    The article says it was required:

    But they never reported Massie’s crimes to police, as required by the law. Instead, Bruckelmyer and other leaders in the church encouraged the victims to take part in forgiveness sessions — which allowed Massie, now 50, to continue abusing children, according to an investigation by the Minnesota Star Tribune and ProPublica.

    Later down:

    He said it was up to the victims to report the crimes to police, a clear misreading of the law for mandated reporters — doctors, teachers and others who are required to report crimes against children.

    “We don’t protect either one,” Bruckelmyer said of sexual abusers and their victims.

    This is the churches defense:

    Kimberly Lowe, a lawyer and crisis manager for the church, said its preachers are unpaid and therefore might not be legally required to report sexual abuse of children. Asked if she believes the preachers are mandated reporters under Minnesota law, Lowe would only say that the language of the statute is unclear.

    Propublica does pretty deep research, so I’m inclined to believe them.

    • Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      6 hours ago

      It sounds like we are agreeing.

      What I said above:

      I say might be because it states “employed as a member of the clergy”. I’m betting they would claim “everyone who knew” was a volunteer (i.e. not “employed”).

      What your post above states (I added some bold and italic for emphasis in your quote):

      This is the churches defense:

      Kimberly Lowe, a lawyer and crisis manager for the church, said its preachers are unpaid and therefore might not be legally required to report sexual abuse of children. Asked if she believes the preachers are mandated reporters under Minnesota law, Lowe would only say that the language of the statute is unclear.

      While I agree the Propublica article states they were required reporters and that organization does pretty deep research, I was pointing out the “lawyer way of splitting hairs” in my comments. Lawyers just love to define and redefine the meanings of words; argue about context; question “what was the ‘real intent of the legislation’”; sow doubt; faine ignorance; beg forgiveness; etc ad nauseum. That’s why lawyers are hired to defend in court. Nothing against Propublica but you wouldn’t hire them to defend in court - they are after truth, in court you want a defense which is not necessarily the truth.

      Please note: none of this is meant to be “against you/your comments”. Just a slightly different angle on the subject.

      Best wishes to all and I hope we can get closer to making this kind of thing just an unhappy part of history.