Arizona's Supreme Court has ruled that clergy cannot be compelled to report child abuse disclosed during confession or other confidential religious communications, in a case involving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The unanimous ruling overturns a decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals and stems from a civil lawsuit brought by three children of Paul Adams, who alleged church leaders failed to alert authorities after learning of years of abuse.
Adams and his wife, Leizza Adams, were charged in 2017 after US authorities uncovered videos showing the abuse of their children. Adams later confessed to law enforcement but died by suicide before standing trial. Leizza Adams pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
According to Fox 13, Adams disclosed the abuse to bishops in his local LDS congregation on multiple occasions between 2011 and 2012. One bishop later excommunicated him, but neither reported the allegations to police or child welfare officials.
The children's lawsuit argued the bishops, and by extension the church, breached Arizona's mandatory reporting laws. However, a trial court found the disclosures were protected under the state's clergy-penitent privilege, which exempts confidential religious confessions from mandatory reporting requirements in certain circumstances.
The Arizona Court of Appeals later revived the case, questioning whether the conversations were genuinely confidential and whether church doctrine required the bishops to maintain that confidentiality.
In Thursday's judgment, Vice Chief Justice John R. Lopez IV said the First Amendment prevents courts from deciding whether clergy have correctly applied religious doctrine when handling confessions.
"Any further inquiry into whether Paul’s admissions qualify as confessions is explicitly doctrinal," Lopez wrote. "Under the First Amendment, such inquiry is beyond the purview of the factfinder and, thus, leaves no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Paul’s admissions to [Bishop] qualify as 'confessions.'"
Lopez said the ruling should not be interpreted as giving religious organisations blanket immunity from secular law.
"Our decision 'does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws," he wrote. "If a court finds a religious institution submitted evidence procured through 'fraud' or 'collusion' for secular purposes, it will lose the Religion Clauses' protection."
Responding to the judgment, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:
“The abuse of a child or any person is a tragic betrayal of trust. The abuse at the center of this case was reprehensible, and the Church has always condemned it. The Church is deeply concerned for these children and for all who have suffered abuse. The Church devotes significant resources to preventing abuse, helping victims, and encouraging reporting through safeguarding efforts around the world. The Church has always been willing to help the victims in this case and that continues to be true. Arizona law also recognizes the confidential nature of religious confession. Today's decision affirms that these religious protections are to be respected alongside society's shared commitment to protect the vulnerable.”
