Mitt Romney, domestic violence and clergy reporting
Here at the In Box we’ve wrestled a lot with the idea that organizations need to call the police immediately — no gray zones — when child sexual abuse is suspected.
This has been a major challenge for a lot of organizations, ranging from the Roman Catholic church, to the Boy Scouts, to the Penn State athletic program.
Rather than blow the whistle, they try to deal with these challenges internally, leading to allegations of cover-up and incredibly painful internal turmoil.
State laws are evolving rapidly, making it more and more clear legally that mandatory reporting is not only morally right, but legally necessary and that keeping silent is criminal.
All of this was fresh in my mind as I read the Washington Post’s exploration of Mitt Romney’s role as a prominent leader within the Mormon church through 2002.
Here’s the part that caught my eye:
According to a named source in the piece, one of Romney’s congregants approached him late in his tenure with news that she had “learned of harrowing stories [of domestic violence] from the women in the congregation.”
“I said, ‘You ought to alert your bishops,’” [Helen Claire Sievers] recalled, adding that Romney responded, “ ‘Oh, there isn’t abuse in our stake, except in a couple of wards.’ “
But once Romney came to recognize the problem, he reacted.
Taylor, who attended a meeting as the president of the local women’s relief society, said that Romney upbraided his bishops, telling them, “ ‘Okay, this is going on in your ward, in your congregation, you need to address this.’ “
She said Romney pressured Salt Lake to come out with a church-wide domestic abuse program for the bishops. “And they did that,” she said.
That’s noteworthy, perhaps even laudable.
But it’s also fair to ask whether — once alerted to specific cases of domestic violence within his congregation — Romney notified police about this kind of criminal behavior.
Massachusetts law is a bit squidgy on whether clergy are legally required to report criminal behavior of this kind, but there is also a larger moral and ethical question raised here.
But by 2000, when Romney was in this position, the clergy’s handling of sexual assault and domestic violence was already a major issue in Massachusetts, thanks to the Roman Catholic child abuse scandal.
The former Massachusetts governor refused to be interviewed for the Post article. My hope is that this will be a question that he will be asked on the campaign trail.
What specifically did he know about domestic violence in his church? Did he report it to authorities? If not, why not? And what does he think about the reform of laws requiring that clergy report domestic violence to police?
As always, your thoughts welcome.
Tags: politics
.jpg)
I’d like to hear his answers also. I find it both interesting and puzzling where a party that wants to get government off our backs draws that line. Too often it appears that the line is based on their religion or personal bias rather than a social imperative.
“Mitt Romney’s role as a prominent leader within the Mormon church through 2002”
This is journalistic malpractice.
You had absolutely no interest in Obama’s 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the black liberation theology he preaches, let alone any incidents of domestic violence or anything else that may have gone on in the 20-odd-years Obama attended that church.
How come the big interest in Romney?
How come no interest in Obama?
Aren’t journalists supposed to curious about Dems and Reps? or is there bias here?
Obama’s answer was he wasn’t aware of what was preached by a man whose sermon inspired the title of his own book. Then Obama threw his pastor under the bus and said he doesn’t that church anymore.
All Romney has to do is the same. He wasn’t aware. He doesn’t attend that church anymore. Case closed.
JDM: I was trying to think how to respond to this ……. well any way, you took the words right out of my mouth!
Obama’s been pretty thoroughly vedetted, including the contradictory claims that he went to a Christian church with an extremist pastor and that he is really a Muslim.
His association with Rev. Wright has been pretty well-documented. The extremist fringe thought it was a big deal and most Americans did not. Americans decided that guilt by association with “black liberation theology” is not as big a deal and they have decided (in other cases) that protecting child rapists IS a big deal. Sorry if you disagree but at least stick to the topic.
Now, Obama has his record to stand or fall on. Romney hasn’t been vedetted and doesn’t have a presidential record to stand on, hence the media attention.
Brian M: Unfortunately, the fact is that there seems a bit more tolerance of non-sexual domestic violence than there is of raping children. Neither should be tolerated at all.
JDM –
For what it’s worth, I last wrote about Mr. Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright in May of this year. The link is here:
http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2011/05/08/the-wrong-kind-of-christian/
The facts of Mr. Obama’s religious affiliation with Rev. Wright has been thoroughly explored by the press and people have drawn various conclusions about them.
If it had come to our attention that Mr. Obama knew about violence against women within that congregation and he didn’t report it to the authorities, most people would have considered that a fair subject for inquiry.
Right?
Back to Mr. Romney: He was a highly placed leader within his church.
The Washington Post article offered, I think, a legitimate window into his thinking, his actions, and his leadership.
The question I raised — about his handling of cases of what appear to be criminal conduct within his congregation — strikes me as similarly legitimate.
(Let me say, by the way, that this is not an issue particular to the Mormon Church, or even to religious groups. Many organizations have struggled with this issue, as I noted in my original post.)
Perhaps a fairer contrast in this case would be the way Herman Cain has been treated.
The press — including the conservative media — has given enormous play to allegations that he sexually harassed women in the work place.
Isn’t it appropriate to ask — in a fair-minded way — how Mr. Romney handled allegations of criminal domestic violence within an organization that he led?
–Brian, NCPR
Brian:
I re-read your article. It hardly seems to be an investigative piece on Obama’s association with highly controversial subject matter.
Here’s your conclusion: So what do you think? Should religious faith play this large a role in our politics? Do Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney fall within your comfortable definition of “Christian”?
I would call that “deflecting” the subject away from Obama and on to a broader discussion about religion and some other candidate, namely Romney.
At least when CNN does this kind of bias, one can choose to turn the channel.
With NPR, in general, and NCPR, in particular, one cannot choose to “change the channel”. Our tax dollars feed this bias whether we are part of the minority liberal audience, or not.
I will applaud the day when tax payer dollars no longer fund this kind of news, and you can collect from those who choose to tune in.
Maybe it because of this that you will hound Romney to the tenth degree and brush off Obama’s associations. Romney has clearly stated that NPR is on the chopping block, should he be elected.
NPR and NCPR should recuse themselves from this discussion about Romney, because they do have a stake in the outcome.
While it is entirely appropriate to to follow up on this type of allegation, it seems at first blush that Romney really tried to do the right thing. What disturbs me much more is that there seems to be no movement to hold Bush or Cheney accountable for War Crimes that they freely admit occurred and they are proud that they authorized.
JDM writes “‘Mitt Romney’s role as a prominent leader within the Mormon church through 2002’
This is journalistic malpractice.
You had absolutely no interest in Obama’s 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright”
Uh, JDM, Romney was “a prominent leader” and Obama was a member of the congregation. There’s a difference. Leaders are responsible for what goes on in the organizations they lead. Members of organizations, not so much. See the difference?
JDM –
As you point out, I ended my discussion of religious faith regarding Mr. Obama with an open-ended question.
“Should this stuff matter?” was basically my point.
Similarly, I end my essay about Mr. Romney with a suggestion that this question is worth asking:
“Did he notify authorities when he heard about domestic violence in his congregation? If not, why not?”
That’s what journalists do. We ask questions. I am not hounding Mr. Romney.
I’m asking a legitimate question about his leadership and his handling of one of the crucial topics facing American society — domestic violence.
If you’re a regular reader of the In Box, you know that this is a thread and an issue that we’ve wrestled with before.
So it’s not out of context.
And no, my original post certainly wasn’t hateful or scathing. It was even-handed and temperate.
You’ve made your point that this issue doesn’t concern you. Fine, fair enough.
But that doesn’t make the questions I ask unfair or biased.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian Mann:
If I am reading the date on your Obama link correctly, you posted it in 2011, right?
How was this supposed to be a referendum on the candidate, Barack Obama? How can you, or anyone, claim that the investigation into Obama’s involvement with Rev. Wright was “thorough? It was three years too late.
If you are giving the same treatment to Romney, then at least wait until 2015. Then you can claim to have thoroughly looked into his involvement with domestic violence in his church of 2002.
That is how you treated Obama. You ignored it when it mattered. Then, three years, you mention it as if it was “thoroughly vetted”.
You can’t have it both ways. Either drop the Romney, or admit that you gave Obama a pass in 2008.
Why are you having this conversation? The two situations are not even remotely similar.
Obama associated with a pastor whose ideas some people disagree with… Romney was a church leader who did not report illegal activity he was made aware of.
These things are not comparable.
Stop feeding the trolls.
We will never know what, if any, illegal things Obama was involved with, because no newspaper nor news radio nor TV is going to spend a dime to investigate him.
We do know that Tony Rezko was sentenced to 10 years. We do know he and Obama went in on a property deal in Chicago. We will never know if Obama did anything illegal.
Regardless, NPR and NCPR now have a financial stake in the game with Romney. If Romney is elected, his public position is that he will defund NPR.
NPR and its associates need to back off practicing journalism on this one. It shouldn’t be hard. They practiced backing-off journalism with Obama. Give Romney the same pass.
I have an idea. Here’s a news item that is 2 days old.
A U.S. judge on Tuesday sentenced Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a former Chicago fundraiser for President Barack Obama, to 10-1/2 years in prison for corruption and extortion.
Rezko’s wife purchased and then resold to the Obama family a side yard to the home they could not afford initially.
Hmmm. A curious, serious journalist might say, “I wonder if there was anything shady about this land deal”.
The Obama’s couldn’t afford it. The wife of a convicted felon purchased and resold it to them. Well, shazzam, Martha! Nothing shady about that.
Nope, not even curious.
Let’s get back to Romney.
Right JDM, nobody will investigate Obama for ANYTHING!!!! He’s not even a citizen.
Did you know he was born in Kenya? He wont release his long-form, pretty please with cherries on top birth certificate!
Just yesterday he pardoned two notorious criminals who had a death sentence on their heads — with his daughters in attendance. What about the victims!!!! Obama’s Willie Horton moment.
khl:
nice of you to invoke sarcasm to try to deflect from the point
Brian Mann referenced an article in the Washington Post that came out Nov 22 at 11:00am.
It was about candidate Romney.
On the same day, at 2:52pm, Reuters came out with an article that had ties to candidate Obama.
Candidate Romney has stated publicly that he will defund NPR, if elected.
Each article holds information that is potentially harmful to each respective candidate.
I pointed out that the discussing Romney article and ignoring Obama article by an NPR affiliate may, therefore, be construed as bias.
I also pointed out that NPR and, therefore, NCPR, has a stake in the outcome of the Romney candidacy.
Gee, JDM, you figure that them liberal news outlets like Fox and the WSJ are ignoring this story because they are biased in Obama’s favor?
Or is it maybe because even they know that this is a dry hole?
Here’s a link to the Fox News take on the issue from March 10, 2008:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar10/0,4670,ObamaRezkoQampA,00.html
The key section, with reference to Rezko’s legal troubles:
“Q: What does that have to do with Obama?
A: Nothing. No one has alleged that Obama has anything to do with the charges against Rezko, nor has Obama been charged with any wrongdoing. Obama has donated to charity the money that Rezko donated to his campaigns, as well as money from other Rezko friends and partners, a total of $150,000.
JDM, while threats to cut funding may be perceived as as conflict I doubt that it affects Brian Mann’s reporting on the issue. Or NPR. Or NCPR.
You certainly have the right to believe otherwise, but I think it is fair to take people at their word unless I have good reason to believe they are persistent liars.
My guess is that you are on this blog because you think this is an honorable community, even if you believe that some of us are wrong headed.
khl: My guess is that you are on this blog because you think this is an honorable community, even if you believe that some of us are wrong headed.
Yes, khl. I think you are correct. I am not accusing Brian Mann lying. I do want him to take serious the charge I am making and do what he feels is correct and ethical to be able to stand to my charges, or anyone else, for that matter.
I am careful not to exaggerate my points and not to misrepresent facts. If I fail to do so, others will call me on it, and will answer when I feel that an answer is needed.
Walker:
No one is saying that Romney did anything wrong. That’s why there are people looking into it. To see if he did.
No one is saying that Obama did anything wrong. The problem is, no one is looking into it.
You say with certainty that Obama did nothing wrong. How do you know that? Are you counting on the lack of interest in investigating the situation as your answer?
I am pointing out that there is an abundance of interest in investigating Romney.
I am also pointing out that I think NPR and NCPR should avoid getting involved for reasons I have stated.
Isn’t this more about Romney’s attitude towards domestic violence and how that might manifest itself in his administration? What can women learn about Romney’s moral choices and how those choices will influence his presidency?
Let me state for the record that I believe Mitt Romney is a decent and honorable person.
We really have to change the way we look at candidates for elective office. Making mistakes is a human condition. I hold person who can recognize a mistake and try to make it right in higher esteem than a person who denies the mistake was ever made.
Mitt’s biggest mistake, in my mind is his lack of integrity in not standing behind his strong record of accomplishment in MA.
“Just yesterday he pardoned two notorious criminals who had a death sentence on their heads — with his daughters in attendance.”
Now thats funny!
Happy thanksgiving guys.
JDM –
If I understand you correctly, you are convinced that NPR and NCPR are in some way part of a secret cabal to attack Mitt Romney, or Republicans, or conservatism in general.
And because you believe that’s true, you want this news organization to abandon all efforts to cover politics in America, or at the very least the 2012 elections.
So let me speak to this broadly and then specifically.
1. NCPR and NPR were very aggressive in probing the policies and character of all the candidates, including Barack Obama, in 2008.
Mr. Obama’s past life, including questions about his place of birth, his relationship to Jeremiah Wright, and his relationships to other figures in Chicago, have been covered by us and by the media in general in microscopic detail.
The difference between our news organizations and the conservative media you prefer is that we haven’t reached the kind of conclusions that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh et all have reached, that this president is a villain who wants to destroy America’s economy and our way of life.
We haven’t avoided those conclusions for ideological reasons, but because the facts don’t bear it out.
But I will point out that questions have been asked about this president that have never been asked of any president in American history. Is he really a citizen? Is he really a Christian?
Does he feel antipathy for capitalism? We’ve asked all of that.
So the suggestion that NPR or NCPR haven’t given Mr. Obama the kind of tough, skeptical treatment that a presidential candidate (and a commander in chief) deserve is not born out by the facts. Period.
2. Mr. Romney and the other Republican candidates are now locked in a primary fight in which they are being probed and questioned, in many cases, for the first time.
One of the key elements of Mr. Romney’s resume is that he was a top church leader in one of the most powerful and influential religious groups (the Mormon Church) in the US.
The Mormon Church takes an active role in American politics, supporting particular causes and ballot initiatives.
To ignore his affiliation there, and to fail to question the kind of leadership he provided while in the role, would be absurd.
I understand your view. You feel that a game of favoritism is being played.
But the truth is that we hear the same criticism from Mr. Obama’s supporters.
They feel that NCPR and NPR have been far too critical in our coverage of the president and have followed too many lines of inquiry pushed initially by conservative media that in the end proved to be absurd.
–Brian, NCPR
Saying npr shouldn’t cover romney due to a stated position is roughly equivalent to saying nbc should not cover energy policy because they’re owned by ge – i feel like npr is one of the least biased news outlets in this country, and as i understand it only 15% of their funding is from the cpb- implying that they can’t proffesionally cover this story is insulting to me as a consumer of their news
JDM: “No one is saying that Obama did anything wrong. The problem is, no one is looking into it.”
How can you possibly believe that Fox and the WSJ have not looked into every POSSIBLE misdeed that anyone has ever imagined Obama might have committed? Do you honestly believe that they have failed to follow leads that would paint him in a bad light? The fact that they aren’t saying that there is anything to these allegations is what convinces me that there is nothing to them. Your mileage may vary (but I don’t see how it could).
I mean, Fox covered the Birther issue endlessly, ditto for the Muslim issue, both of which were obviously bogus. I just don’t see how anyone could imagine that they would sweep reasonable charges under the rug it they thought they could make them stick.
Brian M. “But the truth is that we hear the same criticism from Mr. Obama’s supporters.
They feel that NCPR and NPR have been far too critical in our coverage of the president and have followed too many lines of inquiry pushed initially by conservative media that in the end proved to be absurd.”
From my point of view there is a lack of coverage of liberal criticism of Obama. If Obama had just let the Bush tax cuts expire — in other words, do exactly what the law George Bush signed intended to have happen — there would have been no need for a super committee. Just a few additional cuts in military spending, pop the cap on Social Security and make a few adjustments in Medicare, such as allowing the federal government to negotiate the best possible deal on pharmaceuticals, and we’d be home free, baby! I’d even throw in an allowance to raise the SS retirement age by 1 year, one month increase every 2 calendar years and slightly sweeten the pot to get more people to opt for SS benefits at a later age.
JDM sure is mad.
I for one don’t think NPR/NCPR should cover anything going on within the scope of the north country, ny, the u.s. or earth. It is obvious that they have a stake in all of these places and the outcomes of everything that happens here… and don’t even think about discussing Mars. We all know we would already be living there if our tax dollars weren’t going to keeping us informed on issues of this planet and it’s inhabitants.
Ha, just kiddin. Thanks for your programming and for asking questions that, regardless of ones political support, we should all be asking.
signed,
‘Merican
If we have knowledge of a crime that has been committed we all should report that crime. But what does that mean? Hearing a rumor about sex abuse or domestic violence is not knowledge of a crime. St. Lawrence does not automatically report to police rumors of assault among students or faculty or staff, does NCPR?
Domestic violence is a problem in all of human society and all of US society, on campus, in Church, at work at a radio station. It is certainly not illegal to not rush to the police if there is a rumor. If someone comes to you and says I saw this man hit his wife, than that person should call the police that is the thing to do.
The only reason we care about this is because it involves his religion, it is biased.