by The Searcher 14 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
The point I think Rick is making is that this guy molested children while out in the preaching work a religous requirement concidered mandatory for all members.
That's the part that got them liable, even if he's not an MS, the corporation put children in harms way by allowing him to be with children alone with no warning about his past molestations which were kept a secret by church policy.
The link Cedars gave is no longer working. It appears to be removed now. I wish I had saved a screen shot.
Removing such statements reminds me of Brave New World, 1984, and Animal Farm. Both the Soviet Union and Communist China removed historical statements from the public record. Photographs were doctored to remove public figures now in disgrace. A California jury, called randomly, found the WT liable. The WTBTS had notice of the pedophile's activities and did not warn members of the increased risk. The two-witness rule means strong, corroborating evidence, evidence admissible in court and used by law enforcement authorities, could not be heard. The Witness culture does not want to bring reproach on Jehovah. People are consistently encouraged not to go to law enforcement. More and more states are enacting laws that leave the Witnesses no choice but to report such acts to law enforcement. It is not hard to call 911 or go to your local police department. Most churches have express policies to comply with the law. Besides, JWs enjoy no confessional privilege. They mock the rite of confession.
Simon says to ignore me. I researched clery privilege quickly when the Conti trial decision has reached. First, privilege of all sorts is being re-evaluated by the courts and legal scholars. Modern discovery procedures stress no surprises. Juries should hear facts. The lawyer-client privilege is the strongest. In order for clery privilege to be asserted, there must be a confession. It does not apply to routine spiritual discussion or chat about the weather or other matters. The penitent must confess directly to one clergy member.One need not be Roman Catholic to assert the privilege. The privilege existed at common law to bolster Roman Catholic confessions. I always heard that the Witnesses were fine b/c they had no confession. The maybe not so penitent admitted misconduct to the elders, plural. More than one clergy person presence breaks privilege. Some state mandatory child sex abuse reporting statutes might also destroy privilege. Society is not so pious. The clear trend is to limit privilege.
Generally, clergy communications are confidential. There are times when confidential communications may be revealed with no bad consequences. Therapists, for example, must promptly report any threats/plans to harm another person. If you sue someone, the confidential communication may be offered against you, if relevant to the proceeding.
