Elders refuse to give evidence of a molester and the molester gets away with it!

by punkofnice 29 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  exwhyzee

  She advised me to do the same, only this time, I should dismiss what the society says that doesn't agree with my own conscience and my own understanding of the Bible

  I told her that this might work for awhile, but sooner or later you'd need to be prepared for them to try and enforce some rule or other. It seems like this religion, rather than being a way to seek Bible Knowledge and guidence and apply it as you see fit, is enabling imperfect men to monitor your personal life, intervene in your relationship with God and punish you for not doing things their way. How could I be expected to go in Service and honestly recommend something to the public that I don't agree with?
• 

  Mary

  What precisely would you have the prosecutor ask them since the judge upheld the "clergy/penitent" motion thereby restricting the questions he/she can ask?

  Oooops! Missed that...........Unfortunately it seems more and more that some scumbag's 'rights' are more important than the child they molested.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  FINALLY, Ecclesiastical Immunity is not something that the WTS dreamed up. It is the law in many lands, including the US. If the WTS would waive/compromise their EI to testify, then they could be sued by the person who was entitled to the privacy. In many US states, child abuse is not granted EI and must be reported to authorities by clergy who become aware of such abuse. It is my understanding that the WTS directs its clergy members to report such cases in these states. In the past, they did not report it in states which did not have such a law. IMO that is not a WTS problem. It is a State problem for failing to pass laws to protect children. Your opinion is that in states where the law doesn't require clergy to report abuse to authorities, abuse simply isn't the WTS' problem? Are you REALLY saying this? Clergy should ONLY report if they happen to live in a state where it is required? In other states they have no responsibility? By the way, this is NOT a PAST policy of the Borg. It is CURRENT. They ONLY report in states where it is required by law. Anywhere else, they cover it up as best they can to protect themselves both legally and reputation-wise. It is disgusting. Ecclesiastical Immunity is disgusting. It doesn't matter if the WTS originated it or not; that's a red herring statement. A wealthy organization like the Borg should take the HIGH MORAL ground and do what's right. Then, if they're sued by a pedophile who feels his confidentiality was breached, they can pay HIM off in a settlement while his ass sits in jail, rather than the thousands of VICTIMS that result from their cover-ups and protection of his ilk.
• 

  Maze

  The purpose for a judicial committee is to determine if a person is repentant.

  Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, 1991, pp. 114
  
  Judgment Related to Repentance
  
  Elders must be able to discern genuine repentance on the part of the wrongdoer. (w81 9/1 pp. 24-6; it-2 pp. 770-4 )
  
  Genuine repentance is vital for wrongdoers because it is the first step leading back to God. (Rom. 2:4)
  
  It is particularly important to be sure genuine repentance exists in cases of repeated sin, a practice of sin.
  
  If gross sin extended over a long period of time, particular care should be exercised in determining the genuineness of the repentance. (w81 9/1 p. 26)
  
  Is the person cooperative? When questioned, are his answers forthright?

  ---

  If it wasn't for this proceeding, this added feature of the criminal prosecution in a court of law wouldn't be an option as it wouldn't exist, that's why it is privileged information.
  
  http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm
  
  Further, we regularly review our procedures to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.—Romans 13:1.
  
  Keep in mind, the elders are not eye witnesses, they're witnesses to a confession. If it became federal or state law that the elders must testify in court, they'd also have to read a person their rights if anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.
• 

  punkofnice

  @MAZE or Spade or Alice or whoever you are..........................

  Get orf my thread.

  I had to laugh though........where is God and in all this..just this one bit is not happifying alone...........

  Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, 1991, pp. 114
  
  Judgment (BY SIMPLE MEN NOT GOD) Related to Repentance
  
  Elders (IMPERFECT FLAWED MEN who might be friends of the molester but hate the victim) must be able to discern (Yeah, right. MEN are the judges here) genuine repentance on the part of the (here comes the cult 'loaded language') wrongdoer. (Oh, poor 'wrongdoer' let's get them in good standing in the cult then they can go out and peddle corporate propaganda to get power and cash for the leaders whilst keeping a squeaky clean facade for the antichrist) (w81 9/1 pp. 24-6; it-2 pp. 770-4 )

  Here's what I think to Maze's copy paste

  
• 

  nugget

  If someone confesses to a CRIME then surely part of the acts of repentence would be to make amends. By testifying in court the elders would be assisting such a one face up to the consequences of a CRIME. If the person pleads not guilty but has actually confessed to the elders then surely that person is LYING in court. How then can the elders privately reprove such a one they are obviously not repentent.
• 

  punkofnice

  Good point Nugget!
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Your opinion is that in states where the law doesn't require clergy to report abuse to authorities, abuse simply isn't the WTS' problem? Are you REALLY saying this? Clergy should ONLY report if they happen to live in a state where it is required? In other states they have no responsibility? By the way, this is NOT a PAST policy of the Borg. It is CURRENT. They ONLY report in states where it is required by law. Anywhere else, they cover it up as best they can to protect themselves both legally and reputation-wise.

  It is disgusting. Ecclesiastical Immunity is disgusting. It doesn't matter if the WTS originated it or not;

  Where the law does not require reporting abuse to authorities, it does not mean it is "optional" from a legal standpoint. Clergy-penitent privilege and ecclesiastical privilege, is an application of the principle of privileged communication that protects the contents of communications between a member of the clergy and a penitent, who shares information in confidence. The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest-penitent privilege was People v. Phillips, where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify or face criminal punishment. The Court opined: "It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered - that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance..." In twenty-five states, the clergyman-communicant statutory privilege does not clearly indicate who holds the privilege. In seventeen states, the penitent's right to hold the privilege is clearly stated. In only six states, both a penitent and a member of the clergy are expressly allowed by the statute to hold the privilege.

  IMO It would be wrong for any clergy member to compromise that confidentiality, and it would open them to lawsuits for breach of trust (and rightly so). If you don't like the law as it is written where you live, quit complaining here (that won't change a thing) and get off your butt and work to change the law. But it is not the fault of the WTS, the Catholic Church, or any other religious group.
• 

  Scully

  There are certain instances where Lawyer-Client Privilege and Doctor-Patient Privilege are suspended - such as when an individual threatens to harm themselves or others, or when they are a danger to themselves or others - and I don't see why this should not apply to the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, particularly where there is a known risk of harming a child.
• 

  Band on the Run

  There seem to be two related threads on this issue. I explained the common law rules regarding privilege for ministerial/penitents. It is very old. The law has carved out three privileges that I recall. Priest/penitent is prob. the oldest. The Church was Western civilization for centuries until the rise of nation states. Spousal privilege is another. There are some limits on it. Therapist/client is the other main ones. There is debate whether fostering trust in these relationships is worth the price. Journalists and social workers have wanted privilege but, generally, they don't have privilege. Instead, journalists frequently go to jail to protect their sources.

  When has the WT ever cared about individuals, esp. individuals who are children. The WT cares about the WT. It mocks the civil state and other mighty religions but it power grabs in every situation. The other thread raised the issue that they repeatedly claim not to have a clergy case but lie to courts about the nature of their religion. They want all the perks of major religions and want to bash them for having perks. My brother remarked about Al-Qaeda after 9/11 that the US is racist supporting intolerable dictatorships in the Middle East. If such characters as the Taliban, Heussein, Qadaffi ever seized power in Europe, all our forces would be devoted to freedom. Al-Qaeda criticized these monstrous governments but it did not want to change the horrid status quo. Rather, it wanted to impose its own, even worse dictatorship.

  The law must be neutral in this country. Some people don't like that I mention my legal credentials. Well, the WTBTS has some poor lawyers. The internal document that was posted here does not refer to "alleged child abusers" or "the accused" and convicted them in a kangaroo court. The wording of no discipline will be taken implies that it is wrong to report it. Why would anyone think of discipline for doing the moral thing? Of course, don't they put much parlance into not disputing and running to court with fellow Witnesses? Their moral immaturity is apparent.

  I'm very curious as to whether there are portions dealing with going about an investigation to determine how trustworthy the parties are before the authorities make their determination. To be fair, the Roman Catholic Church did far, far worse actions. I recall my physical and emotional absue as a child. In my mind, I am older than I actually was. I felt mature for my agonies. When I come upon young children especially, I am shocked. They are so precious and so vulnerable. Just as I am drawn to puppies and kittens, I want to protect stranger children. Jesus affirmed children in a society where they had no status. My gut feeling as always been that the JWs have wacky doctrine but so do we all. Their very fruits betray them. Read Paul's statement on God's love in Corinithians and tell me where it is present in this manual.