It's been a while since I left, but as I recall, the emotional needs of a DF'd person were never considered unless mental illness was involved. Physical well being (for example, taking care of an elderly DF'd parent or a teenage child living under your roof) is what JW's sort of pay lip service to.
Research question re. Treatment of Disfellowshipped Relatives
That is a sticky situation. We have a few close family members who have been df'd for years. My husband is an elder and continues to see them 4-5 times a year. We just do not advertise and enjoy spending time with them.
Contact is to be kept to 'necisary family business'
which in reality translates to
'they are about to die so we had better make sure to get control of the estate'
Is it this one?
w74 8/1 p. 471 par. 21 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones
As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that "leaven" is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such "leaven." Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one's physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
In some cases where a disfellowshiped parent is aged or in bad health and needs care, the son or daughter might feel it advisable to bring such a parent into the home to fulfill proper filial obligations. So, too, Christian parents of a disfellowshiped son or daughter who is no longer a minor might decide to take such a one back into the home due to that one's having a grave health problem or having been incapacitated in an accident or being in a destitute state financially. These are humanitarian decisions that Christian families must make and the congregational elders are not required to intervene where there is no sound evidence of a reintroduction of a corrupting influence within the congregation.
AnnOmally, I could just reach out to you and kiss you. Thanks for the reference.
Thanks for all your comments, friends.
As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them.
What an enormous difference compared to th eposition taken today!
There was a definite softening of the stance on DF'ed relatives, and even non-relatives, in the mid to late 70's, as the '74 WT article above indicates.
The movement was crushed - obliterated - in the wake of the Ray Franz / apostate cleanup in th eearly 80's.
That was a definite fork-in-the-road moment, and the WTS has been steadily becoming more rigid and authoritarian as time has gone on.
But, how can they get around this one. It's printed in the WT...granted in 1974.
I remember being in trouble as a Chaperone at a Christian gathering. I allowed the kids to do the twist, and that song "Dancing Queen" A pious sister almost tore my face off. She found an article in the eary 60's that spoke against the twist. Poor Chubby Checkers, didn't have a chance.
Later on, at a wedding the Circuit Overseer's wife, and another Elder's wife was dancing the, "Dancing Queen".
But, I couldn't speak against the printed article. If you can still obtain it on the Soc CD Rom for research, it's still applicable.
NewChapter: I knew of a young girl who got pregnant. She was disfellowshipped and her family and everyone she knew turned their backs on her. She had the baby and suffered from post partum depression. The child's father rejected her. Her family and friends shunned her. She shot herself to death. JW's blamed the boyfriend who rejected her. She was 19. Yeah.
SHUNNING IS EVIL. Shunning causes deaths.
The following image may speak in behalf of such depressed children. Remember, a disfellowshipped child living in the home of JW parents must not be allowed to mingle with other baptized folks, including fleshly brothers, sisters, cousins, etc., who live outside the home. Imaging the trauma of a get-together at his parents home.
I wouldn't be surprised if that 1974 article was written by Raymond Franz while he was still in the good graces of the organization. The WT came down much harder on the treatment of DF'd relatives by the early 80's and remains so to this day.