Mindblown, according to the link you sent clergy are exempt from reporting abuse revealed during a confession.
How are child abuse laws different from Watchtower corporate policy?
by Resistance is Futile 14 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
mind blown
confession maybe, but what about when a child and or parents go to the elders directly and they do nothing?
I would think right thing to do would be even if he confesses, he should be disfellowshipped and have a talk about child molestation, at least a congregation would be alerted. If and when the pedo moves to another congregation his records go along with him and they make some kind of Pedo code announcement (lol) at least there is some kind of warning to the RnF.
Any custodian of records of a
clergy member(specified in
P.C. 11165.7(33) and 11166 (3)
(A)). “On or before January 1,
2004, a clergy member or any
custodian of records for the
clergy member may report to an
agency specified in Section
11165.9 that the clergy member
or any custodian of records for
the clergy member, prior to
January 1, 1997, in his or her
professional capacity or within
the scope of his or her
employment, other than during a
penitential communication,
acquired knowledge or had a
reasonable suspicion that a child
had been the victim of sexual
abuse that the clergy member or
any custodian of records for the
clergy member did not
previously report the abuse to
an agency specified in Section
11165.9. ordered by a court of law.
(P.C. 11165.7(a) (30)).
-
Jeffro
*** g 1/11 p. 9 ***
How Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Different? ... They have no clergy class.
Liars.
-
Band on the Run
It all comes to down to whether it was a penitential conversation Penance involves forgiveness. I am certain there is a large body of case law that separate penitent conversations from other clergy interactions. I wanted to ask the lawyer this the other night.
I am not so confident as the lawyer. Someone should research this and post about it.
Of course, JWs are unique so it is often hard to figure out how their policy conforms with general laws.
It will be specific to CA. What bothers me is that the mere form of the conversaton can cause a very different outcome.
-
mind blown
What do you guys make of this?
Absent a waiver (Ca Evid § 912), both clergy and penitent--whether or not parties to the action--have a privilege to refuse to disclose a "penitential communication." [Ca Evid §§ 1033, 1034]
However, only the penitent may assert the privilege to prevent others from disclosing the protected communication. [Ca Evid § 1033]
a. Clergy-penitent relationship: The privilege operates only as to "penitential communications" (below) between:
· A member of the clergy . . . meaning a priest, minister, religious practitioner "or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization" (Ca Evid § 1030);
and
· A person who has made a penitential communication to a clergy (Ca Evid § 1031).
b. "Penitential communication": A "penitential communication" for purposes of the privilege is a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third persons so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, incident to the tenets of his or her religious denomination, is authorized or accustomed to hear such communications and has a duty to keep such communications secret. [Ca Evid § 1032]
Thus, like the attorney-client, physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privileges, the clergy-penitent privileges only protects confidential communications in the course of the protected relationship. [See Ca Evid § 1032, Comment--privilege not limited to "confessions" in denominational sense]
(1) Confidentiality presumed: Communications made in the course of a clergy-penitent relationship are presumed confidential. [Ca Evid § 917]
(2) Penitential intent: The penitent must intend to make a confidential communication to a clergy in the course of his or her religious practices/beliefs. [People v. Johnson (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 204, 75 Cal.Rptr. 605, 607--D's nonpenitential statements to street-clothed clergy not protected where clergy and D were strangers]
(a) Pastoral counseling: The privileges do not protect any and all "confidential" conversations with the clergy. Where the conversation is not of a religious nature, there is neither the requisite penitential intent nor sectarian duty to keep the information secret, and the privileges do not apply. [People v. Edwards (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1358, 1364, 248 Cal.Rptr. 53, 57--embezzler who sought priest's help to prevent church checks from bouncing not communicating with priest as "penitent seeking God's forgiveness and absolution"]
(3) Knowing presence of third persons defeats privilege: The clergy-penitent privileges recognize no "reasonably necessary" disclosures: i.e., communications between clergy and penitent are not privileged if, to the penitent's knowledge, they are made in the presence of third persons. [Ca Evid § 1032]
(a) Eavesdroppers: On the other hand, penitential communications intercepted by eavesdroppers (persons as to whom penitent is unaware) remain protected. [Ca Evid § 1033]
(4) Authorization to hear penitential communications: Communications are not protected as "penitential" if made to a person neither authorized nor accustomed to hearing same by the discipline or practice of his or her denomination or religious organization. [Ca Evid § 1032; see People v. Thompson (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 419, 426, 184 Cal.Rptr. 72, 76--D's confession to person who "studied some teachings" of Church of Scientology not privileged]
Independent privileges; waiver issues: Sections 1033 and Sections 1034 establish independent privileges for the penitent and the clergy, respectively. Thus, the clergy may claim the privilege, even if the penitent has waived it. [See Ca Evid § 1034, Comment--"the law will not compel a clergyman to violate--nor punish him for refusing to violate--the tenets of his church which require him to maintain secrecy as to confidential statements made to him in the course of his religious duties"]
And, conversely, the penitent may prevent the clergy from disclosing a protected communication even though the clergy is willing to waive his or her privilege. [Ca Evid § 1033]
(1) Clergy not bound to assert privilege on penitent's behalf:The clergy is under no legal duty to claim the privilege on the penitent's behalf. Thus, a if the cler penitential communication is admissible evidencegy fails to claim the privilege and the penitent is now deceased, incompetent, absent or otherwise fails to assert his or her privilege (Ca Evid § 1033). [See Ca Evid § 1034, Comment--"The extent to which a clergyman should keep secret or reveal penitential communications is not an appropriate subject of legislation; the matter is better left to the discretion of the individual clergyman involved and the discipline of the religious body of which he is a member"]