The "Secrecy Policy”

by Celestial 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • 00DAD
    00DAD

    Celestial: As a Bible-based religion, the Watchtower Society can't require anything from congregation elders, other than what is specified in the Bible and what the law requires of them.

    First of all, the assertion that the WTBTS is a "Bible-based religion" is itself debatable, but putting that aside, your asinine comment which I quoted above completely misses the point the WT Legal directs elders to NOT report. There may be times when this was not in violation of secular laws, but it most certainly is in violation of common sense and basic morality.

    Have you lost your effin' mind? A child says they've been sexually abused and an (otherwise?) rational adult deliberately and consciously decides to keep it quiet! Why? Because that's what WT Legal told them to do.

    Get a clue!

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    A question may arise. “What if by our standards, we feel that a certain matter is, “uncorroborated or unsubstantiated?” The laws in some states are definitive on this issue.

    The Watchtower's standards are not a factor. It is not the elder's job to corroborate or substantiate evidence of an alleged crime. If they are informed about a crime the proper authorities should be notified immediately. The reason why a reporting mandate exists in 2012 is because it's a reflection of a moral standard that has always existed. A standard that the Watchtower has to be forced to comply with. The secular authorities or the "Roman Soldiers", however unpleasent they are, are the ones that mediate crime. An "elder" or a deacon of tested nobility (1 Tim 3) would be versed in moral law which is the only true law. Secular laws are just a best guess that reflect the ebb and flow of the laws of morality which have always existed in humanity from the beginning.

    In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law. Additionally, the victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

    The branch should not be notified about the crime. The only reason why they are involved is because they assert to have appointed the shepards of the flock of Jehovah's Witnesses by Holy Spirit. Therefore they have spiritual/legal liability for the actions of the people who they appoint. In the real world a man of nobility would simply notify the authorities of an alleged crime. Like calling 911 when you hear your neighbohr scream. But instead of calling 911 the Watchtower elders speak with a legal department first on the phone and are given instructions that are completely transparent to the secular public and the flock itself. This is immoral and unlawful. The elders of the Watchtower are not actually spiritual leaders, but part of a religious hierarchy scheme with purposes that are also transparent to the public and their own flock. You are defending the JW child protection policy, which actually harms victims. I hope one day you can see the ludicrousness of your actions in this thread. The elders are not qualified as per 1 Tim 3 and the proof is in the pudding.

    Matt 7 - 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

    -Sab

  • Celestial
    Celestial
    The Watchtower's standards are not a factor. It is not the elder's job to corroborate or substantiate evidence of an alleged crime. If they are informed about a crime the proper authorities should be notified immediately. The reason why a reporting mandate exists in 2012 is because it's a reflection of a moral standard that has always existed. A standard that the Watchtower has to be forced to comply with. The secular authorities or the "Roman Soldiers", however unpleasent they are, are the ones that mediate crime. An "elder" or a deacon of tested nobility (1 Tim 3) would be versed in moral law which is the only true law. Secular laws are just a best guess that reflect the ebb and flow of the laws of morality which have always existed in humanity from the beginning.

    The branch should not be notified about the crime. The only reason why they are involved is because they assert to have appointed the shepards of the flock of Jehovah's Witnesses by Holy Spirit. Therefore they have spiritual/legal liability for the actions of the people who they appoint. In the real world a man of nobility would simply notify the authorities of an alleged crime. Like calling 911 when you hear your neighbohr scream. But instead of calling 911 the Watchtower elders speak with a legal department first on the phone and are given instructions that are completely transparent to the secular public and the flock itself. This is immoral and unlawful. The elders of the Watchtower are not actually spiritual leaders, but part of a religious hierarchy scheme with purposes that are also transparent to the public and their own flock. You are defending the JW child protection policy, which actually harms victims. I hope one day you can see the ludicrousness of your actions in this thread. The elders are not qualified as per 1 Tim 3 and the proof is in the pudding.

    The laws are not necessary a reflection of moral standards that have always existed (study the Inquisition) and laws change over time. Through the coarse of crime and punishment, a person is allowed rights to verying degrees. No rights would mean a perpetrator should be locked up forever, shot or subjected to torture and mutilation which is what happens to some of these people in prison.

    Arguments are waged as to the management of those who commit crimes. Our society has at times had impoverished resources to answer such questions and limited options are available, so all too often, the answer is prison. The truth of the matter, is the government has taken programs it feels are effective alternatives to hospitalization and jails into consideration.

    http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm

    As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify the circumstances under which a communication is "privileged" or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communications may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure. If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.



    This arrangement exists in the state of California circa 2012. This arrangement obviously won't appease the mind of an atheist. The idea of repenting to a “God” and any “discipline” a church may administer as a form of corrective action. If this law should be amended in 2013, can all churches that respected it be sued into oblivion on a rank-and-file basis? I've never seen it happen.

    It's been argued that the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow for “pastoral communications” to absolve them of their legal obligation to report abuse. I can't understand how this arrangement can even be deemed scriptural.

    Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear. 1 Timothy 5:19, 20

    The point of bringing this up, is the government has made allowance for a reason to not report abuse. In recognition of this principle, when it comes to incidents that took place before January 1, 1997, when religious leaders became mandated reporters, Jehovah's Witnesses can't automatically incur liability. They respected a principle recognized by the federal government and they obeyed the law.

    It's an item of interest that this article was published on January 1, 1997.

    w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

    What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so.

    Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated. (Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.

    Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.


    It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses allow these people civil rights on a limited capacity. They were made aware, that a “child molester” may be lurking amongst you. I don't see that assuming this risk is any different than any other religion that respects the “confidentiality of pastoral communications” accept for the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate those who repeat this crime.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    good grief celestial. Read. I put it in large red text to make sure no one missed it but clearly you did. So I will post it again. If you need helkp understanding it let me know and I will try to simplify the message.

    Clergy-Penitent privilege does not apply when it is the victim asking for help.

    It only applies when it is the abuser who confesses a crime to a member of the clergy.

    And that is only when they are confessing to a real member of the clergy (which the WTS says JWs don't have) or a lawyer.

    When a victim goes to any professional and discloses instances of sexual abuse the law requires the professional to report to social services and the police - although each will notify the other.

    In Quebec Canada members of the public who are not professionals have a moral obligation to report - not a legal one. This might be different in other places.

    Whenever a child discloses sexual abuse or even physical abuse to the elders they would be morally required to call the authorities if they are not considered clergy. But since they also claim to be members of the clergy then they would be required by law to report, not to headquarters, but to the police or social services. Since they don't report in either case they are definitely morally and ethically negligent in helping the victim get the halp he or she asked for.

    The whole issue of clergy-penitent confidentiality is a straw-man argument. It has nothing to do with a victim asking for help.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    this is as frustrating as trying to deal with an abuser (not saying you are one)

    Across the board anyone including professionals who are normally granted confidentiality that goes out the window when the person confessing or disclosing that they want to harm themselves or someone else. Then everybody has the duty to report.

    I have had clients call me and tell me they are sitting on the phone with me with a gun in their hand and a plan to go shoot their abusers and then commit suicide. Normally my professional duty is to maintain confidentiality. But that disappears when a threat of harm is made towards others or themselves. Believe me I made sure the police got her house before I got off the phone with her.

    I cannot understand how a person could live with themselves if they didn't report abuse, threats of harm to oneself or others. I can't imagine how I would feel if I had ignored what my client was telling me only to get up the next moring to find out there had been a murder-suicide that I could have prevented.

    I know what it was like to tell someone about the abuse I was experiencing and have it ignored especially when previously it had been dealt with - poorly mind you but it was dealt with. How much better it would have been if the elder at the time had reported the abuser to the police. Perhaps my aunt and sister would still be alive. But the WTS doesn't really care about that. They were far too interesting in their reputation to woirry about little kids being abused. So they kept the abuser and threw the kids out.

    BTW my aunt was 13. I was 12 and my sister was 5

  • mind blown
    mind blown

    You're a perfect example of a robot that has lost your critical thinking skills.

    The WTS nor the GB has in insight nor wisdom to interpet scriptual mandates. They are blinded by $$$ and saving face, it is obvious by their lower level vertue, wisdom and intelligence.

    WTS does NOT have professional skills to diagnose a psychopath who is sexually abusing children. Period.

    Also, sexually abusing a child is a severe universal moral wrong, not only among religious followers, but the human race. Why do you think child molesters are separated from others in prison.

    That scripture is a "suggestion" for adults as you can see not children being secretly sexually raped. "Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear. 1 Timothy 5:19, 20. There is a HUGE difference. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 1 Corinthians 13:11

    "But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matt 18:6 "/ “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" Matt 18:10 / "But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God Mark 10:14 ?

    No one is fighting"penitential communication" privledge, however, there are clauses and laws/codes. Unless followed to the rule, it will not stand up in a court of law. This right is only between ONE clergy member to be present and confessor, it is a matter of privacy more then anything, and as you will see, there are other clauses in effect.

    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 penitential communication is admissible evidence if the clergy 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"]

    IF A CHILD GOES TO AN ADULT THAT IS IN PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT. Report the incident and let the professionals handle the situation. There are also laws in place to protect the reporter so they are not held repsonsible.

    The only reason I've posted on this thread is to inform lurkers, otherwise, I have conclued a while ago that you mainly try to find clauses and excuses for the WTS.

  • yknot
    yknot

    Lady Lee...

    Celestial is Rachel (Alice in Wonderland)....

    Really this is just her way of forcing the pieces to fit .....

  • mind blown
    mind blown

    Serious? I was wondering if it was her. My first experience with her was on Freeminds, she's as dense as they come.

    Thanx for the heads up....I will no longer post on her threads.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW
    this is as frustrating as trying to deal with an abuser....Lady Lee

    Thats because your dealing with someone..

    Who has been Kicked off this Board Multiple Times..And..

    Has sneaked back in,under another name..Again..

    This thread is "Dream Weavers" thread over on Topix..

    Dream Weaver is ..

    AliceInWonderLand..

    ........................... ...OUTLAW

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    which of course they will never fit.

    Why do they bother? Do they really think some stray person will wander in here, read what they posted and want to rush over top the nearest kingdom hall to find someone to study with them so they will become a JW?

    Really. I think far more might wait for the next JW to show up at their door to give them a piece of their mind. Most people can see the holes.

    Over and over and over people are able to demolish their inane arguments. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit