Allow me to put my 2 cents here. First of all, clergy-penitent privileges is similar to attorney-client privileges. Under certain conditions, attorney-client privileges are to be suspended/ rendered moot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege. In the same way, clergy-penitent privileges are rendered moot, if such is used to conceal/further a crime. Child abuse and molestation is a crime both in the eyes of state and of God. Covering it up so that God's name will not be in reproach is utter nonsense as it will imply that God is a willing accomplice in the crime.
Was the Verdict of the Candace Conti lawsuit a Win-Win for the WTS?
by rip van winkle 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
mind blown
That link covers the Clergy as well.You only see what you want to see Band.
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"] -
Balaamsass
Well OP I think it depends on what one considers a "WIN". To a normal person...no.
To some in cult land ..yes.
Publicity. Proof of persecution. Reason to raise $$$. New members? Just think of all the PEDOs reading about the secret rules, two witness rule, and ability to not only have targets in the hall...but in the door to door work!
-
Low-Key Lysmith
What really needs to happen here is that many, many more victims need to come forward, sue, and not settle out of court. I fear that this will become a "well, it only happened once" image in the public eye. The RAMPANT child abuse withing the Org needs to be made public.
-
Band on the Run
I don't know the contours of the pentinent privilege. Frankly, the WT does not strike me as a confession but I am very biased. These will be the very issues asserted in the appeal. It is not as simple as people want to believe.
We can't decide that confession is privileged for Catholics and not for new religious movements. I would think that their filling out a form and forwarding to Bethel is the most powerful evidence against the privilege. It is strange b/c over and over again the Society made a big deal that we did not have confession. The Satanic Catholics did but we were good and godly so there was no confession.
It strikes me as weird that the form of an admission should matter. For instance, "I did x" during confession (however it is determined for Jews or Protestants, etc) may be protected but "I did x" blurted out to clergy in conversation would not be privileged. Hopefully, pedos are not well read as to when the privilege exists.
Not all statements to a lawyer are covered. Certain rules must apply to create the privilege. It seems that formality is one indicia. This happened in merry old England, too. The scum of the earth could go free by reciting a few words in Latin and being present on church land, which was most of the realm. The king's men could do nothing. Over time a legal fiction evolved that if the king's peace were threatened, the king's men could enter church land and seize the criminal.
I am curious if anyone here has ever "confessed" to the elders. What is the dividing line between penance and counseling? It should be well defined, bright line.
-
james_woods
What really needs to happen here is that many, many more victims need to come forward, sue, and not settle out of court. I fear that this will become a "well, it only happened once" image in the public eye. The RAMPANT child abuse withing the Org needs to be made public.
What Lysmith said there is exactly what needs to happen with this.