Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants

by pixel 143 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    I am sure there are legal experts employed by Brooklyn who looking at how to minimise the WTS's exposure to litigation. I just don't think every organisation change has some ulterior motive designed to keep the GB away from court. You only have to look at the Candice Conti case to see how sucessful the WTS is at stringing the legal process out. I think the effort and money it takes to bring even a pretty rock solid case to court is a far larger barrier. I do accept that criminal culpabilty perhaps is different but even then prosecuting a perpetrator is far more easy for the legal system to follow than trying to bring criminal charges against those percieved as officers of an organisation.

    I know we all like to think that the GB is an evil, machiavellian entity, morphed into the ultimate end of level boss but I am sure most of this comes down to saving money and being able to reduce resource requirements. I think the casual treatment of those who have dedicated decades of free labour is far more of a shocking reality than believing the GB are trying to distance themselves even further from the evil clutches of the public prosecutor.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    It's alot harder to drag out a criminal case than a money case (like Candice). The WTS can not play games in crimnal court. And, the District Attorney is a whole other animal than a tort attorney. I think this past February has the WTS/GB looking to cut off all criminal issues.

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    I hear what you are saying skeeter. I have to add that have no formal law training plus I apprecitate things are different in the US to here in the UK. I could be way off base.

    Having said that I think most would agree that it is difficult to bring sustainable legal charges against a corporation and it's officers, especially when a religious charity. True, if it were to happen the opportunity for legal game playing is far less than a tort case but I am still not convinced that concern over legal culpability is at the heart of this move to shift responsibility for appointments.

    I see an organisation trying to save money, lose people, reduce the care exposure as long standing volunteers get older, find ways of securing revenue streams and keep the R&F beleiving the chariot is about to hit warp speed. I am not saying implications of civil or criminal litigation are being ignored, I just don't think all roads lead to the GB covering their flabby arses.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Kon, please read the article I posted a link on the previous page of this thread. The District Attorney is after Bethel & the Governing Body, to put them in jail, for allowing the JW pedophile. Whether or not this DA gets his win, this is where the law is going here in the US, "Lock up the pedophiles and those who knowingly helped the pedophile." The corporation doesn't go to jail, but the people inside the corporation who knew of the illegal conduct and helped in it, are held criminally culpable. It does not matter if the corporation is a non-profit charity or Enron. White collar crimes are given more of a pass here in the US, but child abuse/pedophile rings are not.

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Will do!

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Ok skeeter, I've read the article and do agree that the WTS will be looking to minimise exposure here. What, however, would be the implications of this type of prosecution? There must be 1000s of churches and charitable organisations in US alone that, were the DA's office to be successful, would then be at risk of criminal prosecution. Some will be tiny but what about the Catholic Church? Is a DA's office somewhere in the US going to subpoena the Pope?

    I don't mean to pour scorn on your proposal as I think the WTS have been in the game long enough to know that it's always worth trying to pre-empt a situation. I would not be surprised if more heat does come on the leadership of organisations when it is clear that the organisational processes offered scant protection and potentially allowed abuse to continue. I also do see that the charge of knowingly covering up the abuse does present a direct risk to the GB. I can also see that by delegating the responsibility for appointing elders there is a potential abstraction of culpability.

    My gut feel remains that the reality of a DA trying to bring such a prosecution would present such legal ramifications and have such limited chance of success that the legal resources available to the WTS are a far more effective risk management weapon than making the COs carry the can. I suspect that if there were to be a groundswell of action along these lines then public prosecutors would go for some lower hanging fruit than the WTS.

    It would be very, very, very sweet if I was completely wrong however!

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    skeeter - "I think the law is moving towards holding all who know of pedophile abuse to be criminally culpable."

    I wouldn't go that far, but I still think this might be on the table:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/240287/1/Something-occurred-to-mee280a6

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    The law does not change overnight. It takes a decade or two, normally. But, I know of two cases in the US where "higher ups" were considered for breaking a criminal law. I gave you the first case.

    Here's another case. It involes the Catholic church. A Bishop was criminally indicted for failing to report child abuse he knew of occuring. Not that he actually did the abuse, but that he knew of it and didn't report it. This article shows where other courts have also held those who knew criminally liable.

    This, combined with the Oklahoma case which directly targeted Bethel, has to have the WTS thinking of ways to keep Bethel workers and the Governing Body away from jail. Limit their knowledge, and you limit their criminal culpability. Limit that they appoint elders, and you limit their knowledge that men in power over the congregation were also a pedophile.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/kansas-city-bishop-indicted-in-reporting-of-abuse-by-priest.html?_r=0

    <nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse

    <nyt_byline>

    By A. G. SULZBERGER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: October 14, 2011 234 Comments

    • FACEBOOK
    • TWITTER
    • GOOGLE+
    • SAVE
    • EMAIL
    • SHARE
    • PRINT
    • REPRINTS

    <nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>

    KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.

    Enlarge This Image

    Archdiocese of Kansas City and St. Joseph, via Associated Press

    The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Robert Finn.

    Related

    National Twitter Logo.

    Connect With Us on Twitter

    Follow@NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

    Readers’ Comments
    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

    The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.

    The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.

    A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.

    Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.

    “This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”

    The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.

    In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.

    “This is about protecting children,” she said.

    If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.

    Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.

    “To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.

    It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.

    The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.

    Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.

    Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.

    The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.

    It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”

    Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.

    That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.

    The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.

    Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.

    France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president ofBishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.

    A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua , was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.

    <nyt_correction_bottom> <nyt_update_bottom>

  • hoser
    hoser

    If that is the case they would have to delete all elders and ministerial servants and have the circuit overseer ask them if they fiddled around with little kids before he reappoints them.

  • jonahstourguide
    jonahstourguide

    Good point hoser.

    That may well be in the instructions to co's

    He may have to pop the question to all

    appointed prior to the latest edition of flock book

    jtg

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit