Controversey between Bill Bowen, Ray Franz and Jim Penton
Ordinarily I do not get involved in controversies of this nature.
However, I believe there are some inaccuracies in the statements
made by all of the above, not deliberately or to support a certain
position with respect to pedophiles and child molestation in the
congregations of JWs, but rather because of the 'era' or time
period with which each of the above are familiar. My association
with JWs has expanded the entire period covered by all three men
above.
Ray Franz gives his perspective from having spent many years in
the missionary work in the Carribean followed by his view from a
seat on the governing body. Neither vantage point gives a
complete picture of what was going on at that time. Jim Penton
presents his view as an elder in Lethbridge, a small city on the
Canadian Prairies, during the 1970's decade. Since he would be
viewed as a foreigner in the congregations where he spent time
such as the four American States Puerto Rico and Spain he would
not be entrusted with judicial matters of this nature. Because of
the emphasis on confidentiality neither the elders nor the members
of the congregation who knew about cases of Pedophylia would
confide in him even though he served as an elder. Only in Canada
would his position as an elder bring him into contact with cases
of Pedophilia. It is quite possible that there were no cases of
Pedophilia in the congregations in Lethbridge.
Considering the different vantage points of these two men, I
believe what both of these men say is the truth insofar as the
time period of which they are familiar. However, both project the
environment as they saw it then as applying to the present
environment within the congregations of JW's in the decade of the
90's. To do so is to ignore the fact that the scene of this world
is changing. 1 Cor.7:31
In the past decade, victims of child abuse have come forward
because for the first time in their lives, there are those who
will believe them. In past decades, no one would believe such
reports especially if the accusations were against people in
authority, in whatever walk of life or religious affiliation. The
victim simply suffered in secrecy amidst a sea of humanity
dominated by male chauvanism. The victim although a child was
customarily blamed for the assault on himself, by what he said,
how he dressed or what he did. The same was true of rape victims
and is still somewhat true today, who fail to report the crime
because of the public shame with which they will be crowned.
In the decades of the 50's, 60's and 70's the statements of
children were not accepted as truthful, but rather as figments of
their imaginations or dreams. The credence of statements of
adults always took precedence over that of children. Thus it was
during that period that children's reports of sexual assault were
neither believed by the parents nor the elders. Viewing statements
from children with such little importance the elders very seldom
reported such accusations to their superiors (CO's or DO's). Since
both CO's & DO's were of the same generation and of the same
mental dispositions, seldom would they report any such cases
presented to them, to the branch offices. With this background, I
can well understand why Ray Franz never came across a case of
pedophilia in this 40 years of service with the Watchtower.
We must never make the same mistake as the ridiculers who say that
" all things are continuing exactly as from creation's beginning"
that was fortold as charactistic of the last days. 2 Pe.3:4
Both Ray Franz and Jim Penton have failed to avoid this snare,
they fail to accept the report made by those who are now on the
front lines in the battle against wickedness and injustice. Times
have changed, things are not as they always were. Bill Bowen is
presenting to the governing body and to the whole world the truth
about the way things are now, the environment that victims of
pedophilia find themselves in the the congregations of JW's. It
takes men of great moral character and fortitude to stand up on
behalf of these "orphans and widows" and tell it how it is. Jas.
1:27
Ray Franz is quoted as saying that when he penned the directions
for judicial committees regarding applying Mt. 18:15-17 he did not
intend that these steps be applied to cases of child molestation.
Yes, I agree, he clearly stated that "the offences here discussed
were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the
individuals involved. This would not include such offences as
fornication, adultery, homosexuality ..." OR pp. 157-158. Child
molestation and incest are porneia or fornication. He was
therefore instructing elders that Mt 18;15 is not to be used in
handling such offences.
In contrast to this direction the Watchtower of November 1, 1995
directs that "if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an
accusation...then the two elders can advise him that in line with
the principle at Mt 18:15, he should personally approach the
accused about the matter". I can think of no direction which
shows such a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of
child abuse as this one. If this is not so then the person giving
such direction must have the same moral character as the pedophile
himself. To apply Mt. 18;15 would cause the victim to relive the
terrifying and the horrific experience of the abuse. Such would
give the pedophile the opportunity to reinforce his earlier
threats of intimidation. Only a pedophile could willingly put a
victim through such an ordeal.
I agree with Jim Penton insofar as most judicial hearings are
concerned, the two witnesses principle is biblical and needs to be
adhered to. However, 1 Tim. 5:19 says, "Do not admit an
accusation against an older man, except on the evidence of two or
three witnesses." Need these always be eye witnesses. I hardly
think so, especially in the case of pedophilia. A semen sample
left on the victims clothes, bruises left on the torso can
corroborate the testimony of the victim. Why can not those
presenting evidence of this nature comprise the two or three
witnesses required in this scriptural injunction. Watchtower
policy requiring two witnesses claims to be Bible-based. To be
truly Bible-based the policy must encompass all Bible principles
pertaining to the offence. 1 Tim.5:20 says, " Reprove before all
onlookers persons who practice sin that the rest may also have
fear". The Watchtower policy requires that elders keep cases of
pedophilia secret under the guise of confidentiality. Elders and
others that do not adhere to this are difellowshipped. The
branches have directed that those who have gone public with this
problem, be disfellowshipped. This violates the scriptural
injunction in verse 21 that admonishes, "to keep these things
without prejudgment, doing nothing according to a biased leaning."
How can elders comply with this when they have been instructed by
the branch or governing body to disfellowship such persons before
a judicial committee meeting is convened.
The elders discourage victims and their parents from reporting to
the authorities by informing them that they can go to the
authorities but they must be prepared to accept the consequences
for doing so. In turn the governing body of the Watchtower
discourages elders from reporting cases of pedophylia to the
authorities when they direct them to report to the authorities in
states where they are required to do so by law. Why not in all
states and jurisdictions even though there exists no law requiring
them to do so. Is a crime less serious in some states than
others? Another Bible principle that should be included in a
Bible-based policy is that stated in Lev. 5:1 The authority to
whom he must report is not the authority of the Christian
congregation, but Rom 13:4 identifies that authority to be the
civil authority, "it is God's minister, an avenger to express
wrath upon the one practicing what is bad."
Another principle to be considered in a Bible based policy is that
of caring for orphans and widows in their tribulations. Jas. 1:27
By failing to identify such ravenous wolves (pedophiles) in the
congregation the elders are putting all the children at risk.
Parents need to know who the pedophiles are to protect their
children. Failure to do so is gross negligence by the body of
elders and those who instruct the elders to keep the offences
confidential bear a fearsome responsibility before the Almighty
God, Jehovah.
It is this policy of the Governing Body, hypocrically described as
Bible-based that has made the congregations of JW's a haven for
pedophiles. The pedophile is free to roam about in the
congregation undetected, ready to pounce on his prey without
interference from the elders, but in fact protected by them. When
Ray Franz and Jim Penton were both associated with JW's no such
policy existed. In fact,I recall letters from the Branch Office
reprimanding a Judicial Committee because they allowed a pedophile
to remain in the congregation. They were told in that letter to
name the pedophyle and give him public reproof and/or
disfellowship him from the congregation. This occurred in the mid
1980's.
Why is the governing body adopting a policy that protects
pedophiles and hurts children, I do not know? Is it out of
ignorance that they do so? Do they not understand the terrible
consequences to the victims from this abuse? If not out of
ignorance then it must be that there exist pedophiles in their
midst determined to keep the problem hidden, so that, in turn they
will not eventually be exposed. Luke 12:45 A detective, a
director in charge of officers investigating child abuse once
confided to me, that if someone in authority shields or protects a
pedophile that person is likely to be a pedophile himself.
When it comes to victims of child abuse, the victims do not lie.
To come forward as an abused victim brings so much hatred and
public shame on the victim, that seldom would anyone do so
falsely. Yes, Jim Penton makes the point that some women may
have accused their husbands to keep the father from seeing the
children. If that was their motive to make a false accusation,
they did not realize how much reproach and hardship doing so would
bring upon them. In such cases there is no evidence that the
victims themselves initiated such accusations. On the other hand
when children come forward and tell their mother what has occurred
more often than not the mother too refuses to believe them. The
vast majority of women who make the accusation against estranged
husbands are doing so because they have believed their children or
they or their doctors have seen evidence of sexual molestation.
Children that are being sexually abused give charactistic evidence
of this by their behavior, their emotional stability, their play
and their speech. Trained psychologists and therapists can easily
identify such victims, but it is often difficult to get them to
talk about their ordeal so that the predators can be prosecuted.
To heal psychologically a child needs to talk about the matter. to
find someone who believes him and who gives him comfort and
reassurance to restore his damaged self-image.
I don't mean to bore the reader with all this description, but I
distinctly get the impression from the statements that Ray Franz
and Jim Penton make in their letters that they too lack an
understanding of the dynamics of child abuse. A recent TV program
described the growing incidence of child abuse as alarming in the
United States but as an epidemic in Canada. Why an epidemic in
Canada? Could it be that Canadians are prone to keep things
hidden, whereas Americans tend to be more vocal? Bill Bowen is
not a radical seeking public attention. What Bill has experienced
is exactly what I have experienced in attempting to get the elders
and the Society to take action against pedophiles in the decade of
the 90's. Bill has revealed the extent of the problem by his
silentlambs website. I only suspected that the problem was so
widespread, but he had added names to the list in the thousands.
For the sake of the victims, believe the evidence Bill is
presenting, it is the only way that this problem will be solved.
A few years ago, no one in Canada believed that the private
schools, run by the Catholic Church, The Anglican Church and the
United Church were havens for predators of child abuse. Yet now,
these churches are facing bankruptcy because it has been exposed
in the courts and the victims are seeking redress and
compensation. Can not the governing body of the Watchtower
Society learn from the experiences of these religious
organizations, and recognize they have a problem. They need to
recognize the problem before they can correct it.
Disfellowshipping those who draw the problem to their attention is
not solving the problem. It will not go away, but rather continue
to grow until it engulfs the whole organization.
Jim Penton says he is concerned that the 'anti-abuse' movement is
becoming like the anti-cult movement. I whole heartedly disagree.
The organizations providing refuge and protection to the predators
of child abuse are the ones displaying the characteristics of a
cult. Demanding absolute obedience, tolerating no differing
opinions, punishing those who do not fall in line. claiming to be
the spokemen for the Almighty God, claiming to be spirit directed
in all they do. These are characteristics of a cult. These
characteristics have never been found among those seeking redress
for the widespread abuse of children. When has the pursuit of
justice ever been a danger to civil liberties? The pursuit of
justice in both the United States and Canada has entrenched civil
liberties in the constitution of the United States and Canada.
When an organization punishes or disfellowships a member for
exercising the right of free speech, that organization is behaving
like a cult. If an organization does not wish to be identified as
a cult then it must not behave as a cult. Actions speak louder
than words.
Jim Penton says, "there have been far too many cases of false
accusations of child abuse." Keep in mind that just because
the accusation cannot be proved in a court of law it is often
labelled as a false accusation. Very often the problem is not
that the accusation is false, but rather that there has been
insufficient conclusive evidence to establish that accusation as
true in a court of law and yet in fact the accusation may be true
but one has not been able to come up with sufficient evidence
to satisfy the court. In my more than 5 decades of association
with JW's I have encounterd some fifteen convicted pedophiles and
another nine known, but not turned over to the authorities,
associated with the congregations. In the recent decade, the
numbers have mushroomed. Obviously, I have had a different
vantage point than both Ray Franz and Jim Penton to be aware of so
many. As to whether there are more among JW's proportionally than
most other religious groups I would have to agree with Bill Bowen.
Whenever an organization functions with an internal judicial
system abuses are prevalent. In the past decade the congregations
have become havens for pedophiles. Of all the pedophiles I have
been acquainted with above, only a few have ever been
disfellowshipped. Even though disfellowshipped, usually they have
been reinstated within a year. It is known that about 80 percent
of boys that have been sexually abused will themselves become
predators in adult life. Think of the multiplier effect this has
on the number of pedophiles in the congregations.
Until the governing body recognizes a problem exists, I have
little hope that the situation will change without the direct
intervention of the Almighty God, Jehovah.
Truly yours,
Casey A.
