Ky. Bill to Repeal Clergy "Silent Right"

by Kenneson 82 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Trauma_Hound

  I'm all for protecting kids, remember, I'm a victim of abuse too, but this is not a solution, it's an attack on religion and will go to the heart of destroying the trust that MUST exist between the confessor and the confessee.

  Who really gives a rats ass about the confessor, is protecting the confessor so much more important then, protecting children? If he wants that kind of protection he can go see a psycholigist, because there, he might actually get some help, preists are not pyschologist. Myself I couldn't give a flying fuck about any religion, when it comes to protecting children. Let's see let's balance this, let's see what should take priority, protect children, or protect a religion? Any sane person would want to protect the children first.

  Searcher, I am quit well aware of the issues, and your wrong. Because there have been cases in the WTS where the person confessed, but nobody else in the congregation was told about the pedophile, nor were the police called, all the while, parents letting they're kids sit on these pedophiles laps. That simply isn't right.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I haven't read all the posts here yet, but I thought I'd add my comments.

  I am a Christian -- a humble follower and slave of Christ -- and here are my comments on this subject:

  Clergy, Priests, Elders, Ministerial Servants, Overseers, Bishops, Cardinals, Pastors, Rabbis, and everyone else on the face of the Earth -- Religious or not -- SHOULD NOT be allowed to cover-up CRIMES in the name of "Privacy" or for any other reason.

  Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 13 January 2003 2:13:0
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Elsewhere said:
  

  The right to free exercise of religion is not absolute... nor should it be.

  Very, very good statement.

  If a Religion teaches that Parents should not take their Child to the Doctor or the Hospital, but instead they should wait on a Miracle from God -- the Courts and Juries and Judges will rule that the Parents were neglecting the Child regardless of Freedom of Religion.

  Freedom of Religion should in no way be a freedom to neglect or hurt Children.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Also, I would like for some Catholic or JW to show me the Biblical support for their "Priest-Penitent Privilege" to cover-up and hide CRIMES from the Authorities.

  See Romans Chapter 13.

  Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 13 January 2003 2:25:28
• 

  searcher

  Trauma_Hound

  Searcher, I am quit well aware of the issues, and your wrong.

  So when a person who has been abused reports the abuse to a minister/priest/whatever they are a penitant and thus relieve the one who the abuse is reported to from the obligation to report to the secular authorities ?

  Sounds screwy to me.

  searcher.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Searcher, no that's not what this is about, this about abusers confessiong to clergy, there are already laws in several states, that require clergy to report abuse, if a victim comes forward to them, not if the abuser confesses, and that's what this is about.
• 

  searcher

  Trauma_Hound

  Thats what I meant by my post, the fact that the WT Elders are not reporting when a victim/survivor comes to them is illegal, so action could/should be taken against them.

  I do agree that the law should be that ALL should report abuse, whoever they are.

  searcher.
• 

  siegswife

  Here's a thought. If someone confesses to a member of the clergy because they are repentent, their repentence should be manifest by the willingness to answer to society. Even if someone is forgiven by God, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to answer to the secular authorities. That is why we have laws and government, isn't it?

  If someone isn't willing to face the consequences of their actions (manifest their repentence) are they really repentent?

  I want to ammend my previous statement to include "confessions of child abuse or molestation" to what the clergy should be compelled by law to report.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Exactly my thoughts Seigswife.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Here's a thought. If someone confesses to a member of the clergy because they are repentent, their repentence should be manifest by the willingness to answer to society. Even if someone is forgiven by God, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to answer to the secular authorities. That is why we have laws and government, isn't it?

  If someone isn't willing to face the consequences of their actions (manifest their repentence) are they really repentent?

  Generally speaking, absolution should be withheld unless the penitent goes to the authorities.

  The clergy penitent privelege has some pretty ancient roots. Not a few priests died because they refused to reveal the confession of the political opponent of one monarch or another. IF what is proposed is approved one possible outcome is that pedophiles AND other sinners as well won't go to confession. Then they lose the counsel given, which is to turn themselves in in many cases.

  My opposition to the JW position on this issue has always been rooted in the fact that they discourage VICTIMS from going to the police and won't generally report even when the info comes from a VICTIM. I still hold, and will always hold to the clergy penitent privelege. This isn't a biblical issue, it's a constitutional one.

  The constitutional issues are freedom of religion, the right against self incrimination, the Miranda issues, etc etc etc. Disagree all you want, this will be shot down by the courts IF it's passed. Now, having said that I'm all for making it mandatory if clergy come into this info by any other way than a confession from the perp.