Question for Hillary or ?

by DJ 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • Scully
    Scully

    *** w53 12/1 pp. 727-728 “Become Reconciled to God” ***

    GAINING JEHOVAH’S FAVOR

    22 Nor for the average man, sincere though he may be, can a weekly confession gain a right standing with God. Instead of mere lip service, a changed, positive course of action is required, and it must be based on knowledge. (1 Pet. 1:14, 15) It is impossible to win God’s favor by following a zigzag course of conduct, during the week running amuck and then on one day of the week suddenly assuming an air of piety and devout worship. Jehovah looks upon the heart and knows the mind of man; and so a mere profession of righteousness is not sufficient to gain a blessing from God. A man who has an abiding love for righteousness will practice it. He will look to God and to his Word for guidance, never thinking that a simple confession to another imperfect and sinful human can right repeated and deliberate wrongs. To think that telling one’s sins and shortcomings to another person will in some way miraculously clear the slate before God is to show an undue and superstitious reverence for such person. This is certainly not in accord with the Scriptures nor with God’s arrangement that Jesus serve as our mediator. The apostle Paul vigorously protested against men of his time who wished to honor him as a deity. When the people of Lystra attempted to do acts of worship to Paul and Barnabas, they cried out, saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are human creatures having the same infirmities as you do, and are declaring the good news to you, for you to turn from these vain things to the living God.”—Acts 14:15, NW.

    23 Even though Paul was constantly active in Jehovah’s service, he never took the attitude that he had done enough so that he could now relax and slow down or retire. He did not advocate a mere confession as the way to become reconciled to God. Rather he pictured himself as pursuing and stretching forward toward the goal that God sets up in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:13, 14) He realized his imperfections and shortcomings and knew that it was only through Jehovah’s mercy that he had the wonderful privilege of knowing the truth and bearing witness to God’s purposes. He said: “For I am not conscious of anything against me. Yet by this I do not stand vindicated, but he that examines me is Jehovah.” (1 Cor. 4:4, NW) While at times we can encourage and strengthen our brothers by listening to their problems and giving them Scriptural counsel, we should never think that a confession is going to change their standing before God. It is the course of action that a person follows that counts, not mere words. He must no longer be guided by the old-world standards, but must make his mind over according to God’s Word of truth. This is clearly shown in Hebrews 10:26-29 (NW): “For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and there is a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. Of how much more severe a punishment, do you think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?”

    Love, Scully (looking for more quotes)

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw
    There have been two cases to my knowledge in Canada that have been precedent setting in their respective Provinces, that state unequivocally that JW procedure does not constitute ecclesiastical privilege, and therefore, it cannot be claimed by them.

    The cases are:

    Regina v. J.P.P decided in Newfoundland by His Honour Easton, 2001

    Regina v. C.T.C. decided in Brockville, Ontario by His Honour Masse, 1996

    (Regina stands for the crown or prosecuter in this case). Initials used seeing victims were youngsters).

    On a side bar I know for a fact that His Honour Masse watched the 5th Estate show.

    I think these quotes are interesting and important Scully. I have to go home now but I have done something to push things along as you will note. Don't stop looking.

    hawk

  • amac
    amac

    Now I'm confused...that website says:

    "The privilege pertaining to clergy-penitent also is frequently recognized, but limited to situations in which a clergy person becomes aware of child abuse through confessions or in the capacity of spiritual advisor. However, five States, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, and West Virginia, deny the clergy-penitent privilege."

    But I'm positive that CA is a reporting state, and it has often been said that there are 13 states that are reporting, not 5. Is this info on this website old or am I not understanding it correctly?

  • Scully
    Scully

    Hi Hawk:

    You should have in your mailbox by now the following article. It is the most current, to my knowledge. Note the highlighted areas, as they demonstrate the WTS's contempt for the Catholic Church's handling of confession (i.e., "ecclesiastical privilege"). It uses similar wording to the 1953 article. The position hasn't changed in 50 years, apparently.

    Love, Scully

    *** w91 3/15 pp. 4-7 Confession of Sins—Man’s Way or God’s? ***

    Confession of Sins—Man’s Way or God’s?

    AMONG Catholics, confession has changed dramatically over the centuries. In the early years of the Catholic Church, confession and penance were required only for serious sins. Concerning this, the book Religion in the Medieval West says: “Until the late sixth century the penitential system was very harsh: the sacrament could be administered only once in a lifetime, confession was public, the penance was long and severe.”

    How severe was such penance? In 1052 one penitent was required to walk barefoot all the way from Bruges in Belgium to Jerusalem! “Catholics could still be found in 1700 at holy wells and springs, kneeling up to their necks in icy water to say their penitential prayers,” says the book Christianity in the West 1400-1700. Since at that time absolution was withheld until after the completion of the penance, many delayed their confession until they were dying.

    When did the modern practice of confession begin? Religion in the Medieval West states: “A new form of penance was introduced in France in the late sixth century by Celtic monks. . . . This was auricular confession, in which the penitent confessed his sins privately to a priest, and it was an adaption of the monastic practice of spiritual counselling.” According to the older monastic practice, the monks confessed their sins to one another to get spiritual help in order to overcome their weaknesses. In newer auricular confession, however, the church claimed for the priest the much greater “power or authority to forgive sins.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Did Jesus really give some of his followers such power? What did he say that has led some to this conclusion?

    “The Keys of the Kingdom”

    On one occasion, Jesus Christ told the apostle Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19, The Jerusalem Bible) What did Jesus mean by “the keys of the kingdom”? We can understand this better if we look at another occasion when Jesus used the word “key.”

    Jesus once told the Jewish religious leaders versed in the Mosaic Law: “Alas for you lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge! You have not gone in yourselves, and have prevented others going in who wanted to.” (Luke 11:52, JB) ‘Prevented others from going in’ where? Jesus tells us at Matthew 23:13: “Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who shut up the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces, neither going in yourselves nor allowing others to go in who want to.” (JB) The Jewish clergy closed the door on many, as it were, by robbing them of the opportunity to be with Jesus Christ in heaven. The “key” those religious leaders had “taken away” had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins. It was the key to divinely provided knowledge.

    Similarly, “the keys of the kingdom” given to Peter do not represent power to inform heaven as to whose sins should be forgiven or retained. Rather, they represent Peter’s great privilege of opening up the way to heaven by disseminating divinely provided knowledge through his ministry. He did this first for Jews and Jewish proselytes, then for Samaritans, and finally for the Gentiles.—Acts 2:1-41; 8:14-17; 10:1-48.

    “Whatever You Bind on Earth”

    Later, what Jesus had told Peter was repeated to other disciples. “I tell you solemnly,” said Jesus, “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18, JB) What authority did Christ here delegate to the disciples? The context shows that he was talking about settling problems between individual believers and keeping the congregation clean of unrepentant evildoers.—Matthew 18:15-17.

    In matters involving serious violations of God’s law, responsible men in the congregation would have to judge matters and decide whether a wrongdoer should be “bound” (viewed as guilty) or “loosed” (acquitted). Did this mean that heaven would follow the decisions of humans? No. As Bible scholar Robert Young indicates, any decision made by the disciples would follow heaven’s decision, not precede it. He says that verse 18 should literally read: What you bind on earth “shall be that which has been bound (already)” in heaven.

    Really, it is unreasonable to think that any imperfect human could make decisions that would be binding upon those in the heavenly courts. It is much more reasonable to say that Christ’s appointed representatives would follow his directions so as to keep his congregation clean. They would do this by making a decision based on principles already laid down in heaven. Jesus himself would guide them in doing this.—Matthew 18:20.

    Is any man able to “represent Christ as the fatherly judge” to the extent of deciding the eternal future of a fellow worshiper? (New Catholic Encyclopedia) Priests who hear confessions almost invariably grant absolution, even though “there seems to be an unspoken belief [among Catholic theologians] that it is a rare person who is really sorry for his sins.” (The New Encyclopædia Britannica) Indeed, when was the last time that you heard of a priest refusing to grant absolution or to acquit a wrongdoer? Likely, this is because the individual priest does not think he has the ability to judge whether a sinner is repentant or not. But if this is the case, why does he claim the power to grant absolution?

    Imagine a court of law in which a compassionate judge routinely acquitted criminals, even persistent lawbreakers, because they went through a ritual of admitting their crimes and saying that they were sorry. While this might satisfy wrongdoers, such a misguided view of mercy would seriously undermine respect for justice. Could it be that confession as practiced in the Catholic Church actually hardens people in a course of sin?—Ecclesiastes 8:11.

    “Confession does not produce any inclination to try to avoid the sin in the future,” says Ramona, drawing on her experience of confessing as a Catholic since she was seven years old. She adds: “Confession develops the idea that God is all-forgiving and that whatever your imperfect flesh leads you to do he will forgive. It does not develop a deep desire to do what is right.”

    But what about Jesus’ words recorded at John 20:22, 23? There he told his disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained.” (JB) Does Jesus not here specifically give his disciples authority to forgive sins?

    Taken alone, this Bible passage might seem to say that. However, when these words are considered along with the account at Matthew 18:15-18 and everything else that the Bible teaches about confession and forgiveness, what must we conclude? That at John 20:22, 23, Jesus gave his disciples authority to expel from the congregation unrepentant perpetrators of grave sins. At the same time, Christ gave his followers authority to extend mercy and forgive repentant sinners. Jesus certainly was not saying that his disciples should confess every sin to a priest.

    Responsible ones in the congregation were thus authorized to decide how to deal with those committing grave sins. Such decisions would be made under the guidance of God’s holy spirit and in harmony with God’s directions given through Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures. (Compare Acts 5:1-5; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13.) Those responsible men would thereby respond to direction from heaven, not imposing their decisions on heaven.

    “Confess Your Sins to One Another”

    So, then, when is it appropriate for Christians to confess sins to one another? In the case of serious sin (not every little failing), an individual should confess to responsible overseers of the congregation. Even if a sin is not grievous but the sinner’s conscience troubles him excessively, there is great value in confessing and seeking spiritual help.

    In this regard the Bible writer James says: “If one of you is [spiritually] ill, he should send for the elders of the church, and they must anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. The prayer of faith will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another.”—James 5:14-16, JB.

    In these words, there is no suggestion of a formal, ritualistic, auricular confession. Rather, when a Christian is so burdened with sin that he feels he cannot pray, he should call the appointed elders, or overseers, of the congregation, and they will pray with him. To help him recover spiritually, they will also apply the oil of God’s Word.—Psalm 141:5; compare Luke 5:31, 32; Revelation 3:18.

    Noteworthy is John the Baptizer’s admonition to “produce fruit that befits repentance.” (Matthew 3:8; compare Acts 26:20.) A truly repentant wrongdoer abandons his sinful course. Like King David of ancient Israel, the repentant sinner who confesses his error to God will receive forgiveness. David wrote: “My sin I finally confessed to you, and my error I did not cover. I said: ‘I shall make confession over my transgressions to Jehovah.’ And you yourself pardoned the error of my sins.”—Psalm 32:5.

    Penitential acts cannot earn such forgiveness. Only God can grant it. He takes the requirements of perfect justice into account, but his forgiveness expresses his love for mankind. His forgiveness is also a manifestation of undeserved kindness founded on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ and is extended solely to repentant sinners who have turned away from what is bad in God’s sight. (Psalm 51:7; Isaiah 1:18; John 3:16; Romans 3:23-26) Only those forgiven by Jehovah God will gain eternal life. And to receive such forgiveness, we must make confession in God’s way, not man’s.

    [Footnotes]

    In contrast, see Mark 3:29; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26. In these scriptures, the Bible writers show that God definitely does not forgive all sins.

    [Picture on page 7]

    David confessed to Jehovah, who granted forgiveness

  • avishai
    avishai

    Also, lest we forget, there are numerous, most in fact, where they don't even follow the law of the land in reporting, going to great lengths tho discourage parents & victims from reporting these crimes. This is a worldwide jw precedent

  • Scully
    Scully

    another WT article regarding "Confession" and clergy-penitent privilege (aka ecclesiastical privilege)

    *** w58 8/15 p. 511 Dilemma of the Confessional ***

    Dilemma of the Confessional

    SUPPOSE you had a dear friend who was soon to be hanged for a murder he was innocent of, convicted upon perjured and circumstantial evidence. Then suppose the murderer came to you and confessed his guilt. Would you not immediately notify the police so that your innocent friend would not need to die? Of course you would! But if you were a Roman Catholic priest, and this man had confessed to you, you would have to stand helplessly by as your dear friend died for a murder he did not commit. Fantastic? Not according to Catholic theologians.

    Thus the Catholic Herald, London, England, May 9, 1952, in its question column published the following: “Can the seal of confession be broken by a priest in the interests of justice, e.g., in such a grave matter as murder? No. Nothing whatever, except the consent of the penitent (which he can never be obliged to give), can release a priest from the seal. . . . even if the circumstances were such that the priest thought it the criminal’s duty to give himself up—even to save an innocent life—the priest himself could never make use of knowledge which does not belong to him at all, but only to God.”

    Two actual incidents illustrate the foregoing: “Returns Bank Loot, Won’t Bare Thief. Priest’s Lips Sealed. . . . part of the money taken by a repentant bank robber has been returned by a Denver priest to whom he confessed, but authorities still don’t know his identity. The Roman Catholic priest, with a ‘sacred obligation’ to reveal nothing heard in the confessional, yesterday returned to authorities $6,850 in bills he said was part of $7,780 taken in a daylight robbery here Feb. 17. . . . The United States attorney said the priest promised to relay a message that partial return of the money would not absolve the robber of ‘criminal responsibility.’ ‘I hope now that he will decide to clear his conscience entirely by coming to the proper authorities,’ said [attorney] Kelley.”—Los Angeles Herald & Express, April 13, 1955.

    The second incident was reported by The Inland Register, a Spokane, Washington, Roman Catholic weekly, August 14, 1953. It told of an item that appeared in the London Times regarding a priest to whom a certain convict, thinking he was dying, confessed as having committed the crime for which another man was serving a sentence. The convict recovered, but upon his death, a year later, the priest revealed his confession, causing the innocent man to be set free. It was pointed out that even death does not free a priest from his seal, and that if true, this was perhaps the first time in history in which a priest broke his seal and revealed what had been told him in a confession.

    Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.—Col. 2:8.

  • DJ
    DJ

    Amac,

    I was under the impression that it was 13 states as well. I'm not sure where I even got that info. though. It might have been speculation by a poster a while back. I see that my state of Pa is not a reporting state. That is all that I needed in order to prove a point to my mom and quite possibly have her question an elder. Not that it will do any good but it can't hurt to try.

    Scully,

    You sweetheart. You've given much to read when I get the opportunity. I appreciate it! Thanks again!

    Hawk,

    What can I say. You da man. The UN thing is the biggest thing since sliced bread. I'll be using your info on Randy's site very soon with an elder. Thanks soooo much! Your handle aint Hawk for nothing!

    love, dj

  • shadow
    shadow

    Question submitted to National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse concerning clergy-penitent privilege:

    Several states exempt communications revealed in this setting.

    Do these exemptions apply only to communications from an offender?

    For example, if a child or parent revealed abuse or suspicion of abuse to a clergyman, would that clergyman be required to report this even if this occurred in a state that had the penitent exemption? Or would the clergyman be open to legal liability by reporting such communication?

    What legal liability would any person be exposed to if he were not a mandatory reporter, but made a report anyway?

    Response (Sandi Mcleod) - 07/30/2002 04:04 PM

    Thank you for contacting the Children’s Bureau.

    The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, a service of the Children’s Bureau, has a special section of their Web site devoted to the child abuse and neglect statutes (http://www.calib.com/nccanch/statutes.index.cfm) for each State.

    Within the Reporting Laws that address Mandatory Reporters there is information on privileged communication, including the clergy-penitent privilege. This privilege is not addressed in the statutes for all of the States. For those States that do include this privilege in their statutes, the circumstances under which reporting is mandated are provided (http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/stats01.mandrep.cfm). For your information, within the next couple of weeks, the Clearinghouse will be releasing a Ready Reference on the Clergy-Penitent Privilege. Please watch the Web site for this new online publication.

    In regards to the second part of your question on the liability exposure for reporting, there is immunity for reporters. Almost all States provide some form of immunity from liability for persons who in good faith report suspected child abuse or neglect under the reporting laws for the State. Immunity statutes protect reporters from civil or criminal liability that they might otherwise incur. Several States provide immunity not only for the initial report, but also during a judicial proceedings resulting from the report. To view the State Statutes for "Immunity for Reporters", please see http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/stats01/immun.cfm.

    If you have further questions, please contact the Clearinghouse at their toll-free number, 1-800-394-3366, or send an e-mail to [email protected].

    I hope this information is helpful.

    The summary referred to in the above e-mail may be found at:

    http://www.calib.com/nccanch/statutes/readyreference.cfm#clergy

    Reporting Laws: Clergy as Mandated Reporters

    Clergy's Responsibility to Report

    A mandatory reporter is a person who is required to report suspected cases of child abuse and neglect. Every State and the District of Columbia have statutes identifying mandatory reporters of child maltreatment and specifying under what circumstances they are required to report.

    Approximately1 18 States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) currently include members of the clergy among those professionals specifically mandated by those States' reporting laws to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect. In approximately 18 States (Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming 2 ), any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report it. That broad language appears to include clergy and anyone else, but it is possible that the language has been interpreted differently.

    Privileged Communications

    As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify when a communication is privileged. "Privileged communications" is a legal term for the statutory recognition of the right to maintain the confidentiality of communications between certain persons such as professionals and their clients or patients. Privileged communications may be exempt from the reporting laws. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute 3 , and most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure. 4 If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws summarized here, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.

    This privilege, however, is not absolute. While clergy-penitent privilege is frequently recognized within the reporting laws, it is typically interpreted narrowly in the child abuse or neglect context. The circumstances under which privilege is allowed vary from State to State, and in some States, is denied altogether. For example, among States that enumerate clergy as mandated reporters, New Hampshire and West Virginia deny the clergy-penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Three States that enumerate "any person" as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.

    In States where neither clergy nor "any person" are specified as mandated reporters, it is less clear whether clergy are included as mandated reporters within other broad categories of professionals who work with children. For example, Louisiana includes clergy among "mental health/social services practitioners" as mandated reporters, but excludes information given in "confession or sacred communication." However, in South Carolina and Washington, clergy are not specified as mandated reporters, but the clergy-penitent privilege is affirmed within the reporting laws.

    The chart below summarizes how States have or have not addressed the issue of clergy as mandated reporters (either specifically or as part of a broad category) and/or clergy-penitent privilege (either limiting or denying the privilege) within their reporting laws:

    Privilege granted but limited to "pastoral communications"Privilege denied in cases of suspected child abuse or neglectPrivilege not addressed in the reporting laws
    Clergy enumerated as mandated reportersArizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, PennsylvaniaNew Hampshire, West VirginiaConnecticut, Mississippi
    Clergy not enumerated as mandated reporters but may be included with "any person" designationDelaware, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Utah, WyomingNorth Carolina, Rhode Island, TexasIndiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee
    Neither clergy nor "any person" enumerated as mandated reportersLouisiana, South Carolina, Washington 5 Not applicableAlabama, Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin

    Notes

    1 The word approximately is used throughout the State Statutes series to stress the fact that statutes are constantly being revised and updated. back
    2 Two of these States, Mississippi and New Hampshire, also enumerate clergy as mandated reporters. back
    3 American Jurisprudence, 2 nd Edition, vol. 81, p. 447. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1992. back
    4 The issue of clergy-penitent privilege may also be addressed in case law, which this publication does not cover. For a fuller discussion of the issues, including significant case law, see Karen L. Ross, "Revealing Confidential Secrets: Will It Save Our Children?" 28 Seton Hall Law Review 963 (1998); or J. Michael Keel, "Law and Religion Collide Again: The Priest-Penitent Privilege in Child Abuse Reporting Cases." 28 Cumberland Law Review 681. (1997-1998). back
    5 Clergy are not mandated reporters in Washington, but if they elect to report, their report and any testimony are provided statutory immunity from liability. back

    Additional Information
  • Scully
    Scully

    I'm going to take an excerpt from the 1991 Watchtower article and tweak it a bit.

    Imagine a judicial committee in which a group of compassionate elders routinely acquitted paedophiles, even persistent child rapists, because they went through a ritual of admitting their crimes, shedding some tears and saying that they were sorry. While this might satisfy the Watchtower Society's procedures, such a misguided view of mercy would seriously undermine respect for justice. Could it be that confession as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses actually hardens people in a course of sin? - Ecclesiastes 8:11.

    If the shoe fits.....

    Love, Scully

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    You stated this very well Scully.

    DJ - Thanks for the very kind comment. There were others who were involved too who you should also credit including Kent and MacH. Besides Randy's site go to the other sites I have listed regarding Mad Apostate's find and also read over Zev's site at http://www.geocities.com/plowbitch69

    hawk

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit