Again please tell me how a child who was molested by a non JW would bring reproach. It wouldn't. It is because the spiritual counseling that elders offer is supposed to be confidential only for those authorized to that information. And Watchtower has said repeatedly through the ARC just remove the privilege and it will make their job easier and there is no longer any privilege.
Watchtower appeals in Montana.
by lastmanstanding 40 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
lastmanstanding
What if the person who was molested, and went to the eldahs, would tell them that they want to maintain confidentiality, that they were in no way to tell anyone else what had happened.
Perhaps then, the Watchtower could not claim “confidential” as the request for confidentiality was broken.
What if, a person who was molested, told the court that they understood that their communication with the eldahs was “confidential” which meant ... CONFIDENTIAL ...and that the eldahs broke that when they contacted the tower.
-
Vidiot
Brighton - "If WT considers the report of abuse a confession of sin - that indicates they consider abuse victims as willing participants and/or carrying some responsibility for what happened to them..."
I've lost count of how many times we've heard abuse stories here on this forum that have had that as a component.
Personally, I've come to suspect that the WTS kind of wants to look at it that way, on purpose...
...after all, if abuse is actually viewed as consensual, it's easier for them to use that as a pretext to leave it unreported.
-
JC323
Again the argument before the Montana Supreme Court is not that the information was gathered during a confession, which is one of the statutory exceptions but that it was given during a process that normally is held confidential under normal procedures of the religion.
-
Vidiot
Basically arguing that they should be able to keep pretty much anything they want "confidential".
Good luck with that in the Information Age.
-
JC323
This is the actual wording of the statute. MCA 41-3-201 (6) (c)
(c) A member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice
The statute removes the intent of the person who is giving the communication and does not allow them to lift the privilege. The person who owns the privilege is the clergy member.
-
-
Diogenesister
Personally, I've come to suspect that the WTS kind of wants to look at it that way, on purpose...
...after all, if abuse is actually viewed as consensual, it's easier for them to use that as a pretext to leave it unreported.
- Could be. But I think it’s more likely that they simply don’t understand the complexities of a) all sex generally and b) that’s it’s the power dynamics that make abuse, abuse. Not just sex. They don’t understand any form of sex, they think it’s something divorced from everyone unless you are married and actually doing it....ie they don’t understand that everyone has a sexuality, that it’s normal. It’s not sin it’s human. Their morals are twisted...like the morals of the ancient, ignorant goat herders they wish to emulate whereby sex with your 9 year old concubine is acceptable, but a young woman who masturbates is not.
-
Diogenesister
JC323 Even the ARC if you actually look at the information 20% involved either unbaptized publishers or non-JW. That is why I don't believe it when people say that JWs don't report to keep Jehovah's name pure. How would that smear their reputation?
Firstly, that’s still over 800 cases where the perp was a JW.
secondly, you cannot seriously tell me that Watchtower won’t do ANYTHING to protect their reputation among their own members.
It’s not just the golden rule it’s the no. 1 rule.
They do so because at all costs they must not let jehovahs witnesses know they are just like any other religion. .If you deny that you cannot ever have been a JW.
-
Diogenesister
st year stated: "It is undisputed that agents for each Defendant [WTNY, CCJW and local congregation] received notice of the 2004 abuse and that these agents were all clergy as defined under Montana law" (p. 4) "All those working for all Defendants meet the definition of clergy in the Montana mandatory reporter law... See Mont. Code Annot. § 15-6-201(2)(b) ("Clergy" includes "a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty.")" (p. 13-14).
That’s interesting. Elders do not under normal circumstances take a vow of poverty ( unless they are special pioneers).