by Corney 40 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
WTS is being deceitful, hiding behind the label "clergy." at the same time saying they are not a clergy.
The term clergy used in laws may represent all ordained ministers of a religious system including JW Elders that are not clergy as JWs view themselves, or it could mean the clergy of aka “Christendom” which the JW claim they are not part of. It is up to the Courts to interpret the law and apply the laws with the term clergy to the JW. That is not being deceitful.
So, basically, the Org wants the court to exempt them from reporting child abuse.
Jeezus Phucking Kreist.
In what universe would anyone with half a brain think this would go well???
So, basically, the Org wants the court to exempt them from reporting child abuse.Hi vidiot! Long time we don't argue (lol).I have tried to answer the question in my posts on this topic: The tension is on the legal definition of the word clergy and how it applies to JW. Clergy doesn’t apply to lawyers and JW claim that because they claim they don’t have a paid clergy, some laws that use the word clergy may not apply to them either. The Courts have to rule on this and they haven’t. Another tension that I pointed out is the legal conflict between the rights people have to ecclesiastical confidentiality and the mandatory statutes. Both laws are compulsory. JW elders must comply with the reporting laws and when they are accused of not complying, they are taken to Court. They can also be sued when they disclose ecclesiastical communications to law enforcement.
Fisherman: the moral thing to do would be to report abuse accusations to the authorities for investigation.
If JW elders fail to do that, or in any way hint that doing so would bring reproach on the organization, they have committed immorality.
Fisherman: the moral thing to do would be to report abuse accusations to the authorities for investigation.
On the other hand it is not moral to violate ecclesiastical confidentiality and laws that protect it. Also, morality standards is subjective.
Also, if it is a moral issue, then secular Courts do not have subject matter. And laws should not govern morality.
FISHERMAN:
Confidentiality did you say?..First, I won’t even go into the hypocritical back and forth when they say they Do and out the other side of their mouth they say they Don’t have clergy.
As somebody raised Catholic I can say that a priest usually only speaks to other priests and generally is a priest for life. Now: contrast that to the Witness religion where an elder speaks to many people. He may also step down. What, then, happens to all the confidential things he has heard??..Everybody is at the mercy of his discretion and that is assuming he even HAS any.. His wife and her eldress friends and pio-sneers likely heard about everything. I, myself, heard confidential things that ‘leaked’ out.
This isn’t even the exception but is the rule in congregations as far as I was concerned. I considered it a joke, sad to say.
Also, last I heard he isn’t bound legally like a doctor or lawyer.. So, what you have is chaos with No confidentiality and anything getting out. Also, an elder confers with others about judicial matters including the ‘society’.. So, there is No confidentiality since many people have been told about the matter in the first place. This is in sharp contrast to the Churches where it is certainly closer to confidentiality.
You are only kidding yourself if you think there is any confidentiality in that religion.
Hi LHG!
People are not taken to Court for their morality or beliefs or the way they practice their religion. But for legal reasons and for causing injury to others; that is what this is about so if your case is about how you feel JW should practice their religion that is not the jurisdiction of legal proceedings. For example, law enforcement does not enforce feelings but criminal conduct. If someone offends your feelings you can criticize them all you want but you can’t sue them for that unless they’ve broken some law. It’s tough bananas and if try to go after them some other way even legally, it is retaliation and that may be a crime.
They can also be sued when they disclose ecclesiastical communications to law enforcement.
Fisherman This is all irrelevant because the fact is elders don't find out through 'ecclesiastical confession', they find out because a parent or child reports it to them. Victims report it to them because watchtower makes them fear going to the police and they are primed to only tell the elders when the culprit is another witness.
Even if you can argue an elder isn't paid clergy, the circuit overseer certainly is! Abuse is also always reported to them during their circuit/elder meetings. I think authorities should be prosecuting COs for failure to report.
NB LHG makes a very good point about priests being priests for life, whereas elders frequently step down, get deleted, get DF or wake up!!
This is all irrelevant because the fact is elders don't find out through 'ecclesiastical confession', they find out because a parent or child reports it to them.
You can use that argument in Court and when JW or anybody else is found in violation of the statute they are liable. IMHO it is hypocritical for a catholic priest to to close his eyes to wrongdoing whereas JW identify the sinner and adjudicates sin by df and offers spiritual help whereas the catholic church does nothing but that is irrelevant legally. You claim that by hiding behind a confessional booth and intentionally closing your eyes qualifies a priest for ecclesiastical confidentiality whereas JW sinners should not have the same confidentiality because they don’t do things the Catholic way. That is hilarious but the standard is law and that standard is ecclesiastical communications in a spiritual setting which doesn’t legally only mean a catholic booth crafted to prevent identification it also applies to the way JW adjudicates sin. Courts have upheld JW ecclesiastical communications are protected. But that’s what the Courts are for, to compel disclosure when they don’t legally meet the standard.
an elder isn't paid clergy, the circuit overseer certainly is!
Certainly not because sisters and other volunteers also get allowances like the CO. Also, there is no clergy laity distinction in the JW. There are are also other difference between the paid clergy of “christendom” and JW spiritual “shepherds” one difference is clergy privileges for parking motor vehicles and other clergy privileges. They identify themselves as clergy and they get paid. Getting an allowance does not make a person clergy. So, legally speaking, that is the tension and that is what needs to be decided legally (as I posted before,) when JW are legally considered under any law clergy and not by some catholic opinion.
@Fisherman: the legal question was answered before in JW vs WTBTS and SCOTUS affirmed the case just a few years ago that the JW methodology does exclude it from clergy penitent privilege.
Clergy penitent privilege has the distinction that they are privileged between two parties (spouses, attorneys, marriage counselors, or doctors have similar protections for very much the same reasons). Most states have mandatory reporting for many crimes, so that does not exclude them if they know certain crimes are ongoing.
What JW vs WTBTS established however is that because WTBTS has not just a confession but that then gets turned into a tribunal of sorts (they initiate further contact, keep and share a record within the congregation and other third parties such as the parent corporation in NY) and keeps track of these events for whatever reason, they are now responsible for the sharing of that information with anyone else who has an interest, it’s being treated as if the person is not just laity but an employee, because instead of a private conversation, within the JW corporations it really is a business process and in that business process they are dealing with basically judging on very serious criminal matters. Hence why it is called a judicial committee although the judges never really evaluated the nomenclature.
Basically the courts held that they have taken it upon themselves because of accurate records keeping to now become liable for a failure to give notice.
It’s similar to you going to a mechanic for a problem with your car, based on what you tell them on the phone, they tell you they think it’s a serious manufacturer error. They are not liable if you ignore them and crash the car. However if you bring it to them, they inspect it and make notes, then share those notes with the manufacturer, they and the manufacturer are now liable if they don’t give notice to you and others, such as your insurance, a state inspection, DMV or federal agency that your car is totaled and should not be driven.
