The following case illustrates, in legal terms, how the WT feels about it's members:
http://www.courts.state.me.us/99me144r.htm
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 1999 ME 144
Docket: Cum-98-531
Argued: May 4, 1999
Decided: October 18, 1999
BRYAN R.
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.
Bryan R. alleges that he was sexually abused during several of his adolescent years by Larry Baker, an adult member of his church. He has obtained a judgment against Baker, but his complaint against the church and its elders was dismissed by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Calkins, J.) for failure to state a claim. He appeals from the judgment dismissing the claims against the church defendants. We affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
At some time in the past, also while Larry Baker was an adult member of the church, he molested a minor member of the congregation identified as "John Doe." The elders of the Augusta congregation knew that Baker had molested John Doe. Wells, LaBreck, and Bryan's stepfather, in their roles as the judicial body of the Augusta congregation, decided on the following response to Baker's actions: (1) they demoted Baker from "ministerial servant" to "baptized entry level member"; (2) they "privately rebuked" Baker; and (3) and they temporarily "forbade Baker from having any contact with minor members" of the church. The defendants did not alert the members of the church to Baker's misdeeds.
Eventually, Baker was allowed by the defendants to resume activities as an ordinary member of the church. Bryan alleges that Baker was able to earn his trust and confidence because the church placed Baker in a position of leadership and respect. Bryan was molested by Baker from 1989 through 1992 while Bryan was a teenager and lived next door to Baker. He alleges that his stepfather, who was aware of Baker's history, nonetheless allowed Baker to spend time alone with Bryan at his home. As a result of Baker's repeated sexual abuse, Bryan suffered significant emotional harm necessitating psychiatric hospitalization.
Bryan filed this action against Baker, the church, and its elders to recover damages for the injuries he suffered as a result of Baker's assaults on him.
The Watchtower Society, Robert Wells, and Pat LaBreck filed a motion to dismiss each of the claims against them.
(reasons):
Bryan alleges that Baker was "able to earn [Bryan's] trust and confidence" because of his position of power and authority in the church. These allegations place Baker in a relationship to Bryan that was not different in quality from any other member in good standing of the church.
The crux of Bryan's claim is that the church, because of an alleged special relationship with its members , has a duty to protect its members from each other, at least when the church and its agents are aware of a potential danger posed by a member. Because the church elders knew of Baker's propensity to abuse children, Bryan argues that they had an independent duty to protect him from Baker.
There is simply "no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless . . . a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection."
He (Bryan) bases the alleged fiduciary relationship on the "substantial trust and confidence" he placed in the church, and alleges that the church breached its fiduciary duty to him when it failed to warn him about Baker and failed to exert some type of control over Baker's actions.
...we decline to recognize a general common law duty on the part of an organization such as a church to protect its members from each other. (There is no special relationship between the WT and it's members)
Bryan has not provided any support for his assertion that a religious organization has a fiduciary relationship with its members that requires it generally to protect those members from other members of the church who may present a danger. Nor have we ever found a fiduciary relationship to exist in the circumstances presented here.
The allegation that Bryan placed "substantial trust and confidence" in the elders of the church and trusted them "to protect him and guide him" does not set forth the factual foundations for a special responsibility on the part of the church. Such vague and nonspecific allegations are wholly insufficient to make out a claim of a special relationship between the organization and its members.
Bryan next claims that the defendants may be responsible for intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon him. If allowed to proceed, Bryan would be required to demonstrate that the church's conduct was "so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency and must be regarded as atrocious [and] utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
In support of his claim, Bryan alleges that the church knew of Baker's propensity to harm children, that it failed to announce Baker's misdeeds to the congregation, that, through its agents, it devised a plan to address his transgressions, and that this plan was "woefully inadequate" to protect against future harm of minors, including minor members of the church. Bryan asserts that the church's failure to excommunicate Baker, its failure to shun him, and its eventual decision to allow Baker to a resume a position of leadership and respect within the church constituted acts that were sufficiently extreme and outrageous that they exceeded all possible bounds of decency.
We do not lightly dismiss the harm caused by the sexual abuse of children, nor do we misapprehend the enormity of that harm if inflicted in the context of religious activities. On these facts, however, we conclude that the effort to hold the church responsible, in addition to the wrongdoer himself, would require direct inquiry into the religious sanctions, discipline, and terms of redemption or forgiveness that were available within the church in the context of this claim, an inquiry that would require secular investigation of matters that are almost entirely ecclesiastical in nature.
Only where a particular duty based upon the unique relationship of the parties has been established may a defendant be held responsible, absent some other wrongdoing, for harming the emotional well-being of another.
FOOTNOTES:
Bryan alleges that among the options available to the defendants upon discovering Baker's misdeeds were:
(1) "kick[ing] him out" of the Watchtower Society;
(2) publicly rebuking him for his actions;
(3) requiring him to undergo "professional evaluation for sexual impulse control";
(4) and requiring him to undergo "professional treatment for sexual impulse control."
Bryan alleges that the defendants took none of these steps.
So we see:
1) Confessed child molesters are considered "member in good standing of the church".
2) The WT denies it has a special relationship with it's members.
3) The WT will handle child abusers as it sees fit: "..we conclude that the effort to hold the church responsible, in addition to the wrongdoer himself, would require direct inquiry into the religious sanctions, discipline, and terms of redemption or forgiveness that were available within the church in the context of this claim,.."
thinker