Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

by Must obey! 24 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Must obey!
    Must obey!

    Notwithstanding the plain fact that the Watchtower's heinous "two witness" rule is obviously flawed (scripturally and in terms of natural justice), it seems to me that as long as the elders are advising the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities in every case where an accusation of child abuse has occurred that this is sufficient for the elders to discharge their legal duty, shouldn't it?

    I have heard rumours that this is in fact the official current policy (since when I don't know) of the Society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

    But how firm is this policy? Is this a clear directive issued by the Society to all elders worldwide? Are the elders under instruction to always tell the parent/caregiver to go to the authorities or are the elders merely encouraged to do this? Are there any official forms where the elders must note their actions in this regard? What does the elders book say?

    Although the argument is that elders should always be reporting the allegation themselves & not just leaving it to the parent/caregiver, whether or not the law requires them to (an argument which I fully endorse), surely as long as the elders are clearly telling the alleging parent/caregiver to tell the authorities (or someone else who will tell the authorities) about the allegation, then the matter can then be dealt with properly by the "higher authorities" and investigated thoroughly by the police. What is wrong with that approach?

    Pending investigation by the secular authorities, surely the policy must be that the mere allegation of such an evil crime as child sexual abuse (only murder seems worse) should be enough to bar the accused from all privileges, whether or not guilt is established. This seems clear from Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3:7& 10. In other words, once an allegation is made, the accused cannot claim to be "free from accusation" (different from "guilt") and no longer has a "fine testimony" (both from inside and outside the congregation). The mere existence of an allegation and it's accompanying suspicion of guilty should, scripturally, be enough for the accussed to lose all privileges. Since it can often be very difficult to prove paedophiles guilty (because of the secret, insidious nature of their crimes), this is surely why the scripture are worded this way...guilt or a criminal record are not necessary...scripture demands a higher standard of those overseeing the flock. They must be irreprehensible, not under any suspicious of gross wrongdoing. Clearly the mere accusation/allegation of child abuse is enough for them to no longer meet that high standard.

    What is the Society's position on that? Are elders/ministerial servants/and others with positions of responsibility free to remain such even under accusation....or do they have all their privileges removed only if they confess or guilt is otherwise established?

    Is the Society's policy comprehensivelys spelled out in one document? I find it confusing as it seems to be contained in piecemeal letters & directives issued from various branches over the years.

  • Poztate
    Poztate
    I have heard rumours that is in fact the official policy (since when I don't know) of the Society: that they tell the elders to advise the parent/caregiver to inform the authorities of alleged child abuse.

    The last official policy I heard about was to first and foremost call WT Lawyers. They would inform elders as to the legal requirement to report or not. If they lived in a non reporting state they would not report.

    The policy was all about covering their ASS and not about responsibility to the abused.

    If there was no "two witnesses" to the event parents were discouraged from going to the authorities as it might bring reproach on Jehovah's name.

  • Must obey!
    Must obey!

    Thanks Poztate, but I am specifically asking about any 'official policy' about whether or not elders are told to advise the parent/caregiver/child to go to the authorities? I should have made that clearer.

    Elders have certainly in the past discouraged persons from going to the higher authorities, but I don't believe that is the case anymore. The Society has tried to put that right by telling the elders to tell the parent/caregiver that they are fully within their rights to go to the secular authorities, without fear being censured by the elders for doing that? Is that not the case?

  • BreakingAway
    BreakingAway

    Hello Must obey ! ,

    I stepped down a couple of years ago as an elder but I can tell you the BIGGEST concern is to call the Society's legal dept. first.That's pretty much drilled into the heads of the elder body.As to elders advising the parents/caregiver to contact the police, I'm afraid to say that such things are sadly "inconsistent".What I mean is, some elders will, some won't.Most are still of the opinion that: "We should handle it ourselves and not bring "reproach" on God's name/organization".Before I was an elder there was child molested in the cong. and years later when I found out what happened I asked the father why he didn't contact the police ? His response was:"The elders told us not too." I realize many WT apologists out there flat out deny such accusations as propaganda but then unless they've been "on the inside" (been an elder) they really don't know what goes on behind closed doors and just how things are handled, I'm sure more than a few would be quite shocked to know the truth.

    I remember on one occassion the C.O. visited shortly after a letter was sent to "ALL bodies of elders" regarding the child abuse issue and knowing of a child molester in the congregation he actually felt that the cong. should be warned as to his presence,which of course, is the way it should be.Anyway, during his meeting with the elder body he made the suggestion that perhaps some of the elders could let the identity of the molester "slip" to their wives and it would spread via gossip thus relieving the elders of accusations of slander and circumventing the Society's policy on such things.Know what the reaction was ? The elders looked like a deer in the headlights and hemmed and hawwed and looked at each other,some jokes were made, a couple minutes of silence, the C.O. still tried to address it but then it was pretty much over.The problem among the congregations is very well known by the Society and both they and the elders are reluctant to take it outside.There are still good elders out there but sadly they are hamstrung from acting on what they know is right and many wind up leaving as they are worn out and feel helpless to make things better.It can be a heavy burden to bear.Also, just because accusations are made does NOT mean that one would be barred from "privileges".The Society's catch phrase is that those who are/were "known" child molesters cannot be given privileges.But then, if you don't tell anybody who it is how can it be "known" ?

  • avishai
    avishai

    Advising the parents to go to the authorities strikes me as a non-issue, as in most states, regardless as to what the parents do, (and parents are not mandatory reporters) it's the ELDERS job to report. The whole "It's the parents job to report" thing is a red herring to once again blame the victim and absolve themselves from their own crime.

  • BreakingAway
    BreakingAway

    Elders have certainly in the past discouraged persons from going to the higher authorities, but I don't believe that is the case anymore. The Society has tried to put that right by telling the elders to tell the parent/caregiver that they are fully within their rights to go to the secular authorities, without fear being censured by the elders for doing that? Is that not the case?

    I'm sorry, I know you probably want to find the silver lining or think the best that they really ARE trying to set things straight, it's only natural to hope for such things, but this just isn't the way things work with the WT.I know it's frustrating but what the Society says in print and what they do are two different things.

    The emphasis the elders are given is not bringing the perpetrator to justice or even encouraging the parents too.It's to try to "win back" or save the sinner which many feel should be handled right within the congregation while not making such matters "unnecessarily public".Again, some elders will advise the parents to involve the police and some won't.

    Just a couple of things to keep in mind.In ALL 50 states it's required to report child abuse.However, many states allow for clergy penitent-privilege, which means that if the molesting is revealed during confession then the clergyman isn't legally required to report it.They do have an ethical and moral obligation, but the law can't enforce that.While the Society says elders aren't really clergy they do envoke the "right" to be covered by the clergy penitent-privilege, such hypocrisy ! They think they have it all figured out.However, some good people out there are working hard trying to make sure the guilty can't hide behind such loopholes,it's only a matter of time.Sadly, in the meantime, many innocent suffer while the socalled shepherds continue to provide safe passage for the predators in their midst.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Currently, step one is still "always call Society's Legal Department first" and they will direct you on your local state law as to whether you are required to report. However, elders are not instructed to tell the parents/caregivers/victims to go to the police. Instead, elders are instructed not to tell the parents/caregivers/victims not to go to the police. Consequently, one body of elders may interpret that as, "Yes, they should report this to the police." However, another body may interpret, "We won't tell you not to go to the police if you think the Christian Congregation isn't capable of handling wrongdoing [you faithless one that wants to drag Jehovah's Organization and Name through the mud]."

    Confused? That's because many of their policies SUCK and the elders have no qualifications to deal with serious crimes. On one hand, the bOrg will hide the wrongdoing of a child molester and give him safe haven in the congregation. On the other hand, they will disfellowship a single brother for "loose conduct" if the Judicial Committee thinks he got a little too touchy-feely with his girlfriend => http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/19/148922/1.ashx (Jake, haven't heard from you lately, hope you are okay...)

  • avishai
    avishai

    Yep, gee, what I REALLY want to deal with MY abused child would be a group of uneducated janitors poorly interpreting the 4000 year old ramblings of illiterate shepherds.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    The MSNBC article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917798 referenced this pdf on individual state reporting laws:

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/TVNews/Nightly%20News/2007/11-Nov/reportinglaws.pdf

    As I understand from it, state laws differ with several states still having nothing on their books either way. This is where the Legal Department comes in, to tell the elders what minimum is required in their state.

    This whole subject is still handled unethically by the WTBTS and their attitude toward the victims makes me sick. A recent comment from the CO on the subject made me want to take a crowbar to his head.

  • dinah
    dinah

    Care to ellaborate on that Billy?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit