Watchtower policy on child abuse...link to watchtower.org

by digderidoo 25 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  george11

  Maybe it's because repressed memories are unreliable.

  The following information is from the American Psychological Association

  http://www.apa.org/topics/memories.html

  What's the Bottom Line?

  First, it's important to state that there is a consensus among memory researchers and clinicians that most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them although they may not fully understand or disclose it. Concerning the issue of a recovered versus a pseudomemory, like many questions in science, the final answer is yet to be known. But most leaders in the field agree that although it is a rare occurrence, a memory of early childhood abuse that has been forgotten can be remembered later. However, these leaders also agree that it is possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for events that never occurred.

  The mechanism(s) by which both of these phenomena happen are not well understood and, at this point it is impossible, without other corroborative evidence, to distinguish a true memory from a false one.

  See also http://jwcpp.freehost10.com/judicial.html#repressed
• 

  digderidoo

  Maybe it's because repressed memories are unreliable....George11

  Hi george, welcome to the forum.

  I think what is noteworthy of the article is that when someone has brought abuse to the attention of the elders, that the article is emphasising the fact that these memories could be imaginitive or 'false memories'.

  Your link is correct they do exist. But if someone were to come to me with an allegation of childhood abuse my immediate thought would not be that the abused person is imagining false memories, but rather i would want to comfort that person and bring to justice the perpertrator. If it went along the lines of a false memory that is another matter, this article seems to be concerned with this false memory syndrome as opposed to anything else, it seems to make it an assumption when an allegation is made.

  Notice the article too states the fact that two or more witnesses need to be present if there is a dispute, that even if two or more allegations are made on seperate incidents that wouldn't be sufficient for judicial matters. The very nature of abuse means that two witnesses would not be present.

  This unfortunately is Watchtower policy which is taken from their site. This is why the Watchtower has settled many disputes with compensation on out of court settlements, all the information is out there for the general public.

  I think it's a shame that an abused child/person can go to the elders with an allegation, that the elders will consider false memories and then if the perpetrator denies the allegation nothing more is done due to the two witness rule. This has actually happened, with a policy like this it is to be expected.

  I would encourage to think about this policy with reference say to the Catholic church. If you came across this policy within the Catholic church would you criticise it, make excuses for it or try to defend it?

  Paul
• 

  purplesofa

  I think this would be a more current article on the JW's stance on Child Abuse

  http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

  Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection

  Child abuse is abhorrent to us. This is in harmony with the principle recorded at Romans 12:9. Even one abused child is one too many. For decades The Watchtower andAwake! have featured articles to educate both Witnesses and the public regarding the importance and the need to protect children from child abuse. Among others, there was the article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked!" published in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower ; "Help for the Victims of Incest" in the October 1, 1983,Watchtower, "Your Child Is in Danger!", "How Can We Protect Our Children?", and "Prevention in the Home", all in the October 8, 1993, Awake!, as well as "Child Molesting—Every Mother's Nightmare," in the January 22, 1985, Awake!

  When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17. However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.

  However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

  If, when confronted, the accused confesses that he is guilty of child abuse, the elders take appropriate congregational action. If he is not repentant, he will not be permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant—is cut to the heart and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future—what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower applies. The article said: "For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of Jehovah's Witnesses] or serve in any other special, full-time service." He would not qualify Scripturally. (1 Timothy 3:2, 7-10) We take such action because we are concerned with maintaining Bible standards and protecting our children. Everyone in our organization is expected to meet the same requirements, namely, to be clean physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually.—2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 4:17-19; 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

  In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All the factors are considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation.

  Our procedures have been refined over time. Over the years, as we have noted areas where our policies could be strengthened, we have followed through. We are continuing to refine them. We do not believe that our system is perfect. No human organization is perfect. But we do believe that we have a strong, Bible-based policy on child abuse. Anyone in a responsible position who is guilty of child abuse would be removed from his responsibilities without hesitation. We certainly would not knowingly allow him to serve elsewhere, either because he moved or through a transfer.

  The Bible teaches that individuals can repent of their sins and "turn to God by doing works that befit repentance," and we accept what the Bible says. (Acts 26:20) Still, the safety of our children is of the utmost importance. We take it very seriously.
• 

  Pistoff

  "Can we doubt that the Devil now plays upon child abuse and the "downhearted spirit" of many adults who suffered this (or are troubled by "memories" of having suffered it) to try to weaken the faith of Christians?"

  This meshes with what is said to CHILDREN directly in the book (2003) Learn From the Great Teacher:

  pp1: The Bible says that Satan is like a roaring lion who wants to beat us. And just as lions often pick on small animals, Satan and his demons often pick on children

  pp2: Do you remember from Chapter 10 of this book with the devil and his demons try to get us to do?--yes, they tried to get us to have the kind of sex relations that God says is wrong. But who only should have sex relations?-- yes, two grown people of the opposite sex were married to each other.

  pp4: So just as Jesus needed protection, you also need to be protected from grownups, and even from other children, who may try to have sex with you. ...But these people are selfish, like Satan and his demons, and they only want to get pleasure for themselves.

  These paragraphs are found on page 170; on the opposite page, 171, there is a picture of a girl who is possibly five years old, and she is holding her hand up in a stopping motion to a man who looks to be in his 40s. This scenario, where a child understands and is able to refuse sexual advances, is impossible according to most therapists. The power structure of the relationship to such the child does not understand what is happening, and is not able to refuse in the way the society suggests that she must.

  The WT writers are happy to create the idea that SATAN is behind child abuse, rather than humans, and that children must protect themselves, as we have seen that WT policies do not protect children; the evidence is that their policies protect abusers.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  You must remember thatthe 1985 article deals with the "represseed memories", where people seemed to "remember" things that alledgedly had happened to them years earlier. I remember a Baptist pastor and his wife being accused by their daughter of having abused her the worst possible way, and she also accused other pastors and church members of having participated. Eager psychologists and teurapeuts "assisted" her and strongly urged her to file charges etc. The parents could prove they had not been at home on those particular days, that they had at other occations been alone when she claimed they had not, and the other way around - and the accusations were found void. But of course the family was ruined, destroyed. This was starting to be rather common, and quite a few cases appeared in the mid-1990s. Then they disappeared, they were the result of couching psychologists all too eager to follow their own pet ideas.

  On this background this article was written. It does deal with these false memories, NOT with real abuse. I do not necessarily support the weak attitude by the WT towards child abuse, but in THIS case, the accusations you make are wrong.
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  About repressed memories : Barbara GRIZZUTI, who had a first hand experience of the subject since she was abused by her father and can't be suspected of favorable prejudice toward the WTS, wrote in 1993 an article "desperately seeking Satan" where she adopts a very cautious approach to the problem, giving examples of children who where induced to "reveal" abuses which actually had never occurred. A very famous case "Outreau case" stirred France about 4 years ago. A judge hastily sent to jail about 15 persons, on charges of paedophilia put forth by an insane woman and children who just wanted to please her. One innocent accused man committed suicide in prison. If memory serves me well, it ended up that 13 out of 15 of these persons where proved innocent. Not a problem to take lightly if one wants to protect children when they really need it.
• 

  digderidoo

  On this background this article was written. It does deal with these false memories, NOT with real abuse. I do not necessarily support the weak attitude by the WT towards child abuse, but in THIS case, the accusations you make are wrong. ... TheOldHippie

  What accusations are wrong? Do you mean the instructions on how to deal with the alleged abuser that i have highlighted, the instructions on what the elders can do or perhaps something else?

  Paul
• 

  george11

  Some years ago, I had a friend who told me he had repressed memories of being abused by his dad. He was a very sincere young man and I don't believe for a second he would ever lie, but although I kind of believed him, privately I wonder whether it really happened. I think that if you have a friend in this situation, then what is important is not whether you believe it happened or not. What is important is that you show you care. If they remember it as real, then it is real to them and it will cause them the same suffering as if it were real.

  I suppose if I had a friend who had himself been accused on the basis of repressed memories, then I'd have a different type of dilemma. If the accusations are true and he's denying them, then he deserves enormous contempt. If they are false, then he deserves enormous sympathy. The problem is that you don' t know whether they are true or not. Even the victim can't be 100% sure. Only the man himself knows the truth.

  The Wikipedia article on repressed memories is quite interesting too, and it has good references.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory (Sorry I don't know how to insert a hyperlink)

  I don't think it's surprising that the Watchtower article said that allegations on child abuse based solely on repressed memories can't be used for a judicial committee. That's pretty much the way the law would see it in most places as well.

  What I do think is unfortunate is that this article is cited quite often on the internet in a way that gives the impression that it is talking about child abuse in general, instead of allegations based on repressed memories. The two situations are quite distinct and it's only right that they should be handled differently. In the more typical cases of abuse allegations, the elders can set up a judicial committee if there are complaints by two separate victims. They don't have to be witnesses to the same actual instance of abuse.
• 

  Scarred for life

  I very much believe that there is such a thing as repressed memories. My own mother had them. She has 2 younger sisters that have vivid memories of her being physically abused and beaten by their father. My mother never had any recollection of these events.

  I have a friend whose daughter was sexually abused at a neighbor's house when she was about 5-6 years old. She did not reveal this abuse until she was about 12-13 years old. Her memory is that the boy she was playing with sexually abused her. Now the boy was only a little bit older than her maybe 7 years old. She has fairly detailed memories of what he did to her. But I have a really hard time believing that a boy this young was capable of this kind of abuse. It's my belief that it was the father who abused her and that part is still repressed. The father was always home when this girl was over there. He was newly divorced and having trouble keeping a job. Lots of stress. Anyway, I do think that repressed memories are hard to use as factual evidence. The memories are just too warped and distorted.

  I'm not sure what the answer is. Someone above said that the victim needs to be cared for and healed no matter what the actual facts are. I agree with that.
• 

  mraimondi

  repressed memories are highly debated in all circles