Would'nt any claim made by the Society, of wanting to preserve confidentiality be disputable once an announcement was made to the congregation about an individual after speaking confidentialy to the Elders ? A Doctor, Psychologist or Preist would never make a public announcement about anyone who consulted them unless there is was a legally valid reason to do so -- to prevent harm, for instance to a child, and old person or some identifiable third party.
WT Society Has to be Forced by Courts to Reveal Hidden Child Abuses
by flipper 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
dssynergy
If they are going to claim ecclesiastical privilege - then by default that makes them mandatory reporters of child abuse in a number of states. How do they get around that??
Why doesn't the society inform elders of their legal (to say nothing of their moral) obligation to report??
-
VM44
"...we DO NOT comment on whether elders are currently or have formerly met to assist any member of the congregation."
If it was announced that a persion was disfellowshipped, will the elders STILL refuse to admit that a JC was formed and did meet formally to determine if a disfellowshipping action is to be taken?
Will the elders stand up to the process of legal discovery and very likely face contempt of court charges?
It will be interesting to see how these new instructions given to the elders work out.
-
Wasanelder Once
Once a commitee of elders meets with the accused the privacy of the matter is broached. When they report the facts to Bethel, the privacy is broached. Though they have obeyed the law by reporting the abuse/accuasation, they do not want to be compelled to testify in the case based on privacy. The ruling showed their own rules and regulations void any clergy confidentiality clause.
-
WTWizard
This is why it's important to get the information out, copyright or not. I am usually in favor of observing copyright laws, if only to protect trade secrets and allow people to profit from their original works. However, when such material is going to be used for nefarious purposes, exposing the intent of the cult trumps copyright law. If this makes it easier to go after pedophiles within the congregation or prevents the Washtowel Slaveholdery from putting even worse directives in a Kingdumb Misery, it has saved a much worse breach of the law than a copyright that is being used for nefarious purposes.
People have the right to know what is going on in the cult before they join or if they are trying to get justice from people within. Even if they are also in the same cult, people have the right to know who are the pedophiles within the congregation, and to do more than put "justice(??)" in the slow lane with the hounders when someone molests children in an attempt to ruin their lives. Those pigs need to be brought to justice and locked up, and if copyright laws have to be broken to do that, so be it.
-
truthseekeriam
Oh yeah,
We learned this first hand in our case. The elders told us to come to them if any media or lawyers wanted information on how they handled these situations. So, naturally when our attorney wanted to know the in and outs of the judicial proceeder we contacted an elder as his request and lets just say, a panic ensued!! This is what I heard on the line "this is so bad" "I'll have to get back to you" and so on. They didn't cooperate at all and in the end my husband was able to answer most of the questions and they were able to get the rest elsewhere.
Elder do NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to help victims and their families in these situations! They leave them in shock and pain and move on without looking back! It's a shame
-
Elder-Patrol
A victim and her family should report crimes to the police. JWs do not discourage anyone from such reporting, and in fact JW elders are required by the religion to follow all reporting laws. Elders are spiritual advisors; should they not consult with legal professionals on matters of law?
Yes, congregation elders are ministers of the type compelled by ecclesiastical privilege, a form of privileged communication between a penitant congregant and a bonafide spiritual advisor.
But... despire what anti-JWs seem intent on ignoring... elders and other bonafide spiritual advisors recognize BOTH an obligation to maintain a pentitant's confidentiality AND an obligation to legitimate civil authority. In other words, a conscientious confessor minister must claim ecclesiastical privilege when he conscientiously believes it exists, and someone else must explain to a judge if and why the state's interests in a particular case are superior to the penitant's interests in confidentiality. When a court so rules, the court almost always provides specific instructions to questioning attorneys about what and how they can explore. No JW elder has ever refused to testify in these circumstances.
Arguably, a religion whose ministers do not invoke ecclesiastical privilege would implicitly waive it thereafter.
-
james_woods
Arguably, a religion whose ministers do not invoke ecclesiastical privilege would implicitly waive it thereafter
Pretty hard to argue ecclesiastical privilege when the religion insists that it has no clergy.
-
Mad Sweeney
When a court so rules, the court almost always provides specific instructions to questioning attorneys about what and how they can explore. No JW elder has ever refused to testify in these circumstances.
Well duh! OF COURSE no elder is willing to go to jail to keep the secrets of a fellow congregation member who rapes children.
That's not what the conversation is about. The conversation is about what elders are instructed to do BEFORE the court orders them to testify about their Jehovah's Witness brother who rapes children. They are to keep the criminal's secrets from the authorities and the public for as long as possible WHILE AT THE SAME TIME breaching that confidentiality by contacting the Watchtower's branch office to tell them about the case.
Hypocrisy.
For what it's worth I don't see ANY value in ecclesiastical (clergy) privilege. So people get to confess sins in secret; so what?
-
james_woods
For what it's worth I don't see ANY value in ecclesiastical (clergy) privilege. So people get to confess sins in secret; so what?
Absolutely. The only value it could possibly have is to promote the power of the clergy over the people in a sort of back-handed way...you must confess your sins to us but we will never tell...
Isn't it always amusing to see the Watchtower Rules Makers yet again imitate the hated Roman Catholic Church?