So the other night, my family was together and my dad brought up the recent child abuse conviction for the society. Big surprise, my sister hadn't heard anything about it, so of course she got right on to the JW.org website and emailed me the link to the watchtowers official statement. This is my reply:
They can say what they want, the policy needs to be changed. The policy is designed to protect the organization, not children.
It's flawed for two reasons - 1, they have a "two witness" rule. So if a child accuses someone of abuse, unless the accused admits to it, or there was another witness to the crime, the elders are instructed to "leave the matter in Jehovah's hands" (do nothing). 2 - If someone IS found guilty of child abuse and are reproved or disfellowshipped, the congregation will never know the reason why. Parents are not warned so they will know to protect their children. This person could be reinstated and in good standing (like Jonathan Kendrick, the child molester in this case).
Ask any elder, they will confirm this. I have. If there was a child molester in my congregation, I would want to know about it so that I could protect my son. Know too that this is just the first timethat someone has has actually WON a case like this against the society. No one knows about the millions of dollars in settlements made out of court (all paid for by voluntary donations to the worldwide work!) This is all documented.
In this particular case, while serving as an MS, this person confessed to touching his stepdaughters breasts while she was sleeping. He was removed as an MS, but was not judicially reproved. He then went on to molest two other girls, one of whom was Candace Conti, the girl who sued. She was 9 years old and the abuse went on for 2 years. Some of the abuse happened when they were in the ministry together. Anyways, Jonathan Kendrick bears the most guilt and should be held accountable. But we can't pretend that the organizations policies didn't play a role in what happened. They point fingers all the time at the Catholic Church and its priest sex scandals and cover ups, but the exact same thing has been going on in the organization. And for the record, there IS a child molester in **** *****. He currently is in good standing. It doesn't matter that he will never be an MS or elder. But would you want to send your daughter door to door with him, or over to their house? Something to think about...
This is her reply (mind you, these are NOT my sisters words. I think she emailed an elder about it and did a copy and paste):
Hey, so I'm not sure where you got your information from, but if you do some research in the watchtower library, or even ask a mature elder in your congregation, I don't think what you said is actually correct! I did some research and this is what i found:
There is no "two witness rule" and there hasn't been for many years. There doesn't even have to be an actual accusation of child abuse by the child! As soon as anyone suspects there is an inappropriate problem, it is to be reported immediately to the police and to the branch office. After that takes place, the local congregation elders are not involved in the investigation at all. That makes sense since elders aren't trained to investigate crimes. The branch and the local police have qualified people to carry out this task. Failure to follow this procedure can result in discipline (both in the congregation and legally) of the elder who received the allegation because of his mishandling of the situation. Failure to report is also a crime under Section 4(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancements Act.
The responsibility of the congregation elders is to protect the congregation. That means that until the situation is resolved (either the person is innocent or the person is found guilty, disfellowshipped and is convicted by police) the elders do their best to keep children away from the person and the person is instructed not to be in contact young ones.
Unlike the Catholic, this process is designed to protect the children. In fact, the congregation elders and the branch may even provide assistance in convicting the person who is guilty.
In the case of **** *****, the person who was convicted of molesting a child was removed from the congregation LONG before he was found guilty in court. As well, members of the the congregation elder body assisted in ensuring that justice was carried out in that particular case.
Yes, the person can be reinstated and in good standing, but he will never be in a position where he has any reason for being alone with a child. w97 1/1 p.28. This is not only for the protection of the congregation, but for the protection of the children and discerning parents. Just as you wouldn't expect your child's school to hire a known pedophile so too the congregation will not appoint former child molesters. The fact that this is public knowledge should provide parents with a sufficient basis to protect their children. If a person in the congregation, even one in good standing and who is exemplary has not been appointed or is unable to regular pioneer, what would that say about their past and general spirituality? Why would you leave your child alone with someone like that?
Legally, the elders are unable to do anything further to "warn" the congregation. This is both to protect the child as well as the accused. All information is protected both by section 48 the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as well as section 126 of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancements Act. Following a successful conviction, elders can choose to warn parents with children they feel are at risk. However, a prudent parent can find the information in their municipality's public records of conviction
The fact is, the congregation does as much as they can to protect Jehovah's name, as well as the children within the Christian congregation.
Hope this helps! Just be careful what you read ;)
I need your help guys!! I want to make a well worded and completely factual response, without too much sarcasm.
