Need Clarification RE: Candice Conti Case (page 2)

I agree with you Band on the Run.

I think you might find this excerpt from that elders email to my sister interesting:

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

I find the reasoning a bit ridiculous. So if a person is in all ways an “exemplary Christian”, but is not serving as a regular pioneer or elder, I should assume that they are a possibly a child molester and that I need to keep my children away from them?

And is he suggesting that a parent should cross reference the names of the people in their congregation with a sex offender registry, just in case?

Need Clarification RE: Candice Conti Case

Ding

What Now?

Share this