by troucul 10 Replies latest jw friends
anyone have any opinions on what effect the new massachusetts law will have on dubba's?(priests have 30 days to report any sexual abuse-or they will face criminal charges)
if you ask me, i foresee the borg's defense as:'we don't have priests, therefore the law does not apply to us'(by altering their terminology they can create loopholes)
anyone?
anyone?
bueller?
buuuuuuuellerrrrrrrr?
Actually, I was just thinking about this myself. I live in Massachusetts and was pondering just what the new mandatory reporting law will do for children's welfare. I'm not familiar enough with the laws language but I'd imagine there has already been plenty of scrutiny of the law by groups looking for loopholes in it. Primarily, i'm thinking of groups who feel it's in their best interest to keep pedophilia hushed to save money or save face.
For example, I understand that this law mandates reporting of alleged abuse by all clergy. Not simply Catholic clergy.
Here are the potential loopholes I was turning over in my head last night in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses:
* no clergy classification (uh, suuure)
* "confessional" exemption appears to only extend to Catholic confession, however, would an elder who hears a confession from a r&f JW also be exempt from reporting it?
* Would the accusation from a r&f witness immediately initiate the mandatory reporting process by elders or would they take it up with the accused and look for a confession (thereby nullifying the elders responsibility to report the crime?)
That's just a couple of things I've been ruminating over. There are definitely loopholes, I'm not really sure what they are.
Either way, it's still a pretty sick concept that the WTBTS will disfellowship someone for pedophilia (well, allegedly) but will allow that person to go scot free among the "worldlies" without warning. As if expulsion from the group is somehow enough punishment to curb a deviant's criminal behavior. How little regard do they have for "worldlies" that they'd allow a pedophile to roam free after expelling him/her? Is it somehow okay because they have protected the witness children but to hell with the worldly ones? Or, is it just enough to know that they've tossed someone to save their group's reputation and funds, knowing they can distance themselves from the offender by stating that they are disfellowshipped? Are they responsible for allowing someone they acknowledge to be a pedophile to go free just because they've locked their doors to them? Isn't that similiar to the idea of the cardinal moving a known offender from parish to parish (in theory, that is)?
Is the responsibility of the witnesses to protect ALL children, not just their own? And I say this, knowing darn well that they don't do squat to protect even witness children with their pathetic policies now.
The Witnesses will have a hard time claiming that they have no clergy. For years, they have adamantly maintained that every baptized JW is an "ordained minister", and therefore not elligible for military service.
They have flip flopped on this a few times, but the current stand is that they are all ordained. They can't have it both ways.
Expelling a pedophile will not insure the safety of any neighborhood he resides. His exposure/awareness to police, public and congregations is a must to ensure safety.
All their verbal gymnastics will not make them land on their feet when it comes to pedophilia.
Guest 77
The JWs usually say something like "we have no distinct clergy class". Unfortunately people tend to interpret that as "we have NO clergy class".
The reality is that ALL baptized JWs are clergy.
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
Of course, they are only clergy if it benefits them. When taxes are due some utilize the ministers tax form to take credits for expenses in service. This is a way to nail a few when evading responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The only good elite are dead elite!!"-Naeblis
very good question...also, if I were an elder I would be particularly concerned for the potential personal liability I may very well incur because of the lack of full support from the WTS and the ineptness of fellow elders...this will prove to be very interesting...be real interesting to see if the WTS write a letter to the local Mass congregations...
Or, is it just enough to know that they've tossed someone to save their group's reputation and funds, knowing they can distance themselves from the offender by stating that they are disfellowshipped?
BINGO!!!!!
With the Watchtower, it's all about MONEY and IMAGE.
Tom
"Gentlemen, he said, I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes, I've moved your mountains and marked your cards. But Eden is burning"
--Bob Dylan
Is the responsibility of the witnesses to protect ALL children, not just their own?
Of course not! They do their part by attempting to spread the news of the kingdom. Aside from that, the world is doomed, remember?...so why should they bother? No giving to charities, definitely no blood donations, no helping out at the soup kitchens, so, why should they even begin to care about the physical welfare of those having to exist in the world in "it's present condition"?...even the children? They do enough just by driving around and going door to door. Can't you just feel the love [8>]?
troucul,
The proper WT procedure for any indiscretion heard by an elder is to report back to the presiding overseer of that congregation. The more serious the offense the more obligated the lone elder is at reporting back to the presiding overseer. If this would fall under the "confessional" law once the information were transferred to another person would be a good test.
Time will tell, If I were still an elder now I would resign, the liability is going through the roof and the WT will hang you out to dry. However I must point out, most witnesses have nothing to lose anyway, most of the zealots live on a shoe string.
HCM
