The Circuit Overseer Appointing Local Elders - Connect the Dots

by skeeter1 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    I thought about the change. Here's my take.

    I think it's a move to protect Bethel and the Governing Body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation. Criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation. Allowing it to happen, especially ongoing, would put those who knew either direclty criminally guilty (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) or indirectly criminally guilty (such as conspiracy, collusion, etc). I think the law is moving towards holding all who know of pedophile abuse to be criminally culpable. With this change, the CO could go to jail . . but not Bethel's volunteers or the Governing Body.

    Why do I think Criminal Charges? A few months ago, this happened

    http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/ronald-lawrence-child-molestation-case-reveals-cover-up-by-jehovah-witness-church-77904/

    Quote from article, "The District 18 District Attorney’s Office in the State of Oklahoma filed a motion on Jan. 28, 2014 in the case of accused molester Ronald Lawrence that alleges the top leadership of the Jehovah’s Witness Church knew about claims of child rape and molestation and deliberately concealed them.

    “The actions of the church, their banishment of Lawrence on one or more occasion and the directives of the governing body toward the victims and their family members regarding these crimes were actions of concealment and further actions preventing the victims from reporting the crimes to law enforcement,” the motion states."

    Now, the District Attorney doesn't sue for money. The DA does not represent the Candice Conti's of the world. The DA is there to put criminals in jail, and works on behalf of the governing. (Behold, it is the bringing down of false religion (lol)) This new arrangement for elder appointment had to be done by letter. In other words, it could not wait for the next Elder's Flock book or summer schools. It was urgent, on the part of Bethel. Bethel and the GB must have brown streaks in their boxers.

    I don't think the appointment change is as much of a move to remove financial culpibility completely. Tort law (suing for money) usually holds the principals/employer 'on the hook' for the errors of its employees & agents such as the case of an elder who abuses, or a CO who negligently hires/promotes/keeps a known pedophile in a position of authority. However, many states require the jury to apportion the monetary award between the parties responsible. In other words, I can see the WTS using this new elder appointment power to their advantage ( and the CO's disadvantage) to lessen the money aspects. For the Overseer, he better be wary. These judgements can last decades against him, and in most states, the CO stands to lose everything he owns and will earn for many years to come. This includes his own house. The CO might be able to obtain bankruptcy, but then the bankrtupcy judge will make the CO pay as much as he can from his assets and then for, most likely, 5 years afterwards.

    Not a good time to be an Overseer. I think Bethel is hoping the CO is a hard-working, doesn't ask questions, and will be proud of his new responsibility. I pity the Overseer. He's going forward in his new role with the confidence that only ignorance can bring.

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    Yes, that makes total sense.

    A friend of mine also thinks all the congergation reorgs are a move toward trying to distance themselves.

    He said: Also I thought about the redistricting and re-configuration and re-naming of congregations too. Hard for a person that's 34yrs old to sue while referencing a congregation that doesn't even exist anymore. You know? The branch can say "We don't even have a so-and-so congregation, sorry. Maybe they're thinking of something else...or lying altogether."

  • wallsofjericho
    wallsofjericho

    With this change, the CO could go to jail . . but not Bethel's volunteers or the Governing Body.

    if you were a CO, would you appoint an elder with a shady past that you were aware of? I wouldnt imagine even the WTS would question the CO's ruling as just this mechanism in place could make the WTS culpable. The CO calls it, yay or nay. Done.

    The WTS just gets a notification of the appointment or removal

    the CO stands to lose everything he owns and will earn for many years to come. This includes his own house. The CO might be able to obtain bankruptcy, but then the bankrtupcy judge will make the CO pay as much as he can from his assets and then for, most likely, 5 years afterwards.

    CO's rarely own anything anyway. Those that do will likely be able to protect this under a legal dept approved "donation" system that they will get back after they complete their term in some form or another

  • prologos
    prologos

    are COs members of the 'Order----'?

  • metatron
    metatron

    Some CO's do have assets. And after watching their associates as Bethelites or DO's get the shaft, are they stupid enough to trust the Society's clandestine support after a lawsuit? Why not just say, "The Lord will provide" and screw them over?

    The Society MUST be desperate to attempt anything this risky. I gotta wonder if most of their income is slipping away. The magazines are a waste of paper that cost tens of millions. The assemblies are shortened. The building fund is collective ( and how did that work in communist countries?).

    These ugly measures are in response to their continuing dilemma - congregations are filling up with broke, sick Witnesses. Trying to squeeze them harder is unlikely to be successful. Their bragged about "growth" is becoming a form of cancer.

    metatron

  • Barrold Bonds
    Barrold Bonds

    prologos: yes COs are in the order.

    this is absolutely a move to shiel the GB and WTBS from liability. They've been doing this for years. I was at Bethel when a lot of re-organization was going on with the HQ and other branches. A brother explained that the society is essentially playing a complicated shellgame to hide money, assets, and in this case, liability.

    Funny how my time at Bethel is what really woke me up to all the bullshit.

  • 4thgen
    4thgen

    I believe you are correct.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1
    More cases charging those who "just knew" of child abuse to be criminals. This is the direction of the law. It may take a few years, but this is where these cases are headed. WTS needs to insulate Bethel and Governing Body from going to jail. Criminal charges of this nature are based on Bethel/GB actually knowing of abuse & elder appointment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/kansas-city-bishop-indicted-in-reporting-of-abuse-by-priest.html?_r=0

    Bishop Indicted; Charge Is Failing to Report Abuse

    <nyt_byline>

    By A. G. SULZBERGER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: October 14, 2011 234 Comments

    • FACEBOOK
    • TWITTER
    • GOOGLE+
    • SAVE
    • EMAIL
    • SHARE
    • PRINT
    • REPRINTS

    <nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>

    KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has been indicted for failure to report suspected child abuse, the first time in the 25-year history of the church’s sex abuse scandals that the leader of an American diocese has been held criminally liable for the behavior of a priest he supervised.

    Enlarge This Image

    Archdiocese of Kansas City and St. Joseph, via Associated Press

    The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Robert Finn.

    Related

    National Twitter Logo.

    Connect With Us on Twitter

    Follow@NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

    Readers’ Comments
    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

    The indictment of the bishop, Robert W. Finn, and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph by a county grand jury was announced on Friday. Each was charged with one misdemeanor count involving a priest accused of taking pornographic photographs of girls as recently as this year. They pleaded not guilty.

    The case caused an uproar among Catholics in Kansas City this year when Bishop Finn acknowledged that he knew of the photographs last December but did not turn them over to the police until May. During that time, the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, is said to have continued to attend church events with children, and took lewd photographs of another young girl.

    A decade ago the American bishops pledged to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities — a policy also recommended last year by the Vatican. Bishop Finn himself had made such a promise three years ago as part of a $10 million legal settlement with abuse victims in Kansas City.

    Though the charge is only a misdemeanor, victims’ advocates immediately hailed the indictment as a breakthrough, saying that until now American bishops have avoided prosecution despite documents showing that in some cases they were aware of abuse.

    “This is huge for us,” said Michael Hunter, director of the Kansas City chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and a victim of sexual abuse by a priest. “It’s something that I personally have been waiting for years to see, some real accountability. We’re very pleased with the prosecuting attorney here to have the guts to do it.” The bishop signaled he would fight the charges with all his strength. He said in a statement: “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”

    The indictment announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday night.

    In a news conference, Ms. Baker said the case was not religiously motivated, but was about the obligation under state law to report child abuse.

    “This is about protecting children,” she said.

    If convicted Bishop Finn would face a possible fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to a year. The diocese faces a possible fine of up to $5,000.

    Ms. Baker said that secrecy rules for grand jury proceedings prohibited her from discussing whether other charges were considered, such as child endangerment, a felony. But she said the fact that the bishop faces a single misdemeanor count should not diminish the seriousness.

    “To my knowledge a charge like this has not been leveled before,” she said.

    It also may not mark the end of the legal troubles facing the diocese in the case, which includes civil and criminal cases in federal court. Last month Bishop Finn and Msgr. Robert Murphy testified before another grand jury in neighboring Clay County. A spokesman for the prosecutor’s office there declined to comment.

    The priest accused of taking the lewd photos, Father Ratigan, was a frequent presence in a Catholic elementary school next to his parish. The principal there sent a letter to the diocese in May 2010 complaining about Father Ratigan’s behavior with children. Then, last December, a computer technician discovered the photos on the priest’s laptop and turned the computer in to the diocese. A day later Father Ratigan tried to kill himself. The diocese said that Monsignor Murphy described — but did not share — a single photo of a young girl, nude from the waist down, to a police officer who served on an independent sexual abuse review board for the diocese. The officer said that based on the description it might meet the definition of child pornography, but he did not think it would, the diocese said.

    Bishop Finn sent Father Ratigan to live in a convent and told him to avoid contact with minors. But until May the priest attended children’s parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted an Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion, according to interviews with parishioners and a civil lawsuit filed by a victim’s family.

    Parents in the school and parishioners — told only that Father Ratigan had fallen sick from carbon monoxide poisoning — were stunned when he was arrested in May after the diocese called the police. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls.

    The new indictment released on Friday said that Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that Father Ratigan might subject a child to abuse.

    It cited “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”

    Bishop Finn said in his statement on Friday that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, including commissioning a report to look into the case, and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.

    That report found that the diocese did not follow its own procedures. It also found that Bishop Finn was “too willing to trust” Father Ratigan.

    The case has generated fury at the bishop, a staunch theological conservative who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese. Since the Ratigan case came to light, there have been widespread calls for him to resign.

    Contributing to the sense of betrayal is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a list of 19 preventive measures, among them to immediately report anyone suspected of being a pedophile to the law enforcement authorities.

    France may be the only country where a bishop has been convicted for his failure to supervise a priest accused of abuse, said Terrence McKiernan, president ofBishopAccountability.org, a victims’ advocacy group that tracks abuse cases.

    A grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a top official in the archdiocese there, Msgr. William Lynn, for mishandling cases of abuse. The former archbishop, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua , was not indicted, but he has been called to testify.

    <nyt_correction_bottom> <nyt_update_bottom>

  • sarahsmile
    sarahsmile

    That changes everything! WT crazy to keep records of anyone! Hopefully the elders will be liable for not reporting to police and anyone else who knows information. Including elders wives and friends!

  • konceptual99
    konceptual99

    Don't hold your breath. The WTS would have to be exposed as knowingly sitting on a huge child abuse network before anything happened in the short term. I don't disagree with Skeeter's basic point and do think that over time there will likely be more political and social will to go after those at the top of orgs like the WTS but I honestly don't think the WTS have anything substantial to fear for some time.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit