by silentlambs 43 Replies latest jw friends
mat 18:16 does not say EYE witness, it may refer to witness as to what you are saying, so you can not change your "testimony" later.
The letter looks somewhat ok BUT, what they DO in each and every case is what counts directed by WT legal.
Then, why Bill did what he did?
AND he did not do it in a hurry...
Dana,
Two witnesses to seperate incidents of the same type sin has been allowed for at least 30 years. It was often used to establish smoking or fornication. It appears it should have applied to child molestation but there are so many cases where it has not. At least in the Fitzwater case the society knew there were many victims but nothing was done.
I would like some clarification here too. Was it just the neglegence on the part of the local elders to procede with two witnesses to seperate occasions or was it the service department telling them not to proceed. What ever the case they have been mishandled.
Can anyone out there tell us of an incident where a molester was dealt with on the basis of two witnesses to two seperated molestations?
Jst2
Hi PathofHorns,
Can you tell me what the JW policy was before the dateline program?
What did they change???
I'm confused..
I saw the 'new policy' as you posted it.. I'm not sure what changed, however?? What are they doing differently now?
Hi Jst2,
In my case, the elders made a point of telling me that they were in contact with the society the entire time for advice on handling the case. They used the "Question From Readers" blurb (can't remember the date and issue) where it said that a person who had committed the sin years before but had shown in the intervening years evidence of repentance (i.e. meeting attendance, service, etc) would not necessarily have to face judicial action. That's the route they took; decided not to have a hearing against him and approved his pioneer application.
Interestingly, during the meeting we had with him and the other 2 victims, he stated (tearfully..*gag*) that he was willing to "do anything" to prove to me that he was sorry. I asked only that he change congregations and stay away from me and my family. The elders told him that it would take a few days for them to make a decision about whether or not to hold a judicial committee hearing against him. Within 2 days, they informed him that there would be no action against him; less than an hour later, he informed me that it would be too much of an upheaval for his family to change congregations, sorry and all that. Later that month, his application was approved by the society and I was hounded by the elders for showing a non-forgiving attitude. Life's fun hey?
Dana
Dana:
I'm truly sorry you went through that. <hugs>
Now, as far as this letter goes, I feel that there's a strong undercurrent of "LET THE READER USE DISCERNMENT", the same way there was when the policy regarding blood transfusions was "changed" because of all the public flak the WTS was getting.
While an abuse victim has the "absolute right" to go to the authorities, I hope none are so naïve as to think that it will not be without repercussions. After all, once you disclose your accusations to the authorities, it will be construed as slander because the individual is making an accusation against a congregation member who - upon internal investigation - was found innocent, either due to lack of witnesses or lack of corroborating evidence. Also, because cases like these often pit individuals against each other, and foster a desire in others to 'choose sides', the person can be found guilty of causing divisions in the congregation. Thirdly, the old bringing reproach on Jehovah trump card is always handy in cases like this.
Survivors of pedophiles need to read this letter with discernment, and realize that actually very little, if anything, has changed in WTS policy, and that they face being disassociated rather than disfellowshipped if they exercise their "absolute right" and go to the authorities.
Love, Scully
What is also intersting is the public letter they have posted on JWMedia.com. Both are deceptive, to say the least.
If, as they say, no one is prevented from reporting such matters to the authorites, why have so many been threatened with disfellwshipping for doing just that?
If they have had such a long standing policy so favorable to the victims, why the need for clarification today? Wouldn't it be uniformly followed across the land?
A point I noticed when reading the letter posted at JW Media.com; The elders investigate the charges and even if they think unfounded, THE "ARE" EXPECTED TO REPORT ALL CASES TO THE BRANCH OFFICE! However, it also says THEY "MAY" BE REQUIRED TO ALSO REPORT IT TO THE AUTHORITIES? Isn't it nice to know JWs fate rests in the hands of amatuer janitors and window washers instead of trained professionals? And nowhere is the victim shown much compassion, unless she has two witnesses or a confession. And how do they protect the child? By denying congregation privileges? NO talks from the stage, no microphone handling, no Pioneering protects a child that has been abused? How does any of that prevent him from approaching the child of an unsuspecting congregation member?
No wonder Bill called it a Pedophiles Paradise!
quote: We have long instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by Law to do so, even where there is only one witness. (Romans 13:1) in any case, the elders know that if the victim wishes to make a report, it is his or her absolute right to do so.----Galatians 6:5.
There ARE parts of this letter that are positive. But there's something missing. In my gut, I know it, and you know it. Individual victims are inconsequential. No apology for individual Elders' mistakes.
I mean, an Elder in our case told me point blank in '81 "If we are asked in court why we didn't report these sexual acts [a '73 hearing], we will state the truth, we didn't know it was against the law." Really?
And why is a history of inadequate responses to rape and sexual abuse wiped out with new light? Did they have God's direction when they made the blunders? Isn't that a new way of passing the buck? 'We are not responsible for the past mistakes because we didn't have the new light.'
I really think the greater society, the world, is educating religious groups...from Catholics to the Witnesses.
They need to stop being Clinton-esque. Or perhaps this year, it's: they need to stop being Gary Condit-ish! Smiling for the cameras; never acknowledging personal behaviour/responsiblility not only is insensitive to the victim (s) and their family (ies), it can destroy the public's trust.
Here's a time capsul from my book...before the new light:
Chapter 14
............
How could we know better? The Elders dealt with our problems internally because their perspective was focused on not being a part of the ungodly world.
Separating church and state led to an unspoken taboo against interference and also a desire to stay innocent.... In general, though, if someone broke the law of the land, the Elders encouraged the individual to initiate the unwieldy process of settling accounts with the appropriate law enforcement officials. It appears there was a double standard in our case.... Why had the Elders not encouraged Daniel D’Haene to go to the police? Was not incest also a serious crime?
.....We were not seen as Daniel’s victims. We were witnesses and participants in a series of sinful acts. More importantly, we were alive—what did we have to complain about? Such was the depth of ignorance of sexual abuse within the Witness society in 1973.
Yet Elder Surin [name changed] wasn’t completely naïve. He told me, “I warned my wife to keep our children away from your father.”
Did the adult players in this fiasco act out of self-interest? I was a child. What did I know? I wished someone would have taken us away from my father, but I did not understand the legalities of the situation. Outside the looking glass that was my childhood, one could ask why Mother had not taken action to remove us. Were we asking more of the Elders than of her? Perhaps. But Judgment Day seemed far off. Was it so wrong to look to the shepherds of the flock to be our immediate saviors? The Elders were well-educated. Mother was not. Who had more responsibility to act upon the knowledge given them?
I know that I associated disclosure with hurtful consequences, unfair punishment. These experiences only encouraged my separation from reality. I was a body without a voice, programmed to be silent, to feel nothing. There was no acknowledgement of my worth. In fact, my public image was negative by association. I was my father’s child. I had hardly begun my life and already the strikes against me were building. Worst of all, a condescending attitude from certain ministers—God’s chosen Elders —fed the feeling that a negative energy was coming to us in an indirect way from God. One traveling Witness overseer told me that from the moment he heard of our being sexually abused, he vowed never to touch another glass or cup in the Aylmer Kingdom Hall—because it was tainted by, “your father’s touch.”
He was truly horrified by our experience. He always expressed genuine caring for my family—and chose a symbolic act that would signify his personal protest to the abuse, yet he never made an overt gesture of help. He never said, “Get out! Call the police or I will!” His revelation was like an abuse victim of a Catholic priest receiving a get-well card from the Pope. Too little—too late.
My family had been conditioned as Witnesses to view the world as separate. “We are in the world but not of the world” was an oft-quoted teaching. Hence, problems within the Witness organization were handled internally, within a small congregation, by each local body of Elders. I did not understand the Elder’s judgment, but I certainly never questioned their decisions publicly.
After Father was disfellowshipped in 1973, members of our faith did not associate with him or visit us when he was home. At least their children didn’t have to play The Game with him.
[I wonder if we]... no longer have to listen to Papa self-righteously preach to visitors.
And once, just once I heard from my father’s lips: “We have to stop.” Even at twelve years old, Thinking Donald found that laughable. “We” have to stop?
The implication was that we had been consensual sexual partners. His excommunication had him sufficiently worried that he decided to lie low for a while, but Other Donald knew he would be back.
Copyright,2002 Father's Touch by Donald D'Haene
www.fatherstouch.com
Here's a paragraph that I didn't see in this letter that I would like to have seen. I know this is wishful thinking on my part.
"All Jehovah's Witness children, friends of our children and parents of our children who become aware of physical and/or sexual child abuse in the congregation should immediately contact the appropriate authorities for a thorough investigation. Jesus placed special emphasis on our duty and obligation to look after our children. If we are not willing to do this, then are we worthy of calling ourselves Christians? We think not!"
Thanks Scully and (((Hugs)))back atcha .
But really, in retrospect, I'm almost glad of the treatment at the hands of my 'brothers' as it was just another brick in the wall and led to my finally leaving. Who knows? If they had treated me with respect and love, I might still be there and THAT does not bear thinking about! *shudder*
Love,
Dana
because of the publicity of the written poicy, some teenage girls who are being raped will go to the police, and yes, they will get disfellowshipped for "something" by the elders, but they will be "out" of the cult, and out of the reach of the rapist.......that's good.
as far as little 5 yr old girls go, who are being made to @#$% daddy, every day, ....... "you don't have 2 witnesses"......go home with daddy now......... and the heat will be turned up because of all the publicity, so, daddy is going to be exra mad, and scared...... he might even want to get rid of the evidence. (the 5 yr old girl)
gosh!......and we loved her soooo much!!!....... she was abducted!!!!
i hope the police can find her!!!!!
