* * *
Following is a slightly improved version of something I posted onto various web site forums a few months ago. I hope it helps those working so hard on this subject.
Smoking Gun?
What is revealed about the Society’s motivations regarding reporting (or not) of child abuse to secular authorities? It is revealed that the Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within JW circles. It is revealed that though a sexual predator of children is a threat to an entire community the Society still prefers to keep knowledge of such a person’s conduct privileged. It is revealed that this is a deplorable act, an act of selfishness on the part of the Society.
As a religious guide the question the Society must answer is this: Is it right to provide reports of known child abuse to the secular authorities? An additional question is: Is it right to provide reports of suspected child abuse to secular authorities? The Society’s actions demonstrate that they do think it is right to make such reports but they do not apply that conclusion uniformly. What does that mean?
There is perhaps no argument that one single policy from the Society could practically and uniformly deal with reports of child abuse. Why is that? It is because protection and justice from community to community differs sometimes so significantly that how moral people respond to that authority must differ. For example, some governments and communities in this wide world are prone to executing first and investigating second—if at all. Understandably, in such communities moral people are far more reluctant to report suspected cases of child abuse or even cases that are somewhat evidenced but not evidenced decisively to the levelheaded and reasonable person. But the Society’s actions do not stem from potential injustice or lack of protection from secular authorities. How do we know that?
Circumstances in the United States actually illustrate well that the Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within its own sphere of influence, but its actions in that nation also betray the Society’s real incentive, which incentive has nothing whatsoever to do with what is best for children. In the United States it is true that laws addressing child abuse vary from state to state. Nevertheless among secular authorities throughout that nation the prudence, protection and justice provided stemming from reported child abuse is pretty uniform in that protection and justice is generally the same from one jurisdiction to another from state to state. But, in the United States admittedly the Society’s action of reporting (or not) of child abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with a jurisdiction’s protective, investigative and/or prosecutorial record and everything to do with penal code! (And not one of those codes prohibits elders [clergy] from reporting known child abuse) That is why the Society tells some elder bodies to report known child abuse and others that they need not report. The question becomes, why would the Society direct elders to report in some jurisdictions but not in other jurisdictions with everything else being equal in terms of protection and justice afforded? There is only one answer and it is the one given above. The Society wants to keep reports of child abuse very private within its own sphere of influence.
If the Society felt otherwise then they would insist that elder bodies act uniformly by reporting known and suspected child abuse throughout the United States and other jurisdictions having a reasonably similar record of prudence, protection and justice from law enforcement authorities. At the very least the Society would explicitly encourage that victims report this insidious crime! The Society has already demonstrated that reporting known and suspected child abuse is not in violation of any Biblical tenets because in jurisdictions requiring such reporting they tell elders to comply with those reporting laws. So, if there is no Biblical violation then why not report uniformly (or at least actively encourage that victims report) when protection and enforcement is reasonably equal? Again, there is only one reason and it is one having to do with an ill-conceived notion of preservation. Just what they are trying to preserve is not all that difficult to determine. What is the object of that ill-conceived preservation?
If theirs was some legitimate Biblical concern about protecting the reputation of God’s name, Jehovah (as if we need to protect Him!), or meeting some Biblical requirement then the Society would have to uniformly either prohibit or require reporting, but that is not what it has done. By instructing some elders to comply with penal code that requires reporting the Society has in essence said, it is morally okay to report these cases. So, if it is moral then why not uniformly report when all else is reasonably equal? The only object of preservation left becomes a selfish one.
By its deplorable action the Society has demonstrated that it is less concerned with the real and day-to-day interests of helpless and innocent children than it is with its own instrumentational viability. The internal strife and anger on this issue runs deep and it is heating up! The Society should have listened to its battery of lawyers years ago when they advised a uniform policy of reporting child abuse when protection and justice is reasonable expected.
Why did the Society want those letters reproduced on this and other forums held in such strict confidence? Because they betray the Society’s self-interest gained at the expense of children and their families! In the end their interests will suffer over this and other issues.
That is quite a smoking gun, and it is undeniable! In fact, in recent weeks the Society’s own attorneys have admitted (apparently without thinking through it very well as attorneys) that the Society’s policies have been far too inadequate because they have admitted to knowing of botched cases in spite of policies in place, which policies include the matter of training and verification of understanding stemming from that training (or lack of). How else could they claim to know of cases where elders ‘did not follow directions’ without it being de facto admission of known inadequacy on the part if the Society’s representatives and therefore bad policy? The problem with the sort of inadequacies spoken of here is that it should take only a very few cases (perhaps just one!) to realize a flaw in the system (policy) and correct it. This has not happened in the obvious ways it needs to be done in relation to reporting incidents to legitimate authorities. One problem the Society will face is the potentially huge numbers who will be willing to come forth and testify to this lack and do so with one voice. That number will certainly be more than just a few, in fact it already is.
Just how deep the Society will yet mire itself in this sordid affair is yet to be seen, but what lay ahead will become even more untenable and nasty unless some major change is enacted by decision-makers at Brooklyn Bethel on a number of key issues into compliance with that which is sound and moral based upon the Bible, most importantly in those issues involving blood and child abuse.
Friend
Smoking guns:
1. Internal inconsistencies in Society policy regarding reports of child molestation.
Evidence: Comparison of internal letters between the Society and its facilitators (elders). This comparison is magnified because it leaves off explicit directions that elders (facilitators) encourage reporting of the worst cases of sexual child molestation to secular authorities even though its official and public publications direct that very thing.
2. Admission of failures without corresponding and significant change in policy.
Evidence: Various news interviews of Society representatives.
3. Growing numbers of victims willing be report this failure of policy.
Evidence: Various news interviews of victims.
Number two (2) is the biggest problem for the Society because it is the key that links lower level ‘managers’ to the ‘higher ups,’ and it is the ‘higher ups’ that are most responsible. Number one (1) shows a theoretical flaw causing potential failure. Number three (3) demonstrates there is an actual failure. But, number two (2) is an admission that this failure was already known by ‘higher ups.’ That point should be harped upon and fully developed because it is the proverbial Achilles Heal in terms of juror’s prudence.