Paducah Sun Article - J.R. Brown & Moreno

by UnDisfellowshipped 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    I just wanted to post some Quotes from the Paducah Sun (Kentucky) Newspaper from the January 28th 2001 Edition.

    I would love to hear everyone's comments on this Newspaper Article!

    Mario Moreno, associate general counsel at the church's New York headquarters, said when church policy is applied to child molesters, "as a parent, an attorney and an elder, I'm comfortable with our policy."

    Moreno said while he believes in the church's policy, he knows that some members have been hurt, and "my heart goes out to them." But he said that some elders don't follow the policy as they should, and that's where trouble begins.

    Moreno said when a Witness goes to an elder with an accusation of abuse, the first step the elders should take is calling the church's legal department.

    He said there are then three factors considered: protecting the child, complying with the law, and protecting minister-adherent confidentiality, with the last receiving the least weight.

    The legal department will then advise the elders what is required by law. Twenty-two states, including Illinois and the District of Columbia, do not require clergy to report accusations of child abuse. In those states, Moreno said, the legal department generally advises the elders not to report the matter to law enforcement authorities.

    J.R. Brown, public affairs director for the church, said the reason for this is "we do not think, as an ecclesiastical authority, we should run ahead of Caesar's laws," using a biblical reference to secular authority. "Even if secular authority does not require it, generally we have endeavoured to be more zealous for enforcing and seeing that these laws are complied with. If Caesar has a law, and it does not conflict with God's law, we follow it."

    Brown said the church does not necessarily equate reporting the matter to law enforcement to protecting the child because "not all the time does government authority provide the protection the child needs. We don't say automatically that, but unfortunately too many reports show that's the case. You can be sure they're going to take what action is necessary to see that the child is protected."

    Both Brown and Moreno said that the elders, who volunteer and are essentially untrained clergy, might err in their application of a policy both believe puts protecting children first.

    "It's a matter of trying to balance confidentiality and protecting the child," Brown said. "It's not always easy. Have mistakes been made? Very likely, they have. We're trying to see that everyone is educated to what needs to be done to see that innocent children are not victimized."

    Moreno agrees with Bowen's claim that no investigation is initiated in the church if there is only one witness and the accused denies the charge, but he said elders have the responsibility to watch the accused more closely. He added that elders sometimes advise the accused to not put himself or herself in suspicious situations.

    He also said that when members are disfellowshipped, the congregation is told but no reason is given in order to protect confidentiality. When asked if the parents of the victim would be allowed to tell fellow congregates why a member is disfellowshipped, Moreno replied, "That would be their choice. We don't tell them that, but it would be their choice. Is that encouraged? No."

    He agreed with Bowen's charge that a congregation would also not be told if a pedophile had joined the flock. But he said because of the church's structure, the fact that such a member, if male, who would have fewer rights in the congregation, would not be serving in a leadership role would alert members that "he obviously lacks spiritual maturity."

    Moreno said he believes that while some of the church's critics on this topic have legitimate concerns, most "have a problem with pride" and "want the organization to change for them. We go by what we believe the Bible says, and we don't change for anybody."

    He also said he feels the church is "being picked on" and added that he would be willing to put the church's policy up against any other.

    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 12 October 2002 6:48:23

    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 12 October 2002 6:53:51

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped
    If you want to see ALL of the Quotes from J.R. Brown and Mario Moreno, just go to this Thread I started: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36289&site=3

    I hope all this info helps everyone!

    I welcome any and all comments!

    Say anything you want! (without slandering anyone please)


    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 12 October 2002 6:51:54

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Thanks UDF

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    Ditto, THANKS Undf'd!

    Just re-reading and remembering some of these comments makes the blood pressure begin to rise. I loved the "we don't change for ANYBODY" comment. I guess we'll have to wait and see about that, now won't we? If they won't "change" for the obvious reasons, then I guess if the court system doesn't help them along in "changing," then surely Jehovah will one of these days.

  • yucca
    yucca

    they dont have common sense that god gave them. this is proof that they are not led by god. they are phoneys. just because the law doesnt require them to report it common sense saids to call police and let them handle the sex abuse case who molests children in front of witnesses? yucca

  • DJ
    DJ

    Wow......Thanks Dan, I wonder if they wish that they could take some of those sentences back. I'm glad I read this. Man, are they wackos or what?

  • Swan
    Swan

    I see this article as being a fine example of WTBTS double-talk, spin, and finger-pointing. Lets start with this one:

    Moreno said while he believes in the church's policy, he knows that some members have been hurt, and "my heart goes out to them." But he said that some elders don't follow the policy as they should, and that's where trouble begins.

    If they've been hurt, why can't you help them? Why don't you try? Why do you hurt them more by shunning many of them? And what about those naughty elders? All this trouble is caused by them, not the policy. Baaaaaaad elders! Now they are the scapegoats. It's not the WTBTS at fault. Only an idiot would remain an elder after reading this.

    The legal department will then advise the elders what is required by law. Twenty-two states, including Illinois and the District of Columbia, do not require clergy to report accusations of child abuse. In those states, Moreno said, the legal department generally advises the elders not to report the matter to law enforcement authorities.

    If you are a state legislator in one of these states, then get off your duff and get this law passed, because that's the only way to protect child abuse victims from the JW policy. If you don't, they will only circumvent your authorities; i.e. your police, children's services department, courts, etc.

    He said there are then three factors considered: protecting the child, complying with the law, and protecting minister-adherent confidentiality, with the last receiving the least weight.
    You can be sure they're going to take what action is necessary to see that the child is protected."

    Both Brown and Moreno said that the elders, who volunteer and are essentially untrained clergy, might err in their application of a policy both believe puts protecting children first.
    "It's a matter of trying to balance confidentiality and protecting the child," Brown said.

    Okay, so which is it? What is their priority this minute? Is it protecting the child or the confidentiality? If confidentiality has the least weight, then why are you now talking about balancing it with the protection of the child?

    Brown said the church does not necessarily equate reporting the matter to law enforcement to protecting the child because "not all the time does government authority provide the protection the child needs. We don't say automatically that, but unfortunately too many reports show that's the case.

    Huh? Now it's the fault of government because they don't succeed in protecting the child 100% of the time. Baaaaaaad government! Now it is the scapegoat. BTW, Mr. Brown, do you have any statistics to show that your policy succeeds 100% of the time. 50%? 25%?

    "It's not always easy. Have mistakes been made? Very likely, they have. We're trying to see that everyone is educated to what needs to be done to see that innocent children are not victimized."

    Oh, so you're not perfect either? Your success rate isn't 100%? So then we could also say the same thing about the WTBTS...

    not all the time does the WTBTS provide the protection the child needs. We don't say automatically that, but unfortunately too many reports show that's the case.

    Maybe we should compare success rates and then choose WTBTS or Child Protective Services/Police.

    Moreno agrees with Bowen's claim that no investigation is initiated in the church if there is only one witness and the accused denies the charge, but he said elders have the responsibility to watch the accused more closely. He added that elders sometimes advise the accused to not put himself or herself in suspicious situations.

    You know what, jails work really well for that. Why don't you call the real police and let them watch the accused more closely behind bars and away from children? Then he can have his attorney advise him about his suspicious situation.

    He also said that when members are disfellowshipped, the congregation is told but no reason is given in order to protect confidentiality. When asked if the parents of the victim would be allowed to tell fellow congregates why a member is disfellowshipped, Moreno replied, "That would be their choice. We don't tell them that, but it would be their choice. Is that encouraged? No."

    Why didn't he finish this thought? Shouldn't he have added, "But if they make the wrong choice and tell others, then we will disfellowship them for causing divisions in the congregation."

    Moreno said he believes that while some of the church's critics on this topic have legitimate concerns, most "have a problem with pride" and "want the organization to change for them. We go by what we believe the Bible says, and we don't change for anybody."

    Baaaaaaad apostates! They are the scapegoats now. We don't change for anybody because everybody else is at fault.

    He also said he feels the church is "being picked on" and added that he would be willing to put the church's policy up against any other.

    Waaaaaaa! We're being picked on! Waaaaaaa! Maybe they feel paranoid because they ran out of people to blame. Okay Mr. Brown, let's look at your database and compare notes.

    This whole article just made me sick. Thanks for letting me vent.

    Tammy

    Edited by - Swan on 22 October 2002 12:50:29

  • SloBoy
    SloBoy

    Ah yes, a bit of the Dark Ages in the 21 rst century.... " the elders wil have the responsibility to watch the accused more closely''..in our case they watched him well, heck eveyone in the congregation watched him well cuz they had him doing all sorts of things at the congegation level just to "prove" how innocent he really was. Unfortunately, he struck again. If their policy has in anyway improved WE know what has precipitated the change; " prideful apostates".

  • Swan
    Swan

    True Sloboy, and I am proud to be a modern day apostate!

    Tammy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit