by Farkel 83 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Two questions:
1) How many kids and how old are they?
2) Does anyone know how the Catholic church carries out excommunication? Once a person is excommunicated, what exactly does that mean for them regarding their place in the church and family, socially?
Hey Dia,
I was raised a Roman Catholic during the 50/60's in midwest usa. Would assume their laws aren't as strict now. We weren't supposed to French Kiss back then, eat meat on Friday, touch the "body of Christ" wafer with our tongue, yada, yada, yada. Doesn't mean we didn't DO it, we just took our chances on burning in Hell before we could swing into the confessional for forgiveness....if our hangover would permit getting up that eary. Yes, I was typical & Irish Catholic.
As for excommunication - I have actually never heard of ANYONE being excommunicated. I believe what would happen is that it means they can't take the sacraments (like Holy Communion), join the priesthood, etc. But I also believe they can be reinstated without a big deal either. It doesn't have any effect on one's standing with their family, friends, jobs.
If anything, the Catholic Church is much more open with their people (on most issues) than used to be. People can come/leave as they wish. The WTBTS has clamped down harder on it's people - making it more painful to leave. A True Sign of a Cult.
waiting
Beautiful. And I agree, there is altogether too much fear of them. When push finally comes to shove, there's not much there. Nail 'em.
LoneWolf
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication."
Excommunication is a removal of the communicant from communion with GOD in the eyes of the church, not from participation in family or parish life if s/he so desires. Notice that even if one is excommunicated, when one is "in danger of death, any priest ... can absolve from every sin and excommunication." Mercifully, the dying person is absolved and then has the opportunity to stand before GOD for eternal judgment, as he/she is no longer deemed unworthy by MAN.
-----------------------
Back to the subject at hand:
I am wondering if there are annual conferences (perhaps by state, perhaps even nationally?) of family court judges who would be interested in a presentation on the peculiarities of the JW shunning practice and its detrimental effect on all JWs, but particularly the children, using this court case as the jumping off point for the discussion.
Are there any board members who know? Are there any board members with psychiatric/social worker training who would be willing to develop and deliver such a presentation, if, in fact, such a thing would be permitted?
It seems to me that, as in this case, family court is the way to begin to chip away at the Society"s "but-we're-a-religion,-we-get-to-make-the-rules-and-practices" stance. Spreading the word to as many family court judges as possible would be a way to hasten the blanket condemnation of shunning practices forced on minor children by the U.S. judicial system.
What do you think?
outnfree
Edited by - outnfree on 22 December 2002 10:9:10Edited by - outnfree on 22 December 2002 10:11:27
Friday night I spent the night at my mothers. I slept in the room that had belonged to my sister (now deceased). My mother after three years has yet to remove all of Joanna's things out of the room and still refers to it as "Joanna's room". At any rate my mom is still a JW. Though I am df'd my family never once shunned me. Getting ready to go to bed I noticed a copy of the Organized for Ministry book in the room. I grabbed my glassed and the book and turned to the section refering to shunning minors who had been baptized. As I read the harsh, cold direction given to JW parents I was overwhelmed with emotion. To think that anyone would place a child under the pressure of such ice cold treatment. At a time when the child needs guidance and sprituality the most the WT is directing parents to turn their backs on them. To me emotional abuse is the worse abuse- I am and forever will be greatful that my family- though JW's, had the reasonbleness and understanding to realize that just because the WT stated something did not make it correct. Though my father died a JW-although he was at the least inactive- he was removed from the servant body becaue he could not agree with WT policy. He was an uneducated man who had more love and understanding in his heart than the WT could ever impart.
The stand this judge took could have a lasting impact on JW children if the ruling stands up to the test of time and higher courts. I hope that this case is true and accurate as posted. If so this indeed could mark a grand turning point in the history of the WT.
It would be interesting if a Q from R article appears "clarifying" their shunning policy to prevent this from becoming a major issue in the future.
Path
Interesting, but lets not get carried away . A family situation is different from the normal practices , and the court recognized the right of J Ws to shun if they wish , as an org . I daresay that they would try to find a way round it, like disassociation , not technically disfellowshipped for blood and voting etc.but the same in practice
Still, pehaps the first crack in the armour? we'll wait and see
There would be hardly anyone fighting the evils of the WTS if they were to stop shunning. Blood would not longer be an issue. Patients could take blood to save their lives and even though the society taught it was wrong, if they couldn't shun members for taking blood, members could take blood it to save their lives.
The dubs that I know are so convinced that it is Gods will , they would not take it at any price. They have also been so indoctrinated with the issue of safety of blood that they consider it only one step better than a death sentence. Funny that they don't seem to have applied the same fears to blood fractions.........
bump
Farkel,
Im thinking the WTS would probably add an "its up to your own conscience" shunning practice so as not to be as direct, avoid responsibility but still continue to make the witnessess feel guilty as hell if they associate with nonbelievers.
God that would be nice though. Im almost positive my grandfather would have accepted the blood transfusion that could have saved him if it werent for the liazion commitee and my family standing around him whispering about the disfellowshiping and shunning BS.
Thanks Farkel
Edited by - heaven on 22 December 2002 20:58:2
What a great post. I'm so glad that someone stood up against the org and brought them to court over shunning. She must be a gutsy lady!!!! Hopefully more will follow in her commendable footsteps.
jurs
