by AlanF 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
What I have a hard time understanding is how any clergy, JW elder's included, would be able to claim this privilege when a victim comes forward asking for help. This is not a case of eccesiastical privilege. The victim is not confessing.
A damned good point, Lady Lee. And in most religions, not a problem. But in this publishing house disguised as a religion, a very big problem!
What I have a hard time understanding is how any clergy, JW elder's included, would be able to claim this privilege when a victim comes forward asking for help. This is not a case of eccesiastical privilege. The victim is not confessing.
A brief explanation: Privilege does not belong to the lawyer, clergy or any other, it is the property of the victim or the confessor..... therefore privilege can always be waived by the person who owns it... that is why a lawyer, clergy can not disclose... because simply he doesnt own it.
However when the confession involves crimes, whether past or present - the information is no longer privilege beause their is a duty to disclose (in Australia this is the position, not sure about US or UK), this is especially true in cases of child abuse. (this is written is law in different acts).
hope this helps Lady Lee
Curious Mind
I just found this
http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/2002/02/0220a.shtml
"Forgive me father, for I have sinned." With these words, penitents open their hearts to God and their local Catholic priest. In doing so, they take advantage of a special relationship - a special legal privilege - and no matter what they admit to or reveal, be it a little envy or a capitol offense, the secret will be safe. In most states, the sanctity of penitent-clergy privilege is enjoyed by all faiths; tell your minister or rabbi about your troubles, about your crimes, and you can expect he or she won't drop a dime. But all this may be changing.
New revelations about child sexual abuse by clergy are driving some politicians to question the moral calculus that says keeping confidence is more important than calling in the cops.
If we're not to respect the clergy-penitient privelege, then why on earth should we respect lawyer-client privelege?
While I agree that with some of your notions, here's the question. Since Society at large seems to think abortion is a choice, should Churches have to buy insurance for their employees that include paying for abortions? Even if this goes against what that church teaches? If the Editor of the Southern Baptist Reporter converts to Islam and begins writing Op/Ed pieces favoring Islam and denegrating SB's should he be able to keep his job?
No, I think the hands off approach works best in most cases.
If we're not to respect the clergy-penitient privelege, then why on earth should we respect lawyer-client privelege?
Yerusalym, the difference is that a lawyer acts as an "advocate" for the accused. You can't have the avocate dissing the one they're defending can you?
On the other hand, according to what you've previously posted, the clergyman does/should not be acting in the advocate position for a confessor of child molestation (as an example) that doesn't turn themselves in. Therefore, the clergyman is not an advocate for the confessor, but rather an advisor. From what I understand, psychologists and psychiatrists (advisors) are compelled by law to report such crimes. What makes a clergyman/woman any different?
If it were understood by the confessor that his crimes would be reported, he would then be able to count the clergyperson as an advocate (for his Spiritual nature), right? Which is better?
If we're not to respect the clergy-penitient privelege, then why on earth should we respect lawyer-client privelege
Yerusalyim, you miss the point of lawyer/client privilege, in Australia there are 2 anyway! ;(pretty sure there are 2 n the USA as well) ;The point is that the relationship is suspose to be based on trust and it is not there fot the lawyer to advise or judge the client, the lawyer is acting for the client in obtaining what he wants, usually a legal defence, a client is not interested in the moral opinions of the lawyer and the lawyer doesnt express any. If lawyers were in a position of having to disclose what transpired within the relationship with regard to communications then the legal system would shut down as every accused person would be advised to "shut up' and plea not guilty as the state has to prove any criminal charge, plea's and settlements would become non existent.
Whereas a clergy-penitent privilege is engaged so the confessor can attain absolution, forgiveness, or whatever else. The communication is not used or created in defence of a legal problem, it's purpose is to solve moral problems. And as such my opinion is that as soon as the clergy are confronted with a legal problem it should immediatiely be handed over to the appropriate authorites. A church should never been in the position of shielding criminals and illegal activity. There is a clear ethic conflict of duty for the church if they do this - and this is to be strictly avoided by legal professionals as well as others
Curious Mind
Should Religion Be Exempt From Ethical Standards?
I've been pondering a similar question lately. Does the "end" justify the "means"?
SPAZ
The point is that the relationship is suspose to be based on trust and it is not there fot the lawyer to advise or judge the client, the lawyer is acting for the client in obtaining what he wants,
The same can be said for the clergy penitent privelege. The relationship is supposed to be based on trust. Within the Catholic Church at least, what is SUPPOSED to happen is that absolution is supposed to be witheld until the perp turns themself in. All that will happen if this law does pass is that people will no longer confide in clergy, thus it's the slow dissolution of religion. Sorry, I can't advocate that.
I would humbly ask you folks to stay with the topic of this thread: human ethics, vs. religious "ethics" and how the law can can be used to stop any and all organizations from violating commonly-accepted human ethics.
There is a very good reason for me asking this. Trust me. Please stay with the topic.
Farkel
Yerusalym, Who benefits from such a confession?
Farkel, I'm trying to do that.
Edited by - siegswife on 19 January 2003 22:21:45
