Clergy privilege and JWs

Lady Lee

I just read a couple of threads related to this topic but would like some comments directly related to the issue of clergy privilege (c-p) and the JWs.

If clergy penitent privilege refers to the right for a member of the clergy to remain silent concerning criminal acts disclosed to him by the person who committed the criminal act then does this privilege apply to JW elders?
If a victim of abuse or their family goes to an elder to disclose they are the victim of abuse in the congregation and asking for assistance does c-p apply?
If the elder goes to the accused and asks him whether he did it and the accused says "No" was there a confession requiring c-p?
If an abuser went to an elder to disclose that he has indeed abused someone is there c-p?

In most religions there is a clearly identified clergy class, whether they are rabbis, ministers, priests etc. Most JWs will gladly announce that the JWs are different from other religions because they do not have a clergy class.

SO.... if JWs are taught and believe they do not have a clergy class do they also believe that what they say to an elder would give them c-p? If they do not believe they are disclosing to a person who would give them c-p, then do they have it?

I would appreciate any and allinput into this discussion. There may be a way to fight this c-p with the JWs if we can gather enough info.

Beans, Quotes, Undisfellowshipeed and any one else who likes to do research what can you all find?

Yerusalyim

Lady,

My understanding of how it works (and I deal with this legally because as a Chaplain Assistant I can sometimes be confused with a clergyman and any communication given me might fall under the umbrella for C-P privelege). Anyhow. In the first two cases you mentioned it would not apply. In the last case C-P privelege would apply. I support making it mandatory to report in the first two cases and to leave the privelege for the third.

One case comes to mind. THe cops bugged a convicts cell when the priest was coming to hear his confession and wanted to use the tape as evidence. Should this be allowed? Hell no, and the courts shot it down.

Here's the deal guys. If we chip away at this privelege for Child Molestation, then it's the start of the slippery slope that would lead to ANYTHING revealed in the confessional being subject to revelation in the public.

No Apologies

The other part of this that has always been a little vague is this: does it cover an individual who is the perpetrator, or does it also apply to the victim who comes to the clergy member for help? It seems that the WT would like to throw the confidential rug over both cases. To me, it seems a clergy member should be obligated to report that there is a victim, even if he is under some kind of restraint from naming the perpetrator.

Yerusalyim

To me, it seems a clergy member should be obligated to report that there is a victim, even if he is under some kind of restraint from naming the perpetrator.

Now that's a compromise I can live with. Also, NO the Clergy Client Privelege doesn't apply if it's the victim that tells. Except that unfortunately in some states the clergy are exempt from telling regardless of HOW they find out, even if they see it happen.

Lady Lee

Ok a scenario:

I am a victim of Brother X. I go to the elders to see what I can do and what they can do. I go for help. Concrete help. I don't want Brother X to get away with this. I don't want Brother X to hurt anyone else. I expect that they will have to talk to somebody on how to handle this.

Brother Elder goes to Brother X and asks "Did you do it?" Hasn't Brother X broken confidentiality and clergy privilege? If he can break it to talk to the alleged abuser then why can't he break it to report the accusation to the authorities and let them investigate it properly?

As the victim do I expect that Brother Elder will not talk to anyone about my problem? Do I think he will talk to the other elders? What if I want to know if I should talk to the police? As the victim I am looking for help. Isn't it Brother Elder's duty to direct me to the authorities in this case regardless of what he has been told or hasn't been told?

No Apologies

Yeru,

NO the Clergy Client Privelege doesn't apply if it's the victim that tells.

Somehow I think this fact is overlooked in many cases, either through ignorance or through elders trying to keep a lid on things.

Lady Lee

I go to the elders to see what I can do and what they can do.

This is the first instinct a loyal witness has, of course. It's been drilled into them for so long. They should go to the police first, but they don't. Or they wait for permission to report to the police. Why????? The Society will say, we never told them they could not go to the police. Technically they did not. They don't have to say it.

So how do you break that mindset?

simplesally

I think the point would be from the prosecutor and the public at large: Either you do or you don't have a clergy class. Which is it?

And if you don't (as their literature says) then there is no clergy-penitent relationship and not entitled to that privacy! After all, we are not guarranteed privacy, if they want, they have "local needs talks," "marking talks," and public reproof!! How is that private?

UnDisfellowshipped

Lady Lee asked:

If a victim of abuse or their family goes to an elder to disclose they are the victim of abuse in the congregation and asking for assistance does c-p apply?

Very good question.

A while back, I asked the same question to Bill Bowen via E-Mail.

Here was his reply:

Anything said to any elder is considered "Ecclesial Privilege"

Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 22 January 2003 2:56:9

Yerusalyim

Legally speaking it's the penitent, NOT the clergy, that holds the privelege. The penitent can wave the privelege, in which case the clergy has to tell.

Also, I think it's a good point and a great way to stick the JW's to the wall on the issue of clergy. If they claim the clergy penitent privelege, they have a clergy class. If they don't have a clergy class, there is no privelege.

Lady Lee,

Ok a scenario:
I am a victim of Brother X. I go to the elders to see what I can do and what they can do. I go for help. Concrete help. I don't want Brother X to get away with this. I don't want Brother X to hurt anyone else. I expect that they will have to talk to somebody on how to handle this.
Brother Elder goes to Brother X and asks "Did you do it?" Hasn't Brother X broken confidentiality and clergy privilege? If he can break it to talk to the alleged abuser then why can't he break it to report the accusation to the authorities and let them investigate it properly?
As the victim do I expect that Brother Elder will not talk to anyone about my problem? Do I think he will talk to the other elders? What if I want to know if I should talk to the police? As the victim I am looking for help. Isn't it Brother Elder's duty to direct me to the authorities in this case regardless of what he has been told or hasn't been told?

In most states the clergy penitent privelege wouldn't apply in this case because the victim isn't a penitent. Nor do I advocate applying the privelege in this way. I have a very narrow view of the privelege, as it's defined by law. The privelege applies ONLY when an individual in a formal act of religion, turns to a clergyman seeking forgiveness and absolution.

That's the legal definition I have to follow in the US army. That's the only time I think it should be applied.

Lady Lee

Thank you all for your input.

I have contacted Bill and I think this might be rather interesting to test in a court of law.

Clergy privilege and JWs

Share this