P.off, please read my post on BA thread on "Bundy one year of reporting" which responds to your post above. I did not mean to ignore your post above. Have to go.
News Flash: New Reveal Article
by Sugar Shane 116 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Truthexplorer
Fisherman - every scenario is different. The Australian Royal Commission exposed many flaws in the one size fits all current safeguarding policy of the Watchtower and it's handling of matters involving an alleged crime. If elders are deeply concerned about an individual and the safety of its members, there are steps that can be taken to help reduce risk or danger. In most situations, the elders are legally bound by confidentiality which I entirely agree with; but they also have a duty of care to the congregation which is why in some cases have a legal duty (in compliance with the laws of the land) to share information with the authorities to protect its own members and the public at large. Doing nothing is why so many cases are now ending up in court and a reason why hearings and investigations are taking place into organisations like Watchtower to find out why there is a failure in reporting crimes such as child abuse to the authorities. -
jhine
Fisherman l was not in anyway suggesting that the WT has had anything to do with legally going after the Catholic church , another straw man . The point that l was making was that if the WT does not consider it has an obligation to provide physical protection for children why does it seem to think that other churches do have that obligation ? The hypocritical vilification l refered to was the , not so much now -surprise! , constant criticism of the Catholic church in particular in WT publications .The constant " look how awful the Catholics are for not protecting their children from PHYSICAL harm " Yet the WT does not consider it a duty of religious organisations when it comes to them , like l said gross hypocracy . Jan -
RichardHaley
I don't agree with most of what fisherman said but I do agree with his statement "it is the parents responsibility to protect their children." So don't trust your children with es or ms, and by all means no jw indoctrination.
-
Joe Grundy
"Church elders are not legally responsible to provide physical protection for children of congregants."
I saw this phrase on an earlier post. I don't wish to comment on many of the posts by its author which seem to be US-centered with talk of 'first amendments' and 'suing'. I have no knowledge of those areas.
In the rest of the world, that phrase is, to put it simply, bollocks. Organisations and institutions which assume responsibility for people, especially children, have a duty of care towards them.
That is the whole point of the ARC, and the UK investigation, and the Charity Commission investigation.
-
Mephis
I don't agree with most of what fisherman said but I do agree with his statement "it is the parents responsibility to protect their children." So don't trust your children with es or ms, and by all means no jw indoctrination.
To an extent, yes, there's a fair point. But abuse of children is often perpetrated by those who are in or close to the family circle. So it's something of a problem to say "parents should protect their children" if it's the, for example, father who is abusing his kids. Which is why child safeguarding in outside agencies, especially those where adults assume roles of responsibility, is so important.
The WBTS' argument is that they don't have any responsibility whatsoever. This is not so. Religious leaders assume positions of authority within society, just as secular teachers do, just as law enforcement agents do, and anyone in such a role should have the sense to agree that such responsibility carries obligations too. Especially when it involves children where we (I've been a teacher) may be the person in a position of trust they turn to for help. It is not acceptable for a teacher to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for a policeman to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for a social worker to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for the Pope to turn around and say it to a child. It's not acceptable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to say it to a child. It's not acceptable for the idiots in Brooklyn to say to the children within their religion "what happens within a family is nothing to do with us".
-
Fisherman
Joe, do you think that the church should qualify for priest/penitent confidentiality privilige in child abuse cases if the confession it is kept private: no judicial comitees, no WT legal department, no bunch of elders hearing about the confession and it is strictly confidential between priest and penitent ONLY?
How about you Mephis what do you think?
-
Mephis
In terms of current law, that would generally be respected and not be an issue there Fisherman.
In terms of 'do I personally think it's right', I wonder whether the Anglican idea, or some variation thereof, is worthy of wider consideration.
(2014 draft of Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy)
If, in the context of such a confession, the penitent discloses that he or she has committed a serious crime, such as the abuse of children or vulnerable adults, the priest must require the penitent to report his or her conduct to the police or other statutory authority. If the penitent refuses to do so the priest should withhold absolution.
-
Fisherman
generally be respected and not be an issue there
Is it fair to say then, that in child abuse confessions to a JW elder, if JW would change their Judicial Commitees who's purpose is to judge a sinner (not to grant absolution) and involve 3 or more elders and sometimes witnesses and keep files and report to the WT, but instead respect the privacy and confidentiality of the PENITENT by not involving so many people inside the church but rather that the communication be kept STRICTLY PRIVATE. And I mean only the elder, the penitent and God and that is it, that you would respect the confidentiality and privacy of communication should not be disclosed to anyone whatsover inside or outside the church but that it is sacred sort of speak between God the penitent and the JW elder. (JW do not grant absolution but is this fair enough?) or you just do not want JW to enjoy the privilege of confidentiality in child abuse cases.
Mephis?
-
DATA-DOG
Let me add a few of points.
1) Parents are responsible for their children's safety, no one is saying otherwise. Trying to make this discussion center on parental responsibility is a "Strawman" argument.
2) Candace Conti was victorious in her case against the WTBTS because of the "special relationship" that exists between the Organization and the rank&file Jehovist. This is a VERY, VERY, important to remember.
The Org says, "We are God's channel, the only true religion. Here, sing all these songs about how you can trust the Elders. Listen to all these talks explaining how we are the ONLY religion where you are truly loved. Nobody, but NOBODY, cares for you and your children like we do. Doing what we say will make sure that God gives you eternal life! Ignore any negative comments about us...or else."
Thank goodness that reasoning Judges recognize the undue influence of the WTBTS and its Gibbering Buddies. It's hard to protect your child when your "Priests" are ordered to keep you in the dark. So, while parents are responsible for their children, any group who deliberately lies to a parent to create a false sense of security is immoral. How can you protect your child from an unknown danger? Why would a trusting JW even suspect another JW, espescially when the WTBTS spares no expense to cast all the suspicion on worldly people while extolling the morals of its members?
3) If you cannot understand the above points, you either lack reasoning ability and intellectual honesty, or you are an immoral/unethical apologist for the WTBTS.
DD