How Do You Feel It Should Be Handled?

by Kismet 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MadApostate

  Kismet:

  My short "Midol" post was obviously my last REPLY to Tina's insults. "REPLY" in that she started it. In case you didn't notice, I'm the second person in your thread that she attacked.

  And, NO, I wouldn't follow Tina's lead to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

  Rather than go back and edit my posts to make myself look better like she did, I'll leave mine as is. None of my posts included multiple uses of the F-word like hers did.

  I see this place is like the KH, the old clique all stand together!!!
• 

  nytelecom1

  one thing some have forgotten.......the society appoints via the outlines in the Scritures.....one requirement is to be "beyond reproach"........and even in some cases the there have been df's simply becuase of notoriety in the community....i seem to remember a drunk driving case...could this person ever be known as a "normal person"..I am pretty sure that the Society as said that someone convicted of certain crimes could never hold positions of responsibility.
• 

  Tina

  Amen Wendy,,,,,
  I agree. This is a situation that goes beyond anything theological. Put the bible away! It serves no needs of the victims. The way the WTS uses it(as blondie showed) only re-victimizes them, and protects the peds from any real consequences of their behavior. Statutes have been changed and amended since this countrys inception.I think ecclesiastical privilege is one that needs amending.
  luv,T
• 

  Mommie Dark

  I don't understand how a judicial committee hearing with three or more elders listening and notes being taken can be considered the same as private confessional. Especially since the results of the committee hearing can be announced publicly to the congregation.
• 

  Tina

  (((((((((MD)))))))))))
  I don't get that either. Especially since the wts classified them as 'unpaid volunteers'.(read untrained as well)

  For those in the USA who are trained in the mental health field-psychiatrists social workers etc. confidentialty can be breached when a client poses clear and imminent danger to self and others. It's in most of their ethical guidelines. Called "Duty To Warn".

  This was the result of a case that was drummed into us.Tarasoff vs.regents of University of California.(1976)
  The guidelines vary from state to state.
  Duty to Warn entails NOTIFYING the person/s of danger or harm.It also includes notifying OTHERS who are in a position to protect that person from harm.

  Now why can't something similar to this be used by those who claim ecclesiastical privilege tp protect potential victims? Or their parents? I don't get it. I dunno.....couldn't this be a loophole? Anyway,pondering along here.Tina
• 

  Helen

  I think if they do not report it to authorities they have broken the law..
  and no I think they are not quaiified to deal with it..if they do not report it they must face penalties.
• 

  Maximus

  OzziePost's comments are outstanding in their very keen insight, concisely expressed.

  Let me stimulate thinking a bit further. It is these issues that will be discussed and carefully illustrated by NBC Dateline. I assure you the program will be aired in its due time, and no outside influence will stop that, or shape the program in any way other than those responsible for its production.

  The organization links the child abuse issue with the "purity of the congregation." This forces the wheels of its judicial process to start turning. The system gets up to speed and starts its investigative, fact-finding procedures, and then ...

  That very machinery is part of the problem because it can do irreparable harm in the process. A religious organization has the right to impose its own standards and to make its own rules and procedures.

  The question is, Is it right to do so?

  Where is its moral or Scriptural imperative to impose this ponderous judicial system on such situations which touch on the most sensitive issues of humankind?

  Many individual priests/pastors/educators and religious groups view anything to do with child molestation as above any issue of clergy-penitent or ecclesiastical privilege. You saw that in the USA Today story. According to one general manual on sexual harassment and misconduct:

  "The Christian community must provide clear boundaries and enforce them. ('We are going to notify and cooperate fully with the authorities and seek professional guidance in the matter.')"

  "Most sexual misconduct becomes seriously harmful when the person receiving unwanted attention or abuse is ignored and when the behavior is kept secret. It is important for us, as Christians, to find ways to confront sexual misconduct and abuse in ways that quickly and firmly say, 'No, this behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.'

  "These situations are not opportunities to become moralistic .... Excessive moralistic 'preaching' often drives the perpetrator into deeper denial, away from accepting responsibility for his or her action and even away from the community in which they can be held accountable."

  Just wanted to share a few thoughts. Thanks for the thread, Kismet.

  Maximus
• 

  AlanF

  : How do you feel the Society should handle things?

  They should act like any normal citizen when he or she finds out about child molestation -- report it to the proper authorities. After doing that, they can do what they please with respect to 'spiritual punishment' such as DF'ing, reproving or whatever. This is because child molestation is not just a 'spiritual sin' but a crime. Watchtower spokesmen have admitted publicly that elders are merely unpaid volunteers -- not professionally trained clergy.

  : Should the Society be entitled to 'ecclesiatic privilege' as are other religions?

  Absolutely not. JWs have no clergy, and ecclesiastical privilege is a right given to clergy.

  :Should such a loophole be allowed when it involves protecting children?

  No. In general, I think that ecclesiastical privilege should be removed for all religions where child molestation is concerned. That's because this crime affects so many people. A molested child often becomes 'damaged goods' and is never right emotionally. A single molested child can adversely affect the lives of hundreds of people as they go through life, messing up relationships and often becoming molesters themselves.

  Society cannot afford giving such blanket privileges to religions. No one else except lawyers has such a privilege (and even this must be limited), so why should religions be exempt from responsibilities that everyone else has?

  : How should the Society respond locally with a convicted pedophile. Should they ever be allowed back in the congregation? If yes to what level?

  A newly convicted pedophile should be DF'd. After many years pass, he might be reinstated -- if he can produce proof via the legal system that he has remained clean. In any case the congregation should be informed, possibly by word of mouth, that this person is or was a pedophile. This may seem harsh, but the consequences of not notifying the congregation puts children at grave risk, because pedophiles most often do not cease committing their perversions. Such a person should never, ever be given any responsibilities in a congregation. They should not be permitted to go in public field service or do anything that might unnecessarily put them in contact with children. They should be watched carefully if they're ever in a social situation that puts them in contact with children. This requires that all congregation members be informed of his proclivity for pedophilia.

  : How should local elders handle reports of alleged molestation? One child makes an accusation, what should they do? At what point should they notify authorities? At what point do they notify the congregation?

  They should do exactly what all citizens are required to do by law -- report the matter to the appropriate legal authorities. Investigating crimes is not a religious responsibility -- it is a secular matter. Depending on the nature of the evidence, before a conviction is obtained, it might be beneficial for elders to privately inform people who have children that may be at risk. Then let the parents protect their children. Obviously this is a fuzzy area, but what society does in general ought to be the guide. In any case, erring on the side of protecting children is better than the other way round.

  AlanF
• 

  Hmmm

  It has been argued that, legally, JWs have to be given the same right of ecclesiastic privilege that all other religions enjoy. I think that if such a "father confessor" relationship is not part of JW teachings, then JWs shouldn't just inherit it from Catholics.

  I've always ASSUMED that the reason the Catholic Church enjoyed ecclesiastimentary privilege was because of their teaching that confessing to a priest could lead to forgiveness. Since one's eternal soul being damned forever is more important than a few years spent in jail, it could be argued that a person must have an incentive to confess ANYTHING to his priest. Let's face it, twenty years in the brig NOW can be much more compelling than the possibility of maybe roasting forever when we die.

  I don't really like it, (mainly because it cracks me up that you can gun down a little old lady, confess to a 24-year-old kid fresh out of seminary school who became a priest to battle his homosexual tendencies*, say ten Hail Marys, and POOF! you're forgiven) still, it seems to me to be a Catholic thing. I understand governments giving that protection, but it doesn't follow that EVERY religion should enjoy the same ecclesiasticism privilege, if it's not part of the tenets of that particular faith.

  Let's say Mormons convince the US government that polygamy is an integral part of their belief system. If the US respects that belief for Mormons, do they also have to allow Baptists, JWs, and others to have multiple wives? I think the government can say "we're going to respect teachings that are fundamental to your faith, and sometimes make exceptions to our secular laws," without having to make that same exception to other religions that don't share that fundamental belief. If so, then probably nobody but Catholics should have the ecclesiastilogical privilege. Nobody but Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy, etc...

  That being the case (maybe), I agree with the poster who said that pedophilia is a secular CRIME in addition to a moral SIN. If JW elders want to address the sin side by DF, reproof, or elevation to PO, I don't really care; the CRIME of molesting a child should not go unpunished--if for no other reason, to protect society.

  Then again, I could be wrong in my assumption of why the whole ecclesiassively** privileged thingie is respected by US judicial systems, which might make the whole post moot.

  Hmmm

  *Nothing against homosexuals--or even Catholics--I was just being clever, and looking for a way to make that long sentence even longer.

  **I just had two wisdom teeth pulled and am on medication. That word "ecclesiastic" just doesn't look right to me, so I'm trying different permutations to cover my bases.
• 

  Tina

  Thank you maximus,Alan,Hmm,Helen,spike for additonal food for thought! BTTP regards,Tina