Confession, Clergy and Church: Source Material

by Maximus 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Maximus

  I never cease to be amazed at the quality of thoughtful mail many of us get. One question that keeps coming up is in regards to sourcing in-depth reference material. I regularly cite the Nourishment for the Spirit thread.

  If you would like to explore discussion regarding clergy/penitent privilege extended all churches that practice sacramental confession, you might want to read the paperback

  Confidentiality and clergy: Churchs, Ethics and the Law,
  William Rankin, Morehouse Publishing, 1990
  $10.00

  If you want to examine the issues from a more general
  perspective of legal aspects and history, in greater detail

  Religious Organizations and the Law, Vol. 2
  William W. Bassett, West Group Publishing, 1997
  $264.95
  ISBN: 0836611195

  Most of us are so steeped in the monolithic viewpoint it is hard to recognize that there is a great variance among priests--recall the USA Today article that appeared on this board recently. We are quick to think in terms of rigid policy.

  Many individual states exempt child abuse from the clergy/penitent privilege that is awarded to the confessional. Not all priests recognize the reservation of that privilege in the first place.

  ***A reminder may be in order that if you put someone's e-mail address in your book and send out forwarded mail to everyone in it, MSN hotmail may toss it into the Bulk folder. (Translation: Max can use this as an excuse if he misses something.)

  This is not to add to threads already ongoing, just to inform. I'll bump it from time to time for awhile.

  Maximus
• 

  hillary_step

  Yes Max,

  Another area of source reference that may be of interest in the issue of clergy confidentiality and secret or private confession is :

  ‘Cases Of Conscience For English Speaking Countries’ by Rev. Thomas Slater, pp. 328 & pp337 Vol I. Though first published in 1911 (Benziger Bros. ) and out of print it sheds light on why the Law is loath to change its statutes regarding this privilege and the issue has not changed. Overturning such law effects not just religious bodies but also the medical world, as well as playing havoc with the Catholic vote! Some compelling arguments are noted, though it must be said that in some circumstances it is left to the conscience of individual members of the clergy to exercise this right and that where implied or future actions are concerned reporting the matter to the authorities is not a matter of choice. For example a person may confess to his priest that he is going home after his confession to murder his unfaithful wife. In these circumstances the priest is bound by the tenets of the Church to report this matter to those who might be able to prevent it. If he does not prevent it he is liable under law himself. This generally does not apply to ‘past’ sins under ‘confessional seal’. Catholic priests are instructed that there are four types of ‘professional secret’ 1) Natural secret 2) Promised secret 3) Contracts of secrecy 4) Confessional secrecy. My own experience leads me to conclude that the WTS claim to ‘clergy privilege’ falls into category 3) more than that of category 4) owing to the fact that surely one cannot claim a matter is a confessional secret if more than one person knows about it.

  ‘The Manual Of Moral Theology’ Vol I pp.470, by Pruess re-iterates circumstances where the clergy privilege of non-revelation might be exercised as an option.

  I find even the issue of ‘past’ sins a difficult one to stomach, I quote an experience from the Awake magazines some years ago to illustrate :

  g90 7/22 19-23 Three Hours That Turned My Life Around ***
  Three Hours That Turned My Life Around
  Even so, a sense of right and wrong exercised some restraints. For example, in my third year of high school, I had two buddies that I ran with, was on the basketball team with, did everything with—up until this one night when we came across a young woman. My two friends decided to rape her. She pleaded with them not to do this, but when they proceeded to do it, she became hysterical and screamed for them to kill her instead. In spite of her struggle, they raped her. Then they wanted me to join them in this outrage against her person. Sickened and repelled, I refused to share in their cowardly violation of her. They became very angry with me and ended up calling me vile names. Our friendship ended that night.
  Years later I realized that what I had experienced was another example of what the Bible said would happen: "Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you."—1 Peter 4:4.

  When I first read this experience, I was nauseated. This person stood by and watched his friends rape a women, it seems without trying to help her and then insinuated that he was morally more upright than they because he had not partaken! I spoke with a friend in the Branch about my concerns soon afterward as I thought this was sending out a mixed message as there was no mention of any legal action against any of the participants involved in the event. The response - you might have guessed it, was to quote the legality of clergy entitlement to ‘secrecy’ of past crimes. A secret that was admitted to millions of people - go figure. As long as it induces applause at an Assembly, then surely it must be encouraging!

  HS
• 

  Had Enough

  Good Morning Maximus:

  I'm glad you brought up this particular subject. On another thread, I expressed concern as to why clergy should even be allowed this "privilege" of confidentiality in the first place. Who is it protecting?...certainly not the victim.

  I didn't realize that child abuse was exempted from this privilege in many states. (I don't know what it is in Canada or other places either)

  My question about why the clergy should even being allowed this confidentiality privilege is in line with the reply of "hilary-step". It was because of my concern over the resultant hiding of one who has committed a crime for which he is still free from conviction and has no intention of confessing to the authorities. There are laws against withholding evidence and obstructing justice etc so why should anyone be exempt from exposing a criminal?

  This has never made sense to me, since this leaves a person free and clear to either do it again or leaves the victim and family in limbo. Perhaps it is an unsolved murder, or rape, or molestation (which as you said is not exempt in all states) that the "clergy privilege" rule prevents closure of the crime.

  Then to see the WTS latch onto this man-made "privilege" seems to be total hypocrisy for an org claiming to uphold a high standard of morals and righteous principles. I certainly hope this is soon exposed and they are shamed into changes.

  Thank you again for your info on reference material.
• 

  ozziepost

  Of course if the Watchtower didn't take upon itself the role of judge over and above the authorities this wouldn't arise. Individual Witnesses would be free (as is their right) to report any misdemeanor/illegal act to the authorities. I'm not aware of the clergy bringing pressure upon Church members to refrain from going to the police. As I've mentioned before, we all know that this is what in practice happens in congregations. "Go to the elders" first is the catch-cry.

  Sorry, I get rather steamed up about this and forgot to wish you all good morning. Is it really morning where you are? Boy it's way past bedtime here in Oz.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "There are two ways of moving men, interest and fear" Napoleon
• 

  MadApostate

  Had Enough:

  I'm no attorney, but I have spent some time surfing around the net the past couple days trying to bring myself up to speed on this issue of "clergy confidentiality".
  I would like everyone to know that my comments regarding this issue on other threads is from my "male practicality" viewpoint, which is totally separate from my idealistic side which would love to see the WTS and other church organizations nailed over this pedo issue.

  So,... it is probably more accurate to say that "some" US states reporting laws have abrogated the "clergy privilege". The reason only "some", and not "most", states have included this provision is because when legislatures pass laws they generally always look at the constitutionality of such to make sure that the law will not be nullified later by the courts for being "unconstitutional". That's the most plausible reason that "most" states did not include a provision abrogating the clergy privilege.

  Why did "some" states include it if it is unconstitutional? Because of the emotionality of the issue involving abused children. Those legislators did not want to face an election opponent who would say that the othet guy did ot fuly support measures to prevent child abuse.

  I have not been able to locate any court case which has reviewed the constitutionality of these laws yet, but it will definitely happen soon. My best guess is that the federal courts will declare the parts abrogating clergy prvilege unconstitutional.
• 

  Maximus

  HS notes

  : Contracts of secrecy

  In four decades of experience with the JW judicial process, I have seen the gamut from thoughtful sensitivity to outright criminal behavior. The Society takes the tut-tut attitude, "If elders would just do it the way we tell them, things would be fine." They ignore the code of silence they have knowingly encouraged and fostered.

  What they fail to see, is that these elder judges are products of a very flawed system; the very creation of the hierarchy, shaped and molded to protect "the organization" at all costs, under the guise of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name." As if doctrinal practices like Child Blood Abuse (CBA) were not reprehensible!

  Sensitive men are weeded out, legalistic robots are rewarded. Natural selection has taken its toll. The very publication of the Awake! article HS notes should cause one to think deeply about what kind of persons would print praise for such ugly amoral thought .

  Are they correct in saying "we do not shield the molester"? Of course they are. Translation: if the law finds out, we don't intervene. The question is, How does the law find out? Obviously does not address needs of a victim and family.

  The code of silence feeds into gross injustices. HS correctly fingers what it really is, a "contract of secrecy." That's my precise opinion too.

  I had no intention of starting a thread, but if is useful, have at it. I choose not to get into more/some distinctions. Court review? Sooner than you think.

  Maximus
• 

  hillary_step

  My Apologies Maximus,

  I expanded this thread beyond the bibliographic reference range that you intended. I should have read your post with greater care. Sorry if I muddied the waters.

  HS
• 

  Maximus

  My apologies to you for any indication your own apology was appropriate, HS!
  Likely good it worked out this way.

  There are no rules here, and one may be treated to a public display of an acid trip, unrelenting vulgarity and coarseness, yet read a treatise on OT sexuality that is as good as a PhD dissertation. Freedom, ain't it grand?

  There are many individuals who are carefully reading related threads who do not want to comment on another's admittedly speculative viewpoint, but who would rather make up their own minds beyond their individual moral compass. I agree with them that opinions can be easily shaped in this hazardous media that should have a "caveat emptor" warning. Watchtower tecnique has been to quibble with words so badly that major issues are overlooked.

  I'm grateful for the additional reference, the additional crisp thoughts that help put matters in context. Most important is your exposition of the thought processes that allow such shameful stuff as the Awake! article. About like praising the woman who had been stabbed but went to a meeting anyway.

  What also delights is that I see so many desiring to using their own skills to learn, grow and develop their own conscience.

  Ozzie also cuts all the underbrush and gets to the essentials.

  Max
  HS, I really wanted to write more about the appeal to Confucian thought by Watchtower. See Kent's thread, my comments about GB and moral guidance.
• 

  MDS

  To Hilary-Step & Maximus:

  Hi to both of you. I've enjoyed both of your comments on this thread and must agree wholeheartedly.

  To add to what has already been said, please consider the following.

  Under the leadership of the WTS and G.B., we must ask, are we a "Good Samaritan"-Organization of people... a "Merciful" Organization of People?

  Have we been "trained" to help "worldly people" -- to be "merciful" toward those OUTSIDE our organization?

  If we see, rape, robbery, even murder, serious crimes committed...are we taught to render aid or assistance to the innocent who all to often become the "victims" in these cases? Are we taught that this act of "bravery" on our parts would be possibly "foolhardy"? Or, would our acts of intervention, be considered a "christian" thing to do, in line with the teaching of the "Good Samaritan", which?

  Isn't it true, all along, we've been taught to NOT "get involved"...since these are simply "worldly people"...who are going to be destroyed anyway?

  As reported by the 1990 Awake magazine as mentioned above, simply put, this article illustrates the WTS' true position on "christian-involvement" of these horrible crimes committed by "worldly people" upon other "worldly people." To the WTS, actually...the so-called "brother" learned something didn't he...he learned to stop his bad association with worldly people...that was the point of the article, wasn't it? And that's all the WTS is interested in. This is the WTS' position. This is the official position of ALL JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WORLDWIDE, since the WTS speaks in behalf of all JWs worldwide. And if you don't like...then leave the organization...that's their official position. They are not going to change either.

  THE WTS' OFFICIAL POSITION: So what the woman was "raped," assaulted, violated, and you (a "christian" brother) could have helped or maybe prevented it...so what? To us, the WTS, she's a worthless "worldly person" who is probably guilty of slamming the door in our faces when we visited her with the "Christian" message in the first place, during our "christian" door-to-door work. Jesus is scheduled to "destroy" her anyway, at "Armageddon." So, why "get involved"?

  Isn't that they way we were taught to look at such situations, by our llustrious leaders? Thus, we are taught no HUMAN COMPASSION AT ALL. Isn't that true?

  So, the "Good Samaritan" teaching, then, means nothing to Jehovah's Witnesses and the WTS, and its G.B...in reality. Isn't that true?

  Isn't this what we have been taught?

  We have to ask ourselves, are we taught by the WTS & G.B., if you see a "worldly person" needing help, ... to help or assist them in anyway we can? ... in our local communities, worldly people needing food, shelter, clothing... are we "trained" to help by the WTS? Are we advised to "spend our resources" that way, by the WTS?

  Or, is it better "spent" by sending all monies, gifts, assets, specifying in our Wills, that all our properties, lands, jewelry, even the "pet" -- should go to the WTS, who will in turn use it to erect or build great physical edifices like the "Patterson-Estate"...a $180 million-dollar facility, with over $50 million in "materials" alone (not counting time, man-hours and labor) on something truly pleasing to Jehovah and Jesus. Truly more important, spiritual endeavors...right?

  The money so badly mis-appropriated that they have to print books with no hard covers anymore, and possibly stagnating the "preaching" work in Europe and other places around the world.

  Is God's Spirit directing the organization to do this...This "spirit-directed" organization?

  Are we taught,

  If you see a "worldly person" drowning in the water, as a "christian" you are duty-bound to ...

  (a) either physically dive in and try to save the person's life, (in other words "put yourself at risk" to save another life even though he not a spiritual brother)....

  (b) or, if you know you can't swim and you are not able to "dive in"
  ... then throw them a line,

  (c) or, (80-year old grandmothers can) scream and call for help...

  All of the above are "Good Samaritan" Acts, each act based upon ones "ability" to help someone in distress. Real "Christian Acts."

  Are we "trained" to assist the poor, indigent within our communities or townships.

  Or, are we told, they are simply "worldly people," who need us to "preach" to them only, and they are "bad association" beyond that point.

  Is this what Jesus taught?

  Are we truly, a "christian organization" based upon what Jesus taught about the "NEIGHBORLY Good Samaritan."

  THE "NEIGHBORLY", "MERCIFUL" SAMARITAN -- Luke 10:25-37

  "New a certain teacher of the Law got up to put Him to a thorough test He asked, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? ...who is my neighbor?"

  "Jesus said A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers, who stripped and pummeled him and ran off, leaving him half dead. Coincidentally, a certain priest was coming down that road and, seeing him, passed onthe other side. In the same way, a Levite arrived at the spot, and passed on the other side."

  "Then, a certain Samaritan came there as he traveled, saw him, and took pity ["had mercy"] on him. Going to him, he bandaged his wounds, poured oil and wine into them, set him on his own donkey took him to an inn and looked after him. The next morning he took out and handed the innkeeper [two denarii] and said, Take care of him and whatever further expenses you incur I will refund when I came back. Which of these three, do you think, was really the neighbor to the one who fell among the robbers?"

  "He said, The one who was mericiful to him. Then Jesus told him, You go and do the same."-- Luke 10:25-37 The Modern Language Bible

  Are we "trained", by the WTS & G.B. to keep "doing the same", as Jesus taught? Have we been "trained" to become like the "merciful Samaritan?

  Or, are we taught to be like the self-righteous "priest" and "levite" in Jesus' illustration, who consistently and dutifully offers no "help" or assistance to anyone OUTSIDE his immediate association?

  I appreciate your "listening ear."

  Many thanks.

  MDS
• 

  waiting

  I'm thinking about all this - no, really I am.

  I just haven't figured out how to say what I want to say. Perhaps somebody is "quicker brained" than I am this morning?

  Lord, and I've even had caffine!

  waiting