I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but at this week's meeting they announced (or will announce for those who haven't had theirs yet) the availability of a new official statement on child abuse that can be downloaded in the Legal section of JWdotORG. (Funny it's in the legal section, it just shows their mentality and how this is really damage control.) Here's the link:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/#?insight[search_id]=3cd0c573-368c-4e59-9831-d59a557cc0ba&insight[search_result_index]=7
It starts out by defining child abuse for those who don't know:
Child abuse may include neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse. Child sexual abuse is a perversion and generally includes one or more of the following: sexual intercourse with a child; oral or anal sex with a child; fondling the genitals, breasts, or buttocks of a child;
voyeurism of a child; indecent exposure to a child; or soliciting a child for sexual conduct. It may include sexting with a minor or showing pornography to a minor.
Point #3 is very familiar:
Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse
I wonder when they're gonna realize this is a running joke at this point. The next point says this:
In all cases, victims and their parents have the right to report an accusation of child abuse to the authorities. . . . Elders do not criticize anyone who chooses to make such a report.
Of course, they fail to mention that for the vast majority of the org's history this was not the case, and that the org itself in a letter from the WT Society discouraged reporting for the sake of 'bringing reproach' on the organization.
And now for the positive. Regarding Elders handling cases:
This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. . . . The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.
This is good to hear. Also, we know that in the past the org said publicly that "known" child abusers could never hold responsibility in the congregation, while saying privately that a hard and fast rule on that would be unscriptural and making a legalistic definition for the word "known", as well as having an indefinite time period after which they could serve again, which could theoretically be as little as months. In this statement at least for the first time they admit publicly that the ban isn't hard and fast, and they do define the minimum sanction as being decades.
A person who has engaged in child sexual abuse does not qualify to receive any congregation
privileges or to serve in a position of responsibility in the congregation for decades, if ever.
So it's a step in the right direction. But what is infuriating is how JWs are late to the game in regards to this, yet they never admit they have a problem, never apologize, only make changes when they're absolutely backed into a corner and then pretend it was their idea.
