Geez. This letter is insane.
15. Who is considered a known child molester? The January 1, 1997, Watchtower article “Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked” mentions on page 29 that a man “known to have been a child molester” does not qualify for privileges in the congregation. The expression “known to have been a child molester” has reference to how such a man is considered in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, an adult “known” to be a former child molester is not “free from accusation” or “irreprehensible,” nor does he have “a fine testimony from people on the outside.” (1 Tim. 3:1-7, 10; 5:22; Titus 1:7) In view of his past, those in the community would not respect him and congregation members might be stumbled over his appointment. Keep in mind that the branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether one who has sexually abused a child is considered a known child molester.
Ok so this paragraph restates the 1/1/97 W which says that a molestor DOES NOT qualify for privileges. It doesn't say 'for a long time' which is the case in some offenses. For example, marrying a non-JW would prevent someone from having privileges for a few years.
Then check out paragraph 22
22. It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation. However, the elders will certainly want to be very cautious, especially when dealing with one who had repeatedly engaged in this kind of wrongdoing or who had been disfellowshipped for such an offense.
WHAT??? WHAT??? So IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A CHILD MOLESTOR TO HAVE PRIVILEGES (after they call the branch and they OK it). That is absolutely insane. The secret nature of this letter means no one will EVER KNOW THIS. The public and the rank and file will only know of what is said in that WT.
I really want to print this letter off and post it on the information board at the local hall after I highlight, bold, and italicize that paragraph.
Also, and this is really the big sticking point for me in this whole letter, is WHAT ARE THE BRANCH POLICIES ON HANDLING SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS. Literally every paragraph says "CALL LEGAL" but nowhere does it say, nor have I seen anything, regarding just what their policies are.