Ignorance of Child Abuse within JW community

[Ann O'Maly]

On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:

You misunderstood me. I did say (reporting child abuse) "will free the elders to concentrate more on helping the victim spiritually, and leave the rest to the authorities".

Good. We agree.

On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:

I did not mean elders would investigate the crime. If, lets say a parent, suspicious of their child being sexually abused by someone, approaches an elder with that concern, it is logical that the elders should ask some questions.

They could ask, "Why do you have suspicions?" Then they would advise the parents to report those suspicions to the police or the elders themselves would do so, after having informed them that they were obligated to as either members of the clergy (legally speaking) or as ordinary individuals, and having carefully documented what the parents disclosed and the circumstances of that disclosure. Then they would do the 'spiritual' stuff, which would include suspending an alleged abuser from any congregational privileges s/he might have while the police investigation is ongoing.

On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:

It wouldn't be right for the elders to contact the authorities with every allegation of child abuse ...

...   the right and responsible thing might not necessarily be to report every allegation of child sexual abuse. Why do you think it has taken states this long to make reporting mandatory? Think about it.

Yes it would be right and responsible to report every allegation - at the very least to consult the authorities for their advice if there was any doubt. The reporting elder would be wise to document for himself when he reported, who he spoke to and what was advised. 

Mandatory reporting of child abuse in some form has been enshrined in law since the 1960s and '70s. The debates have been centered on widening the scope of mandatory reporting to include more people, or everyone. The reasons in favor of legislating extended or universal mandatory reporting have tended to occur in response to public and media pressure in the wake of massive exposés and scandals that have hit the headlines and that have highlighted how damaging under-reporting or no reporting has been to child victims. (See L. G. Brown III & K. Gallagher, 'Mandatory Reporting of Abuse: A Historical Perspective...,' Villanova Law Review, Vol. 59, Iss. 6 [2015], Art. 5.)

I agree there has to be a balanced approach and some common sense needed by those who report and the agencies who respond, but it is still a community responsibility to flag up known and suspected child abuse. 

On 3/2/2017 at 9:19 PM, Anna said:

Policies are no good if they don't work in practice.  Read this interesting report (first posted by CMP)

Either the policies need reworking, and an institution ought to be humble and honest enough to reappraise and improve them, or legislation ought to enforce it; 

Or the policies are sound but are not followed, in which case the institution ought to be brought to account when further injury to a child results because of not following them.

I'm going to bring in TrueTom's and Eion's comments:

On 3/3/2017 at 11:56 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I might feel differently if such outside protocols worked, but abundant evidence has been given in this thread that they do not work in the sense of making any appreciable dent in the endemic rate of child abuse.

 

On 3/4/2017 at 0:30 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Seems such bumbling is not the sole province of lay people either.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-39139893

So what's the argument here? Is it, 'worldly protocols don't work so don't bother reporting child abuse to worldly agencies'? Flawed protocols don't absolve us of our responsibility to report to those agencies. Anyway, the Org's protocols haven't exactly been working, hence all the damaged individuals speaking out, hence the Org being in the spotlight, hence the countless court cases.

In any event, reporting abuse doesn't mean the endemic rate of child abuse necessarily diminishes. After all, a report is made when abuse has already happened. The point of reporting is to prevent further abuse to that particular child or other children by that individual perpetrator, to call the abuser to account, to penalize him/her, and for him/her to be publicly registered to alert the community to the potential danger to other children.

[Evacuated]

1 minute ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So what's the argument here?

No argument from my standpoint. Just an observation on the truly pathetic attempts of society in general, "lay" or "professional", religious or secular, to effectively address the problem thus far.

[Ann O'Maly]

44 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No argument from my standpoint. Just an observation on the truly pathetic attempts of society in general, "lay" or "professional", religious or secular, to effectively address the problem thus far.

Which? The problem of abuse happening in the first place or responses to it. The responses are gradually getting better, on the whole. Still a long, long way to go.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:14 PM, Anna said:

I can think of one problem immediately; (as I am sure you can) will the knowledge that whatever disclosure regarding child sexual abuse, will immediately be made known to the authorities, prevent some from disclosing? I know for a fact it will. Social workers are obligated (in the US) to tell their clients that if the client decides to disclose things of that nature, the social worker is mandated to report to the authorities. This has prevented many from making that disclosure. Candace Conti was one of them. She only disclosed everything many years later when she filed a lawsuit against WT and the congregation. ...

She didn't disclose because she was a scared little girl. She was too scared to tell anyone (mandated reporter or not) while the abuse was happening. She didn't feel able to tell her parents because of all the problems already going on in their lives. She was still too scared to tell when she was attending family therapy sessions. She finally told another mandated reporter - a doctor - when she was 16. So I think it's overly simplistic to say that knowing a person is a mandatory reporter will put some off disclosing. Reasons for not disclosing are far more involved than that (and JWInsider cited an interesting statistic about when victims feel ready to tell). 

38 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

 ... clergy-penitent privilege ...

This doesn't apply to JWs, though, does it?

JWs don't have confessionals where one clergy-person listens to one penitent and what is discussed goes no further. JWs have a panel of elders who then report to the Service Committee and fill out forms and tell other elders, COs, wives, etc.

And JWs don't have clergy ... or do they? 

 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

"brothers select for yourselves seven reputable men", that a broader congregation of believers would make the selection, rather than the seven themselves?

Is it me or does this question demonstrate an ignorance of how the process of selecting the "seven reputable men" is described at Acts 6:3-6?

 

[Ann O'Maly]

53 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Is it me or does this question demonstrate an ignorance of how the process of selecting the "seven reputable men" is described at Acts 6:3-6?

It's you.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So in effect, the body of elders are required to keep that same type of privilege. Only ignorance does not discern that privilege communication also runs outside any religious organization. With all your blustering you might want to consider making a valid legal point.

Lol. Valid legal points about JWs and claims to clergy-penitential privilege have already been thrashed out in recent court cases. 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's you.

So he doesn't imply an understanding that the seven reputable men selected themselves?

[Ann O'Maly]

21 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, that's your personal opinion.The good thing people can see for themselves your failure to see the clergy penitential privilege to be a factor for witnesses as well.

My personal opinion, huh?

g 8/10 p. 9 What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?
10. The clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers. (Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow.

g 1/11 p. 9 Will Religion Ever Be a Force for Peace?
The following are some of the things that make Jehovah’s Witnesses unique: ...
... ● They have no clergy class.

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/no-paid-clergy/

Following the model of first-century Christianity, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no clergy-laity division. All baptized members are ordained ministers ...

If JWs have no clergy class but all baptized members are "ministers," and there are no one-on-one confessionals, they cannot claim clergy-penitential privilege. 

[Ann O'Maly]

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So he doesn't imply an understanding that the seven reputable men selected themselves?

No. In response to Geoffrey Jackson alluding to a 'top-down' approach to governing the congregation by selecting the seven in Acts (likening it to appointing 30 helpers to the GB), Angus Stewart was trying to make the point that the apostles granted the "multitude of disciples" to select the seven for themselves, i.e. a 'grass roots-up' approach.

A. I would like to turn to Matthew, chapter 24. Now,
33 Mr Stewart, perhaps I could give you the page number to
34 make it a little quicker.
35
36 MR STEWART: Q. I am on it already, Mr Jackson.
37 A. Very good. So Matthew 24, verses 45 and 46. This is
38 how the Governing Body views their role, what they try to
39 do. It says:
40
41 “Who really is the faithful and discreet
42 slave whom his master appointed over his
43 domestics, to give them their food at the
44 proper time? Happy is that slave if his
45 master on coming finds him doing so!
46
47 So the goal of the Governing Body as custodians of our

doctrine is to publish literature that helps people in
2 everyday life using what the Bible says. And if I may just
3 add a second scripture, which I feel is very important, it
4 is the one found in the book of Acts, chapter 6. It's
5 page 1468, Mr Stewart, Acts chapter 6. Here we have
6 perhaps something that the Commission is more interested
7 in, rather than just our overall spiritual teachings. We
8 had a situation in the first century where there was
9 a practical problem where the Greek‐speaking widows were
10 not receiving food from the arrangement that was in place.
11 So the apostles at that point were asked to try to sort out
12 this problem, and you notice there, in verses 3 and 4, it
13 says:
14
15 “So, brothers, select for yourselves seven
16 reputable men from among you, full of
17 spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them
18 over this necessary matter; but we will
19 devote ourselves to prayer and to the
20 ministry of the word.”
21
22 So verse 4 describes the role of the Governing Body as we
23 see it, to devote ourselves to prayer and the word of God,
24 and that's why 30 helpers have been assigned that are
25 involved more with the practical side of policy and
26 implementation.
27
28 Q. Do correct me, Mr Jackson, if I misunderstand this,
29 but this does seem to me to suggest, in the use of the
30 words "brothers select for yourselves seven reputable men",
31 that a broader congregation of believers would make the
32 selection, rather than the seven themselves?
33 A. Well, this is one of the difficulties we have when
34 a secular Commission is trying to analyse a religious
35 subject. I humbly would like to mention that point. Our
36 understanding of the scriptures is these ones were
37 appointed by means of the apostles. Your point is well
38 taken. Let's assume, hypothetically, that others selected
39 these seven men, but it was at the direction of the
40 apostles.

[Evacuated]

22 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Angus Stewart was trying to make the point that the apostles granted the "multitude of disciples" to select the seven for themselves,

Seems there is a mutual misunderstanding here. The selection process to me implies recommendation rather than appointment, the latter being something done by means of the 12 on this occasion, subsequent to the selection by the 'wider group'. Both seem to miss clarity on this.

In the context of the selection and appointment of those brothers assigned as "helpers" to the GB today, I am not aware of the mechanics of that process and do not recall any detail being discussed in the exchange you reference. (Although that in itself is no guarantee that the matter was not discussed).

[Ann O'Maly]

 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Yes well, you're dealing with your emphatic definition of what clergy is. However, it would be a delusional proposition since I'm referring to what the law considers clergy.

So God's Org emphatically denies its elders are clergy while Caesar's law considers the Org's elders to be clergy. Who to believe, hey? 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So God's Org emphatically denies its elders are clergy while Caesar's law considers the Org's elders to be clergy. Who to believe, hey?

What does "Caesar" consider the Org's elders to be?