Jehovah's Witness' not learnt from Catholic church

[lewisnotmiller]

According to the Royal Commission report 1,691 different religious institutions were investigated....why single us out? We are not immune from these predators either. As far as I am aware, all reports of child abuse are now given to the police. It is often a crime without witnesses by its very nature.

We also have to be aware that many of these abuses took place from the 1950's when taking such cases to court was often more traumatic to the victim than the original abuse in many cases.

No one wants to cover up child abuse, but again in the early days, men were the judges and women in law were thin on the ground. To men, sexual crimes did not seem that big of a deal, until decades later when the victims were suffering much emotional trauma, often leading to suicide. Victims of child abuse did not really have much of a voice until very recent decades. Thankfully, they do now. And they no longer have to face their abusers in court.

This is not a simple case of JW's covering up child abuse.....there are many factors, especially in past decades that got in the way.....but in today's world, there can be no toleration of this crime.

This thread is nothing but click-bait IMO. It just brings out the haters.

I'm not. I'm not planning on mentioning the JWs at all. I responded directly to a point concerning confessionals, only.
Anyone espousing zero tolerance of the crime appears to be on the same side as me.

 

[Cooky]

Yeah... no.

Some people might stop going to confession if they thought confession might not be kept absolutely secret, but:

- punishing complicit priests doesn't automatically mean they'll divulge anything.
- imperfect secrecy might still allow people to expect secrecy.
- people who take the Church's claims seriously that they'll go to Hell if they die with unforgiven mortal sins will keep on confessing regardless of the Earthly consequences, since the supernatural consequences of not confessing will always be worse (or so they believe).

Only problem with your theory, is that nobody is compelled to confess the details of their sins. For instance, when one confesses that he has been "unchaste", it covers child molestation, masturbation, infidelity, prostitution, etc. You tell the priest how many times you were "unchaste", and he asks no questions, as it's really none of his business... All that matters, is that you confessed to GOD through him, and God knows...

...So only a fool would say in confession that he has: "sexually molested young children", especially if the seal of confession became state business. It's just wildly unnecessary.

 

[Cooky]

If the "seal of confession" were to lead to priest getting into legal trouble if they violated it, then the result would be that those who may have violated the law will simply not go to confession, therefore nothing is to be gained by ending the seal. 1 - 1 = 0.

Or they would just speak in generalities, knowing that God knows what they mean. That's what I always do anyways... I see no reason to go into detail, and it's much quicker that way too, which benefits everyone waiting in line behind you.

To be honest, I doubt most priests even want to hear the details of our sins. Their main goal is absolving us... It's what they're there to do.

 

[The Anointed]

I believe that anyone who is calling the Bible "God's Word" is misrepresenting the truth. I believe that everyone who trusts that God sent out two bears and they were able to kill forty-two people are misrepresenting the truth. I believe that everyone who trusts that God's love does not get angry are misrepresenting the truth.

Why do you misrepresent the truth by saying that God sent out two bears and they were able to 'KILL' forty-two people? Wounded those who would attack God's chosen prophet, but not KILL them.

Thank the Lord that we have such a protector.

 

[Cooky]

I responded directly to a point concerning confessionals, only.
Anyone espousing zero tolerance of the crime appears to be on the same side as me.

That would be something if the State forced the Church to change Canon laws forcing penitents to go into all the details about their sins.
...Like names, times, dates, phone numbers -and then force priests to take notes on legal paper.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That would be something if the State forced the Church to change Canon laws forcing penitents to go into all the details about their sins.
...Like names, times, dates, phone numbers -and then force priests to take notes on legal paper.

Heh...
That's not the plan.
More just if someone vouchsafes information to a priest about child abuse in a confessional, it's treated legally the same as telling a doctor or teacher.
(Ie. They are required to report abuse to the authorities)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only problem with your theory, is that nobody is compelled to confess the details of their sins. For instance, when one confesses that he has been "unchaste", it covers child molestation, masturbation, infidelity, prostitution, etc. You tell the priest how many times you were "unchaste", and he asks no questions, as it's really none of his business... All that matters, is that you confessed to GOD through him, and God knows...

...So only a fool would say in confession that he has: "sexually molested young children", especially if the seal of confession became state business. It's just wildly unnecessary.

Thanks, but I'll give more weight to the Australian commission into priestly abuse that, after careful study, concluded that the change would do good than I will to the gut feeling of some random guy on the internet.

Catholic church in Australia rejects law forcing priests to report child abuse confessions

 

[Deeje]

Why do you misrepresent the truth by saying that God sent out two bears and they were able to 'KILL' forty-two people? Wounded those who would attack God's chosen prophet, but not KILL them.

Interesting point. These "lads" as some translations render the "children" who were attacked by the bears, were old enough to know not to ridicule a prophet of God. (2 Chronicles 36:15-16)

When Isaac was taken to the mountain and God asked Abraham to sacrifice him, he was 25 years old, and the same word is used of him in that instance. These were not small children but young men, and it doesn't say that they were killed exactly, but ripped open as the word in Hebrew is translated. Some or all may have died...the account does not say specifically. But what it does it highlight that God takes a dim view of those who ridicule his servants. (2 Kings 1:10)

What happened to those who treated God's appointed leader Moses, disrespectfully? (Numbers 16:23-33) I'm sure that Korah felt fully justified in his criticisms.....how did God feel?

 

[savagewind]

Why do you misrepresent the truth by saying that God sent out two bears and they were able to 'KILL' forty-two people? Wounded those who would attack God's chosen prophet, but not KILL them.

Thank the Lord that we have such a protector.

I am sure that you are making up that they were surely going to attack the man. How do you know that? They were yelling at him! I think that a person will always die by being "torn apart".

 

[savagewind]

What happened to those who treated God's appointed leader Moses, disrespectfully? (Numbers 16:23-33) I'm sure that Korah felt fully justified in his criticisms.....how did God feel?

Oh, please stop! They were not executed for disrespecting Moses. They were executed for disrespecting the will of Jehovah. And, you guys are the World's only hope???????????????

 

[savagewind]

Anyone who would challenge God's prophet who was chosen to LEAD God's people for God's will be done would have DIVIDED the group. If they were intent on their mission they had to die so that God's people would be WHOLE. @Deeje @The Anointed

You should know that! It is the very reason why the governing body makes such strict rules for the preserving of the One Mind.

 

[savagewind]

I think it is a sad state of affairs that no church wants to know what was actually torn at 2 Kings 2:24.

Exodus 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided,

The same word.

 

[savagewind]

Also, cursed is wrong. Strong's Hebrew: 7043. קָלַל (qalal) -- to be slight, swift or trifling

3 trifling, i.e. of little account., of person, Genesis 16:4,5 (J; both with בְּעֵינֶיהָ; 1 Samuel 2:30 (opposed to אֲכַבֵּד).

2 appear trifling, 1 Samuel 18:23 (בְּעֵינֵיכֶם; Infinitive subject, compare Dr), with מִן compare be too trifling Isaiah 49:6, especially of sin 1 Kings 16:31 (Infinitive subject), and (with מִן compare) Ezekiel 8:17; easy 2 Kings 3:18 (בְּעֵנַי), 2 Kings 20:10 (c. Infinitive), Proverbs 14:6; Participle (as substantive) with עַל in adverb phraseעַלנְֿקַלָּה lightly i.e. superficially, Jeremiah 6:14; Jeremiah 8:11.

3 be lightly esteemed 2 Samuel 6:22 ("" שָׁפָל; opposed to אִכָּכֵ֑דָה).

Pilpel, etc.) Arabic

shake,

: vibrate, whirl (of sword),

: see be shaken; — SchwZAW xi (1891), 170 ff. thinks shakeoriginal, see מַקֵּל); —

 

[Cooky]

Thanks, but I'll give more weight to the Australian commission into priestly abuse that, after careful study, concluded that the change would do good than I will to the gut feeling of some random guy on the internet.

Catholic church in Australia rejects law forcing priests to report child abuse confessions

Personally, I never “give weight” based on “who”. It just seems like a very bad idea.

Always, verify for yourself and make decisions based on evidence and facts. Don’t be one of those people who trusts based on “who” said what.

...I was just thinking the other day how Brits were underestimated during Brexit... everyone thought they would just follow like sheeple -because ‘so and so’ said this and that... But they didn’t.

 

[ecco]

I tried that, but I can only read English. It isn't English. I did not investigate further if whatever language it is can be switched to English. I am ashamed of myself that English is all I know and poorly at that.

To the right of the CC is the Settings icon (a gear wheel). Left-click on the icon and options for cc will come up.



ETA: Glad to see you got it working.

 

[ecco]

This thread is nothing but click-bait IMO. It just brings out the haters.

What's the alternative? Continued silence?

If you are reading this, then perhaps other JW's are also reading it and possibly realizing they are not alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I never “give weight” based on “who”. It just seems like a very bad idea.

Always, verify for yourself and make decisions based on evidence and facts. Don’t be one of those people who trusts based on “who” said what.

I've seen no reason to believe that you base your opinion on evidence or facts. This I why I disregard your opinion.

 

[metis]

We'll see.
Victorian Government to force priests to break seal of confessional to report abuse

For any who do read the report, the Melbourne Response was put together to address victims of abuse by the Church. It basically gives the church a way to limit damages, and for some reason the Church itself was given the ability to come up with this independently.
The man in charge of the Melbourne Response was Cardinal Pell, now the highest ranking Catholic official (worldwide) to be convicted of child sexual abuse.

He was given a character reference for his trial by ex-PM John Howard, which is his right, but also raises some questions, to my mind.

That misses the point I made. No abuser with an IQ higher than a frog will go to confession if priests do not have this "seal". Also, the priest may be able to talk the abuser into changing their ways and/or maybe even going to the police.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That misses the point I made. No abuser with an IQ higher than a frog will go to confession if priests do not have this "seal".

... unless he thinks the fate of his immortal soul depends on him confession.

Also, the priest may be able to talk the abuser into changing their ways and/or maybe even going to the police.

They've had that option all along. How did it work out?

 

[savagewind]

This thread is nothing but click-bait IMO. It just brings out the haters.

Define haters (by @Deeje): people who expose wrongdoing and only want justice for the victims.

Jehovah's Witnesses expose wrongdoing and want justice. Correct?