Jehovah's Witness' not learnt from Catholic church

[ecco]

LOL... Whatever that means.

...I simply told you that Catholics need not, nor do they typically go into specific details about their sins. Catholics are actually taught how to do confession, and unlike some Hollywood portrayals, confession is not like a counseling session. It's actually improper to go into detail.

If you don't want to believe that, then you can continue believing the nonsense... Whatevs.

Fifteen year-old Jimmy: Father I have sinned. I got to third base with a girl.
Father Thomas: Was it Sally?
No father.
Was it Mary?
No father.
Was it Melissa?
No father.
-later outside-
Jimmy's pal Tony: How'd it go?
Jimmy: I got five Hail Mary's and three good leads.

 

[pearl]

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...

And a priest is not obligated to absolve you! The sacrament calls us to more than prepared speeches or lists of sins. Confession of sin can only be sincere if it is preceded by the process of conversion. And, as a sacrament of healing, Reconciliation addresses the disease (sinfulness) rather than the symptoms (sins).

 

[ecco]

And a priest is not obligated to absolve you!

The church is not required to annul marriages. The church often annuls marriages when certain "donations" are made.

Is that pertinent to this thread? Probably not. I just like to point out hypocrisy when I get the opportunity.

 

[pearl]

The church is not required to annul marriages. The church often annuls marriages when certain "donations" are made.

Annulments are not and never have been free.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But the "exceptions" are not to protect the minister but to protect the process of someone seeking help. If they didn't want help, then going to confession would make no sense because that's what confession is largely about.

Psychologists are not exempt.

 

[Salvador]

Every member who has supported the JW policy of settling disputes internally instead of reporting crimes to the police has had a hand in shielding predators.

Every member who has supported the JW "two witnesses" rule has had a hand in letting predators off scot-free for want of a second witness.

This is not "a few."

"In 2015, it was disclosed that the Australia Branch of Jehovah's Witnesses had records of 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, relating to more than 1,800 victims since 1950, none of which were reported to police by the church."

Australia Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse - Submissions of Senior Counsel". Child Abuse Royal Commission. March 2017. p. 12. Archived from the original on September 22, 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2017.

Imo, this church's internal investigation of alleged sex abuse among its members should have at least resulted in enough evidence with some few cases for the police to get involved.

 

[Cooky]

And a priest is not obligated to absolve you! The sacrament calls us to more than prepared speeches or lists of sins. Confession of sin can only be sincere if it is preceded by the process of conversion. And, as a sacrament of healing, Reconciliation addresses the disease (sinfulness) rather than the symptoms (sins).

That's right.

 

[metis]

Psychologists are not exempt.

To a point, they actually are, and this also includes lawyers in terms of what may be confided to them within "attorney/client privilege". Here in the States, we do respect at least some privacy per the Constitution, such as what's found in the 5th Amendment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To a point, they actually are, and this also includes lawyers in terms of what may be confided to them within "attorney/client privilege". Here in the States, we do respect at least some privacy per the Constitution, such as what's found in the 5th Amendment.

Who was talking about the States?

 

[metis]

Who was talking about the States?

Because of the Constitution of the United States of America, which does allocate some items that can be held private. Assuming that you live elsewhere, does your country guarantee any aspects of privacy for at least some reasons, or is everything and anything open to governmental observation?

BTW, it's not just Catholics that believe in the sanctity of confession as this is a practice pretty much in all denominations and religions. And if you don't think that atheists also are covered by at least some provisions for privacy, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because of the Constitution of the United States of America, which does allocate some items that can be held private. Assuming that you live elsewhere, does your country guarantee any aspects of privacy for at least some reasons, or is everything and anything open to governmental observation?

BTW, it's not just Catholics that believe in the sanctity of confession as this is a practice pretty much in all denominations and religions. And if you don't think that atheists also are covered by at least some provisions for privacy, then I feel sorry for you.

My posts and links were specifically in relation to Australian mandatory reporting laws and the changes (both proposed and agreed) to the exemptions included therein.
You're welcome to feel sorry for whomever you like, but you're wasting your pity on me. I live in a great country, for all its flaws, and wouldn't trade societal issues with the States in a million years.
Subjective opinion, of course...just as yours is.

 

[metis]

My posts and links were specifically in relation to Australian mandatory reporting laws and the changes (both proposed and agreed) to the exemptions included therein.
You're welcome to feel sorry for whomever you like, but you're wasting your pity on me. I live in a great country, for all its flaws, and wouldn't trade societal issues with the States in a million years.
Subjective opinion, of course...just as yours is.

Well, you really didn't answer my question dealing with the issue of privacy that can protect citizens, but that's OK. Also, my offer of sympathy had nothing to do with you living in Australia, so how did you
manage to screw that up? The issue was privacy under the law, and my guess is that there's some protection Down Under in that arena.

BTW, my wife and I almost moved to Australia back in the early 70's because I had a teaching job offered there, however my wife and I were too close to our families to make the five year minimum commitment, and we didn't have enough money to fly back and forth, especially with two little ones with us. As the saying goes, the grass appears greener on the other side of the fence, but I read later that around 80% of those educators who took the government's offer returned back to the States.

And then there was an offer to teach in Fairbanks, Alaska, so I asked my wife who's from Sicily if she was interested, and I betcha you can guess what her response was.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, you really didn't answer my question dealing with the issue of privacy that can protect citizens, but that's OK. Also, my offer of sympathy had nothing to do with you living in Australia, so how did you
manage to screw that up? The issue was privacy under the law, and my guess is that there's some protection Down Under in that arena.

Meh, sorry if I came off tetchy, I didn't mean to. But my posts are in this case related to Australia and Australian Law. I've had too many Americans over the years give me some version of 'You're not free, because you can't own an AR-15' or 'You're not free, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly protect freedom of speech' for it not be be a slightly annoying itch.
Anyway...that's not your fault, and I apologise.

BTW, my wife and I almost moved to Australia back in the early 70's because I had a teaching job offered there, however my wife and I were too close to our families to make the five year minimum commitment, and we didn't have enough money to fly back and forth, especially with two little ones with us.

Hey, so imI an ex-teacher. I went up to Papua New Guinea and taught for a couple of years. Five years is a loooong commitment.
Also, I doubt they were sending US teachers to the schools all the Australian teachers wanted to teach at. More likely the tough schools.

That's what Aussie teachers going to London always copped, at least.

As the saying goes, the grass appears greener on the other side of the fence, but I read later that around 80% of those educators who took the government's offer returned back to the States.

Makes sense. I moved to New Zealand for work, and loved the place, but Australia was home.
I would say Australia in the seventies was quite different to now. More isolated, more cultural centre, less diverse. Some might prefer that, I guess, but we're a bit more grown up now I think. I got offered a job in the States last year, and might have considered more seriously depending on where exactly it was based. It's harder with school aged kids though.

And then there was an offer to teach in Fairbanks, Alaska, so I asked my wife who's from Sicily if she was interested, and I betcha you can guess what her response was.

Funny...that's so exotic to an Australian I'd probably have jumped at it, long as it was finite.

 

[metis]

Anyway...that's not your fault, and I apologise.

What you have done with the above is what moral adults are supposed to do, so you've set an extremely high-bar. And sorry if I overreacted, which I know I sometimes do.

I went up to Papua New Guinea and taught for a couple of years.

In my basic anthro class, I brought in a missionary who spent a couple of years in New Guinea, and she was one of the most enthralling speakers I had because of the culture conflict she had to try and adjust to, and she didn't always succeed in handling it well by her own admittance. .

Makes sense. I moved to New Zealand for work, and loved the place, but Australia was home.

Now you're making me jealous! A friend of mine works 6-9 months per year in Antarctica, and they use New Zealand as their jumping off & back point, and he usually extends his return there, and he just loves it. I haven't had a chance to talk with him about what happened in Christchurch yet since he hasn't yet returned. Did you spend any time there when you lived there?

Hope to hear from ya soon, and thanks a LOT for your post.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

They learned one thing from the Catholic experience: if you argue that something is essential to your religion, you'll generally be allowed to use it as an excuse.

As much flak as the Catholic Church has received for its abuse scandal, they haven't really been challenged for how the "seal of confession" contributed to it. I wonder if the Jehovah's Witnesses hope that they'll get a similar pass for their "two witnesses" rule.

What has always confounded me with regard to this problem is the difference between the majority of members of faiths other than the JWs and the JWs themselves. Generally, when this issue has been brought to light in various faiths, the members are outraged and want to see the problem taken care of and victims compensated.

With the JWs, however, almost 100% of the members will declare that "there is no problem" or that the majority of victims are "liars" and will bend over backwards defending the organization.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In my basic anthro class, I brought in a missionary who spent a couple of years in New Guinea, and she was one of the most enthralling speakers I had because of the culture conflict she had to try and adjust to, and she didn't always succeed in handling it well by her own admittance.

It's tough. I worked for a timber company, and so was EXCEEDINGLY isolated. That was both a positive and a negative.
Perhaps she was too...certainly some missionaries work in very remote areas. Also tougher to be a woman than a man in PNG, even as an ex-pat.

Now you're making me jealous! A friend of mine works 6-9 months per year in Antarctica, and they use New Zealand as their jumping off & back point, and he usually extends his return there, and he just loves it. I haven't had a chance to talk with him about what happened in Christchurch yet since he hasn't yet returned. Did you spend any time there when you lived there?

Yes. I lived on the North Island (Tauranga, then Auckland), but was lucky. A client had a townhouse right on the Avon, plus kept an old car in Christchurch. She let my wife and I stay there for free several times.

It was my wife's favourite city in NZ. Shakes us a bit every time they have to deal with a fresh tragedy.

I also have NZ relatives and friends, but they're mostly North Island based.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What has always confounded me with regard to this problem is the difference between the majority of members of faiths other than the JWs and the JWs themselves. Generally, when this issue has been brought to light in various faiths, the members are outraged and want to see the problem taken care of and victims compensated.

With the JWs, however, almost 100% of the members will declare that "there is no problem" or that the majority of victims are "liars" and will bend over backwards defending the organization.

That happened within the Catholic Church as well, though a major difference with the JWs is their position that they shouldn't involve secular authorities in their disputes.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That happened within the Catholic Church as well, though a major difference with the JWs is their position that they shouldn't involve secular authorities in their disputes.

I'm sure that there were some Catholics who defended the Church and vilified the victims, but most Catholics that I have known were appalled at what was occurring in the Church and wanted changes to be made.

The JWs, on the other hand, except for a very few (and from what I've seen they could be counted on one hand) will adamantly declare that the JW organization is "clean" and that they have no problem with pedophiles. Even if they finally admit that there might have been a "few" pedophiles who "sneaked in" to the congregations, they declare that such ones were always thrown out, or, if they claimed repentance, were watched constantly and were never put in positions of authority.

From my personal experience, I have found that that is not true. Not only does the JW organization not involve secular authorities, they also frequently do nothing to the pedophile, who remains as a JW "in good standing" and even if there is some punishment meted out to a confessed pedophile, the congregation at large is never informed that they have a sexual predator in their midst.

In my home congregation, there was a pedophile who molested his natural children and was reported to the elders, and later molested his stepdaughter and her male cousin and was again reported to the elders, but no one in the congregation knew about these multiple molestations, and at least as long as I attended that congregation, the pedophile was never disfellowshipped or reported to the police.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I can't. If there is a version without the background music, I might be able to follow what they say, but with the accent being so different and the loud music behind it, I can't hear them.

But I certainly agree with the premise. Shame on the Jehovah's Witnesses for condemning in another religion what they do similarly. I am sure that there is no hope for that religion. Matthew 18:6 Mark 9:42 Luke 17:2 1 Corinthians 8:12

The thing is, this is par for the course right now.

At present, the Catholic church is under the spotlight. It is a Goliath organization in numbers, so even small problems are going to be huge in comparison to other groups. And the media really hates the CC because the CC opposes the progressive agenda of LGBT rights, pro-choice, etc., so they suck every Catholic scandal for every minute of air time they can get. It creates the false impression that every priest in the CC is a molester and no one else is guilty.

The truth is that molestation goes on everywhere, and so does its cover up, in every religious institution, and indeed in every secular institution as well wherever there are children -- little league, schools, scouts, you name it. I think it was the Baptists this month that were in the spotlight. This is not a problem with Catholics or Jehovah's witnesses or even Christians. This is a problem with human beings (especially men). And finger pointing at others is also a very human problem.

 

[savagewind]

The thing is, this is par for the course right now.

At present, the Catholic church is under the spotlight. It is a Goliath organization in numbers, so even small problems are going to be huge in comparison to other groups. And the media really hates the CC because the CC opposes the progressive agenda of LGBT rights, pro-choice, etc., so they suck every Catholic scandal for every minute of air time they can get. It creates the false impression that every priest in the CC is a molester and no one else is guilty.

The truth is that molestation goes on everywhere, and so does its cover up, in every religious institution, and indeed in every secular institution as well wherever there are children -- little league, schools, scouts, you name it. I think it was the Baptists this month that were in the spotlight. This is not a problem with Catholics or Jehovah's witnesses or even Christians. This is a problem with human beings (especially men). And finger pointing at others is also a very human problem.

I do not know of any other organization that calls itself a "spiritual paradise" which is "God approved" and "Spirit-directed". They can't have it both ways.