On September 26, 2018 a jury decided the Jehovah’s Witnesses of Thompson Falls Montana, as well as its national headquarters, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, failed to protect one of its members from child sexual abuse. As a result, the victim was awarded $35 million.
Sanders County District Judge James Manley ruled that the organization was negligent when it failed to report earlier abuses by Maximo Reyes against a girl in the congregation. Elders in Thompson Falls did “disfellowship” Reyes from the congregation but reinstated him about a year later, in June 2005. After being reinstated, Alexis Nunez, then an 8-year-old girl, was assaulted sexually by him on a near-weekly basis for the next two years.
In 2013, a juvenile member of the Laurel Delaware Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses reported to his mother that he was engaged in a sexual relationship with an adult female member of the Congregation. Two elders of the congregation met with the youth and his mother at the kingdom hall. The elders were informed of the sexual relationship. The elders spoke with the adult female member, who confirmed that the relationship occurred. Both the youth and the adult sister were “disfellowshipped”.
Despite the fact that Delaware has a mandatory reporting law, the elders did not report the child abuse. The State sought civil penalties against the congregation and the two elders. In that case the Watchtower society moved for summary judgment. It was their assertion that all communications among the elders, juvenile member, and the adult Member were subject to the clergy/penitent privilege. Additionally, lawyers for the society argued that the State’s claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States and Delaware Constitutions. Finally, Defendants argue that they are exempt from a reporting duty pursuant to Section 909.[1]
However, focusing on the word “penitent” the court found the privilege could not be extended. The fact that the youth was disfellowshipped indicated that he was not repentant, which is something normally associated with “sacramental confession.” Additionally, there is no public policy reason to shield from the reporting requirement communications with a victim of child abuse. The identity of the child, as well as the child’s well-being, are intended to be protected from the ramifications of public revelation by the procedures that are part of the law enforcement process.
The same would apply to the sister as she also was disfellowshipped. According to affidavits supplied by the elders, the conversation with the sister was demanded by the elders as part of a disciplinary process. If the purpose of this meeting was for the Elders to investigate alleged child abuse, then the conversation may not be a “sacramental confession.” Hence, the society’s request was denied.
The Thompson Falls congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, along with the church’s highest offices, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, appealed to Montana’s Supreme Court claiming that an exception in the law, that stated members of the clergy are exempt, was denied them and the decision was reversed.
Jehovah’s Witnesses in general were never made aware of either one of these cases. It did not appear on the society’s official website jw.org nor printed in any of the literature. Yet in its May 2019 study edition of the Watchtower was printed an article entitled: “Love and Justice in the Face of Wickedness”. Paragraph 13 states:
“Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? Yes. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with secular laws about reporting allegations of abuse. -Romans 13:1. Such laws do not conflict with God’s law. -Acts 5:28, 29. So when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction on how they can comply with laws about reporting it. -The Watchtower May 2019 study edition page 10 paragraph 13.
On January 8, 2020 a unanimous decision from seven Montana state Supreme Court justices found that religious authorities are not always obligated to report child sexual abuse to authorities due to an exemption in Montana state law.
Justice Beth Baker wrote that the church was not a mandatory reporter of abuse because of the exception in the state law. The law states that “a member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report under this section if the communication is required to be confidential by canon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.”
“The summary judgment record demonstrates that Jehovah’s Witnesses have an established process for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse within their congregations; that they consider this process confidential; and that the process necessarily involves multiple elders and congregation members, including the accused, CCJW elders who provide spiritual guidance, and local elders who conduct the investigation.”
“We hold accordingly that the undisputed material facts in the summary judgment record demonstrate as a matter of law that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not mandatory reporters under § 41-3-201, MCA, in this case because their church doctrine, canon, or practice required that clergy keep reports of child abuse confidential, thus entitling the Defendants to the exception of § 41-3-201(6)(c), MCA. The reporting statute as written accommodates Jehovah’s Witnesses’ definition and practice of confidentiality.”
In light of the above what do you think? Will lawyers for the society be congratulating themselves for gaining such a victory? I sincerely hope not! I cannot imagine that the God of love and justice could possibly have bestowed his blessing so as to result in such an outcome. While the decisions rendered by these two states differ considerably from the decision of the Supreme Court of Montana is a matter of deep concern that needs to be addressed and most certainly will be in the future,[2] one thing is for certain. Congregation elders do not seek to comply with secular authorities when they hear of allegations of child sexual abuse. Their first call is to the society’s legal department. They are then mandated to strictly comply with what that department instructs them to do.
Thus, the entire paragraph in the May 2019 Watchtower should be read this way:
“Do elders comply with secular laws about reporting an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities? No. In places where such laws exist, elders endeavor to comply with what the branch says about reporting allegations of abuse. -Romans 13:1. True, such laws do not conflict with God’s law. -Acts 5:28, 29. But when they learn of an allegation, elders immediately seek direction from the branch on whether or not they should comply with laws about reporting it.
The society’s legal department will then seek to find a loophole or an exception in order to avoid reporting. But why, if such laws do not conflict with God’s law? The reason seems to be in order for the organization to avoid costly lawsuits, to protect it’s reputation and preserve for the rank and file it’s image of being able to provide a spiritual paradise under the guidance of God by means of his holy spirit.
While it is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not permissive of pedophiles, the organization’s system of protecting children is seriously flawed. In the above mentioned case, Maximo Reyes was disfellowshipped, later reinstated, and yet went on to continue his abuse for another two years! Yet the leaders of the organization cannot bring themselves to accept assistance from secular authorities by reporting. Rather, they would appeal to the state and even the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect their right to handle such cases confidentially. Frankly, I find neither love nor justice in their approach.
[1] Section 909 of title 16 of the Delaware Code provides: No legally recognized privilege, except that between attorney and client and that between priest and penitent in a sacramental confession, shall apply to situations involving known or suspected child abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment and shall not constitute grounds for failure to report as required by § 903 of this title or to give or accept evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect.
[2] Commenting on the outcome of the decision, retired Montana Supreme Court justice James C. Nelson stated:
“Assuming that the Montana Supreme Court’s recent opinion in the Jehovah’s Witnesses case, Nunez v. Watchtower Bible, 2020 MT 3, sets forth the state of the law, then the law needs to be changed. First, no person should be allowed to sexually or physically abuse another person, minor or adult, and be protected from the consequences of that heinous act by a shape-shifting religious rule, protocol or doctrine. Freedom of religion, guaranteed under the First Amendment, does not protect criminal conduct whether perpetrated by a deity’s ministers or by anyone else. Secondly, the perpetrators and facilitators of such conduct must be held accountable to the criminal laws. That means simply that perpetrators must be timely reported and criminally prosecuted. And just as important, those who facilitate or cover-up the perpetrator’s criminal conduct — no matter how high up in church hierarchy — must also be held accountable under the criminal law for aiding and abetting the perpetrator. This country and our state have witnessed far too many instances of sexual assaults by religious ministers (not to mention trusted adults in athletics, scouting organizations and other institutions). Sexual predators and facilitators must not get a pass because they claim to be following their religious doctrines, protocols or beliefs. It is long overdue that our legislators remedy this situation, and it is long overdue that voters demand that they do.” https://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/freedom-of-religion-no-excuse-for-failing-to-report-sexual/article_72d666d9-4346-525a-a8a0-445d93d752b9.html
3 replies on “Love and Justice in the Face of Wickedness?”
That is a fabulous overview, thankyou. I think the reversal of the $35 million by the Montana Supreme Court, (on the basis of the reasons they gave), has highlighted serious deficiencies in the law, and a lack of appreciation of how religious organisations will “shape shift” their “established church practices”, etc, to avoid penalty and to protect their reputations. (Retired Montana Suprene Court Justice , Jim Nelson, used the term “shape shift” to describe what WT does!)
The clergy privilege is when a person confesses willingly… Not when they are accused. So to me, this is not a clergy penitent privilege case. I want this cleared once for all in the court to prove watchtower is not clergy!
Exactly! Hopefully more lawyers and judges will begin to see how that point was clearly established in the Delaware case.