Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

34 Priests Resign Over Sex Abuse


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 1632 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-latin-america-44169484

 

All of Chile's 34 Roman Catholic bishops have offered Pope Francis their resignations in the wake of a child sex scandal and cover-up.

 

They asked forgiveness from victims and the Church for their "grave errors and omissions".

It was not immediately clear whether the Pope had accepted the resignations.

 

He had been criticised in Chile for his decision to ordain a bishop who is accused of covering up sexual abuse committed by a priest.

 

It is the first time that all the top churchmen in a country have offered to leave their posts like this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any wonder why we generally are ignored by investigative bodies in favor of pedophile safe havens like the RCC? Because they know JWs don't have a problem with pedophiles. Hence, the only reason why we are ever investigated is because lying apostates need to scream from the hilltops and recruit dishonest media outlets as an official publishers of their outrageous lies.

 

This pressures investigative bodies. However, the are never pressured to investigate anyone else. Isn't that something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
6 hours ago, 4th Generation said:

This just proves how guilty these religions are. Hopefully many sexual abuse victims will have some sort of relief with the Redress Scheme. 

  

https://www.dss.gov.au/national-redress-scheme-for-people-who-have-experienced-institutional-child-sexual-abuse

 

 

I don't believe this redress scheme gives justice or relief to anyone, personally. They are doing the same thing courts in the US do -- throw money at the issue in hopes that it goes away.

 

This is a lose-lose for innocent organizations. If they take part in the scheme, they are admitting guilt (offering money means YOU are at fault for the child abuse). If they refuse to join (maintain their innocence) or come up with their own scheme, it means they are trying to hide their guilt. This doesn't help anyone. Guilt is predetermined. Look at this quote from the link:
 

Quote

It is designed so that relevant organisations take responsibility to make amends for sexual abuse that happened to children they were looking after.

This is nonsense. What they are basically saying with this quote is that "you are guilty, period, and need to pay up". The standard of evidence to qualify for this scheme is low. All what is needed is a verified case of abuse. It doesn't matter if the organization didn't know about it, or didn't cover it up. How is this justice at all?

 

Another thing, organizations have lined up to pay out this money. Why is that? Because by the survivor accepting the cash, that says that they will not take the organization to court. So guilty organizations and guilty people WILL NOT be prosecuted.

 

So if my understanding is correct, (1) its unjust in that innocent people are being forced to admit guilt they do not carry, (2) guilty people are basically paying off victims, and (3) this does nothing to address child abuse. It simply throws money at people and tells them to have a good life.


Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just address something with this redress scheme.  Yes, it came out of the Royal Commission recommendations.  But it does specifically state it was against institutions that were looking after children in their care - the Catholic Church, for example, ran orphanages, The Scout organisation looked after children on camps, the Anglican Church also ran orphanages, and the YMCA has also specifically looked after youth.  Both State and Federal governments were supposed to look after state wards but left them vulnerable to abuse.  This was their sole responsibility - to look after children in their care.

 

Other organisations, like JWs don't do that.  We don't look after children in that same way.  The children were part of the congregation, but so were their parents.  So, whether the redress scheme extends to organisations like ours remains to be seen.  I just see that it seems to be aimed at "institutional" abuse, rather than how our congregations are run.

 

I also believe that a redress scheme goes some way for victims to heal, at least in this system.  The pity is, it will never go far enough.  We know the final solution rests with Jehovah's redress scheme, not the world's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hatcheckgirl said:

Can I just address something with this redress scheme.  Yes, it came out of the Royal Commission recommendations.  But it does specifically state it was against institutions that were looking after children in their care - the Catholic Church, for example, ran orphanages, The Scout organisation looked after children on camps, the Anglican Church also ran orphanages, and the YMCA has also specifically looked after youth.  Both State and Federal governments were supposed to look after state wards but left them vulnerable to abuse.  This was their sole responsibility - to look after children in their care.

 

Other organisations, like JWs don't do that.  We don't look after children in that same way.  The children were part of the congregation, but so were their parents.  So, whether the redress scheme extends to organisations like ours remains to be seen.  I just see that it seems to be aimed at "institutional" abuse, rather than how our congregations are run.

 

I also believe that a redress scheme goes some way for victims to heal, at least in this system.  The pity is, it will never go far enough.  We know the final solution rests with Jehovah's redress scheme, not the world's.

100 likes!!

 

We do not qualify for the scheme based on that reason, that we do not have children in our care,  but a reporter did name us as an institution that hasn't opted in yet. I guess that if there is a will to throw shade on us, there is a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/3/2018 at 7:49 AM, sunshine said:

So did the Pope take them up on their offer?  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-accepts-resignation-of-3-chilean-bishops-in-sex-abuse-scandal/ar-AAyuDPQ?li=BBnbcA1

 

He has accepted the resignation of 3 of them so far and he admits he was 'part of the problem'.

 

 

Pope Francis has apologised to the victims and admitted he had made "grave mistakes" after reading a 2,300-page report on abuses in Chile.

In a letter to Chileans released at the end of last month, the pontiff voiced "shame" that the Catholic church failed "to listen and react in time" to the allegations of sexual abuse by Chilean clergy.....

In 2015, Francis appointed Barros as the head of the southern diocese of Osorno despite accusations he had covered up for Karadima.

- 'I was part of the problem' -

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

Not just part, the entire problem. 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 Satan’s friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.10.29 (changelog)