|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 22, 2013 14:51:58 GMT -5
What sources are you currently using?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 15:00:57 GMT -5
God's people and Servants aren't perfect but the way is.
Overseer/worker listens and says nothing.
Overseer/worker changes the subject.
Overseer/worker acts interested but says and does nothing.
Overseer/worker encourages the abused person to forgive and forget.
Overseer/worker expresses concern that the heathen will find out about this and bring reproach to the perfect way.
Overseer/worker accuses the abused of being a trouble maker and threatens excommunication i.e. Dale Gardner at the 1989 Elizabeth CO convention grounds.
Overseer/worker gets emotional and apologizes assuming that is all that is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 23, 2013 19:36:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 23, 2013 20:56:37 GMT -5
I have never heard directly what overseers think of CSA reports. My guess would be there are (at least) six reasons for non-response or for disregard.
1 - Can't believe it would happen with at least some of the perps.
2 - Lack of understanding of the crime/offense/disorder and the effect and think victim/survivor should just forgive and move on.
Probably common thinking for years in and out of the fellowship.
3 - Don't want to go public (general or fellowship) with any specific sins (even crime) of some/many/most in the fellowship.
4 - Attempt to protect perceived integrity of and the trust in the ministry and particular workers.
5 - Avoid prior knowledge and allegations.
6 - Avoid responsibility and associated financial costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Jul 25, 2013 6:44:49 GMT -5
The following occurred in response to a letter to Tommie Gamble (Irish overseer) regarding CSA of myself (RJK) by a former worker, and the subsequent excommunication of my parents for TV ownership:
Friday 11 Nov. 1994 - Tommie Gamble phoned.
TG refused to meet at Greenvale, RJK's home.
TG -"You are the one with the problem. You can come to see me"
RJK expressed surprise that TG did not understand by now that he had a problem as leader of an organisation which sent out a paedophile evangelist, who had sexually assaulted RJK.
RJK pointed out that Cardinal Daly, as head of the Catholic Church, was currently in court in a case involving sexual offences against young children by a priest 20 years ago.
RJK quoted a Belfast Telegraph headline - 'Paedophile priest sued by family'.
TG said that they were not an organisation and did not have any money.
RJK responded that those would be interesting points to prove in court.
TG then agreed to phone again before the weekend.
Saturday 21 - TG phoned.
TG still refused to meet at Greenvale.
RJK gave TG 4 options:
1. Respond to letters in writing.
2. Respond in person at Greenvale.
3. Conduct the discussion through the columns of the Belfast Telegraph.
4. In court - the next letter from RJK would be a solicitor's (lawyer's) letter.
TG responded that he hoped RJK would not resort to 3 or 4, and immediately agreed to meet at Greenvale.
Tommie has since apologised for his initial response, and has sought my advice regarding another paedophile worker.
Robert Kee
Belfast
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 7:47:44 GMT -5
Thanks Robert. I think that mirrors the changing attitudes on CSA response. It is generally no longer brushed off as a minor matter that is not their problem. They have come a long way from the old "oh he didn't actually hurt you so forgive him and get over it", or "it's just a little touch-up". There is still work to be done on this but responses have improved.
One of the challenges of the OP is that the study will reflect responses that were common 50 years ago vs the last decade, giving a poor indication of what today's responses would be.....if that is what the OP is looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 25, 2013 8:20:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 25, 2013 15:30:16 GMT -5
I have never heard directly what overseers think of CSA reports. My guess would be there are (at least) six reasons for non-response or for disregard. 1 - Can't believe it would happen with at least some of the perps. 2 - Lack of understanding of the crime/offense/disorder and the effect and think victim/survivor should just forgive and move on. Probably common thinking for years in and out of the fellowship.3 - Don't want to go public (general or fellowship) with any specific sins (even crime) of some/many/most in the fellowship. 4 - Attempt to protect perceived integrity of and the trust in the ministry and particular workers. 5 - Avoid prior knowledge and allegations. 6 - Avoid responsibility and associated financial costs. ~ Your list above sounds like sound assumptions relating to CSA reporting. However, I noticed that all six items may be directly related to covering up for the "perps" to protect the image of the faith from scandal? Most people who behave in such an indignified manner usually are good at covering their tracks and giving the impression, at least, of "super-spiritual" and beyond reproach. Unfortunately, this sorry behavior occurs in other churches as well under the same pretense of being above reproach due to their place within the church. |
|
