MK forum

Hmm .... good points, threewillows!

not to get too technical with defamation. But just to clarify. Yes, ordinarily the plaintiff would have to prove falsity of the statement. However, there are types of defamation, including accusing somebody of a crime of "moral terpitude" or being "unchaste" that are considered "per se" defamation, switching burden of proof to defendant to prove the truth of the thing said.

Having said that...NTM is still hiding behind this excuse. And there certainly is no legal barrier to disclosing certain things publicly, even if on a no name basis.

Better not disclose certain things so as not to induce people to spill the larger beans. Just continue to shove the truth and MKs under the rug.

Hmmmm, still pondering this one, so maybe a scenario.

Lets say as a nurse I develop an illegal drug habit and escalate it to taking drugs from where I work and substituting sterile water so it won't be noticed. Then one day in an emergency a patient dies because they are given sterile water instead of the drug they needed.
An investigation is then launched and it is found beyond reasonable doubt that I am the culprit. My employer sacks me immediately and refers the matter to the police. The nursing governing body also strikes me off as a nurse and orders me to pay costs, it also publishes my name and the events pertaining to the case, but does not name the deceased.
I haven't a leg to stand on if I decide to pursue the defamation avenue and anyway I'd probably be behind bars.

Mission organisations that claim they are lead by God and commission investigations surely have little to fear. Because the only people who are going to consider defamation are those who obviously are not in fellowship or were faking their faith in the first place (i.e. they are criminals) and why fear them when God is on your side?
Or have I got this all wrong and there is some other reason, like the contents of a report might implicate some who are in places that it would be embarrassing to be made public, or the scale of the scandal indicates that there is more to this than a few rotten apples in the barrel?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/10018473/V ... for-abuse/

This is an interesting article.

- The Vatican has been called before the UN twice with a please explain.
- There have been calls for child abuse to be classified as torture.

On the whole, it seems the Catholic Church is dealing with it's Child Abuse past.

The parallels between the process the Catholic church has been going through and our own struggles are sobering.

Here's a quote from Kathryn Joyce's article:

"Over the next few years and decades, Protestant institutions of every kind—fundamentalist, evangelical, and mainline—will be increasingly faced with a stark choice. One option is to follow the example set by the Catholic Church more than a decade ago: Fight back fiercely, not giving an inch when it comes to admitting you may have been wrong. Everyone knows how well that has worked. The other option is represented, thus far, by GRACE alone: Churches, schools, and groups can heed Tchividjian’s call to make themselves vulnerable, to admit what they’ve done wrong, and—hardest of all—to allow that truth to come to light."

http://prospect.org/article/next-christ ... se-scandal

NTM, these are your choices: a) fight back fiercely, not giving an inch when it comes to admitting you may have been wrong, or b) make yourself vulnerable, admit what you've done wrong, and allow truth to come to light.

As far the push to classify childhood sexual abuse as torture, I am not saying it isn't torturous, because it is. But if the reason behind this proposal is that it can be used as a way to get around statutes of limitation issues, then my opinion is this: it is time to do away with statutes of limitations. It has been clearly established and widely accepted that, as the article Bemused posted says, "the statute issue has proved to be a major stumbling block for many victims, since many are unable to cope with the trauma of the abuse until it's too late to pursue civil damages".

If the laws would be changed to acknowledge the fact that many child abuse victims are not ready to grapple with their childhood trauma till they are in the 40s, we would not need to re-classify that trauma. Even though it is, indeed, a form of torture.

Not too long ago I read an interesting article (and can't for the life of me remember where) that compared the responses toward abuse in the Catholic church to the responses typically found in Evangelical organizations. It seems that the Catholic Church handles their abuse issues more directly and with better outcome because they have an established hierarchy.

The Evangelical organizations, on the other hand, are largely independent, and as such can conduct limited investigations, give out limited information and end up with limited confidence in their whole process (sound familiar?)

And all too often, as numerous cases have mentioned on here (Bill Gothard, Tom Randall, etc) even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, the guilty wrap themselves in a spiritual aura and the well-meaning (and gullible) individuals around them race to protect their saintly image.

The whole time the rest of the world looks at it through the lens of reality and wonders how otherwise intelligent individuals can be so blind. As do I ...

Paul, I agree with everything in your post except maybe for this: "It seems that the Catholic Church handles their abuse issues more directly and with better outcome."

What jumped out to me in the article from NZ that Bemused posted is this: "The data showed that since 2004, the Vatican had received some 3,400 cases, had defrocked 848 priests and sanctioned another 2,572 to lesser penalties."

So 3,400 cases were serious enough to be reported all the way to the Vatican! And out of all those cases, only 848 priests were defrocked?? And the other 2,572 were given lesser penalties, like "a lifetime of penance and prayer"??? And the excuse for this is that "defrocking them would essentially render them destitute in their final years"???

What?? Isn't that appalling??? They feel sorry for these ravenous pedophiles because they would be rendered destitute in their final years?? These perverts should be spending their final years in prison!!

I'm sorry .... it sure doesn't look to me like the Catholic Church handles their abuse cases well at all. Groups like SNAP are forcing them to bring these statistics out into the open. But those statistics show me that their response is still WOEFULLY insufficient.

What a dismal mess. Incredibly depressing.

848 + 2572 = 3420

So the Vatican has punished 20 more paedophiles than they had complaints about. That's a better record than NTM and other protestant organisations have managed. Yes I agree, the Vatican should have defrocked and had prosecuted every paedophile, just like NTM and other protestant organisations should have.

I remember as an MK the lectures on the evils of the "Catholic Cult" and those stories in chapel about what the Catholics were up to, then hearing the laughter, just like the laughter about African Americans when racial theology was taught or some racial remark was made and I felt a feeling of alliance with the underdogs because I too was the butt of the stupid humour and discrimination. And this is where for me the disillusionment with it all started, because it seemed that the way for many to justify how good NTM was, was to denigrate any other group who held different views or had different origins. And when I heard about the techniques of how "cults" recruited members and practised mind control, I wondered what was the difference between what was going on around me and what I was being expected to believe. And the simplicity of an all loving God, was manipulated into a message of hate and I didn't want to hate anyone, because I knew what it was like to be hated.

How many paedophiles that NTM knows about have they disciplined (being defrocked is a public humiliation and has severe consequences). I don't know the figures but I suspect the equation looks like this.

X + Y < Z

Where: X is the number of sex offenders jailed.
Y is the number of sex offenders dealt with by dismissal (not resignation)
< means much less than
Z is the total offenders known about