Sacred Silence or Systemic Harm? Watchtowers Ecclesiastical Privilege

Article Written and Published by: Miss Usato on June 18th, 2025

When Silence Protects the Wrong Side:

How Ecclesiastical Privilege Harms Abuse Victims

What Is Ecclesiastical Privilege?

Ecclesiastical privilege, also known as clergy-penitent privilege, is a legal concept that allows religious ministers to refuse to disclose confidential information shared with them during spiritual counseling or confession. In jurisdictions where it is recognized, this privilege is similar to attorney-client privilege and is intended to protect the sanctity of pastoral communication. It is similar to what recently happened in Washington State Senate Bill 5375

That bill requires clergy to report suspected child abuse or neglect, even if they heard about it in a private confession.

Some places in the world do not have statutory recognition of this privilege, while others may protect it only under very specific circumstances. Why is this term ‘Ecclesiastical Privilege/ a big deal? Because Jehovah’s Witnesses Claim They Have No Clergy—But Use Clergy Privilege.

Jehovah’s Witnesses publicly teach that they have no clergy class—that all baptized members are ministers. Yet in legal settings, they claim “ecclesiastical privilege” (a form of clergy-penitent privilege) to shield confidential conversations from scrutiny, especially those involving serious wrongdoing like child abuse. The thing is is that you won’t find this on their site, nor will you hear other Jehovahs Witnesses use this term loosely.. Since this letter is regarding ecclesiastical privilege in the 90’s Watchtower has buckled down on this term.

Abuse can go unreported

Above is a 1987 Letter to all body of Elders regarding Ecclesiastical Privilege.

In many faith communities, abuse victims who sought help from trusted elders or ministers were met with silence. Why? Because those leaders believed they were legally or spiritually obligated to keep such confessions secret.

Elders are trained to invoke ecclesiastical privilege to refuse cooperating with law enforcement, particularly in cases of child sexual abuse. This means:

Abuse may go unreported.
Victims may never get justice.
Elders avoid civil or criminal liability.

But in reality, that silence allowed abusers to remain hidden, crimes to go unreported, and victims to suffer in isolation.

This misuse of ecclesiastical privilege has led to decades of cover-ups, legal battles, and lifelong trauma. Instead of acting as a force for justice, some elders and church officials became complicit—whether knowingly or not—in denying victims the right to safety and legal protection.

No law, tradition, or doctrine should ever stand in the way of protecting a child or confronting evil. When “privilege” is used to silence victims, it is no longer sacred—it is dangerous.

When elders prioritize internal confidentiality over external accountability

Courts have increasingly scrutinized this practice, undoubtedly arguing that it facilitates the concealment of criminal activity. And it does. In several U.S. states, mandatory reporting laws take precedence over clergy-penitent privilege, resulting in Jehovah’s Witness elders facing fines or other legal consequences for refusing to testify. Internationally, government inquiries in countries like Australia and the Netherlands have deemed the policy a threat to child safety.

In Ivy Hill Congregation v. Pennsylvania DHS, the court considered whether Jehovah’s Witness elders could invoke “clergyman privilege” under state law—also known as ecclesiastical privilege—and upheld its legal applicability in that context.

This remains a deeply troubling issue, as these so-called “privileges” are frequently entangled in child sexual abuse cases. They have been used to justify not reporting crimes, failing to remove known abusers from access to children, and pressuring elders into silence or fear of speaking out. But they do more than stay silent.

Murder, he wrote

The letter to the right was written in 1992. It indicates that a person who committed “several murders and crimes” in the past is seeking “ecclesiastical privilege” within the Jehovah’s Witnesses community.

However, the letter explicitly states that this individual is a “fugitive from the law” and therefore “would not qualify for any extra privileges of service in the congregation.” This suggests that their past crimes and their fugitive status disqualify them from certain roles or responsibilities within the congregation.

Regarding elders not going to the authorities about a murderer, the letter states:

“As elders, you have no obligation to reveal information of this type to the authorities.”
“Any information that you have obtained while fulfilling your duties as elders is strictly confidential.”

This strongly implies that the elders are being instructed not to report the individual to law enforcement, even though they are aware of serious past crimes, including murder.

The reasoning provided is the confidentiality inherent in their role as elders.

They bring up an instance about him being caught smoking Mamajuana after baptism, stating, “We assume that is the reason you feel a need to meet with him.” So, they believe the elders are worried about him smoking, but not murder?

The letter emphasizes the need for “good judgment and discernment” in handling such cases, focusing on the internal process of determining the individual’s standing within the congregation rather than engaging with external legal authorities.

What has stemmed from the Ecclesiastical privilege to today

The letter above is a recent example of protecting sensitive information. It is encouraging elders that when a congregant confesses a sin, such as child sexual abuse, to the elders, it is a spiritual matter handled in confidence, like a confession to a priest or pastor.

It states that elders must act as spiritual shepherds. In legal terms, this role is akin to that of a clergyman. So, when elders receive information in that religious capacity, they claim it falls under ecclesiastical privilege. Just like priests might refuse to reveal a confession in court, JW elders have refused to testify or disclose abuse allegations, arguing that the information is protected by clergy-penitent privilege. (ecclesiastical privilege)

Internal Handling: Instead of reporting abuse to authorities, they often claim that such matters are resolved “biblically” within the congregation, again citing their spiritual role and confidentiality. If you notice above, they also mention to shred or “delete” if a document has “overstayed” its time in storage. This means that documents of child sexual abuse, of murderers, pedophiles, could be deleted or shredded, never coming to light. This has already happened to hundreds of victims of abuse.

It’s clear as day how the fear, manipulation, and concerns in the wrong areas have kept elders in place. Especially when it comes to contacting authorities about a crime, abuse, or even allowing someone who has murdered before to become a brother in their Organization, and we know that many reports have been shredded. This is one of the many reasons why this organization is dangerous.