Consulting rabbi before calling social services or police
Despite the fact that the halacha is clear that a child molester should be reported to the police and in fact it is often required by secular law - the poskim generally state that a rabbi should be consulted first. It is obvious of course that if waiting to consult a rabbi results in danger or harm to the child - that the police should be informed without consulting a rabbi. In the normal case where there is time, however, why should it be necessary to consult a rabbi? Rav Sternbuch commented that where there are serious consequences of making a mistake - it is required that a rabbi be consulted for the sake of objectivity. Even if there is little chance of making a mistake, he said that a rabbi needs to be consulted “so the world should not be hefker (without structure and authority).”
In addition in this area besides the danger of misunderstanding information, there is also the possibility of false accusations. Students who want to settle a score with teachers or divorcing couples whose lawyers advise them to make false accusations to gain custody are a danger which a rabbi can help prevent. In most cases there is no danger to a child by consulting a rav first and if there is concern that there will be then the police should be contacted. It is always best to consult a rabbi who has a lot of experience in these matters and especially once who has close relations with mental health professions and government social agencies and the police. Even after consulting a psychologist or lawyer, a rabbi should still be consulted before going to the police. Not just because of the reasons already discussed, but also as protection against those who mistakenly consider all informing the police as being prohibited. These elements can not only harass those who go to the police but they can cause severe damage to them by their slander and criticism of the entire family.
Rejecting a rabbi’s psak when he says not to go to the police
One frequently encountered problem is when there is clear evidence of child abuse and yet the rabbi consulted says not to go to the police. He might say that the molester promised never to do it again or that the molester’s family or community or yeshiva might suffer significant financial losses or embarrassment. In other words if the rabbi is saying to sacrifice children for the sake of money or embarrassment or the disgrace to the community, it is clear however that this view has no basis in Jewish law. We don’t sacrifice innocent people for the sake of negative consequences to others. Rav Moshe Sternbuch commented that any rav who would say such a thing is not practicing as a rav. A rabbi has an obligation to provide protection to the victim. By definition it seems it is an unjust ruling. Any rabbi who makes such a ruling may be ignorant of either the halacha or he doesn’t understand what the molesting or wife abuse causes. Therefore if there is time - another rabbi should be consulted.
However an alternative reason that a rabbi might say not to report the molester is that he feels he can guarantee protection for children against the molester. For example he might threaten the molester with a severe beating or provides supervision or he claims the molester has repented and won’t abuse again. He might also claim he can provide therapy equal or better to a psychologist. While these seem to be logically equivalent to the police, the likelihood that they will be effective is not very high. Therefore one should find a competent rabbi who agrees that the police should be informed in the case of actual abuse. Rav Sternbuch commented that only a known talmid chachom posek can posken these problems.
This post of Rav Shternbuch shlita's position (notably the first two paragraphs of this post) is precisely what I've been saying all along, and as I especially stressed in my first paragraph of the first comment of your previous post.
ReplyDeleteHuh? This was exactly the text I summarized in our exchange on that earlier post!
ReplyDeleteLook at the second paragraph. Do you see there anything about needing proof? Or does RMS ask us to eliminate misunderstanding and falling for false accusations by speaking to "a rabbi who has a lot of experience in these matters and especially once who has close relations with mental health professions and government social agencies and the police. Even after consulting a psychologist or lawyer, a rabbi should still be consulted before going to the police. Not just because of the reasons already discussed, but also as protection against those who mistakenly consider all informing the police as being prohibited."
Notice that the primary reason here is avoiding a mistake, having communal structure (par 1: "so the world should not be hefker"), quotes RDE's) and protecting the caller from accusations of being a moseir.
IOW, you need to be reasonably assured there is a risk, not certainty that he he violated the law.
Which I don't think will work; I think the rabbi will just be tarred as well. Or they -- like you are doing here -- will spin the rabbi's words to say something he didn't.
-micha
The main point being made is that in normal cases it is required to first ask a shaila whether it is permissible to notify the police authorities, before doing so, as Rav Shternbuch specifically says above.
ReplyDelete"Even if there is little chance of making a mistake, he said that a rabbi needs to be consulted", because Rav Shternbuch is indicating that if the chance of making a mistake is not little, the posek would not allow such reporting.
The primary reason Rav Shternbuch is concerned with, as he specifically states, is false accusations. IOW, we do not take at face value and believe someone's mere accusation, in a he said/she said situation. This is in addition to "the danger of misunderstanding information" that Rav Shternbuch is concerned with.
Read again, Frank. R' Sternbuch says to ask in order to get an objective opinion from a communal leader (we can't have hefkeirus). The words "halakhah" and "pesaq" aren't actually invoked anywhere. Also, there is nothing about a standard of identifying guilt rather than merely ruling out obvious misunderstandings or slander.
ReplyDeleteNeither your opening point that a she'eilah must be asked nor your later claim that we most know for sure the guy is guilty before whistleblowing are in the text.
And your basic stance of correcting someone in R' Moshe Sternbuch's inner circle, who wrote something with RMS looking over his shoulder, as to what RMS actually holds, remains absurd.
-micha
Micha said: "The words "halakhah" and "pesaq" aren't actually invoked anywhere."
ReplyDeletevs.
"Rav Sternbuch commented that only a known talmid chachom posek can posken these problems."
Now what does a "posek" do? And what does "posken" entail if not "halakhah" and "pesaq".
Micha said: Neither your opening point that a she'eilah must be asked nor your later claim that we most know for sure the guy is guilty before whistleblowing are in the text.
vs.
Rav Shternbuch: "the poskim generally state that a rabbi should be consulted first... it is required that a rabbi be consulted for the sake of objectivity. Even if there is little chance of making a mistake, he said that a rabbi needs to be consulted"
Micha said: "And your basic stance of correcting someone in R' Moshe Sternbuch's inner circle, who wrote something with RMS looking over his shoulder, as to what RMS actually holds, remains absurd."
Yet R. Daniel Eidensohn, our host, wrote (in the immediate previous post to this one): "While Rav Sternbuch did not read through the material before it was published... When I asked him to write a teshuva on the material he said simply that I should a write a summary of what we had talked about it and he would review that summary - which he did by carefully reading and annotating and correcting the summary."
Clearly indicating that RMS was not "looking over his shoulder" on what he wrote, other than on "writing a summary of what we had talked about it and he reviewed that summary".
What I am relating is in direct accordance with RMS, even if possibly not in accordance with RDE's views. RDE will be (I believe) the first to admit that his views are not necessarily those of RMS.
Frank, READ man, READ. And realize you're arguing not only against me, but against the man RMS spoke to and who wrote the words in question!
ReplyDeleteHe is describing finding someone too holy to "say that the molester promised never to do it again or that the molester’s family or community or yeshiva might suffer significant financial losses or embarrassment" or "feels he can guarantee protection for children against the molester."
RMS already told you that anyone who would advise someone not to go to the cops for any reason short of finding a problem in the accusation is not a poseiq.
And I noticed you ignore my other problem with what you wrote, this false claim that RMS requires that you establish guilt before reporting someone. The question of whether we as a community even have the tools to do the necessary investigative work is a very strong one.
But this is getting silly -- if you really believed what you wrote, you would be willing to sign your name to it. You asked RMS, so you say? Well, why not give RDE your name, so that our host can ask RMS what it was he told you?
-micha
Micha: I've read it. You clearly don't like what you've read and what Rav Shternbuch says. Your dismissing RMS' points that you don't like or agree with and blatantly reinterpreting it notwithstanding. Don't confuse your own opinion, or even that of RDE's, with RMS'.
ReplyDeleteMicha said: RMS already told you that anyone who would advise someone not to go to the cops for any reason short of finding a problem in the accusation is not a poseiq.
From the book (quoted in the post): Therefore one should find a competent rabbi who agrees that the police should be informed in the case of actual abuse.
So, in fact, the term used is "actual abuse". "Actual abuse" means it is substantiated. RMS expressly and clearly expressed concern with reporting "alleged" abuse, as opposed to "actual" abuse. See the above specific quotes from RMS. And that was only one of the issues, amongst others, RMS expressed why there must be reservations about going to the secular authorities that only a posek can pasken yea or nay.
[Question for RDE: Is everything in your blog post above [and from the quoted pages of your book p. 109-111], expressly agreed to by Rav Shternbuch? It is not clear if that is the case with all of your wording and ideas expressed herein, as the title on this post is called "reviewed & approved by Rav Sternbuch"; is that all the words and ideas expressed on those pages -- or only the points that are expressly preceded with "Rav Sternbuch commented..." are reviewed & approved by RMS? You've previously indicated RMS didn't read your entire work (book) and only read (and annotated) a summary you made for him.]
Micha said: "this false claim that RMS requires that you establish guilt before reporting someone."
Nice try. RMS expresses specific concern that the allegation against the individual may be a framing against the accused using false allegations by those who use a fake child victim to settle a score against someone (the accused) -- ironically as we've just recently, in the past few week, seen in a New York case in the frum community where prosecutors admitted two of the child "victims" were paid to lie against the accused by another "frum" person [and unfortunately for the prosecuted individual it only came to public light shortly after his conviction.]
I'd be more than happy to give RDE my name.
Gut Erev Shabbos Pesach Chol HaMoed