Originally posted by DeepThought
So there are situations where an Elder can hear of some serious offence which is treated in confidence unless the "Law" requires that it is reported. When you say the "Law" I'm working under the assumption that you mean the relevant nation state's laws rather than JW internal rules. You seem to be saying that if a member of the JW's confesses to an Eld ...[text shortened]... e. You answered this point quite well.
I'm not desperately interested in your feud with FMF.
Ok I will make it clear. In the case of Jehovahs witnesses ALL confessions are treated as confidential except where the Law of the land demands mandatory reporting for certain offences. In such an instance if a penitent confesses a serious crime the Elders in adherence to the law of the land are duty bound to report it. Where this is not the case they instruct those involved to go to the relevant authorities. In other words mandatory reporting supersedes penitent privilege.
Actually Jehovahs witnesses do investigate all serious matters because if a serious sin has been committed then the elders are duty bound to tackle it. But you rather astutely highlight the practicalities for they are not trained in law enforcement nor as professional counsellors and can only act within their respective realm of jurisdiction, that being the congregation.
I am not so much interested in these things but in the breakdown of rational thought when anything like these matters are raised. Let me give you an example. There was a case in which a plaintiff was awarded substantial damages against the brothers who were held to have been negligent. After reading the considerable weight of court testimony for both plaintiff and defendants I disagreed with the judgement. I told the forum why. Let me tell you what happened.
Robbie: its unprecedented that a minister of religion is held accountable for penitent privilege when there is no mandatory statute.
Dullards: You are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse.
Robbie: err no I am only saying that its unprecedented
Robbie: The plaintiffs testimony contradicts that of her natural parents.
Dullards: You are undermining and victimising the victim.
Robbie: err no I am only stating that the testimony is contradictory.
Robbie: after having read the testimony I disagree with the courts findings.
Dullards: You are an apologist for the cover up of child abuse.
Robbie: err no its an informed decision based on having read the court transcripts.
and what have we? a complete meltdown. Think a kind of Chernobyl of the mind with all kinds of poisonous fallout. Its really mental darkness, a kind of alienation from reality, distorted because of a judgemental, finger pointing, one dimensional approach to life resulting in a complete breakdown of rational thought.