Judge questions whether confession privilege should extend to Jehovah's Witnesses

by GodZoo 12 Replies latest social current

  • OrphanCrow
    Mephis: It shouldn't really impact upon Catholics,...

    This very same topic has been discussed on Catholic forums - whether the Catholic "confidentiality" is affected by what came out after the RC and Applewhite's testimony. It might not, but the Catholic world was speculating about it at that time.

    There's a distinction there I think OC....

    Of course there is a distinction. That is why the WT's claim for confessional privilege should not be treated as the same as the Catholic's privilege and the WT should not be allowed to argue for the same protection under the law. The WT's claim for clergy privilege takes liberty with what that legal protection was originally meant to be - something said between a person and God - with a priest acting as mediator in that exchange - and never repeated outside the privacy of the confessional booth.

    *to add: Is a JW elder even 'allowed' to keep a confession between him and the person confessing? Even by their own manual, the elder is directed to break this confidence, is he not? If someone chose to approach an elder with a 'confession' isn't he directed to report that?

    The notion that the JWs are entitled to "confessional privilege" is a joke.

  • Mephis
    Not sure what point you're trying to make to me OC. But, no, I don't believe Applewhite's testimony was influenced by internet concerns over the Catholic confessional, if that's what you're suggesting.
  • elderINewton

    With a good state lawyer the JW's should easily loose this case.

    1) At baptism they publicly declare all whom are baptized as ordained ministers.

    2) At baptism they offer no written proof that one has been received as an ordained minister. (WT policy in court is that these people are mere parishioners, and has sufficient case law to back that testimony up).

    3) When an elder is appointed they offer the elder no proof other than an elder book that the individual is now legally seen as an ordained minister.

    4) When an elder wishes to marry someone and needs proof that he is a minister for the state/province, etc. That person is to make a written request, and that request doesn't have to be fulfilled.

    5) Ignorance or lack of knowledge that the elder needs such proof is not a defense for the court.

    The WT - has also further shown that in some correspondence that they will/could be personally held accountable. If an individual was provided with such written proof, then they would not have needed such information as the WT would be held accountable first.

    If the WT wins today, I'd say the state was incompetent.

Share this