I think they're between a rock and a hard place. I've read a little about this case and it seems that one CA circuit court ruled that there is no clergy confidentially in JC cases since the results are not kept confidential and are reported to Bethel if DF'ing punishment is meted out. I also thought that the CA Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the lower courts decision, in effect, affirming it. I guess they're pushing this most recent case in a different CA circuit hoping for a different result. My guess is that the other circuit will look at the first circuit's ruling and the Supreme Courts refusal to hear the appeal and rule the same way.
If that happens, the WTS will need to make 1 of 2 choices.
1)Recognize that JCs are discoverable and mandate that any elder with knowledge of child abuse MUST report (and not from a pay phone, but a real report). That way, at least they will only have to deal with their previous liability and any elder that doesn't comply will be on their own. Of course, they will have many old cases that will need to be settled which will likely amplify their seemingly current cashflow problem (assuming it exists but since they refuse to report publicly on their financials here in the US, who knows).
2) Drop the whole JC structure and basically refuse to disfellowship anyone. They can still take confession, but it would be to one designated elder who could offer "forgiveness" and maybe hand out punishment in terms of "restrictions". Anyone given restrictions would then be clued in that something has happened and they should limit their association with that person. Of course, that would be very similar to the Catholic set-up which the WTS has derided for years as being unscriptural.
My guess is that there is no way they would ever drop disfellowshipping because if they did, they would lose way too many people. They need that threat of cutting a person off from their social circle to be able to keep control. Its really the only stick they have. Also, they risk losing hard core believers who will point to the disfellowshipping process as proof of the "true" religion.
So, they're really left with #1. But, I think that's going to cost them quite a bundle in the short term because in my opinion, #1 would be an admission that their current policy is deficient and would be used to increase litigation short term. But, of course, #1 should have been the policy the whole time because protecting children from predators should have been a top priority. Its obviously not a priority at all.
To answer the initial question, yes, court rulings against the WTS are the ONLY thing that will cause any positive change.
