Fisherman, at what point in time, during the JW judical process, would you consider it to be a "confessional"? What aspects (material facts) of that process would you call a "confessional"?
The minor boy and his mother approached the elders, not to "confess the boy's sins" but to reveal a crime that had been committed against the boy. That part of the process is obviously NOT a confession. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Priests/ministers/clergy are not given "confessional privilege" for information given to them outside of that confessional setting. Likewise, the JW elders cannot ask for "confessional privlege" on information gained outside of confession - when a child reports a crime, it cannot be termed a "confessional setting". In fact, many of the allegations that the elders "investigate" do not end in a confession by the accused at all. There is no way that a JC can be called "confessional".
In fact, it is the exact opposite of a confessional. In a confessional, it is the penitent (the accused in the case of the JWs) who comes willingly to the priest/clergy/minister for absolution. They don't come for confession because someone else accused them of something. Not at all.
If the WT has 'enjoyed' confessional privilege to this point, it is simply because they have got away with it, not because it was right.
