When you are talking about something as difficult to prove as a fondling, without any witnesses, isn't it proper to screen, and try to determine what actually happened, before you become a part of something that can ruin someone's life? You surely cannot fault a Church for wanting to be persuaded before it jumps on a destructive bandwagon. And again, a fondling is a far cry from a penetration, for which there would be evidence.
But my point is not the difficulty for the Courts or Church to determine what actually happened in one of these cases. My point is that you cannot blame the Church for proceeding with great caution.
William Flax
In the jw's eyes, it amounts the same thing UNLESS you've got those two witnesses. It's a catch-22: I agree, you can't just believe every time someone cries wolf--there have to be some standards of evidence. But you can't go to the other extreme, as they are, and silence anyone who ever "cries wolf"--sometimes they're not faking. Get it?
To the credit of the catholic church, at least they don't take out severe reprisals on members who make criticisms of the church or its policies, or who come forward with complaints of abuse. And they are trying to make changes in their policy to correct and prevent patterns of abuse. I don't see anything constructive being done by the jw's. It took enormous public pressure to get the Catholic church to change--not likely to happen with the jw's. So the pedophiles get another walk...