[Red Jones]

so it's your job now to pass judgement on a church's minister and say whether he did the right thing or not and then to further punish the church by taking money from them. Perhaps the minister felt it was his duty to tell the husband, perhaps the obligations that the minsiter feels are none of your business, nor of the judge that took the money from these people.

[Protagoras]

so it's your job now to pass judgement on a church's minister and say whether he did the right thing or not and then to further punish the church by taking money from them. Perhaps the minister felt it was his duty to tell the husband, perhaps the obligations that the minsiter feels are none of your business, nor of the judge that took the money from these people.

It is not my job, and I would not even think to make a judgement based on the scanty facts you provided about the case. It's clear that you however,do think it's your job, and you have decided based on the same lack of information that it is ok for a cleryman to violate the confidentiality of a person who seeks his spiritual guidance.

I don't know if that is how this occurred and I stated that in my post. If it did however, then I'm confident that he acted against his own church's policy and certainly against every known precedent on the confidentiality that is assumed and rightfully expected in such cases. He could be defrocked in many denominations. The money that the judge found in compensation was from the church, not the people who belonged. They have no ownership of those funds after they give them away. The church certainly would be liable for damages if one of it's employees committed malpractice while performing duties related to his job.

I know none of this will change your mind, but Oh well.