Ecclesiastical confidentiality

[rongo]

*I am looking for people's opinions and discussion here. I'm also not referencing a specific case or instance, just overall views*

Do you think that confidentiality from church leaders (LDS or not) is a sacred imperative? That is, do you think that a church leader does not have the right under any circumstances to turn someone in if the person him/herself won't?

I understand why confidentiality is important. It gives people confidence that what they share stays between them and the church leader. But what about where public safety or other very serious considerations are involved? And for them to make it clear that they will break confidentiality themselves if the person does not?

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

Interested in your thoughts! 

Edited September 9, 2016 by rongo

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

YES!!!

[rongo]

I do, too, ksfisher. I think there is a broad range of views and feelings on this among members and leaders, though. And, the feelings run high. Those who feel that this is inappropriate and should never happen feel very strongly about it, too.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

*I am looking for people's opinions and discussion here. I'm also not referencing a specific case or instance, just overall views*Do you think that confidentiality from church leaders (LDS or not) is a sacred imperative?

There are some scriptural provisions about this.  From this article by Elder Oaks:

Quote

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.

I think most of the Church's approach to confidentiality is based on modern and long-held "priest-penitent" concepts in common law, and also on common-sense perspectives on human nature.  Repentance is a difficult concept on its own.  Publishing a person's transgression makes it even more so.  Confidentiality, then, operates to encourage confession of transgressions and, hence, repentance.

Quote

That is, do you think that a church leader does not have the right under any circumstances to turn someone in if the person him/herself won't?

I think that Church leaders who receive confessions are acting in an official capacity, not a personal one, so any "rights" which may be in play do not belong to the leader as an individual, and instead only accrue to him in his official capacity.  Therefore, the type and scope and breadth of these rights are defined by A) the Church, and B) secular law pertaining to the confessor's Constitutional right against self-incrimination, the confessor's Free Exercise rights, the LDS Church's Free Exercise rights, and so on.  That second group of things is a biggie, as the judicial system is principally interested in the rights of the confessor, and also in "Free Exercise" rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Quote

I understand why confidentiality is important. It gives people confidence that what they share stays between them and the church leader. But what about where public safety or other very serious considerations are involved? 

These considerations are governed mostly by secular law, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  So when confidentiality can or must be breached varies quite a bit.  The LDS Church teaches that we are obligated to honor and uphold such laws.

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries).  

Quote

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

That is not for the individual leader to decide.  As long as he is acting in his official capacity, he is bound to observe the laws of the land, and also the doctrines and practices and guidelines promulgated by the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

I was told by a LDS social services counselour years ago that our conversations were confidential but if he felt I was a harm to myself or others that he had to let someone know but he told me that at the beginning. He was the only "leader" I guess that has told me that. I have had some confidences shared by former church leaders without my permission

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

*I am looking for people's opinions and discussion here. I'm also not referencing a specific case or instance, just overall views*

Do you think that confidentiality from church leaders (LDS or not) is a sacred imperative? That is, do you think that a church leader does not have the right under any circumstances to turn someone in if the person him/herself won't?

I understand why confidentiality is important. It gives people confidence that what they share stays between them and the church leader. But what about where public safety or other very serious considerations are involved? And for them to make it clear that they will break confidentiality themselves if the person does not?

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

Interested in your thoughts! 

The law does not grant complete confidentiality. At a certain point it becomes one's duty to report.

For example if someone confesses they have killed and are going to kill x person - or want to rape x person, etc.

I agree with that in the church setting of confidentiality.

[bluebell]

If someone is in danger then i don't think the person is entitled to confidentiality.  And i do agree that repentance is not possible if someone refuses to confess to authorities for a serious crime.

[ERMD]

Here's a sticky one--I started working with an individual who had been excommunicated many years before and was still struggling with a severe pornography addiction.  He was wanting to be re-baptized.  After about a year of regular meetings, his wife told me (with him in the room, and with his consent) that she had found child pornography on his computer.  He admitted to it.  A member of the ward and good friend of mine was an FBI agent who worked specifically on cyber porn and child pornography cases.

What would you do?

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that Church leaders who receive confessions are acting in an official capacity, not a personal one, so any "rights" which may be in play do not belong to the leader as an individual, and instead only accrue to him in his official capacity...

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries).  

Thank you for posting this detailed information.  This is a difficult topic, and I am quite impressed with thoroughness of the Church's approach in thinking it through, covering all the bases, and providing a hotline for bishops.  

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

Here's a sticky one--I started working with an individual who had been excommunicated many years before and was still struggling with a severe pornography addiction.  He was wanting to be re-baptized.  After about a year of regular meetings, his wife told me (with him in the room, and with his consent) that she had found child pornography on his computer.  He admitted to it.  A member of the ward and good friend of mine was an FBI agent who worked specifically on cyber porn and child pornography cases.

What would you do?

...you kind of have a moral obligation to finish the story now...

 

...but seriously you have to tell us

Edited September 10, 2016 by SteveO

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

*I am looking for people's opinions and discussion here. I'm also not referencing a specific case or instance, just overall views*

Do you think that confidentiality from church leaders (LDS or not) is a sacred imperative? That is, do you think that a church leader does not have the right under any circumstances to turn someone in if the person him/herself won't?

I understand why confidentiality is important. It gives people confidence that what they share stays between them and the church leader. But what about where public safety or other very serious considerations are involved? And for them to make it clear that they will break confidentiality themselves if the person does not?

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

Interested in your thoughts! 

Call the legal hotline and get their opinion

That was about the only answer I could come up with when I had to face that sort of thing.  As you know, it is not an easy position to be in.   We are not Catholics, thank goodness!

The tough one is- is it EVER ok to NOT counsel a spouse to confess an affair to the other spouse?   If one KNOWs that it will break up the family if the confession happens?   If one spouse has said on numerous occasions "If you EVER cheat on me, I will be SO out of here!"

If the cheater is now very repentant and it has been years since the affair?

That one should be good for a few pages.....

Edited September 10, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

........................................................................  

Quote

Do you think it's appropriate for a church leader to require someone to turn themselves in and cooperate with the authorities in order to repent and attempt restitution?

That is not for the individual leader to decide.  As long as he is acting in his official capacity, he is bound to observe the laws of the land, and also the doctrines and practices and guidelines promulgated by the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

If the penitent is engaged in a continuing criminal activity (serial killer, rapist, etc.), the cleric has an obligation to call the proper authorities and turn him in.  Otherwise, the cleric and his church become legally liable for any subsequent crimes.  Churches, synagogues, and ashrams in the U.S. have been successfully sued by victims for failure to exercise due diligence in such cases, and millions of dollars in damages have been paid out.  This has been particularly damaging for the Roman Catholic Church when keeping things quiet and simply transferring an offending priest to a new location -- where the abuse/rape continued.  One method of due diligence has been to provide tight background checks for any member who will be dealing with children, and to make it obligatory that no male cleric (say scout leader, bishop. stake pres, etc.) be alone with a female or with a child.

There are in fact cases in which LDS bishops have convinced penitents to turn themselves in to the proper authorities, even though a continuing criminal activity was not apparent.  This varies on a case-by-case basis.  One thing is clear, given the rate of recidivism of sex offenders, it is not wise to allow "repentance" and a return to full fellowship to clear someone for future access to children.  Some people must forever be barred from such access.

[rongo]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church maintains a hotline for bishops, which they can call any time they run into questions about confessions.  The hotline is, as I understand it, staffed by attorneys from a law firm retained by the Church, Kirton & McConkie, which monitors and maintains up-to-date information about the various reporting requirements in the U.S. and Canada (I'm not sure how it works in other countries).  

I know the hotline well. The hotline and the counsel received through it has at times been completely unhelpful. It did raise the question in my mind what (if any) the repercussions might be if the attorney on the hotline advised the bishop/stake president not to do anything and the priesthood leader had the person confess to the authorities. 

That is not for the individual leader to decide.  As long as he is acting in his official capacity, he is bound to observe the laws of the land, and also the doctrines and practices and guidelines promulgated by the Church.

This is where it gets sticky, in my experience. This can be one of the hardest parts of serving in church leadership --- where one's conscience, the hotline counsel, and other considerations are conflicting or murky.  

[rongo]

4 hours ago, ERMD said:

Here's a sticky one--I started working with an individual who had been excommunicated many years before and was still struggling with a severe pornography addiction.  He was wanting to be re-baptized.  After about a year of regular meetings, his wife told me (with him in the room, and with his consent) that she had found child pornography on his computer.  He admitted to it.  A member of the ward and good friend of mine was an FBI agent who worked specifically on cyber porn and child pornography cases.

What would you do?

This is the sort of scenario I'm thinking about. If it were me, I would tell the couple (the man, mainly) that in order to begin to repent, he would need to do everything in his power to make things right with the Church, with the law, and with victims. This means confessing of his own accord to the authorities, in my book. If they were reluctant, I would tell them that I would report him, but that it should be him. And how contrite are you if you're seeking to avoid criminal and temporal consequences?

I think too much leeway is given to "getting people the help they need," and not enough to helping them do everything they can to repent and be forgiven. Some things and situations make it likely that people will leave this life without their covenants, and all you can do then is to provide as much restitution and good faith as possible and rely on the atonement for the rest. 

[rpn]

Thirty years ago there was a novel (The Trial?) written about an attorney who was also a bishop who knew about a murder because he was bishop, and other things because of attorney client privilege.   It laid the case and issues out pretty clearly.    Yes, I think that bishops have the obligation to hold everything they are told in confidence, in complete confidence.    But I don't think that requires they hold things in confidence that the victim tells them about a perp, if the victim tells them it is not confidential.   And there are some governments that require disclosure of certain individuals about certain things.   I don't know what the hotline said about protecting priest penitent privelege in those cases. 

In a practical way, I think protecting priest penitent privilege and therapist client privilege is critically important to the societal need to address wicked things.    If a perp cannot get help anywhere without putting himself at risk, then how do perps get help?  Society might want to string them up by their toes for what they have done.   I would settle for assuring they never do it again if I can get that through repentance and/or counseling.     Often perps have multiple, even hundreds of victims before they are criminally charged.   What if they could have confessed and gotten the help they needed after the first time or even the tenth?   Our current way of thinking about these cases defeats the very societal protection that we presumably have all those outraged feelings about.

Edited September 10, 2016 by rpn

[notHagoth7]

40 minutes ago, rpn said:

...Society might want to string them up by their toes for what they have done.   I would settle for assuring they never do it again...

To any reader, I recommend the section of Joseph's 1844 platform that discussed his proposals for reform of the nation's approach to justice....a general shift from condemnation/punishment to rehabilitation.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 0:16 AM, rongo said:

I know the hotline well. The hotline and the counsel received through it has at times been completely unhelpful. It did raise the question in my mind what (if any) the repercussions might be if the attorney on the hotline advised the bishop/stake president not to do anything and the priesthood leader had the person confess to the authorities. 

 

 

This is where it gets sticky, in my experience. This can be one of the hardest parts of serving in church leadership --- where one's conscience, the hotline counsel, and other considerations are conflicting or murky.  

You're asking good, tough questions Rongo.

I agree completely. IMO the hotline is primarily intended to protect the church from legal action but provides very little guidance (it any) about ethical issues. The hotline doesn't counsel on what is best for the individual nor is it even designed to protect the ecclesiastical leader who is calling. (I have a couple of specific experiences working with the hotline that leads me to these conclusions though I'm sure my experiences aren't universal for all leaders who have called)

The bigger confidentiality problem is lack of confidentiality among leaders on relatively minor issues. I think there is a moral imperative to do the right thing. Setting appropriate expectations for limits to confidentiality is important but I think it is extremely rare that confidentiality should be broken.

[Jeanne]

On 9/9/2016 at 6:19 PM, bluebell said:

If someone is in danger then i don't think the person is entitled to confidentiality.  And i do agree that repentance is not possible if someone refuses to confess to authorities for a serious crime.

I agree.  In my own thinking..if one goes to the bishop on any criminal activity..a part of him/her wants the bishop to take some action.  An underlying reason besides repentance is put in play. 

[Jacobdkeller]

Catholic priests cannot divulge a confession. They will say a person will not be forgiven by God until they comply with all worldly laws, but if the person refuses to turn themselves in, the priest cannot turn the person in. 

Also a manslaughter conviction was overturned in new York because he was convicted by testimony from other members of his AA group. The court ruled that confessions made in AA were religious in nature and could not be used in court.

So it seems that almost all of you agree that the LDS church has none of the confidentiality afforded by the Catholic Church or AA?

[Jacobdkeller]

3 minutes ago, Jacobdkeller said:

Catholic priests cannot divulge a confession. They will say a person will not be forgiven by God until they comply with all worldly laws, but if the person refuses to turn themselves in, the priest cannot turn the person in. 

Also a manslaughter conviction was overturned in new York because he was convicted by testimony from other members of his AA group. The court ruled that confessions made in AA were religious in nature and could not be used in court.

So it seems that almost all of you agree that the LDS church has none of the confidentiality afforded by the Catholic Church or AA?

 

[Storm Rider]

On 9/10/2016 at 1:21 AM, rongo said:

This is the sort of scenario I'm thinking about. If it were me, I would tell the couple (the man, mainly) that in order to begin to repent, he would need to do everything in his power to make things right with the Church, with the law, and with victims. This means confessing of his own accord to the authorities, in my book. If they were reluctant, I would tell them that I would report him, but that it should be him. And how contrite are you if you're seeking to avoid criminal and temporal consequences?

I think too much leeway is given to "getting people the help they need," and not enough to helping them do everything they can to repent and be forgiven. Some things and situations make it likely that people will leave this life without their covenants, and all you can do then is to provide as much restitution and good faith as possible and rely on the atonement for the rest. 

So, instead of repentance being a voluntary action you think it best to force him to bear the legal consequences of this actions rather than to actually repent?  I don't agree and such actions undermine the office of the bishop.  Any member who suffers from guilt and seeks repentance will certainly not go through a bishop's office for fear of being forced to do things prior to being ready.  It is completely within a bishop's purview to indicate that to be forgiven an individual must make restitution, but the restitution is theirs to make and not someone else's.  

I have never understood the gospel to be about force in any situation.  

[Calm]

Look at the date...just in case there isn't a desire to reopen conversation...

Edited May 12, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Dang!  

I thought Jeanne was back!

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So, instead of repentance being a voluntary action you think it best to force him to bear the legal consequences of this actions rather than to actually repent?  I don't agree and such actions undermine the office of the bishop.  Any member who suffers from guilt and seeks repentance will certainly not go through a bishop's office for fear of being forced to do things prior to being ready.  It is completely within a bishop's purview to indicate that to be forgiven an individual must make restitution, but the restitution is theirs to make and not someone else's.  

I have never understood the gospel to be about force in any situation.  

When it has to do with public/congregation safety, and likelihood of recurrence/recidivism, I think that's different than when we let people work through their issues on their own timetable. And still, if a person is really repentant --- has a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and wants to make amends and set things right --- then they should be willing to shoulder whatever criminal and legal consequences accrue from their sins. Shouldn't they?

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

When it has to do with public/congregation safety, and likelihood of recurrence/recidivism, I think that's different than when we let people work through their issues on their own timetable. And still, if a person is really repentant --- has a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and wants to make amends and set things right --- then they should be willing to shoulder whatever criminal and legal consequences accrue from their sins. Shouldn't they?

Rongo, I completely agree should a bishop direct a penitent to report their crimes to legal authorities if they are seeking full repentance.  To me that sounds like restitution for one's sins.  This is distinctly different from a member confessing to sins and the bishop directing them to report their crimes and if they don't the bishop threatens to report them.  That action violates the entire value of confession to a priesthood authority; it destroys the sanctity of confession to one's bishop.  As a member and my bishop did that I would question exactly what value this bishop places on any confidences we might share.  I would certainly have lost trust in him.  

I am limiting my comments strictly to the context of confession.  I am not talking about a member that is a sexual predator and moves into the ward.  If they are actively acting out then I see no problem with a bishop that warns his flock.  I would also wonder why that individual was not going through an excommunication process.  The process of excommunication is the only way I see where a bishop can "force" a member into the repentance process.  

When someone is already in the repentance process the confidence of confession I feel is sacred and should not be violated.  I recall the parable of the master leaving the 99 in order to save the one.  What is the value of that single individual's soul?  We should never sell it cheaply.