Ecclesiastical confidentiality

[MiserereNobis]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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 how it often works in Catholic confession.  By canon law, a priest cannot divulge anything said in the confessional or he incurs automatic excommunication.  The priests I have talked to about this say that they try to get the person to turn him or herself in but they cannot withhold absolution on the condition that the penitent breaks the confessional seal.  The seal is inviolate in Catholicism.

While this doesn't sit well with our modern sensibilities (all the what-if scenarios you can come up with) the Catholic Church holds that God's law is always higher than man's law.  It also shows the never-ending mercy of God.  Absolute forgiveness is always possible because of the truly infinite atonement of Christ.  For me, the confessional seal is a beautiful sacramental and canonical manifestation of the heart of Christianity.

"Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? She said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."

The law said the woman was to be put to death.  Christ asserted God's higher law of forgiveness and did not require her to submit to the punishment of the law.

Let me reiterate, though, that I believe that people who have committed crimes, especially serious ones, should turn themselves as part of penance.  The priest can (and should) counsel this, but he cannot require it.

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is how it often works in Catholic confession.  By canon law, a priest cannot divulge anything said in the confessional or he incurs automatic excommunication.  The priests I have talked to about this say that they try to get the person to turn him or herself in but they cannot withhold absolution on the condition that the penitent breaks the confessional seal.  The seal is inviolate in Catholicism.

While this doesn't sit well with our modern sensibilities (all the what-if scenarios you can come up with) the Catholic Church holds that God's law is always higher than man's law.  It also shows the never-ending mercy of God.  Absolute forgiveness is always possible because of the truly infinite atonement of Christ.  For me, the confessional seal is a beautiful sacramental and canonical manifestation of the heart of Christianity.

"Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? She said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."

The law said the woman was to be put to death.  Christ asserted God's higher law of forgiveness and did not require her to submit to the punishment of the law.

Let me reiterate, though, that I believe that people who have committed crimes, especially serious ones, should turn themselves as part of penance.  The priest can (and should) counsel this, but he cannot require it.

Yeah, Mormons don't operate under a similar canon law model. My reason for posting was to solicit opinions on how binding the confidentiality imperative is within Mormonism. Some bishops think that it is a sacred covenant that cannot be violated. Others feel that it would depend. A bishop and I had discussed (and disagreed) on this when there was an issue (victims were in my ward, perp was in his). Salt Lake's guidance was simply "you have no legal obligation to report anything; we advise you not to report anything," repeated ad nauseum like a recording. I have asked in the past about a moral obligation, whereupon "no legal obligation" is repeated. 

Many years ago, the wife and daughter of Fulton Brock (the county commissioner for Maricopa County) sexually abused a teenage boy for years. At a meeting with the Brocks and the boy's parents, the stake president asked her point blank about the allegations, and she categorically denied them. Later, she confessed to her bishop, but nothing happened until the boy and his parents came forward with evidence. This caused a huge black eye in the public about why the Mormon leaders "had done nothing" (they were excommunicated, but had not encouraged or initiated turning themselves in). If that happened to me, I would push the phone over to her and tell her that she needed to turn herself in. If she didn't or wouldn't, then I would, but it really should be her and not me.

I know that there are strong feelings on both sides of this for many LDS. One thing that I think is not considered or under-considered by not aggressively insisting on making things right with victims, families, and the law is: the sinner's repentance and the welfare of his soul. We are not helping him do everything he can to fully repent if we don't firmly teach this, and we allow him to continue his life without doing everything he can to make amends. I don't think this helps him, although it does serve a legal strategy of self-protection. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

A question I have had is what (if anything) would happen to a bishop who had been advised by the attorneys at the hotline to remain silent and not do anything, but reported something to the authorities, anyway. Would he be released and/or disciplined?

I don't think so, but I've wondered, and I don't think anyone with authority to answer would give an answer.  

[Gray]

On 9/9/2016 at 5:18 PM, 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! 

I think confidentially should be maintained except in cases where abuse (physical, sexual) is made known. Then it should always be reported to the authorities. 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think confidentially should be maintained except in cases where abuse (physical, sexual) is made known. Then it should always be reported to the authorities. 

I agree, and this is what I have been saying. 

It's interesting to me that there are people who strongly feel that even in these cases, priesthood leaders are confidentiality-bound to say nothing. Not judging; I acknowledge their strong feelings. 

I also recognize that Catholic confessions as viewed through the lens of canon law is another thing entirely. 

I wonder if a bishop or SP would be released or disciplined for not maintaining confidentiality (turning someone in, not having "loose lips" about things) against the counsel of the hotline? I don't think so, but I'm curious what (if anything) would happen.

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree, and this is what I have been saying. 

It's interesting to me that there are people who strongly feel that even in these cases, priesthood leaders are confidentiality-bound to say nothing. Not judging; I acknowledge their strong feelings. 

I also recognize that Catholic confessions as viewed through the lens of canon law is another thing entirely. 

I wonder if a bishop or SP would be released or disciplined for not maintaining confidentiality (turning someone in, not having "loose lips" about things) against the counsel of the hotline? I don't think so, but I'm curious what (if anything) would happen.

Yes, it makes good sense to me. 

My guess is that a bishop who turned in an abuser against council from the hotline wouldn't face serious consequences (how bad would that look?), but that's just my guess. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

In fact should something like this happen there is a legal hot line to call so that the bishop can receive professional counseling from Salt Lake City.

I would not want to be a bishop who opted NOT to call legal or do what he wanted to do on his own.  The liability he would be exposing himself to would be horrendous. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is how it often works in Catholic confession.  By canon law, a priest cannot divulge anything said in the confessional or he incurs automatic excommunication.  The priests I have talked to about this say that they try to get the person to turn him or herself in but they cannot withhold absolution on the condition that the penitent breaks the confessional seal.  The seal is inviolate in Catholicism.

While this doesn't sit well with our modern sensibilities (all the what-if scenarios you can come up with) the Catholic Church holds that God's law is always higher than man's law.  It also shows the never-ending mercy of God.  Absolute forgiveness is always possible because of the truly infinite atonement of Christ.  For me, the confessional seal is a beautiful sacramental and canonical manifestation of the heart of Christianity.

"Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? She said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."

The law said the woman was to be put to death.  Christ asserted God's higher law of forgiveness and did not require her to submit to the punishment of the law.

Let me reiterate, though, that I believe that people who have committed crimes, especially serious ones, should turn themselves as part of penance.  The priest can (and should) counsel this, but he cannot require it.

As an "employee" or agent of the church, in Catholicism the church becomes liable for such actions as we have seen.  In Mormonism, should the bishop fail to heed legal instructions, all bets are off.   I am not an attorney though and could be wrong about that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Yeah, Mormons don't operate under a similar canon law model. My reason for posting was to solicit opinions on how binding the confidentiality imperative is within Mormonism. Some bishops think that it is a sacred covenant that cannot be violated. Others feel that it would depend. A bishop and I had discussed (and disagreed) on this when there was an issue (victims were in my ward, perp was in his). Salt Lake's guidance was simply "you have no legal obligation to report anything; we advise you not to report anything," repeated ad nauseum like a recording. I have asked in the past about a moral obligation, whereupon "no legal obligation" is repeated. 

Many years ago, the wife and daughter of Fulton Brock (the county commissioner for Maricopa County) sexually abused a teenage boy for years. At a meeting with the Brocks and the boy's parents, the stake president asked her point blank about the allegations, and she categorically denied them. Later, she confessed to her bishop, but nothing happened until the boy and his parents came forward with evidence. This caused a huge black eye in the public about why the Mormon leaders "had done nothing" (they were excommunicated, but had not encouraged or initiated turning themselves in). If that happened to me, I would push the phone over to her and tell her that she needed to turn herself in. If she didn't or wouldn't, then I would, but it really should be her and not me.

I know that there are strong feelings on both sides of this for many LDS. One thing that I think is not considered or under-considered by not aggressively insisting on making things right with victims, families, and the law is: the sinner's repentance and the welfare of his soul. We are not helping him do everything he can to fully repent if we don't firmly teach this, and we allow him to continue his life without doing everything he can to make amends. I don't think this helps him, although it does serve a legal strategy of self-protection. 

HMMMM- if I got this right it sounds like the bishop was counseled NOT to report it, and yet got community flak from not reporting it?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

A question I have had is what (if anything) would happen to a bishop who had been advised by the attorneys at the hotline to remain silent and not do anything, but reported something to the authorities, anyway. Would he be released and/or disciplined?

I don't think so, but I've wondered, and I don't think anyone with authority to answer would give an answer.  

Yeah same here.

My advice would be to stick with the hot line.

Edited May 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

HMMMM- if I got this right it sounds like the bishop was counseled NOT to report it, and yet got community flak from not reporting it?

Yes (in the very public Brock case). I don't fault the stake president, because Susan Brock denied everything face-to-face with him (and the boy's parents), so what did he "know?" It was hearsay, they said, she said.

But the bishop knew everything from Susan Brock, and didn't do anything. I'm sure (based on my experiences with the hotline) that he was told not to do anything, but that doesn't make it right. 

Ideally, the penitent does the right thing himself/herself. Where they don't want to is where I would let them know that I would. Church discipline is intended to 1) bring the sinner to true repentance, 2) protect the innocent, and 3) protect the Church's reputation. All three of these are also in play with someone who confesses sexual abuse but doesn't want to go to the authorities.

[Calm]

"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."

And the value of the victims or potential victims?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think confidentially should be maintained except in cases where abuse (physical, sexual) is made known. Then it should always be reported to the authorities. 

Lives can be destroyed with actions outside of abuse.

My parents' bishop was aware that a member of our ward had significantly defrauded others in the past.  He said nothing as my parents made arrangements to turn their home over to this family and moving into an apartment on the property (an altered old garage big enough to become a single room cottage).  The family had been former members of the ward and claimed they wanted to move back in, but there was no decent, affordable housing available (the area had recently increased in significant value, so it was believable for even a well off family).

The parents of the family proceeded to destroy the extensive hard work my father had done on home improvementsand furthermore badmouthed my parents to the ward so that any complaints they might make (they didn't) would be dismissed as shifting the blame.  The kids were good kids, but were forbidden to have anything to do with my parents once they moved in (prior to that time they made a big deal of my parents, letting the kids treat them like grandparents, the kids were at least neglected and probably physically abused from what we heard later from an older, estranged adult child).  It was a hellish time for my parents that could have been completely avoided by a few words from our bishop.  My parents were faithful, active members of that ward for decades.

Thankfully my dad was at least cautious enough to prepare for all eventualities and when the family ended up once again failing to live up to their end of the contact, his employer covered the loss to the original value of the property.  From what I heard the family moved into another ward when they were evicted by his employer and proceeded to do the same thing.  I don't know if this time members were warned as my parents took advantage of my grandparents' need and moved them to Utah into assisted living and took over my other grandmother's home she was about to lose due to her own financial problems because she had tried to help a family member out who could not repay her due to one disaster after another one.

If my dad hadn't been cautious and had simply relied on trust, they would have lost at least half of their wealth, which would have made it necessary for Dad to go back to work after retiring and made it very difficult for them to care for the grandparents.

I do not know how destructive the couple's crimes were to those they had defrauded before my parents or after.  All this could have been prevented if there was sharing of information, even if just public information until there was ongoing public restitution of criminal or civil unethical behaviour instead of the assumption that just because a person says they have repented, the benefit of the doubt should be given.

I don't believe that gossip or announcements from the pulpit should be made, but for sins that impact others in significant ways, some form of cautious notification of ward members should be made so they can protect themselves and their families.  We create an extended family with our community ties, it also creates a sense of trust and love of others.  I think we need to take that into account when dealing with confession, we need to protect all the family, not just the confessing sinner.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lives can be destroyed with actions outside of abuse.

My parents' bishop was aware that a member of our ward had significantly defrauded others in the past.  He said nothing as my parents made arrangements to turn their home over to this family and moving into an apartment on the property (an altered old garage big enough to become a single room cottage).  The family had been former members of the ward and claimed they wanted to move back in, but there was no decent, affordable housing available (the area had recently increased in significant value, so it was believable for even a well off family).

The parents of the family proceeded to destroy the extensive hard work my father had done on home improvementsand furthermore badmouthed my parents to the ward so that any complaints they might make (they didn't) would be dismissed as shifting the blame.  The kids were good kids, but were forbidden to have anything to do with my parents once they moved in (prior to that time they made a big deal of my parents, letting the kids treat them like grandparents, the kids were at least neglected and probably physically abused from what we heard later from an older, estranged adult child).  It was a hellish time for my parents that could have been completely avoided by a few words from our bishop.  My parents were faithful, active members of that ward for decades.

Thankfully my dad was at least cautious enough to prepare for all eventualities and when the family ended up once again failing to live up to their end of the contact, his employer covered the loss to the original value of the property.  From what I heard the family moved into another ward when they were evicted by his employer and proceeded to do the same thing.  I don't know if this time members were warned as my parents took advantage of my grandparents' need and moved them to Utah into assisted living and took over my other grandmother's home she was about to lose due to her own financial problems because she had tried to help a family member out who could not repay her due to one disaster after another one.

If my dad hadn't been cautious and had simply relied on trust, they would have lost at least half of their wealth, which would have made it necessary for Dad to go back to work after retiring and made it very difficult for them to care for the grandparents.

I do not know how destructive the couple's crimes were to those they had defrauded before my parents or after.  All this could have been prevented if there was sharing of information, even if just public information until there was ongoing public restitution of criminal or civil immoral behaviour instead of the assumption that just because a person says they have repented, the benefit of the doubt should be given.

I don't believe that gossip or announcements from the pulpit should be made, but for sins that impact others in significant ways, some form of cautious notification of ward members should be made so they can protect themselves and their families.  We create an extended family with our community ties, it also creates a sense of trust and love of others.  I think we need to take that into account when dealing with confession, we need to protect all the family, not just the confessing sinner.

These are great points. If victimization is happening, authorities need to be notified. 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

"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."

And the value of the victims or potential victims?

Not only that (the value of past and future victims), but we're not really valuing their soul when we don't insist on them following the full repentance process. Not really. We're helping shield them from the temporal consequences of their sins/crimes.

Lost in the talk about "getting them the help that they need" (counseling is meant) is the fact that restitution and protecting others is part of "the help that they need." I remember when we had the issue with the victims in my ward, my YW president said, "My brother got 'the help that he needed' in prison. And that's where he's going to get the help that he really needs." Her brother had gone to prison for child molesting, and while she loves him, she recognizes that prison was something that he needed to do.  

[Calm]

It is a fine line in pigeon holing a past sinner, making it more difficult for them to change because of the expectations of others (people will be less likely to hire someone who has embezzled, for example, even if it has been years) and protecting victims and potential victims.

I would hate to be in the position of making that call.  Otoh, knowing of harm that has occurred because of the sense of trust of others in our community, I believe we need to find a way to be open, but uncondemning of others.

And I agree that restitution is essential to repentance and for victims, sincere admission of guilt on the part of the offender goes a long way towards healing.  In cases where others unaware of the situation might even place blame on the victim, lack of public admission can be destructive.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

"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."

And the value of the victims or potential victims?

Calm, what is the value of the 99 that the God Shepherd left behind?  I believe that Jesus continues to love the 99, but he is in search of the lost lamb.  You are conflating them in order to make an either/or proposition.  I don't think that Jesus does not and I don't think a bishop should.

Let's play with this a bit:  Woman goes to bishop and confesses that she has committed adultery.  In her explanation the bishop learns she sought out the relationship.  She feels guilty and wants to repent, but shirks at what will be required.  The bishop is concerned for this flock because this woman admitted to pursuing a relationship with another man.  He calls a meeting for all adults the next Sunday after church and let's them know that this sister is a sexual predator and the men and women need to be wary of her actions. 

Do you think the ward is benefited by such a warning?  What would be the impact on the woman's husband, children, and extended family?  At what point does anyone draw a line?  Well, I am going to report on this person, but not that person; or this sin, but not that sin?

What I have done is put myself in the shoes of the confessor.  How would I want my confession treated?  What is the impact if the bishop violates the sanctity of the confession and talks?  How does it impact other people who want to repent?  The only path I see is for the bishop to strictly honor the confidence of the person. 

[Calm]

See my above posts.

"You are conflating them in order to make an either/or proposition."

No, I am not though it appears you might be.

 There can occur foreseeable harm when behaviour has been a pattern and there has not been any inclination towards restitution or acceptance of responsibility for the harm done; also there are ways of counseling others to protect themselves besides a public shaming.

I am not suggesting a one size fits all approach, but a case by case one with heavy guidelines provided so it is less dependent of having leaders who are comfortable or experienced with dealing with implications of past and future victims.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

Calm, what is the value of the 99 that the God Shepherd left behind?  I believe that Jesus continues to love the 99, but he is in search of the lost lamb.  You are conflating them in order to make an either/or proposition.  I don't think that Jesus does not and I don't think a bishop should.

Let's play with this a bit:  Woman goes to bishop and confesses that she has committed adultery.  In her explanation the bishop learns she sought out the relationship.  She feels guilty and wants to repent, but shirks at what will be required.  The bishop is concerned for this flock because this woman admitted to pursuing a relationship with another man.  He calls a meeting for all adults the next Sunday after church and let's them know that this sister is a sexual predator and the men and women need to be wary of her actions. 

Do you think the ward is benefited by such a warning?  What would be the impact on the woman's husband, children, and extended family?  At what point does anyone draw a line?  Well, I am going to report on this person, but not that person; or this sin, but not that sin?

What I have done is put myself in the shoes of the confessor.  How would I want my confession treated?  What is the impact if the bishop violates the sanctity of the confession and talks?  How does it impact other people who want to repent?  The only path I see is for the bishop to strictly honor the confidence of the person. 

Apples and oranges. I think we all agree that a sort-of-repentant, but not willing to fully repent adulterer shouldn't be "outed" by a bishop. We're talking about crimes, abuse, etc.

Different scenario: A young man confesses to his bishop that he molested girls from five households over the course of years. He thinks that confessing to the bishop, and maybe having some membership consequences will clear the decks, and he'll be good to go. He balks at informing the victim families, or the police. Given that he had molested multiple children over years, this  is not likely to simply "go away," and he is at a high risk of recidivism. 

Should the bishop and stake president just handle this "in house?" Or, should they insist that repenting include facing up to what he did, and doing what can be done to rectify things? 

If they insist on facing the consequences as part of repentance, how is that not loving the one (the individual)? I would argue that they love him more than those who would seek to help him hide it and avoid the consequences.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Apples and oranges. I think we all agree that a sort-of-repentant, but not willing to fully repent adulterer shouldn't be "outed" by a bishop. We're talking about crimes, abuse, etc.

Different scenario: A young man confesses to his bishop that he molested girls from five households over the course of years. He thinks that confessing to the bishop, and maybe having some membership consequences will clear the decks, and he'll be good to go. He balks at informing the victim families, or the police. Given that he had molested multiple children over years, this  is not likely to simply "go away," and he is at a high risk of recidivism. 

Should the bishop and stake president just handle this "in house?" Or, should they insist that repenting include facing up to what he did, and doing what can be done to rectify things? 

If they insist on facing the consequences as part of repentance, how is that not loving the one (the individual)? I would argue that they love him more than those who would seek to help him hide it and avoid the consequences.

I thought we already talked about this - I see no problem with a priesthood leader requiring an individual to turn themselves in to the legal authorities as a step in restitution for the sins committed.  There has been no disagreement in this step.

Our disagreement, if there is one, is that you have thought it acceptable that if the member says, "no" or "not yet", that you would force him to go by outing the individual.  I still hold that to be a violation of the confidence of confession.  A priesthood leader is a judge in Israel, he is not a civil enforcer.  This individual is the lost sheep, imo, and they have taken the first step in the process that remains unfinished, but they are mid-stride.

[halconero]

On 2016-09-09 at 4:22 PM, ksfisher said:

YES!!!

Ditto. Christ says that if we have any issue with our neighbour, even if it's just a seneine, to go and resolve it before coming to him (Nephite Sermon at the Temple).

Resolving an issue of the law would fall under that, as it specifically addresses even the issue of imprisonment by the state.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 8:41 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Sorry to quote myself  but I think part of the problem is that there really aren't clear rules like there are in the catholic church regarding confession. That means confidentiality is left to a bishop's discretion. That's kind of scary. I largely agree with StormRider in the need to keep the sanctity of the confession, otherwise there won't be enough trust for people to confess and engage in the repentance process.  

I'll share just one account I'm very close to and familiar with- Bishop has been working with a man who has molested his young stepdaughters. He encourages the man to confess to authorities but the man chooses not to. The bishop is not a mandatory reporter in this case. The bishop is released and attempts to update the incoming bishop on issues that aren't being dealt with, including this molester. The new bishop says that he doesn't want to hear about confidential confessions so refuses to hear about this molester from the old bishop. So new bishop is willfully 100% clueless about the activity. Two weeks later this abuser is called to serve in the nursery.

As a parent who had a child in nursery at the time, I was livid when I learned about this. The old bishop thought he should break confidentiality to protect the ward by simply telling the new bishop who refused to listen about past confessions the old bishop had received. This may seem strange to some because it's one bishop to another, but it was still a confidential confession. A bishop doesn't even have the right to share with the SP without the confessor's approval. If the confessor wants to fully repent they will likely allow it but if they were caught and are simply going through the motions, they likely won't give approval and thus leave people at risk.

This is a very complicated situation but in this case it is unacceptable to put children at risk. But that is a very unusual situation. I see it much more often that confessions are shared with SP, quorum leaders or even Ward Council when it shouldn't be. I don't trust that leaders will keep appropriately confidential information confidential and I also don't trust that they use good judgment in breaking that confidence if/when there is serious risk to others.

This all comes back to the need for clear expectations about confidentiality. The church really needs to spell this out and enforce some kind of a policy. Otherwise leadership roulette is in full swing and can screw up massively in either direction and in ways that hurt people.

 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry to quote myself  but I think part of the problem is that there really aren't clear rules like there are in the catholic church regarding confession. That means confidentiality is left to a bishop's discretion. That's kind of scary. I largely agree with StormRider in the need to keep the sanctity of the confession, otherwise there won't be enough trust for people to confess and engage in the repentance process.  

I'll share just one account I'm very close to and familiar with- Bishop has been working with a man who has molested his young stepdaughters. He encourages the man to confess to authorities but the man chooses not to. The bishop is not a mandatory reporter in this case. The bishop is released and attempts to update the incoming bishop on issues that aren't being dealt with, including this molester. The new bishop says that he doesn't want to hear about confidential confessions so refuses to hear about this molester from the old bishop. So new bishop is willfully 100% clueless about the activity. Two weeks later this abuser is called to serve in the nursery.

As a parent who had a child in nursery at the time, I was livid when I learned about this. The old bishop thought he should break confidentiality to protect the ward by simply telling the new bishop who refused to listen about past confessions the old bishop had received. This may seem strange to some because it's one bishop to another, but it was still a confidential confession. A bishop doesn't even have the right to share with the SP without the confessor's approval. If the confessor wants to fully repent they will likely allow it but if they were caught and are simply going through the motions, they likely won't give approval and thus leave people at risk.

This is a very complicated situation but in this case it is unacceptable to put children at risk. But that is a very unusual situation. I see it much more often that confessions are shared with SP, quorum leaders or even Ward Council when it shouldn't be. I don't trust that leaders will keep appropriately confidential information confidential and I also don't trust that they use good judgment in breaking that confidence if/when there is serious risk to others.

This all comes back to the need for clear expectations about confidentiality. The church really needs to spell this out and enforce some kind of a policy. Otherwise leadership roulette is in full swing and can screw up massively in either direction and in ways that hurt people.

 

Seems like the former bishop could have raised his and when the "is anyone opposed" was called for. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry to quote myself  but I think part of the problem is that there really aren't clear rules like there are in the catholic church regarding confession. That means confidentiality is left to a bishop's discretion. That's kind of scary. I largely agree with StormRider in the need to keep the sanctity of the confession, otherwise there won't be enough trust for people to confess and engage in the repentance process.  

I'll share just one account I'm very close to and familiar with- Bishop has been working with a man who has molested his young stepdaughters. He encourages the man to confess to authorities but the man chooses not to. The bishop is not a mandatory reporter in this case. The bishop is released and attempts to update the incoming bishop on issues that aren't being dealt with, including this molester. The new bishop says that he doesn't want to hear about confidential confessions so refuses to hear about this molester from the old bishop. So new bishop is willfully 100% clueless about the activity. Two weeks later this abuser is called to serve in the nursery.

As a parent who had a child in nursery at the time, I was livid when I learned about this. The old bishop thought he should break confidentiality to protect the ward by simply telling the new bishop who refused to listen about past confessions the old bishop had received. This may seem strange to some because it's one bishop to another, but it was still a confidential confession. A bishop doesn't even have the right to share with the SP without the confessor's approval. If the confessor wants to fully repent they will likely allow it but if they were caught and are simply going through the motions, they likely won't give approval and thus leave people at risk.

This is a very complicated situation but in this case it is unacceptable to put children at risk. But that is a very unusual situation. I see it much more often that confessions are shared with SP, quorum leaders or even Ward Council when it shouldn't be. I don't trust that leaders will keep appropriately confidential information confidential and I also don't trust that they use good judgment in breaking that confidence if/when there is serious risk to others.

This all comes back to the need for clear expectations about confidentiality. The church really needs to spell this out and enforce some kind of a policy. Otherwise leadership roulette is in full swing and can screw up massively in either direction and in ways that hurt people.

The former bishop could have placed an annotation on the record, even without a disciplinary council. If you call Salt Lake, as a bishop, and tell them about the molestation, the record is annotated immediately. And it is very hard to get that off. I know that through experience. I have had members annotated before their disciplinary council. 

I would also appreciate better policy clarity on the parameters of confidentiality. Everyone agrees that confidentiality is important because trust in it fosters confession and confidence. What people disagree about is whether safety concerns, etc. trump an absolute expectation of confidentiality. In one instance, a bishop of the confessor had the person tell the parents in my ward of what he had done to their children. They, in turn told me. When I called him to talk about it, he acted as if he could not discuss anything, even though he knew that the families knew everything. I pointed out to him that we do this all the time --- bishops and stake presidents will call bishops and stake presidents when families move into their wards and there is background or things that they need to know about these families. This is done without consent, and it is necessary and proper. 

It is interesting to me to see the wide range of thought among past and present priesthood leaders on this. Some view confidentiality almost as a covenant or an ordinance, others as a common-sense necessity to encourage confidence. I personally would have no problem insisting that someone who has sexually abused victims, for example, initiate and cooperate with law enforcement and tell everything to the victim families. Even if this means prison and lawsuits. The goal is eventual full forgiveness through the Atonement, and I don't think this is possible until "all we can do." And good faith efforts to make amends as much as lies in our power.

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Seems like the former bishop could have raised his and when the "is anyone opposed" was called for. 

Over that? That's harsh. 

And, very unlikely to be overturned when the stake president talks to you about your dissenting vote.