Ecclesiastical confidentiality

[ksfisher]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

Over that? That's harsh. 

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

You're probably right.  Best to reserve the dissenting votes for those who don't do their home teaching or bring anything to the 4th of July potluck.

[Calm]

Rongo, are you talking about the new bishop or the new nursery leader?

Edited May 15, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

I agree about the annotation. For whatever reason that wasn't done. The old bishop also didn't object because he felt the new bishop wouldn't want to hear the reason anyway. In this case I'm ticked at both the old and the new bishop.

I strongly disagree your statement that it is proper to share confidential information with other leaders when a family moves. It is breaching confidentiality yet it happens all of the time because a leader thinks someone else needs to know.

I also think it's improper for a bishop to report to CES about a youth's "worthiness" to qualify them for seminary graduation. It is not CES's business to know whether someone is deemed "worthy" by their bishop at that precise moment in time. As bishop I refused to respond to CES leaders who inquired about worthiness prior to seminary graduation. When my SP pressured me to report I submitted a blanket report that all students were worthy to graduate seminary, regardless of what any of them were personally working through.

The church does not take confidentiality seriously.

I don't disagree with your final paragraph in encouraging the perpetrator to confess to appropriate authorities. What I object to is your past statement that if they do not confess themselves, that you would turn them in.

Edited May 15, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rongo, are you talking about the new bishop or the new nursery leader?

Good point. I was talking about the old bishop not sustaining the new bishop. He would/should do a lot more about the new nursery leader. I would go to the stake president and point out that this man with a track record of molesting children had been put into the nursery. It wouldn't do any good to go to the bishop, because he put his fingers in his ears and said he didn't want to know about old stuff in the first place. 

Confidentiality in going straight to the stake president goes to the wayside. He is the former bishop with firsthand knowledge that that man should not be in nursery, or any calling involving children or youth, for life. Whether or not the new bishop will listen to him. 

I also guarantee that Salt Lake wouldn't be upset if he escalated it up the chain of command from there if the stake president were unconcerned. Salt Lake would move swiftly, in my experience. Where these things are known, they are not to be in these callings. There are members in good standing with annotated records, and new bishops receive a letter notifying them of this, so we don't have to rely on them happening to see that the record is annotated. The annotation is put on even if there hasn't been church or civil action taken against the person. It's precautionary.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I strongly disagree your statement that it is proper to share confidential information with other leaders when a family moves. It is breaching confidentiality yet it happens all of the time because a leader thinks someone else needs to know.

I don't think it is a breach of confidentiality if terminal point priesthood leaders communicate about background and issues. It isn't being discussed with counselors or councils, and there is a lot of "need to know" information that would then not be shared and would therefore not be known by the leaders who need to know. I don't see this as a breach of confidentiality at all, but I appreciate that you do.

I also think it's improper for a bishop to report to CES about a youth's "worthiness" to qualify them for seminary graduation. It is not CES's business to know whether someone is deemed "worthy" by their bishop at that precise moment in time. As bishop I refused to respond to CES leaders who inquired about worthiness prior to seminary graduation. When my SP pressured me to report I submitted a blanket report that all students were worthy to graduate seminary, regardless of what any of them were personally working through.

Wow, that's gutsy! That isn't a hill for me to die on, but then I am definitely more liberal when it comes to confidentiality (which is obviously the position of the Church, since the Church is requiring the worthiness report).

 

[Bernard Gui]

As a bishop, I learned by confession of an incident of child abuse in my ward. The child was also a student of mine in school. Teachers are required by law to report any such discovery to Child Protective Services. At the time, our state law exempted religious confessions, so my stake president (a prominent attorney) and the hotline determined since I learned of the abuse through confession, I should advise the person to turn himself in, but I was not legally required to report him and should maintain the confidence. Since then, the laws have been changed, and my understanding is that today I would have to report it.

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop, I learned by confession of an incident of child abuse in my ward. The child was also a student of mine in school. Teachers are required by law to report any such discovery to Child Protective Services. At the time, our state law exempted religious confessions, so my stake president (a prominent attorney) and the hotline determined since I learned of the abuse through confession, I should advise the person to turn himself in, but I was not legally required to report him and should maintain the confidence. Since then, the laws have been changed, and my understanding is that today I would have to report it.

Did he turn himself in?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

As a bishop, I learned by confession of an incident of child abuse in my ward. The child was also a student of mine in school. Teachers are required by law to report any such discovery to Child Protective Services. At the time, our state law exempted religious confessions, so my stake president (a prominent attorney) and the hotline determined since I learned of the abuse through confession, I should advise the person to turn himself in, but I was not legally required to report him and should maintain the confidence. Since then, the laws have been changed, and my understanding is that today I would have to report it.

 

I wonder how that would have worked with your employer. If they found out that the child continued to be abused (if that were the case), and that you knew about it through ecclesiastical confession, but didn't report it as a teacher, would they have approved?

This is a really interesting situation because at one time you are both a mandatory reporter (wearing the school hat) and simultaneously holding confessional confidence (wearing the church hat). Kind of puts you in a double bind. If you reported the church may be unhappy. If you didn't report the school may be unhappy. It's definitely complicated.

[Alan]

Here in the UK all clergy are required by law to report certain crimes, specifically paedophilia, incest etc, to the authorities.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder how that would have worked with your employer. If they found out that the child continued to be abused (if that were the case), and that you knew about it through ecclesiastical confession, but didn't report it as a teacher, would they have approved?

This is a really interesting situation because at one time you are both a mandatory reporter (wearing the school hat) and simultaneously holding confessional confidence (wearing the church hat). Kind of puts you in a double bind. If you reported the church may be unhappy. If you didn't report the school may be unhappy. It's definitely complicated.

It was a question of the law. IIRC, the family left the person and he did have contact with the authorities. It was several decades ago. 

I may be wrong about current law.....note the word "should."

Quote

Who is Required to Report Child Abuse and Neglect?

 

Any person who has cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect should report such incidents.

Those people legally required to report child abuse or neglect are:

• Medical practitioners
• Nurses
• Dentists
• Social service counselors/therapists
• Psychologists
• Medical examiners
• Pharmacists
• School personnel
• Child care providers
• Law enforcement officers
• Juvenile probation officers
• Corrections employees
• DSHS employees
• Placement and liaison specialists
• Responsible living skills program staff
• HOPE center staff
• State family and children's ombudsman
• Any volunteer in the ombudsman's office
• Adults residing with child suspected to have been severely abused

 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui