Confidential, Not Secret
December 14, 2007 by athinkingman
How dangerous is secrecy?
Should every detail that a church member tells her or his minister always be kept secret? Some churches clearly think so.
The Roman Catholic Church, for example, talks about the sacramental seal.
Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confession is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains ’sealed’ by the sacrament.
The United Methodists do not view confession as sacramental, but their Book of Discipline states:
Ministers. . . are charged to maintain all confidences inviolate, including confessional confidences.
The problem with such tight formulations of secrecy is that they are dangerous. Supposing people confess that they are seriously contemplating suicide, or that they have killed somebody, or that they are contemplating killing somebody, or that they have been sexually abused by a perpetrator who is still alive and active, or that they themselves are paedophiles, or that they have been involved in acts of terrorism, or that they are planning acts of terrorism?
As currently formulated by some churches, absolute secrecy could lead to needless death or sexual abuse, in some cases involving many people. The clergy are also unprotected. If given a subpoena to give evidence in a court of law about the conversation between clergy and parishioner, the minister who refused could end up in jail.
This policy of absolute secrecy is being publicly discussed at the moment because of a case where a parishioner told her minister that her husband admitted that he had killed his third wife. The woman who spilled the beans, the fourth wife, is now missing, and her husband, former Illinois police officer, Drew Peterson, is considered a suspect in the disappearance.
Former Westbrook Christian Church pastor Neil Schori told Fox News, in an interview broadcast last Monday, that Stacy Peterson told him in August that her husband, Drew Peterson, admitted killing his previous wife, Kathleen Savio. Schori said he asked Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, to clarify what she had said and she responded, “‘He killed Kathleen.”‘ Schori said the conversation occurred when he and Stacy Peterson met at a coffee shop.
Last month, the Westbrook Christian Church’s pastor of spiritual formation told The Associated Press that Stacy Peterson requested an August meeting with a member of their pastoral staff when the church made a routine call to see why she and Drew Peterson had not attended services in recent months. Neil Schori made a “judgment call” not to alert authorities, and did not consult with other church staff.
Of course, it is entire speculation, but it could be that that judgement call has cost one woman her life. And it is almost certain that such a secrecy policy will have had other horrendous consequences in countless other cities and lives.
Just think for a moment what we know about those who physically and sexually abuse children.
- The fact of child abuse must be revealed in order for the victim and offender to be helped.
- Offenders will minimize and deny their activities.
- Offenders will continue to abuse children unless they get special treatment. And they will not be able to follow through on their good intentions or their genuine remorse without that help.
- Treatment of offenders is most effective when it is ordered and monitored by the courts.
- Clergy do not have all the skills and resources needed to treat offenders or to assist victims.
- Quick forgiveness of the offender is likely to be a form of cheap grace, and is unlikely to lead to repentance.
Any minister who fails to involve the appropriate agencies in such cases is not only putting the lives of other children at risk, but is acting in a way least likely to be of long term benefit to the perpetrator. I think it could be rightly argued that the sacramental seal has contributed to the mind-blowing scale of sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.
At least one church appears to be moving in the right direction. The statement by the Lutheran Church in America tries to protect the confidence of the parishioner while allowing room for the discretion of the pastor:
No minister . . . shall divulge any confidential disclosure given to him in the course of his care of souls or otherwise in his professional capacity, except with the express permission of the person who has confided in him or in order to prevent a crime. (Minutes of the United Lutheran Church in America, 22nd Biennial Convention, 1960, quoted in Seward Reese, “Confidential Communications to Clergy,” Ohio State Law Journal [vol. 24 (1963) 1, p. 68).
Personally, I am worried by the discretional element and would like to make certain things mandatory. It is far easier not to report things, than to do so, and most human beings are likely to avoid the difficult course.
In some ways, therapists and clergy have similarities in that they both deal with people revealing ’sensitive’ details about their lives. All credible therapists will refuse to be bound by secrecy. They know it is dangerous for potential future victims, for the clients, and for themselves as therapists. I long for the day when, before starting a serious conversation with parishioners, ministers would remind people that they need to explain their confidentiality policy - that they promise to keep things confidential, but they do not promise absolute secrecy, and that there is a difference between the two.
When beginning work with all my clients, I explain that I promise confidentiality, but not absolute secrecy, and that there are 4 occasions where I might need to talk to other trusted adults about what clients tell me. If they are not happy to accept my confidentiality policy, I refuse to work with them.
I may need to talk to another trusted adult on the following occasions:
- When receiving professional supervision for my work. All professional therapists are required to be accountable to another senior practitioner, and are likely to discuss their case load with a supervisor. Clergy need to explain that they may need to discuss matters with other senior minsters.
- If I felt that the client’s life was at risk, I would want to consult his or her doctor. This is because I have a duty of care.
- If the client reveals any criminal acts (including acts of terrorism) which involved harm to others, or intended acts that could harm others, I would encourage the client to go to the police, and if he or she failed to do so, would feel obliged to.
- If subpoenaed to give evidence in a court of law about what took place between us, I would reluctantly have to do so.
Confidentiality puts appropriate boundaries in place to enable a trusting, therapeutic relationship to be established, and it avoids the potentially dangerous consequences of absolute secrecy. The harmful sacramental seal must be shattered.
Update 06/03/08: See also Jehovah’s Witness Elders and Child Abuse Case
Excellent post. Your distinction between confidentiality and secrecy is useful. This is a sensitive issue that counselors of all sorts need to consider carefully. Policies need to be defined before problems arise, not in the midst or aftermath of ugly situations.
I was a Samaritan Volunteer for a while and similar problems arise in that work. We were enjoined to keep secret anything told to us even from spouses. I was told that the Samaritans do not have a right to secrecy as do priests but that the police normally respect client confidentiality though they have the power to come into the building and eavesdrop on conversations.
I never found myself in a position where maintaining confidentiality conflicted with my conscience though I can easily imagine that it could happen.
At the risk of seeming mean-spirited I will suggest that the Catholic priest’s right to secrecy is another example of how religious bodies are granted privileges not available to other members of the community and I therefore think that it should be abolished. I think anyone who has information about a criminal act who doesn’t pass it on to the appropriate authorities should be treated as an accessory and sanctioned accordingly.
[...] and that that secrecy cannot be broken under any circumstances. I have argued elsewhere (see Confidential Not Secret) that such a view is inadequate in a day when both priest and client need to be protected. It harks [...]