Resources and Comments in Response to “Rev. Mackay’s Dilemmas”
The June 7, 2010 issue of Alban Weekly (“Rev. Mackay’s Dilemmas“) demonstrates what can go wrong when sensitive information is not handled in a responsible way. Using the example of a small-town pastor, the authors explain why key questions need to be asked when determining what to do about potentially harmful secrets.
Kibbie Simmons Ruth and Karen McClintock, authors of Healthy Disclosure: Solving Communication Quandaries in Congregations, outline a four-step process for leaders who may find themselves facing dilemmas such as Rev. Mackay’s: (1) assess the specific situation; (2) consider the options and determine a plan; (3) take action; and (4) evaluate the results. Taking these steps consciously and intentionally can help to ward off the anxiety that would otherwise drive hasty or irresponsible decisions.
For more insights on responsible and authentic communication in congregations, we suggest you check out an earlier Alban Weekly article by the same authors, “Speaking the Truth in Love.” We also suggest that you consider the excellent resources listed at the end of today’s article, as well as When a Congregation is Betrayed and How Your Church Family Works: Understanding Congregations as Emotional Systems.
What are your experiences with, and thoughts about, this topic? And what resources do you suggest? We look forward to hearing from you!
For Catholics the case presents questions of the confessional, but as I read the case what is presented is information – a plea of guilty in court – and not confession. If the plea had not been made the penitent might have absolution withheld pending confession to the legal authorities.
The penitent has as much right as anyone else to be consulted on how his information is dealt with in the church, but confidntiality is not an issue here.
Somme of us are bound by the seal of the confessional, so could not tell leading lay people. The limits placed by Rev Mackay seem ok. The only option I would have is to tell the person in the diocese concerned with unethical behaviour, or tell the police if they didn’t know – which, of course, in this case they did.
Rev Mackay should have lost his collar. He forgot the confidentiality of the confessional. At anytime as a pastor of small congreation I have sensitive information about a half-dozen families that I may not share and must not share everything from drinking/drug problems, affairs, loss of employment, pending divorce, sex problems, etc. I think that the Reverend should have become a pastor and treated the parishioner as a shut-in…visiting him without putting the children at risk and supporting a member on his way to jail. If it had come to him as a whisper from other than the horses mouth, he had the biblical obligation to go to the one being whispered about to find out truth without betraying confidences or putting others at risk. See Matthew 5:23-24 and 18:15-17. Finally, what was the Reverand’s responsibility to the neice. He had a responsibility to her family as well if he was qualified to counsel, he still had the responsibility to listen to any of their needs and prayer support.
My first thought also had to do with confidentiality – a burden that we clergy must often bear. Having been in a similar situation before, my approach has always been to encourage the individual to be open and honest about their situation … both for their healing as-well-as the health of the congregation (plus the victim, both families, etc.). My experience is that people are very forgiving and much more supportive when they have the facts: plus, facts tend to kill rumors. Their honesty (which, by the way, rarely translates into a public confession) frees me from complete confidentiality and allows me to garner resources from within the community of faith to support them.
The first sentence in this description is key:
I am not aware of the nuances in polity regarding the seal of the confessional in all the various Christian traditions; but if they bear any resemblance to the traditional understanding, then the Rev. McKay grievously erred the moment he talked to anyone about what he had heard. And this article further errs when it suggests that a committee meeting be held for that purpose!
Thom’s approach as outlined above protects the parishioner as well as the parish– and upholds the obligation of confidentiality in a formal confession as morally absolute for the confessor.
The 4-step process for decision-making in this article may well be a helpful practice, but the example given of its implementation is appallingly off base.
The first sentence in this description is key:
In his office one afternoon, Rev. Mackay heard the confession of John Jones, a longtime and beloved member of the church.
I am not aware of the nuances in polity regarding the seal of the confessional in all the various Christian traditions; but if they bear any resemblance to the traditional understanding, then the Rev. McKay grievously erred the moment he talked to anyone about what he had heard. And this article further errs when it suggests that a committee meeting be held for that purpose!
Thom’s approach as outlined above protects the parishioner as well as the parish– and upholds the obligation of confidentiality in a formal confession as morally absolute for the confessor.
The 4-step process for decision-making in this article may well be a helpful practice, but the example given of its implementation is appallingly off base.
I am feeling thankful that my denomination provides stringent guidelines for these kinds of situations. There is polity in place which we are accountable to. This polity has taken all of the parties into consideration as well as the LAW!
According to G-6.0204b of the Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (I am assuming that Lincoln is a PCUSA congregation), Rev. Mackay had a duty to report this to ecclesiastical authorities, assuming that since the member is pleading guilty that there is reason to believe that there is a risk of future physical harm or abuse. Since the authorities have already been involved, the duty to report to them is moot in this particular case, though had the member come to him with the confession that he had molested his niece rather than the confession that legal proceedings were underway, the minister would have the duty to report that to both legal and ecclesiastical authorities. In this case, Rev. Mackay should have gone up first, consulting with a Presbytery exec, perhaps, and not laying the burden of this information onto the lay leader, who is also a member of this small community. The Presbytery exec could have provided some counsel for Rev. Mackay, and together the two of them could have developed a plan for addressing this with the leadership of the congregation – and not simply one leader.
Ideally, the church will have in place a policy and a “team” for responding to issues of abuse that has been approved by the leadership and communicated to the congregation. That team would be responsible for determining how best to insure a safe place for all worshipers, especially the children of the church.
Of course Rev. Mackay must continue to provide pastoral care for this member, as well as any other members involved in the situation, but the rules of confidence do not apply in this situation, where there is reason to believe that there is a risk of future harm or abuse, and in cases of child abuse and molestation, the chances of continued future abuse are high. Churches have a responsibility first and foremost to protect the most vulnerable – in this case, the children of the congregation.
Having policies in place, such as G-6.0204b and local church policies, helps to provide a framework for dealing with difficult and sensitive issues within the church. In a situation of this gravity, a decision for how to deal with it cannot be made by any one individual, and this is a prime example of a time to first “go up” (to the exec.) rather than to go “out” or “down.”
b. A minister of the Word and Sacrament shall report to ec-
clesiastical and civil legal authorities knowledge of harm, or the
risk of harm, related to the physical abuse, neglect, and/or sexual
molestation or abuse of a minor or an adult who lacks mental ca-
pacity when (1) such information is gained outside of a confidential
communication as defined in G-6.0204a; or (2) she or he reasona-
bly believes that there is risk of future physical harm or abuse.
I agree with Mr. Lasko. In addition, responsibility to inform the public falls to the public officials: police, district attorney, et al. who should have informed the school principal. Rev. Mackay appears to have violated the sanctity of the confessional and the authors seem to make no distinction between confession and counseling. Such a distinction is crucial to pastoral ministry.
Rev. Mackay might have advised John for the two of them to go together to congregational leaders and divulge the situation, probably with an attorney. Since charges had already apparently been made, depending on state laws, Rev. Mackay may or may not have been under leagal obligation to report(for his own sake, he should have verified with the police or D.A. that charges had been filed–public record).
The sanctity of the confessional is not secrecy. The sinner-perpetrator is held to account before Almighty God. Moving beyond the confessional to deal with the implications of the acts confessed can be greatly helped by the process outlined by the authors and Rev. Mackay would have been wiser to have encouraged moving outside that confession to more open communication. Nevertheless, confession is a uniquely protected form of communication and should be recognized as such. That is both a great gift and great burden of pastoral ministry.
When such communication is properly tended, care for the victim and her family, concern for the security of the congregation’s and community’s children, as well as continued care for the perpetrator and his family, can then become a collaboration of the the pastor, lay leaders other caring professionals and public officials.
One part of the assessment stage of the process that should have been outlined is the need for leaders to separate fact from fiction. My experience is that when anxiety is high because of sensitive issues speculations start to be communicated through the community as facts. This serves heighten the level of fear within the community on all sides.
Engaging a wider circle of the leaders in the conversation could have given the opportunity for more truth telling. Because this particular case involved a criminal prosecution it meant that this was public knowledge to begin with. After the meeting with the leaders it would then be the pastor’s calling to communicate the facts as determined to the wider congregation in a timely manner as well. (perhaps even a letter in this case) I am sure that the initial result would be increased reactivity about the church and even the pastor, however as the article points out the long term benefits will make the sacrifice worth it. Transparency will build trust over time. There can be no reconciliation without honest confession.
One of the first articles I have bitten on to read and was extremely disappointed. The article never dealt with the first issue of clergy confidentiality, avoiding that issue altogether and moving to a fact pattern where the perpetrator actually publicly disclosed the sensitive information himself. The fact pattern as ultimately presented muddled most of the hard questions and issues.
Disappointingly missing from this discussion is any consideration of Rev. Mackay’s legal responsibility as a “mandatory reporter” for child sexual abuse. In most states, this is a requirement of civil law. Certainly, if that were the case in Rev. Mackay’s state, this might have solved his “sleepless night” dilemma about who to tell. That law might also have provided guidance as to who to inform, and who NOT to inform. The concept of “separation of church and state” does NOT extend to willful ignorance on one’s legal responsibilities in these matters, whether clergy or not.
I am serving my first call in an established PC(USA) congregation in a town of 6000. The background information in the Mackay case rings true: there are no secrets in a small town. And yes, often the church is a major interchange on the rumor highway. Nothing in my ethics training prepared me for the routine disregard of boundaries – indeed, the suspicion which meets “I’m sorry, that information is privileged.”
For the pastor, this is not a matter of protecting self or church but of leveraging the influence of the church to hold individuals accountable to their communities. If a parishioner came to me with a damaging self-disclosure, I would enlist her or his assistance in planning how (not if) to communicate it to all parties who need to know.
Thanks for this essay; it is thoughtfully written and thought-provoking. You ask: “What are your experiences with, and thoughts about, this topic?”
Some years ago, I was the sole pastor at a small midwestern church, and not long after I was called, the lay leadership and I began talking about how we’d respond to an emergency. As is true in many small congregations, the lay leaders didn’t want a formal written policy and procedure — many of them had known each other for decades, and a written policy seemed too awkward — but even so, we all agreed that if anything big came up, it would be referred to either me or a man who was a highly respected pillar of the church.
A year or so later, a man showed up at worship who turned out to be registered sex offender. The informal process immediately kicked in — some parents angrily informed me that this man should never have been allowed in the church, I listened to them, immediately called the pillar of the church, who contacted his sources in the court system. We called an emergency meeting of the church’s governing board. That meeting featured both anxious discussion and heartfelt prayer. We got advice and information from the church pillar. We realized that we were too small a church, and had too many children, to be able to accommodate this particular registered sex offender. The board finally decided to follow steps under state laws to bar this registered sex offender from the church’s property.
Yes, there was a firestorm of controversy in the church, with people who believed that everyone should be welcome in a church and that we shouldn’t have taken legal action, and others who thought church leadership didn’t respond quickly enough in banning the registered sex offender from the church. We had to deal with criticism (lots of active listening!), and we also had to find people who were willing to usher next Sunday and be ready to call the police if necessary (it almost was necessary!).
Nor did things end there. The registered sex offender contacted local media outlets and said the church was a bad place since it did not welcome everyone. We contacted our local conference, who kicked us upstairs to the denomination’s PR department, who coached us in what to say and referred us to additional online resources. Fortunately, because our process had emphasized openness and good communication and good process, even those within the church who disagreed with the church leadership did not talk with reporters. All reporters were referred to our designated spokespeople (the aforementioned church pillar, and me as pastor). When the reporters called, we felt completely ready, and gave boring interviews (our denomination’s PR people had advised us to be boring).
Of course, we did some Monday-morning quarterbacking at the next church board meeting. But mostly we offered prayers of thanksgiving that nothing seriously bad had happened. And we all agreed that the resulting newspaper article actually wound up bringing us positive attention in the wider community — we came off as being conservative, careful, sensitive to the privacy of the registered sex offender, and measured in our response. There were a few things we decided we would have done differently, but basically our informal process worked well for our church.
This informal evaluation process proved to be extremely important, for a year later another crisis arose. This second crisis had the potential to be far more damaging than the first crisis (I’m still not allowed to talk about it, so don’t ask) — yet thanks to our earlier experience, we weathered this second storm safely.
Based on these experiences, I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to plan well in advance what the church’s response to crisis will be. When this crisis arose, everyone knew whom to contact, and we were ready to act. As pastor, I knew when to ask for help, and whom I could ask for help (and in the second incident, this helped me maintain confidentiality while still working towards safety for all).
I also can’t emphasize enough that it’s good to have contacts in the local conference, people you know you can call on in times of need.
Finally, I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for the pastor to have a strong prayer life. This kind of thing is really difficult! Yes, you need to rely on lay leaders, but you also need to rely on God.
OK, that’s enough from me. I look forward to comments from others.
Thom, thank you for articulating the concern and presenting a pastoral solution. The key is that he disclosed that he pleaded guilty in the confessional/confession moment. Mackay’s decision’s after hearing hte confession did not look out for the safety of his members.
This was not an issue of fiscal or administrative malfeasance or sexual abuse on site, therefore this matter should have been addressed in a more pastoral way that it was.
I wondered about the issue of confidentiality as I read the article. I was disappointed to not find it as one of the points. I appreciated the outline for a thoughtful process, but was left wondering how much influence does our modern ‘want to know everything’ play? This is obviously a very sensitive issue and has potential impact on the community, and the inflamed desire to keep children safe. If the issue of confidentiality is not considered in the thinking ahead then do we end up with communities and congregations who do not talk with priest or pastor, because we now have the role of social worker or psychologist, if not police? There must be a time & way to deal with sensitive information, especially when potential harm to self or others is involved. Maybe an additional point is making people aware that information can not be kept confidential if harm to self or others is involved.
Rev. Mackay isn’t alone in bungling this one. He’s got lots of company. First, the seal of the confessional is just that: a seal. If someone “confesses” that s/he intends to molest a child or murder someone, that isn’t a confession, but rather an intention, and needs to be stopped–with a reminder to the confessing person that they have taken themselves outside the boundaries of protection. But this was a confession, subject to confidentiality.
We make this process much more straightforward when we stop trying to pinpoint the potential miscreants. In my experience, everyone is capable of sexual misconduct in the congregation, from the janitor to the pastor. Each congregation needs to have in place the basic protections so that everyone–especially a child–is safe. We know this stuff! The same thing with basic financial controls in small congregations. We need to build and reinforce the systems that protect everyone. We’re sinners and saints, all of us. That bit of reality keeps us from mistaking naivete for good intentions.
All child abuse must be reported to the proper authorities in most states. Mackay should have turned the information over to law enforcement and child protective services immediately. The “seal of the confession” is not applicable in this case. All members of the church should know this as part of sexual abuse prevention training.
The incident points out the need for proactive stances in churches to develop policies that protect children in the church environment. Working to create “safe churches” involves and educates congregations to the need for making the entire church aware of how the church deals in cases of sexual offenders and sexual improprieties. It is required by some insurers of churches. In retrospect, the incident can be a teaching moment for a congregation concerned for the flock and ministry to each sheep in it.
Keeping the information quiet is impossible in Pennsylvania at least. Any criminal charges are matters of public record. According to the case study, charges had already been filed and a guilty plea negotiated with the District Attorney. The upcoming court date would be for sentencing only. This would have already hit the local paper and probably TV.
Even if that were not so, only someone who is clueless about the nature of town grapevines would presume confidentiality. I mean c’mon Rev.!
The more appropriate discussion should have been how to protect the saftey of the children while caring for John.
The blurry thing here would seem to be that the abuse already HAS become known to the proper authorities, as far as civil law is concerned. John’s conviction is presumably a matter of public record. Would it be better for the congregation to learn this from the newspapers or by word of mouth? I would be inclined first of all to tell John that I might not be able to keep this matter confidential, and that I was going to get both legal and ecclesiastical advice as in the matter. I would keep John posted, would follow the advice I received; and in the event that my conduct was questioned, would be able to say quite honestly that I had been acting under specific constraints.
This excellent article offers a thoughtful and useful approach to what can be a very tricky discernment process. In my experience, leaders are often tripped up by one of two extremes in such situations: “freezing up” or passivity, not knowing what to do or being afraid of doing the wrong thing; and, on the other extreme, charging ahead with a course of action without adequate reflection on unintended consequences. I like the balanced, constructive approach that gives leaders a way to take responsibility for addressing this kind of situation, without pre-determining the outcome and without having to do it alone. In this particular situation, the pastor has to weigh the risks of losing confidence of others who might want to confess sins confidentially to him against losing confidence of the whole congregation and broader community. No easy solutions here.
Sexual abuse of a child is a horrible crime and a horrible sin. But Scripture makes no distinction in sin all sin is worthy of death. See Romans 6:23. When we start making distinction as to what sin that are confessed to us are to be shared and those not so bad and kept secret, then we end up playing God. Is sexual abuse worse than murder or worse than stealing money from an aging parents? The best thing is to remember is that our first obligation is to God and the confessor not the stae. We should encourage the confessor to do the right thing and give the comfort of God’s absolution for those who sorrow over their sin. See John 20:22-23.
While these four steps suggested by the authors are clear and likely effective, my own experience is that an additional step or perhaps sub-step nees clearer articulation: establish boundaries. The safety of the congregation is as important an issue as the confidentiality of the pastoral office. Obviously the essay as presented wrestles with the balance of this individual’s care and the on-going safety of the congregation of which he was a part. I might have said–I think it likely I would have said–that while I care about you, your actions have egregiously violated a sacred boundary that makes your continued worship here impossible. A softer boundary fuzzily defined by notions of forgiveness and love without requisite notions of repentance, restitution and repairing of the boundary is of no help and is actually detrimental to the community of faith.
I appreciate the thoughtful responses to Rev. MacKay’s Dilemma’s. I hope that bloggers will read other chapters in the book that cover confidentiality and secrecy in detail. In most situations state laws have eliminated “confidentiality” and “privilege” language when it comes to clelrgy learning of the abuse of protected individuals (children and youths under 18 years, disabled individuals and seniors). My encouragement is that clergy provide parishioners with policies that outline the nature of mandated reporting, stating that they will report harm or the intent to harm to appropriate authorities. A sample confidentiality policy is available on my website. Go to http://www.healthycongregation.com and click on resources.