KEEPING AND SHARING: Confidentiality in Ministry[i]
By Christopher Lind 
Published in the JOURNAL OF PASTORAL CARE AND COUNSELLING,
Volume 60:1-2, Spring-Summer 2006 [journal »]

---

ABSTRACT:           

What ethical norms regarding confidentiality are applied by ministers in their professional practice?

In this essay conventional ethical assumptions about confidentiality in ministry, taken from the work of Gaylord Noyce, are compared with the experiences, attitudes and expectations of ordered and lay members of the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada in two Canadian regions. The similarities and differences are then interrogated using more contemporary theories. The study concludes that most people in the two denominations studied borrowed their ethical norms from the counseling context. 

Most subjects thought of confidentiality in terms of the beneficial therapeutic effects of keeping the secrets but they also articulated alternative theological grounds for maintaining confidences. Different expectations about how information is to be handled also reveal deeper theological and ecclesiological conflicts over the appropriateness of debriefing with members of the congregation. Differences between rural and urban congregations were revealed in the example of public prayer as an occasion for the breaking of a confidence. 

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS ARTICLE

• The Seal of the Confessional here »
• When to Disclose? here »
• Conflicting Duties: Risk to Self or Others here »
• Legal vs. Moral Obligations here »
• Conflicting Expectations here »
• Confidentiality and Decision Making here »
• Confidentiality and the Personnel Process here »
• Second-hand Information here »
• With Whom Does the Minister Share? here »
• Conclusion here »
• Footnotes here »
  
  
• Download an MS Word .doc [104k] of this article here »

---

Gaylord Noyce deals with the subject of confidentiality briefly.  His concern is to establish a "professional standard" for ministers.”  We have not argued for a 'highly differentiated' role for the clergy," Noyce writes, "warranting special privileges because of professional status, and special moral responsibilities not incumbent on other citizens.  However, in the counselling role there is a special responsibility.  When something is learned in true pastoral conversation, what might ordinarily be shared with others is not shared.”[ii]

So, Noyce wants to reinforce the importance of keeping confidences.  He equates pastoral counselling in the Protestant tradition with confession in the Catholic tradition.  He allows for exceptions, for example in cases where the safety of others is at risk, but he justifies those exceptions on the grounds of a professional's obligations to the society at large. 

In general, our interview subjects shared this approach.  The counselling relationship was the overwhelming framework for thinking about issues of confidentiality.  When the conversation occurred in the minister's study and the parishioner was seeking counsel, then the assumption by both minister and parishioner was that the information was not to be shared.  However, there are significant theological and legal differences between confession and pastoral counselling.  In addition, moral duties to protect confidential information sometimes conflict with other moral duties to protect the vulnerable.  Also certain assumptions embedded within the professional role can conflict with theological convictions about the nature of ministry and the nature and role of the Church. 

The Seal of the Confessional

In both urban Ontario and rural Saskatchewan the issue of confession was raised.  Though it was raised by both clergy and laity, it was raised only by Anglicans.  Anglicans share with Roman Catholics the tradition of Penance as a Sacrament though within Anglicanism it is an uneven practice.  While Roman Catholic Canon Law treats information shared in the confessional as inviolate, [iii] some Anglicans use the ethical standards of counselling as applying to confession.  That is, the confidentiality of the information is conditional on the probability of harm arising from the secrecy. 

Charlotte, an Anglican minister in Ontario, describes it this way: "Apart from those two exceptions where it would be an abuser coming in and confessing to me or a child, a minor, coming in and saying, ‘I'm being abused,’ confidentiality is, for me, something that is absolutely inviolable.” 

On the other hand, an Anglican priest in Saskatchewan describes a situation where maintaining the seal of the confessional amounts to an act of heroism.”  When we were doing C.P.E. in the Correctional Centre, one of our group, who was an ordained clergy person, by chance heard a confession of someone who had committed murder.  The clergy person heard this confession soon after the guy came into the Correctional Centre, and then later on the guy changed his story.  Someone who knew my friend had heard the confession tried very hard to make him talk about it, and he wouldn't.   They threatened him, it went to court eventually, and he was prepared to go to jail.   He would rather (have gone to jail) than tell, but the judge let him off the hook and said that he didn't have to (tell).  But he was very brave.  I'm not sure I would have been that brave.  I don't know what I would have done.  But that was a living example that I have seen of somebody who was prepared to go to jail rather than to reveal the confidence, even though it was in a totally serious context and it really mattered.”[iv]

Interestingly, the claim in the story above, that the judge declined to force disclosure of a confidence, is supported by legal precedence.  In a 1984 case involving the Church of Scientology, Judge Osler noted that while no religious privilege exists, Canadian courts have been reluctant to compel persons, claiming such a privilege, to answer.[v]

No United Church interview subjects made substantial reference to confession as a framework for thinking about issues of confidentiality.  Elizabeth Audette's study of 300 American Congregationalist clergy and laypeople observed that no one articulated theological or ecclesiological grounds for their assumptions about confidentiality in ministry.  Instead, she concluded that all the respondents were operating out of a therapeutic model.[vi]  In addition to the Anglican discourse about confession and the sacrament of Penance, our study contrasts with Audette's in revealing both Anglican and United Church members using additional theological frameworks.  In particular, one interview subject, Judith, an Anglican priest, talked of Jesus as a role model and asked herself what Jesus would do with this information in this setting. 

"When you are ministering with people, it's probably to try to think like Jesus.  And so ethically I am not a judger but I am a person who takes in what's being given and then keeping it and not passing it on around the world.” 

Deborah, a United Church lay woman, talked of the sacredness of the conversation and needing to respect that sacredness. 

"I think that's kind of a crucial thing in pastoral care because I think people can sense when they're being kind of honoured for who they are regardless of how they are, like being accepted as they are.   There's a lot of subtle stuff in there.  When people confide and when they tell you something that they haven't told anyone else, I think there's a sacredness to it that can be kind of devalued in the manner in which it's received.” 

In both these examples, the ministers are trying to model a level of fundamental acceptance.  They seek not to render a final judgment, as in a court of law, but rather to mediate the presence of God.  They try to mark the space of confidential communication as one where God had trod and to honour the dignity of the person sharing the information.  These assumptions have clear theological and ecclesial implications. 

When to Disclose?

If confession within the context of a sacramental act represents the most inviolate communication, then counselling represents the next level of seriousness.  In these circumstances, people need rules of some kind to help them distinguish what information may be shared and what may not be, what information is private and what is public.  All of the subjects seemed to have rules of some kind though they differed in significant ways.  Some subjects borrowed rules from previous occupations or associations.  One person borrowed the rules of the psychiatric hospital where she used to work as a nurse.  Another borrowed the rules of the Police Force where he used to work.  Still another, from time to time, borrowed the rules of the various 12 step groups (like Alcoholic Anonymous) to which she belonged. 

Since most people thought of confidentiality within the therapeutic context, the rules of counselling were frequently used.  In this circumstance, information is not to be disclosed unless there is a risk of harm to the client or others.[vii]

Simon is a United Church minister in Saskatchewan who is also employed part-time as a counsellor.  He defines confidentiality this way:

"What people have said to me remains between them and me.  If they want to tell somebody else that's their business, but I don't have that right.  They've told it to me in confidence and I feel that's very important.” 

Interviewer: “Is it absolute? ”

Simon:  “I would have difficulty saying no.  I can share this with you because this person has shared it with other people.  A man had been shot in the stomach by his wife.  He showed me the scar.  He and his wife were having difficulties and he had been referred to me by the police.   He told me that he was going to court very shortly, that he had dynamite, and that his in-laws, his wife, and the police who had been harassing him were all going to be in court and he was going to take the dynamite into court.  And he knew how to do it, he would blast that courtroom and himself to Kingdom come and everybody else.  I knew that I didn't have any expertise to deal with him.  I got him to come with me the next morning, and we went to the Mental Health Centre.  I know the worker there pretty well, and fortunately he asked me to sit in on the interview.   This fellow was not telling what it was.  Finally I said to him ‘I think you should tell him what you told me last night,’ and he did.  And he was admitted, right then.” 

Interviewer: “Voluntarily?”

Simon: "Voluntarily.  Because he had come there.  He and his wife were working to get back together, and then they moved, so I don't know the outcome.  But I would have had difficulty going to the police and saying ‘you better watch so and so’ because of that confidentiality.   Yes, I would have had a lot to live on my conscience.  But I did feel that he needed help, and I would have pushed him to keep talking if he hadn't talked.  It is a difficult position.  As I look back on it, if he hadn't talked about it I would have to had to wrestle with what I would do, and it would have been a real wrestling.  Whether I would have gone ahead and told them or not I don't know because we never came to that.”  [viii]

Conflicting Duties: Risk to Self or Others

Another example of the use of counselling rules to adjudicate conflicting obligations regarding confidential information comes from Ruth, another United Church minister from Saskatchewan.  Here the circumstances involve a pastoral visit to a parishioner's home, a specific injunction not to disclose health related information, and an abiding concern the person may be at risk. 

Ruth: "We are to keep everything confidential.  I had a situation where I was at her place in the afternoon and she told me she had some pains in her arm.  I kept quizzing ‘was it going up’ and she said ‘A bit,’ but said, ‘do not tell my son and daughter-in-law that there is anything wrong with me.’  So I said, ‘No, but maybe you should.’  ‘No,’ she said, ‘I do not want to bother them.’  I knew she did not really want to.  So that evening when I got home I had to decide (if I should) break the confidentiality. 

"Her son and daughter-in-law were neighbours of mine and I knew the family very well.   Say something happened to her and I knew maybe I could prevent it.  So by about 7 o’clock I could not keep it any longer.   I went and talked to them and I said, ‘It could be that she is very lonely or it could be her heart,’ because they did not know she had a heart problem.   I said, ‘I had to tell you and I know I am not supposed to because she did not want me to,’ but in this case I felt I should and as it happened they did not go in that night.  I went early enough that they could decide whether they were going in tonight or not.  They did not go in until morning and she was dead.  So I was glad I had gone (to my neighbours) because they could have gone right when I told them.  So there is a case where you have to make that discretion.” 

Legal vs. Moral Obligations

In applying the therapeutic norm of disclosing confidential information where there is a risk to the client or others, most interview subjects upheld their legal obligation to report suspected cases of child abuse to civil authorities.  However, there was at least one person who identified a conflict between his legal obligation and his pastoral judgment.  Stephen is an Anglican priest in Ontario. 

Stephen:  "Confidentiality is a really difficult one at the moment.  I find that there's some real problems for ministers because the law says one thing and sometimes we may feel that the way to deal with it is another.  And before the present laws existed, I had a couple of occasions when I learned, pastorally, that the father of a friend was molesting his children and one of those cases occurred back over a decade ago now and the man had been found out by his wife.  He had been molesting the children of his first marriage but that had come to her after she had married him and they were having children together.  And she noticed (this) at the point of where he was very jealous of the baby feeding, breastfeeding . . . She had gone to a social worker I believe, who had referred him to a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist realized the law was going to be changed and he would have to report this person and so he referred the person (to me).  I was in on the counselling of the couple with the psychologist and then he made me the prime therapist. 

"I was dealing with this guy so the psychiatrist wouldn't have to turn him in, I believe.  He never said that but I believe that's the reason.  And the difficulty is that at that time it wasn't illegal for me to be doing that, so far as I know.   But although I was able, to some degree, to help that man, you know with sexual matters how difficult it is for anybody to make these people change.” 

In the context of widespread support for the legal requirement to report suspected cases of child abuse, some interview subjects equated their legal obligations with their moral obligations.  Following is one good example of someone wanting to make a clear distinction between the two.  Tony is a United Church minister in Ontario breaking the law by providing sanctuary for refugees.  In this case, Tony is keeping a confidence in order to shield someone from the law.[ix] 

Tony: "We have involvements with refugees and we have illegal involvements with refugees.  We are in fact hiding someone, and this is for nearly a year, who has been deported, a single mom with two kids.  There's a certain confidence that needs to be protected there at times, depending on who the other party is.   I would certainly, I suppose, lie on her behalf, if I was forced to do so, in dealing with immigration authorities for example.  I mean, these things are all individual cases.   So the rule of thumb there, I think, is the well-being of the person.  And I think there has to be some sort of consensus behind that in a community of people.  I'm not saying our whole Church is on board with us, but I don't make these sorts of assessments in isolation.  There needs to be a group of people where we have agreed together that we will protect confidentiality.” 

Conflicting Expectations

If confession and formal counselling represent the circumstances with the most stringent rules, it must be said that most pastoral communication takes place outside these parameters.  While rules are still borrowed, there are a wider variety of differing expectations as to how this information is to be handled.  One example of inappropriate sharing is having someone prayed for in worship when the only reason for doing so was they had come to the minister for marriage counselling.  This example of public prayer as an occasion for the breaking of a confidence arose more often among the Ontario subjects than among Saskatchewan subjects.  This suggests differences between predominantly urban and rural congregations about how information is to be shared.  These conflicting expectations are well described by a hospital chaplain. 

Margaret: "Many clergy within the church have a different understanding or have different boundaries around confidentiality than the mental health field does, or than the hospital does.  And there is a little tension in the hospital around confidentiality issues.” 

Interviewer:  "How are they different? ”

Margaret:  "They would say nothing, you know, no name is to ever be given or no information about a patient is ever to be shared with anyone without the explicit permission of the patient.  Whereas I know that in a parish, if the rector knows that Susie Smith is in the hospital having cancer surgery, that will appear in the bulletin, and people will pray for that person, with or without Ms. Smith's consent.  Does that surprise you? ”

Interviewer: "I'd never put that in the context of confidentiality.” 

Margaret:  "But you see, it's a different perspective.  It isn't a confidentiality issue to the parish.” 

Interviewer: "No, it's a pastoral care issue.” 

Margaret: "Yeah.  As chaplains, to me as the Anglican chaplain, part of my responsibility is to minister to out-of-town patients in city hospitals and to any people from the city who claim to be Anglicans but have no active parish connection.   What will happen, what I do for rural people, is that if somebody comes into the city from a small town, I send that person's name to the small town to indicate to the clergy down there that I have seen his parishioner, either his parishioner or someone who resides in his parish area calling himself an Anglican in the hospital.  But the hospital says I can do that in the name of follow-up after, but that I cannot release any information whatsoever about Mrs. Smith, what is wrong with her, how she's doing, anything of that nature.  Well, the people on the other end said ‘what's the point of giving us a name, can't you tell me how she's doing, what's going on.’  And sometimes I break the confidentiality the hospital expects if I really feel it's in the best interests of both the person and the parish on the other end, but it's very tricky.  When I do it I know I'm doing it, but I guess I feel that by my judgment that's the better thing to be doing.  But it is a tension and it happens all the time, and the hospital is very conscious of that.” 

Interviewer: "When you visit a patient, is the patient aware that you do that? ”

Margaret: "That's a good question.  Probably not.  What I will often say ‘do you know so and so,’ the clergy person in that parish, and they'll say either yes or no.   If they do I'll say ‘maybe I'll give them a call.’  Does he know you're here, yes or no?  I'll let him know you're here.  But I never really give them an opportunity to say no.  That's something I need to look into.  There would be a tension between what the Bishop is wanting there and what the hospital's standards are.” 

Interestingly, in the article previously cited by Elizabeth Audette, she tells a similar story of Mrs. Smith reprimanding Rev. Audette for not announcing to the congregation that Mrs. Smith's husband was in the hospital.  This was in spite of the fact that her husband had asked Rev. Audette not to and Mrs. Smith had declined to announce it herself in that part of the service where congregants are invited to share their joys or concerns. 

In response, Audette identifies four factors that are crucial for deciding what is confidential.  To paraphrase, they are: Where (what was the location of the sharing), What (how significant was the matter being discussed), Why (what was the purpose of having shared the information), and to Whom (was the information being disclosed to someone in an official role or not). 

Our interview subjects made similar distinctions.  What was said in the minister's study had a higher expectation of confidentiality than what was said in the grocery store, though it always depended on what was being said.  Clearly, news that was already on the radio was already public but information about someone's marriage was not.  Was there a pastoral purpose behind the sharing?  People who were now in identified ministry roles were also clear about how the nature of the information being shared had changed.  People will tell ministers information they will not tell other people. 

As we move up the ladder of theoretical complexity from confession to counselling to pastoral conversation, one of the questions pastors ask themselves is this.  Are all things that are told to a minister told in confidence unless they're specifically told otherwise?  Or is your rule the reverse?  Audette's study claimed that "unlike secular counselors or psychologists who see clients in well-defined professional settings, most of those surveyed assumed that anything told to a clergyperson anywhere should be treated confidentially, regardless of the circumstances of disclosure.” [x]

Ken is an Anglican priest in Saskatchewan. 

Ken:  "I've tended to have it the reverse, but there's been a question raised in my mind.   I've found myself wondering whether it should be a case that everything that is said is in confidence unless specified otherwise, rather than my practice which has tended to be that unless a thing is specified in confidence then it's available for conversation.  Certainly the structure of a confessional or the structure of counselling, as far as I'm concerned, those are by definition confidential.  In a counselling thing I can see where there could be things come up I would regard as of a different class to a confession.  I suppose the way to put it in terms of confession is this would be absolute, and counselling would be something where the question would be raised with the person as to whether this could be shared or whether this should not be shared.” 

Clearly, the working assumption of whether one assumes openness or whether one assumes confidentiality will make a crucial difference to one's pastoral practice.  Lay people had conflicting expectations as to whether they assumed confidentiality in the first instance.  However, most commonly, lay people assumed ministers would exercise discretion and sensitivity.  Dennis is an Anglican layperson in Saskatchewan. 

Interviewer: "Do you expect clergy to assume that every exchange with a member of the congregation is confidential?”

Dennis: "No, no.  Definitely not.  It may be a confidential point there, but before that the minister better discern that maybe I should talk to so and so.  You're the one with the confidentiality, and as a clergy I say to you, would it be alright if I talk to you?  And the confidentiality is still there and yet it's your decision.” 

Interviewer: "So they need to check out anything that they're going to share.” 

Dennis: "I think they do.  I don't think everything has to be checked out, but I would have no problem with clergy coming to me and saying ‘Dennis, Jimmy over here does really have an alcohol problem.  Now you are far more experienced in this than I am.  He said that he would talk to you.  Now will you? ’ I have no problem in going over and doing it then.  But I can't go to Jimmy and just say ‘excuse me, well the minister said you got to.’  That, yes, that's part of it.” 

By contrast, Stewart is also an Anglican layperson in Saskatchewan but his expectations are the opposite of Dennis. 

Interviewer: "Does that kind of confidentiality hold across all of the kinds of interactions that the priest might have with someone in the congregation?  I mean whether it's in counselling or whether it's a visit in your living room or . . .”

Stewart: "I would think so, cause it would seem to me that they, just by their position, are in a kind of a position of trust, and a person is going to be inclined to tell them more than what they would tell John Q. Public.  And they may not want everything out in the open.  And as a result, the minister should just keep quiet about it.” 

The dilemmas around confidentiality that emerge for ministers have to do in part with the function of the minister in the community, which has both a theological and ecclesiological foundation.  Is it the minister who ministers or is it the congregation that ministers?  If you hold the latter position then the designated minister or priest will have an enabling function with regard to the congregation.  In that case, confidentiality can become an obstacle to the central work of the minister.  Pat is a United Church laywoman in Saskatchewan. 

Interviewer: "Would you expect the clergy person to assume that what you tell them is in confidence – I am thinking of outside the counselling relationships – would you expect them to assume that or to hold information in confidence unless you say it is okay to share it or are there some places where you would or wouldn't? ”

Pat:  "That is really difficult because again I see one of the roles of ministers in being to enable to help or push the congregations into a pastoral care role with each other.  How do they do that without sharing information?  No, I don't assume when I tell the minister something.   That is a real dilemma because there could be a time when you might say to the minister, with the expectation that that would be a way of having other people know, and that you might be getting some caring from other people on it. 

“I had a incident last winter where I had a problem and I told one of my friends who is involved in the congregation.  There was a meeting between our two pastoral charges that afternoon, and this person told the other women.   I was a bit taken aback about it, and yet it was good that she did it because I got support that I wouldn't have gotten because I wouldn't have gone to those other people. 

“I think of someone here who went bankrupt and the minister is one of the very few people in the congregation that knew about it.   They made it very clear that they hadn't told family members.  Part of her dilemma was that she felt some of us could have been supportive to them.  But she did encourage them (the bankrupt family) to tell people.  In that situation very clearly you have to hold the confidentiality.  It is a real dilemma because it could be their way of reaching out for the help from the congregation, even more than just the clergy person, and by you not sharing it then they think people don't care because they haven't said anything about it.” 

Adam is a United Church minister in Ontario who has experienced confidentiality as an obstacle to the pastoral health of his congregation.  In the following story he describes a problem that caused people to leave the congregation.  His high regard for the confidential nature of his information prevented him from acting on it. 

Adam:  "I'll give you an example of people who stop coming, a young couple.  There had been some things happening with them in the community, but they stopped coming around.  So you just kind of go in there and they're so friendly and so happy to see you and after a while you think to say, ‘What's going on?  What's happened?’ And then they say another member of the congregation engaged him to do some business for them, construction work, some repair work, and he'd given them an estimate and then when he'd submitted his bill, it was twice the estimate.  Twice the estimate! So they were angry and asked to meet him, they were refusing to pay the bill.  But this other fellow is one of the leaders of the congregation.’  Now we've told you these things, but just leave it there.’  But how can you (laughs)?  Do you see what I'm saying?  These are small congregations so you have 30 people asking you at Session meeting, ‘Where are so and so?  How come they're not around?’

"You know.  Do you keep that confidence or do you say, ‘actually they've had a problem with some other members of our Church?  It's a problem many of you have shared, actually.’ (laughs) Maybe we have a community problem?"

Confidentiality and Decision Making

While people most often think about confidentiality in terms of one-on-one conversation, these are not the only circumstances in which the issue of confidentiality emerges.  Various decision-making processes in the Church are also characterized by confidential communication.  Simon describes how he learned about this dimension. 

"I had a very excellent first charge that I think helped me.  They taught me about confidentiality, and we had a discussion about the use of the church.  I was new, and I didn't know what their policies were.   There had been a request  about use for a music recital.  We were worshipping in the Methodist building.  The Presbyterian building had been moved from across the street and was behind as a hall, and within that board there were Presbyterians and Methodists.  One chap from the Presbyterian background said no.  This is the church.  We have set this aside for the worship of God, and we should not use it for music recitals.  Another chap was of the Methodist background and said no, this building is for the worship of God, but it is a community building. 

"The one chap who was the Methodist was saying the church needs to be used, it's like a chapel, it's not sacred.  And we had a very excellent discussion in the session then, and they decided that they would allow the use for the music festival.  When I phoned the lady the next day, she said she heard there was a lot of discussion about this, and I said yes, but they agreed nonetheless.  So at the next meeting I mentioned that, and I said my understanding is that we can disagree in here, but once we decide that's the decision.  The chap who had opposed it who was the Presbyterian background, said. ‘yes, I talked out against it, but that was the decision of our committee.’  After that we could discuss anything. 

“When I was looking at moving, when I had received a call, I talked it over with them.   We were also looking at a building program then, and I said ‘you need to know that if I get this call I'm taking it.  You know, we need to move up in our career, but you need to know as well that if you decide (to proceed), I don't want this to colour (your decision).  They talked about it and they said they need to vote on that at the annual meeting, to decide whether we're going to build or not.  Later when I gave my resignation there were husbands and wives of that group that were surprised.” 

While both the Anglican and United Churches have decision-making processes involving groups of people, the governance structure of the United Church is one that involves larger groups more often.  This is reflected in the interview data as illustrated by the fact that concerns about confidentiality in decision making were raised more often by United Church people than Anglicans.  Furthermore, the concern is not simply that confidentiality should be reinforced.  Sometimes the concern is that information should be shared more openly in order to reduce risk of harm. 

Confidentiality and the Personnel Process

Pat is a United Church laywoman and a social worker who was involved in calling a new minister to her congregation.  Sometime later she learned that the minister they had called had already been disciplined by the Church for sexual harassment.  However, this information was not shared with the people responsible for issuing the call on the grounds that the Church's personnel process was confidential.         

Pat: "The call could have been stopped had we known.   It wasn't at the point where it couldn't have been stopped when there was already some .  .  .  it wasn't allegations, it was confirmed.  It wasn't just that the person was being sent on the basis of a possibility of something happening, it was confirmed. 

Interviewer: "So was that information not shared before the call was processed?  Was that part of the cover-up that was not shared with either the new congregation or the presbytery, so that you weren't called until after the call was already processed?”

Pat: "The pastoral relations committee knew nothing about it at all.  It was involved in the call.  I guess part of the problem with that is  . . .although I really like the United Church with the oversight of ministers being presbytery  . . . that always creates the dilemma of who knows what and what information needs to be shared with whom.  We have had a couple of problems in the presbytery; I was chair of presbytery and we had one ongoing situation with a minister. 

“We often talked about the fact that in other churches you would have a bishop and the bishop would know everything and the bishop would be the one to make the decision.  I have problems with that because it is concentration with power in one person's hands.   But the dilemma we have with our system is then who do we share the information with?  How many people need to know the information?  How many people need to know all the information?  Because, with that situation it was also the confidentiality on the part of the victim.  It is really difficult to know who needs to have the information and part of the problem again being that people move, people change within presbytery and so if you share information, how much do you share with what people and are they going to be there through the duration of things so you don't end up having to give the same information to more people?   It is a real problem.   I don't know how we deal with it in the United Church.   I certainly don't think we throw out our system and go to a bishop type system, but it does become a real dilemma for us. 

"I am a person, I guess from being in social work, that I think confidentiality is really, really important, but I also think there is a point where confidentiality enables an abuser to be an abuser.  It is always the dilemma of are we just preaching confidentiality or are we doing what we need to do to deal with the problem that a person has?   Usually there are victims involved, so then you've got the confidentiality of the victims too.   Although, when that person came to this presbytery, on any information we were given the victim’s name was blacked out.   I think the church did a good job of maintaining the confidentiality of the victim in that case, but it is a real dilemma for the United Church.  The pastoral relations committee knew nothing about it.” 

Interviewer: "Are you aware, have things gone okay since that person came to this presbytery?” 

Pat: “No, they haven't gone well.  The person has been here a number of years now and we have just become aware of the seriousness of the allegations that happened prior to coming here.  I don't know what we could have done differently.  I think the person shared information with us

that didn't tell us the extent of the relationship.  They did give us some information and I think that was the problem. 

“Again I wonder if it is not like the drinking problem.   If the church, by saying this information will be kept in a very small group of people, and that information would be sealed, and if there were no problems within a certain number of years, the information would be destroyed, I think it almost minimized the really bad effect it had on the victim.   There was a point where this person got a very angry letter from the victim.  We didn't know the extent of the abuse, thinking the abuse was much less that what it actually was.   When we talked about them getting that letter, I think the other person minimized the letter, not realizing we had been told much less of what had happened.  I think again as a church we helped the person to minimize, and that is scary because we become a part of the victimization.” 

“We always talked about boundaries.  I mean that is the issue we dealt with the most.   I don't know how you teach boundaries to someone who doesn't know them.  Anything we heard was hearsay and so you can't deal with hearsay.  We had people expressing concern to us within the church about this minister spending too much time, like spending hours and hours a week, in personal counselling with a person.  We confronted him and said ‘that is not appropriate, you are over the boundary of counselling when you are spending three hours, four times a week with someone. 

“You get really concerned.  What kind of a relationship is going on?  What kind of dependency is there?  There has been an ongoing concern with how much counselling is appropriate for a minister to be doing, and in his case it was inappropriate to be doing any counseling.   That was part of the way that he stayed on but it was really hard for us to know whether he was doing some personal counseling.  We confronted him with it, he was minimizing it, and again we couldn't prove that it was as many hours as we were hearing.  So much of a minister’s work is one-on-one, alone with people.  I think the ethics issue is even more important than in a lot of jobs because there are no other checks on them. 

"In my job, if someone became suspicious that I was developing co-dependency with a client, spending far too much time with them, it would be fairly easy for them to check that out because we have some accountability for each hour of each day.  If I was out of the office, if I was interviewing someone in the office, it would be easy for people to know that.   If I was out of the office three to four hours three days a week, there would be some suspicion about what it was that I was doing because there is some case management from supervisors.  With ministers there is no way of checking that and you know that when we confront him with it he would deny it.  The person he was seeing and spending that much time with is certainly not willing to come forward with it.  It makes it really, really difficult.” 

Second-hand Information

One of Audette's criteria for confidentiality involves asking the question "why?" Why is this person telling me this?  Don is a United Church minister in Saskatchewan who is still struggling with this question. 

"We had one situation that we are still struggling with.  One member of the congregation who was leaving the community, was getting married and moving, came to us and said, ‘there are some things that I think you should know.’  In the context of that discussion he told us about incidents, of unreported incidents, of sexual abuse by one of the teachers at the school who is also a good friend of ours and who has been very involved in our congregation, Ministry and Personnel Committee and various other things.  And the myriad of problems that has created for us in terms of what do you do with it? 

"You know, on reflection, looking back at it, it's like there's a certain amount of anger that was shared with us in terms of ‘well, what was your agenda, buddy?  You know, why was this his parting shot from this community, and wondering what all that was about.  But in terms of being party to some of that information and thinking, is there an imperative on us to report this?  We weren’t as aware of some of the legislation on that as we should be. 

“I think the incidents happened long enough ago.  There are questions as to whether they happened with minors or not, or whether it was with older girls, and there was no report of penetration or things getting to that point, or fondling, and those issues.  I mean that has continued to be somewhat of a struggle. 

“What I perceived it as being at the time was watch your daughters; you've got two young daughters who have spent a fair amount of time with this person in his family home, and I think there was a certain sense of warning on a personal level, but yeah, I still don't know what to do with that kind of information.  It would be very, very different if it was someone coming and talking first person and saying, ‘you know this person did these things to me.’  Then the (situation) changes a whole bunch from it being second, third-hand stories about things that had happened over the years with this teacher.  That's been the number one struggle that we've had though, the one that has caused us the most grief in terms of sifting out well, what do we do with this, what don't we do with this?   And we still haven't resolved that.” 

With Whom Does the Minister Share?

As indicated earlier, most interview subjects dealt with confidentiality within a therapeutic context.  Within that context it was considered normal for the minister to consult confidentially with other professionals or with people to whom they were responsible within the Church system.  Outside of that context there is less agreement.  For example, is it permissible for ministers to debrief with their spouses?  Where people agreed it was permissible, the assumption was even those conversations were confidential.  However, not everyone assumed that debriefing with spouses was acceptable. 

Eleanor is an Anglican priest in Saskatchewan. 

Interviewer: "You've been in many situations over many years, you have a husband who didn't work for the church.  Did you share with him pretty freely? ”

Eleanor: "I think there were some things that we could share and that it was helpful for me to talk out, but it was very much simply because of our relationship as husband and wife that we shared things, and it was confidential.  I talked it out with him and used him as a sounding board.  That was still a very confidential situation.  That wasn't something that he was going down to coffee row and say, ‘oh, you know what the wife told me!’  You know, that kind of thing.  I guess that's what I missed the most after he was gone, because I have to talk things out, kind of, sometimes to come to terms with how I can help someone or something.  For a cowboy he was a very perceptive person, and he could sort of throw off and put his finger on what I should have said or done, in a funny way.” 

John is an Anglican priest in Ontario.  He takes the opposite position from Eleanor. 

John: "One little off the side example that perhaps illustrates what I mentioned.  Over the years I've found that occasionally individuals will approach my wife and they will say 'I've been going through a difficult time' and after they've talked for a little while, 'I'm assuming you know about this.’  My wife has to do the embarrassing thing and say 'well no, how would I know about it if you haven't told me before? ' and they will say 'Well we came in and talked to your husband about all of this.’ She always comes back and says 'Whatever he does or talks about with individuals in counselling, it doesn't come home.’ And I would observe confidentiality even with my spouse.  I think it's important not to carry that on.” 

Michael is a United Church minister in Ontario who has had to deal with the consequences of poor boundaries around confidential information.  He served as a police chaplain for eight years and began that work in a climate of distrust.  He doesn't debrief with his spouse but he does with an ecumenical colleague. 

Michael: "One of my predecessors had been known to blow the confidentiality over a few drinks with some senior officers and it took me a long time to develop any kind of trust with the officers on the beat after that because they figured that was a direct pipeline to the Chief of Police if you had any problems.  So it took a long, long time.  I think confidentiality is a real issue and if clergy don't keep things to themselves, it can destroy any kind of trust that people might have in your ability to work with them in those sensitive issues. 

"I don't even talk to my wife about most things I hear from most people, unless it actually involved her or something like that.   I might discuss something with her in a (general) way.  But I've never taken any of that kind of stuff home so I haven't talked to her about those kinds of issues.  I do have a few clergy colleagues; the archdeacon and I are friends, so if I want to discuss a situation I might go to him and we'd sit down and discuss it.  I wouldn't disclose any information without a person's knowledge beforehand except any sexual child abuse I would have to.   The need to report is clearly part of the legal requirement in this province, so there's no question about that.” 

Kim is an Anglican laywoman in Saskatchewan and a warden in her parish.  She has experienced the minister debriefing with her in her role as a warden. 

Kim: "I know there was a marriage break-up that was very sad.  There were a lot of children involved.  And the priest talked to me about it.  It almost seemed like he had to.  He needs to talk to someone about it.  Like he needed help too, and he needed to talk to someone.  I thought that was alright, and it certainly didn't go beyond me, but it eventually came out anyway because marriage break-ups do.  It was switch partner kind of thing.  It was hard on all of us, you know.” 

Interviewer:  “Was that conversation done in a way that you were aware of who he was talking about?”

Kim: "Yes.   He told me quite a bit about them actually, almost about their finances and their children and how the children were taking it, and how it had affected one of the mothers.  He was there quite a while actually, a couple of hours.  It seemed like he needed to tell someone else, because we knew these families, the whole congregation.” 

Interviewer:  “So he talked to you in your position as a warden?”

Kim: "As a warden, I would say, yes.  It was confidential.” 

This story illustrates issues both sociological and theological.  In a rural setting there are fewer settings for debriefing where the information is unlikely to cause harm if disclosed.  So, norms about debriefing may be different depending on whether the context is urban or rural, notwithstanding the recent changes in cost and availability of long distance communication.  Theologically, this story also raises the question of whether a layperson is an ordained person's colleague in ministry?  None of the interview subjects suggested it was inappropriate to debrief in a confidential manner with a colleague in ministry or other appropriate professional.  In the Anglican system, a warden is a layperson elected or appointed to specific responsibilities for the care and well being of the parish.  In no way could they be considered a professional as a result of that office.  However, depending on one's theological and ecclesiological assumptions, they may well be considered a colleague in ministry. 

Conclusion

Most of the interview subjects in our study borrowed their ethical norms from the counselling context.  Anglicans talked of confession and the sacrament of Penance whereas United Church people did not.  However, even Anglicans describing confidential communication in the context of a formal confession were divided on whether and under what circumstances that confidentiality could be violated. 

As in Audette's study of Congregationalists, most subjects thought of confidentiality in terms of the therapeutic effects of keeping the secrets.[xi]  Unlike the Audette study, both Anglican and United Church members articulated alternative theological grounds for maintaining confidences. 

When confidentiality was discussed in terms of counselling, the rules in force tended to revolve around judgments about potential harm.  All the subjects seemed to have rules of some kind though they differed from one another in significant ways.  Some subjects borrowed rules from previous occupations or associations.  Most ministers agreed they would violate the confidentiality of a counselling session in order to report suspected child abuse.  One person identified a conflict between pastoral effectiveness and the reporting requirements of the law.  Another person described a moral duty to defy the law in order to protect confidentiality when it meant protecting a refugee from deportation. 

Outside of a formal counselling session, expectations began to diverge as to what information might be shared and when.  The example of public prayer as an occasion for the breaking of a confidence arose more often among the Ontario subjects than among Saskatchewan subjects.  This suggests differences between predominantly urban and rural congregations about how information is to be shared.  In addition, both lay people and clergy were divided as to whether information shared with a minister was public unless told otherwise, or the reverse.  Most often lay people expected ministers to be responding at all times with discretion and sensitivity. 

Different expectations about how information is to be handled reveal deeper theological and ecclesiological conflicts.  If the congregation is the primary agent of ministry, then the priest or pastor will have a role as an enabler of that function and holding back information can hinder that role. 

These differences appear again over the question of appropriate persons with whom to debrief.  If one is working strictly from within the professional model, then a minister would only debrief with someone who has similar education and qualification.  However, if you come from a perspective that emphasizes the 'priesthood of all believers,' then other members of the congregation would qualify as appropriate. 

Confidentiality needs to be considered not only in a one-on-one context, whether that is confession or counselling.  It also needs to be considered in the larger contexts of group decision-making. 

---

FOOTNOTES