Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
clergy and confidentiality
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by guagliona (U12195887) on Friday, 6th February 2009
Can anyone throw any light on what the position of CofE vicars is re confidentiality, viz a viz their conversations with parishioners?
-
Message 2
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 6th February 2009
CONFIDENTIALITY
A personal seeking pastoral guidance and counsel from clergy has the right to expect that the minister concerned will not pass on to a third party confidential information so obtained, without consent. If a person has been consulted and has given permission, information may be given to others.
from -
Message 3
Posted by bob larkin (U2297537) on Friday, 6th February 2009
Does this put Usha (and/or Alan) in the dock?
bob -
Message 4
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 6th February 2009
That was not the question.
-
Message 5
Posted by jane_berry (U3025755) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
guagliona - sorry only have experience with Catholic clergy. In that instance a formal confession is sacrosanct and they cannot divulge details at all ever. I would also expect that they would keep a private conversation to themselves and not gossip about it to all and sundry. I guess there is a grey area though when it is between mutual friends of the vicar. Don't know what the rules are but I would expect them to keep their counsel
-
Message 6
Posted by ignore_ant (U11891074) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
he asked about the church of england
not about RCs -
Message 7
Posted by jane_berry (U3025755) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
I realise that ignore ant but I'm sure that general confiodentiality should apply to the CofE as well depending on whether the conversation had taken place in a "professional context". In any case I would expect any member of the clergy of whatever denomination to be discreet about anything they were told and not to go blabbing about it
-
Message 8
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
<Does this put Usha (and/or Alan) in the dock??
Rev B first and foremost - he should not have said anything to Usha.
Usha to a slightly lesser extent - having decided to discuss his parishioners' private affairs with his wife, Rev B should have warned her about the importance of maintaining confidentiality although I can't particularly blame him on that count as he would be entitled to assume that as a lawyer, and also after all the heavings and anger at Shula's breach of confidentiality, she would be fully aware of its importance. -
Message 9
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
in reply to cath in message 8
Usha is a third party, isn't she, cath, in the "has the right to expect that the minister concerned will not pass on to a third party" quote from the guidance I quoted in post#2?
Which seems to cover the query in post #1. -
Message 10
Posted by jane_berry (U3025755) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
You're right Rosie and he shouldn't. A little tough though with a spouse - I had problems with the banking crisis as OH naturally talks to me. He's had a carp day and needs to vent so he talks to the closest person in his life - I just need to try my best to keep me gob shut and it seems that Usha needs to learn the same lesson
-
Message 11
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) ** on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Sat, 07 Feb 2009 13:47 GMT, in reply to jane_berry in message 10
Perhaps Usha needs to treat Alan like a client as well as a husband. -
Message 12
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Rosie, yes, Usha is most definitely a 3rd party and Rev B had no right to tell her anything, however tempting. If he needed to talk he should have spoken to Rachael or the Bish.
-
Message 13
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
The speculation about clerical confidentially or otherwise strikes me as a bit theoretical. What happened is what would have very likely happened in RL.
A man or women discusses something that happened at work concerning another person with his spouse, as people do all the time. Spouse repeats it to best friend especially as best friend is related to the individual in question.
Whether he has some duty of confidentially is somewhat irrelevant imo. -
Message 14
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
reply to Reggie Trentham in message 13
Well, yes, maybe, but surely only the first bit, spouse tells spouse ... Surely, surely people then keep it to themselves, not go blabbing to anyone else at all?
And for some peculiar reason, I was trying to answer a query as it was asked, not say what would happen in real life, or a different institution.
Sorry. -
Message 15
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
No criticism of you meant, cos. Just my thoughts on the situation.
-
Message 16
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Actually Reggie, that's not true, not where the details are confidential. Where you have a duty of confidentiality you don't talk to anyone outside work (or if you do you should be disciplined at the very least, if not sacked and in some cases prosecuted).
It is very frustrating at times not to be able to talk to one's OH about work particularly where there are really juicy things to talk about but it's the territory that comes with certain jobs and you learn to live with it. -
Message 17
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
It's a tough life being a spy, isn't it, Cath?
'Ö'
ps: the swans are bicycling at midnight. Be prepared. You know whereof I speak. P has sanctioned extreme measures according to the Zapriskie File.
'Ö' -
Message 18
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Too right Leaps. Extreme measures for the England team if they lose this one.
-
Message 19
Posted by mike (U2254029) ** on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:04 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 2
A personal seeking pastoral guidance and counsel from clergy has the right to expect that the minister concerned will not pass on to a third party confidential information so obtained, without consent.Â
But was Shula asking for pastoral guidance? I thought she was telling Alan that she didn't think the Hindu statue appropriate and she didn't listen to what he had to say. That is hardly seeking guidance, is it? Seeking guidance would be something like: I'm in two minds about forsythia - tell me what you think! -
Message 20
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Only if you promise not to blab to your OH.
'Ö'
ps: cath - I must have used last week's code as you seem to have completely misunderstood me. Either that or I'm a double agent without realising it. -
Message 21
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
She also told him in confidence that she was leaving St. stephens, and said, "Please don't tell anyone." That was a pastoral matter, and thus confidential, surely?
-
Message 22
Posted by mike (U2254029) ** on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:25 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 21
Possibly, but I note that Shula didn't turn a hair when Alistair told her about Ryan (and I thing what is said at GA meetings etc is also confidential).
I think in reality many people tell their spouses about work and other stuff which strictly they should not. (A shining exception, of course, is Kenton, who is the model of discretion.) -
Message 23
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Yes, and how I wish Kenton would tell what his brother had confided in him about what the cowman got up to with his wife...
'Ö' -
Message 24
Posted by jane_berry (U3025755) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Hardly going to stay a secret when she actually does stop going though is it?
But I agree, he should not have said anything. But spouses do talk OTOH if OH talks to me it is rarely specific - well he knows that anything financial will go straight over my head anyway as it involves numbers. There were a couple of time we were on vacation when someone leaving the firm for other jobs had been found to have been stealing information. He told me that much because he had to tell me why he was spending so much vacation time on the phone or the computer dealing with work stuff but it was all anonymous. -
Message 25
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
ryan and aliatair are not clerggy, though.
-
Message 26
Posted by jane_berry (U3025755) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
No but AA, and I assume GA, meetings are supposed to be absolutely confidential, it is quite clearly stated that what is said in the room should stay in the room
-
Message 27
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
in reply to mike .... in message 22
and you said, "But was Shula asking for pastoral guidance?" when she did the Shiva conversation,
and I was pointing out the bit where Shula asked Alan to keep his big mouth shut("Please don't tell anyone") and he went and blabbed to someone (Usha) about it, and then Usha passed it on, then Ruth passed it on ... so the pastoral bit, about him (Alas) not telling anyone was broken.
Did Alistair ask her not to mention Ryan, and is it relevant to C of E Revvers, anyway?
I rest my (brief)case. -
Message 28
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
A portmanteau post:
msg 20: Leaps, no I think I lost the code book, and/or I am not a very good spy. I shall stick to the day job to save the country from my lack of spook ability.
msg 22: Mike, discussing GA/AA is a different matter. We are here talking about people who keep secrets as part of their profession. People who go to GA/AA may not have a culture of confidentiality and in any case may not have anyone else to talk to when they are in the pits. You'll remember I'm sure that when Ali told Shula he started with 'I'm not meant to tell you this but' - a clear indication to Shula that was he was saying was confidential. Something perhaps Rev B might have thought to do.
You'll also remember that Kenton has told Kathy about Ali's GA habit, from their discussion the other day.
msg 27: Rosie, perhaps Rev B is working on a technicality - the guidance refers to the parishioner seeking advice so perhaps Rev B is deliberately cornering his parishioners to get information from them in order to weasel his way out of his duty of confidentiality? No, actually you are briefcasing right. Whether Rev B approached Shula or vice versa, his position means that he must at all times maintain a duty of confidentiality. -
Message 29
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Do you think Rev B got Shula to sign a waiver?
If Keri won't allow us to call Alan Rev Bunter, he certainly can't complain if we call him Rev Blabbermouth.
'Ö' -
Message 30
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:44 GMT, in reply to mike .... in message 19
Now that would be an ecumenical matter. -
Message 31
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Monday, 9th February 2009
There's also the issue that what Shula said to Alan related to his marriage and its effects, so Usha is in a rather different position from a theoretical "third party".
-
Message 32
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Some people sometimes talk about a second party, being someone who represents the first party but you always have to get permission from the first party to discuss anything confidential with anyone else, including a 'second party'. But first you have to identify the first party. In a professional relationship like this SL only one side can be a first party.
In this case Rev B is the official and Shula is the first party and it is /her/ confidentiality that Rev B is bound to protect as a professional. Which he failed to do. Conspicuously and pretty shamefully imo.
Whether Usha had an interest in the subject under discussion is completely irrelevant: he had no authority to disclose the nature of his discussion with Shula to Usha who was, and remains, a third party. -
Message 33
Posted by JennyDarling Long Gone (U250754) ** on Monday, 9th February 2009
Not in the ministry, but when my ex husband was on the PCC in our church, he never discussed any of the matters which came up at the meetings. Later on a friend of ours was on the PCC - his wife knew everything that happened, and talked inaproprietly about what she'd heard.
Alan should not discuss parochial matters with Usha. -
Message 34
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:14 GMT, in reply to Keri Davies - Host in message 31
I've just been to a counselling workshop, theme "Ethics and dual roles", where a client and therapist meet in another roles, be it lovers (almost always damaging) to "someone who enquires about your car, after seeing the For Sale sign in the window", could be ok, could be an expoitation of the trusting relationship which has been built up)
I don't know what the Anglican guidlines are, but if Alan was Shulas therapist, it would be difficult to see her socially, and vice versa. -
Message 35
Posted by crockfordina (U13821637) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
There are many Anglicans, esp. Anglo-Catholics (C/E) who make confession directly and perosnally to a Priest -- be it the Vicar, Rector or Priest in Charge and for these the rules ar ethe same as for R/C
-
Message 36
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Evening carrick, I don't think the no socialising between vics and parishioners would be so strongly enforced as with therapists and their clients so some sort of social life is presumably acceptable (otherwise vicars would be outcasts in their own commmunities).
/But/ where they do socialise I would expect them to be very careful. And if you are going to socialise with a vicar you would not expect your secrets to be disclosed.
I bumped into a chum today who goes to a traditional sort of church who said she was not at all impressed by Rev B's behaviour. Not that some vicars don't spout their mouths off but you don't tell them anything once you realise that they are Blabbers. -
Message 37
Posted by carrick-bend (U2288869) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:44 GMT, in reply to cath in message 36
Morning, Cath - yes, I realise that part of the clergy/parishoner set-up is that you are (not always, these days) but ideally, living in the same parish, children at the same schools etc, so it would take a very special quality of discretion and balance to retain confidentiality, but there must be a sort of "gold standard", where the sanctity of the relationship is preserved.
It must be very difficult, especially where one is having long-term relationships with people who may be very needy and/or undergoing crises. -
Message 38
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
There's also the issue that what Shula said to Alan related to his marriage and its effects, Shula going to another church is not connected to his marriage, is it? It's pastoral, surely?
-
Message 39
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Evening carrick (blimey this conversation is almost as slow as if one of us were on Mars and the other on Earth but that's our RLs I guess) yes, I meant to add that presumably a therapist/client relationship is going to be much more intense and personal than most vicar/parishioner interactions.
But something like the crisis Shula has been going through (for whatever reason) is closer to the therapist/client relationship in that Shula is exploring some deep interior thoughts and Rev B is aware of that - at least of their existence - which is in itself potentially intrusive and the fact of their existence needs to be protected from public gaze.
Too right. -
Message 40
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
V true, Rosie.
What is the gossip? Shula is leaving St Steve's.
Who is doing the deed - Shula.
What is the information at stake - Shula is leaving St Steve's.
The reasons are irrelevant. There are no excuses. Neither Rev Blabbermouth nor Usha can claim not to understand the issue of confidentiality. -
Message 41
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) ** on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:36 GMT, in reply to cath in message 40
What is the information at stake - Shula is leaving St Steve's.
The reasons are irrelevant. There are no excuses. Neither Rev Blabbermouth nor Usha can claim not to understand the issue of confidentiality.Â
But surely the fact she has left is just that - a fact, and visible to anyone who cares. The confidentiality relates to her /reasons/ for leaving. -
Message 42
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
No Peet, at the time the information was disclosed to WR Shula had told only Rev B of her intention to leave - it was /her/ decision to leave and /her/ news and her right to decide how and when to make that news known, if at all. She started to make it known on the Wednesday to Neil, one or two days /after/ Rev B and subsequently Usha disclosed that information. As a result Shula was harrassed by her mother over an issue that she, at that time, did not want her mother to know about.
There simply aren't any excuses for this. It's one of those quite rare black and white cases and I can only imagine from Keri's reaction that it was something that the prodteam hadn't considered, thinking it was an innocent way to progress a SL (assuming we are meant to consider Rev B an OK sort of bloke). As it is we have heard on air Rev B breaking a fundamental rule of his profession (thank goodness that's all we heard). -
Message 43
Posted by Spartacus (U38364) ** on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:18 GMT, in reply to cath in message 42
Fair enough, cath. I was a little hazy on the actual timeline; I'm afraid I just tend to let Shula's scenes sort of wash over me without taking them in. It's a defence mechanism I've evolved over many years of listening. -
Message 44
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
That's all right, Peet, you're excused. I've been working on that approach for WR's scenes but I haven't yet succeeded.
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.