Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/3/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> One thing most forget is this: Many times an institution must rule on what
> they have found as fact, but because of the nature of PRIVACY and DISCRETION
> on the substance of their consultation they simply are not free to fully
> explain themselves. An assembly at whatever level of function has
> responsibilities to maintain a "privileged information" status - to break
> confidentiality on ANY single thing can jeopardize the institution's right
> to keep ANYTHING confidential from a legaland societal standpoint.
>
> As it is legally in the west, an assembly can claim privilege just as an
> attorney or doctor or clergyman can, but to maintain that claim everything
> must be confidential.
I think the two kinds of cases are very different. In order for an
attorney, doctor, or clergyman (or clergywoman) to do their jobs,
their client! s or parishoners need to be honest with them and at times
give them candid, personal information. But if these people could be
compelled to easily turn over such information, then the people they
are trying to serve would have less reason to trust them, and these
people would be less able to do their job.
But if a larger institution is making decisions it can't exactly claim
the same privilege for themselves.
For example if a child molestor goes to a priest and confesses his
sins, the confession would be protected. But if priests molest
children and the church just chooses to move them around to different
parishes and pays off families to keep them quiet, etc, the church
can't ethically claim some kind of protection.
Peace
GilbertoDear Gilberto,
The faith has no clergy, all the pastoral authority of the faith is within the administrative bodies. Just as a single client can have a horde of lawyers, an administrative body can claim the same right to privilege and more importantly, the individual can demand that the administrative body live up to that privilege.
As to child abuse, the clergyman may have the duty to remain mum on the basis of "privileged information", he certainly has the right to turn in anonymously a call to the authorities and NOT give any detail. Thereby he can keep conscience and not allow a situation to go unadressed.
As to the administrative arm of any religion shielding sex offenders who happen to be clergy or administrative authorities, I do not find this acceptable either. But the right of the "confessional" is entrenched in American and British jurispudence, and justifiably so.
Regards,
Scott
Arnold J. Toynbee
