The opinion says not a word about
standards for pastoral counseling. That was the writer of the Sighting’s
piece editorial interpolation.
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:53
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Fw: *Sightings*
6/24/04 -- Confidences
I don't think
Rev. Westbrook can have it both ways. Secular counseling by
psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and the like is heavily
regulated. Pastoral counseling is not, and in my view cannot be.
But as long as that distinction holds, there have to be clear lines and clear
disclosure. A counselee is entitled to know whether she is consulting a
secular counselor, who will use secular methods and be subject to secular
regulation, or a religious counselor, who may use quite similar methods or who
may use dramatically different methods.
When this guy
got himself licensed as a secular counsel, he submitted to secular
regulation. If he had remained a purely pastoral counselor, and she had
consulted him on those terms, I think the standards of other pastoral
counselors, and their association that is no doubt dominated by folks from much
more mainline denominations than Westbrook's, should have been utterly
irrelevant.
At 02:47 PM 6/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
This is part of Martin E. Marty's list. While I don't
find the pastoral counseling standards argument legally persuasive, I think the
general holding does appear to accord with Smith.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sightings
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:13
AM
Subject: *Sightings* 6/24/04 --
Confidences
Sightings 6/24/04
Confidences
-- Duane R. Bidwell
A minister who is licensed by the state of Texas
as a mental-health professional cannot claim First Amendment protections for a
breach of confidentiality, a Texas
appeals court has ruled.
The case alleges that Fort Worth minister C. L.
"Buddy" Westbrook, a licensed professional counselor and pastor of Crossland Community Bible
Church, broke confidence
when he wrote a letter to his congregation directing church members to avoid
contact with a woman until "the time of repentance and restoration."
The action was necessary, he wrote, because she was engaging "in a
biblically inappropriate relationship" and seeking a divorce.
Under the congregation's bylaws, church members can be disciplined for
behaviors the congregation considers inappropriate. But the woman, who
had resigned from the church prior to Westbrook's letter, says the information
he shared was obtained during a counseling relationship and is therefore
privileged.
A pastor's right to discipline church members -- even by revealing confidential
information -- seems a cornerstone of Westbrook's defense. Earlier, a
state district judge threw out the case because it applied a secular standard
to a church conflict. This implies that the pastor's actions are
protected by the First Amendment as "freedom of religion."
But last month the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ruled that the lawsuit could move
ahead because the pastor is a licensed professional counselor and therefore
accountable to professional standards for confidentiality established by the
Texas Professional Counselor Act.
The plaintiff, appeals court Judge Anne Gardner wrote, has a "viable claim
involving the pastor's alleged breach of duty in his secular counseling role
that does not implicate the propriety of the church's disciplinary
action."
The decision seems consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 ruling in
Employment Division vs. Smith that generally applicable laws, such as those
governing professional counselors, may be applied even if they restrict
religious freedom.
When Westbrook revealed private information obtained through a counseling
relationship, he violated Texas
standards for licensed counselors -- standards he agreed to follow when he
sought and received state licensure.
But licensed or not, he also flouted well-established ethical guidelines for
the practice of pastoral counseling and standards for professional conduct
established by many denominations and honored by most ministers.
The Code of Ethics of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors (AAPC)
specifically states:
"We do not disclose client confidences to anyone, except: as mandated by
law; to prevent a clear and immediate danger to someone; in the course of
civil, criminal or disciplinary action arising from the counseling where the
pastoral counselor is a defendant; for purposes of supervision or consultation;
or by previously obtained written permission."
Westbrook is not a certified pastoral counselor, an AAPC member, or a staff
member at an accredited pastoral counseling center. But even if he cannot
be held to the professional standards of the pastoral counseling community, the
policies of most Christian denominations would call his behavior into question.
Confidentiality, of course, is not an absolute standard. Clergy and
mental-health practitioners have an ethical (and often legal) responsibility to
break confidentiality when children or the elderly are being abused or when
people are a danger to themselves or others. This does not seem to have
been a factor in Westbrook's decision to share confidential information,
however.
In allowing the lawsuit against Westbrook, the 2nd Court of Appeals has made a
decision consistent with state and federal law. More importantly, the
decision is consistent with our culture's broader consensus -- including the consensus
of professional organizations and communities of faith -- that a breach of
confidentiality can often be an abuse of pastoral power.
Rev. Duane R. Bidwell, Ph.D., is a certified pastoral counselor and director of
the Pastoral Care and Training Center, an AAPC-accredited pastoral counseling center
at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University. He is
author of Short-Term Spiritual Guidance: A
Contemporary Approach to a Classic Discipline (Fortress Press,
2004).
----------
The June Religion and Culture Web Forum is now available at http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml,
featuring "A 'Monkish Virtue' outside the Monastery: On the Social and
Civic Value of Humility" by Mary M. Keys.
----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the
University of Chicago Divinity School.
Submissions policy
Sightings welcomes
submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to illuminate and interpret
the forces of faith in a pluralist society. Previous columns
give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable
essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to issues related to
religion and public life.
Attribution
Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the
author of the column, Sightings,
and the Martin Marty Center
at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Contact information
Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to Elizabeth Hayes Alvarez,
managing editor of Sightings, at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage
your subscription at the Sightings subscription
page.
----------
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas
Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX
78705
512-232-1341
(voice)
512-471-6988
(fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
