RE: Fw: *Sightings* 6/24/04 -- Confidences
I think Mike Schutt drew this line more carefully than I did. At 04:55 PM 6/24/2004 -0500, you wrote: I agree with Professor Laycock's take, except that it doesn't seem right that the line is crossed as soon as a pastor "gets himself licensed." But I'm open to correction. If a person comes to his or her pastor for counseling, why should it matter whether he is licensed with a non-sectarian organization? This would provide a disincentive for any pastor who takes a strict biblical approach of church discipline (a requirement to involve others in the church in the process is found in Matt. 18 and, arguably, I Cor. 6) would have a disincentive to join -- or perhaps be disqualified from joining-- a professional counselors' organization. Pastors who are licensed counselors MUST be able to have it both ways, as long as they are clear with their clients/parishioners. I agree that there have to be clear lines, but the line surely cannot be crossed as soon as a pastor gets a license from a secular association. (I think the Nally case required something more-- a creation of confusion by the action of the pastor, I recall, but I could be wrong). Of course, at this stage, all that the case holds is that the petition does in fact state a claim. If it turns out that Westbrook somehow separated himself from his pastoral role (beyond merely getting a license) and became a "secular" counselor (plaintiff's words), then perhaps P should recover. Otherwise, it squeezes pastors into an unnecessary dilemma. Mike Schutt -Original Message- 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'
RE: Fw: *Sightings* 6/24/04 -- Confidences
Title: Message I agree with Professor Laycock's take, except that it doesn't seem right that the line is crossed as soon as a pastor "gets himself licensed." But I'm open to correction. If a person comes to his or her pastor for counseling, why should it matter whether he is licensed with a non-sectarian organization? This would provide a disincentive for any pastor who takes a strict biblical approach of church discipline (a requirement to involve others in the church in the process is found in Matt. 18 and, arguably, I Cor. 6) would have a disincentive to join -- or perhaps be disqualified from joining-- a professional counselors' organization. Pastors who are licensed counselors MUST be able to have it both ways, as long as they are clear with their clients/parishioners. I agree that there have to be clear lines, but the line surely cannot be crossed as soon as a pastor gets a license from a secular association. (I think the Nally case required something more-- a creation of confusion by the action of the pastor, I recall, but I could be wrong). Of course, at this stage, all that the case holds is that the petition does in fact state a claim. If it turns out that Westbrook somehow separated himself from his pastoral role (beyond merely getting a license) and became a "secular" counselor (plaintiff's words), then perhaps P should recover. Otherwise, it squeezes pastors into an unnecessary dilemma. Mike Schutt -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas LaycockSent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:53 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Fw: *Sightings* 6/24/04 -- ConfidencesI 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 AMSubject: *Sightings* 6/24/04 -- ConfidencesSightings 6/24/04Confidences-- Duane R. BidwellA 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 pas
RE: Fw: *Sightings* 6/24/04 -- Confidences
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 can
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, how
