Inappropriate pastoral conduct involving a child – a new ‘offence’ courtesy 2014 Synod?

Part 2

By Louise Greentree

Don’t let this happen if you do not want to be targeted by malicious and/or neurotic and/or incompetent parishioners and church workers

‘If ever we, the supporters and advisers of Drew and Pippa, ever needed confirmation that Lachlan Bryant, director of Sydney Anglican church Professional Standards Unit and his merry band of the PSU and Professional Standards Committee members were on the wrong track completely when they accepted and promoted a complaint by a man who had been successfully trained by Drew for Christian ministry – and they know it – it is upon reading the papers for the meeting of Synod 2014 to be held in mid-October 2014.

There, dear readers, you will find the way in which the diocesan staff, officers and senior clergy are going to try to hoodwink Synod members while moving the goalposts in Drew’s case that is presently before the Disciplinary Tribunal. It is an attempt to create another offence under the Discipline Ordinance 2006 by way of clause 6 of an amendment…’[1]

This amendment attempts to use the guidelines and standards in Faithfulness in Service (October 2004) (FIS) as the basis for proscribing certain conduct that falls far short of criminal behaviour in respect of a child and far short of major sins that are the subject of existing offences under the Discipline Ordinance 2006.

In Part 1 I looked at the clauses of the Preamble to FIS which make it clear that its’ provisions were never intended to be the basis of proscription of behaviour in the terms of this proposed new ‘offence’ and nor is it safe to make them this now. I referred to my commentary in Part 2 of the series ‘Is buying a lost child an ice cream child abuse?’ in which I examined the ‘Guidelines for Church Workers (Clergy and Lay) Ministering to Children and Youth’ contained at 3.6 in the predecessor to FIS, a Code of Conduct for Clergy 1998. I highlighted the faults of those ‘guidelines’ in their lack of proscriptive language, vagueness, and qualifications on any expectation of their implementation by such words as ‘if possible’, ‘be aware of the risk of’, ‘give consideration to’ and ‘take care to’. As I said in Part 2 of ‘Is buying a lost child an ice cream child abuse?’ these are not law; they are part counselling training and part pious hope.

In Part 2 of that series I also made two other points about these clauses in those guidelines: first that as the Code of Conduct 1998 was addressed to clergy, then it was up to the senior minister of a particular parish at the time to ensure that the guidelines were known to people working with children and youth, and that they were observed (‘as far as practicable’), then failures were the responsibility of the senior minister. The second point was this: where these guidelines deal with preferred arrangements and behaviour when working with children or youth – ‘wherever possible’, ‘serious consideration should be given to’, ‘should be sensitive to’ – this places them in the category of ‘risk management’, that is, failure to observe the guidelines could lead to a false claim of abusive behaviour.

In this, Part 2 of what will be a series about this new ‘offence’ I will take my examination of the standards and guidelines in FIS dealing with pastoral relationships and see whether they, any more than their predecessors, are able to form the basis of proscribed behaviour embodied in the new offence. In Part 3 I will turn my attention to the standards and guidelines of FIS concerned with working with children and youth.

Now read on:

It is important that my readers understand the following issues concerning the new ‘offence’:

Firstly: although the description of the new ‘offence’ states (see footnote 1) that it is desirable to introduce this new ‘offence’ where there is insufficient evidence of sexual intention to prove a case of grooming, in Drew’s case not only is there NO evidence of sexual intention to prove a case of grooming there is positive evidence of complainant 1’s admission that he never did regard Drew’s conduct as having anything sexual about it.

Secondly: a new ‘offence’ that falls a long way behind real cases of child sex abuse and grooming should not be introduced just as a matter of shoring up deficiencies of evidence (and perhaps to try to answer a case of defamation where allegations of grooming were published to a wide range of people by both the director PSU and complainant 1, for example) in a sort of ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink- we all know that this happened it is just a matter of those pesky rules of evidence’ attitude that allows injustice to breed. And it is as well to remember that in hearings in a church tribunal, as in State and Federal tribunals, the rules of evidence do not have to be strictly applied, so that the more esoteric ones that can keep out evidence (or keep it away from a jury) are not applicable, although the most commonly used rules usually are – such as those of relevance and against hearsay where a person is available to give evidence out of their own knowledge, which are generally acknowledged to be useful to ensure the proper conduct of a case.

Thirdly: a person should not be charged with an ‘offence’ that was not an ‘offence’ at the time the conduct took place. This does not apply to cases of child sex abuse and grooming as this has been a crime under State law for a long time and cases can be brought outside the usual limitation of 6 years from the date of the conduct. It was the cover-ups and abuse and re-victimisation of real victims of real abusers by clergy and others in the church offices that should be the subject of an ‘offence’. In some cases, of course, it was: warning a person of a Police investigation so that they could escape overseas is a crime and attracts a gaol sentence.

Fourthly: a person should not be charged with an ‘offence’ that is not described clearly and in appropriately proscriptive terms. Guidelines or standards are not proscriptive, as we will see, and nor are they described clearly. Under no circumstances should the assessment of whether a specific guideline does create an offence and that a person should be charged with it be left to the director PSU. I can cite too many examples where terrible mistakes, incompetence to the point of malice, and inefficiency and woolly thinking has been the output from that office over the years since it’s creation by the Discipline Ordinance 2002.

Fifthly: the church processes should be a clear demonstration of justice and truth: two parts of the character of God. The Christian church should be more careful to be more ethical and more just and truthful than the civil society in which it exists.

Now for a closer look at Faithfulness in Service.

What are the overall standards that the new ’offence’ seeks to enforce?

In the introductory comments in FIS is this statement:

The personal behaviour and practices of pastoral ministry required of clergy (bishops, priests and deacons) of the Anglican Church of Australia are specified in the Holy Scriptures as well as in its Constitution, canons, ordinances, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.  Although not bound by the promises made by clergy, church workers (lay persons who are employed or hold a position or perform a function within the Anglican Church of Australia) are expected to conform to the same behaviour and practices as clergy—except in areas that apply only to clergy. 

OK. So the person who is diligently trying to abide by these behaviours and practices of pastoral ministry has first to be a theologian of no mean distinction as well as fully conversant with ALL documents of both ecclesiastical law and worship. Fine for graduates of tertiary theological training; not so fine for the plumber who is People’s Warden of the parish.

This also makes for an interesting argument at a tribunal hearing when an attempt to implement the advice given in many of the guidelines has led to a charge being laid against a hapless church worker where things have not worked out: is the advice in a particular guideline specified in the Holy Scriptures as well as the other documents listed above. Surely if it is not, it is ‘unenforceable’. On the other hand what is this diligent person to do about the behaviour and practices of pastoral ministry that are specified in Holy Scriptures that do not appear in the guidelines? The temple practices prescribed by God for his worship as reported by His prophets in the Old Testament would certainly surprise, if not horrify the modern worshipper.

I take this point not to be flippant but to point out that motherhood statements like these are undesirable if the ‘standards and guidelines’ arising from them are to be made the subject of an ‘offence’ for which a person’s life and work can be destroyed for no better reason than that someone does not like them – because that is the only person who is going to make a complaint based on these; a person who thinks that they should be able to ruin someone’s life and work because their imagined victimhood of a course of grooming where there is no evidence of sexual intent (or, as in Drew’s case, where complainant 1 admits that he never did think there was sexual intent).

What is pastoral conduct?

              In looking through FIS to answer this question we strike the first snag. There is no definition of pastoral conduct in FIS.

There are the following definitions relating to pastoral something, but not conduct:

pastoral relationship means a relationship between clergy or church workers and any person for the purposes of pastoral ministry.

pastoral ministry means the work involved or the situation which exists when a member of the clergy or church worker has responsibility as part of their role for the wellbeing of others.  This includes the provision of spiritual advice and support, education, counselling, medical care, and assistance in times of need.

individual pastoral ministry means pastoral ministry carried out one-to-one.  It includes spiritual direction, or pastoral counselling arising out of bereavement, divorce or other life crises.

 So from the start there is a most regrettable imprecision of terminology. It would be helpful to the person attempting to avoid being charged with this new ‘offence’ to have a clear statement. But it gets worse.

The explanation for the creation of the new ‘offence’ says that it is required for the circumstances where there is insufficient evidence of sexual intent to make out a case of grooming. This is a very specific statement of purpose. So are we, the persons diligently inquiring ‘what shall we do?’ and ‘what shall we not do?’, to believe that this only relates to conduct that would qualify as grooming apart from this unfortunate lack of evidence of sexual intent? Probably not, as I will discuss below, which is misleading at best.

FIS has a definition of grooming (which, as I pointed out in ‘Is buying a lost child an ice cream child abuse?’ the Discipline Ordinance 2006 does not have – something that Bryant will also be asking Synod 2014 to remedy, as no-one seems to have noticed this anomaly before I pointed it out). It is this:

grooming is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship in order to initiate or cloak sexual abuse of an adult or a child.  In the case of child sexual abuse, an offender may groom not only the child, but also those who exercise authority over the child, including the child’s parents or guardians, and clergy and church workers. (My emphasis)

When you take out the words ‘in order to initiate or cloak sexual abuse’ you are left with the definition of something that is ‘the manipulative cultivation of a relationship’ but for no particular purpose and certainly not for a sexual purpose. The rest of the definition has no relevance when those words are removed and so the second sentence drops out also. You are left with: ‘is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship’.

Now this has also, according to the explanation of the new ‘offence’, to be in breach of the ‘standards and guidelines’ of FIS.

So what would the prosecutor of a charge alleging this offence have to prove?

1. That there was jurisdiction: that the adult person against whom the offence is alleged is a church worker according to the definition in the Discipline Ordinance 2006. This means he or she is in a position of leadership if not clergy or in one of the specific positions in the church that are enumerated in the definition of church worker.

2. That there was a relationship between two people (the adult church worker and a child according to the short form of description of the offence). A child is a person under the age of 18 years.

3. That the relationship was ‘cultivated’ by the adult. To what purpose this relationship was cultivated by the adult has now been excluded because of the ‘insufficiency of evidence’ of sexual intent. What constitutes cultivating the relationship is also now a mystery: is it chatting to the child before, after or during youth activities? Is it mentoring them for Christian ministry? Is it giving them part-time paid employment out of school hours?  What is wrong with cultivating a relationship? Once you remove intent for an evil purpose, surely nothing is wrong with cultivating a relationship with a child. A grandmother can cultivate a relationship with her grandchild (speaking as a step-grandmother it seems to involve lots of presents as well as a sympathetic ear).

But can we trust diocesan officers to make that distinction? In my experience and that of people who have been zealously pursued by such diocesan officers in relation to false claims, no, we cannot.

4. That the cultivation of the relationship was manipulative. What does manipulative mean? Here are a few synonyms: scheming, calculating, controlling, devious, unscrupulous, cunning, Machiavellian, and serpentine. All of these acknowledge some sort of benefit to the manipulator at the expense of the welfare of the person manipulated. It is the cultivation of the relationship that has to be manipulative.

We now have yet another problem of evidence. What sort of evidence would prove that the cultivation of the relationship was manipulative where it does not involve an evil purpose such as child abuse or grooming?

It is possible, I suppose that the church organist[2] was going through a painful separation and divorce and a bitter dispute with her husband over with whom the children will live most of the week; and that she, as not only an organist but also clinical psychologist cultivated a relationship with her children of a nature that was manipulative of their emotions to bond them closely to her and to reject their father, in order to prevent her husband seeing the children again (you may think this does not happen: I have seen it happen many times over my years of experience with such cases). Apart from what the Family Court of Australia might have decided to do about this, is it appropriate that she might also be the subject of a complaint to the PSU, by her husband or even by one of the older children with whom the manipulative relationship has now failed? Is it appropriate that the threat of a complaint should hang over her until she dies, because, as I have pointed out before there is no sunset clause on the offences defined in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and its provisions also operate retrospectively.

5. That the relationship breached the standards and guidelines of FIS. Or, that the cultivation of the relationship breached the standards and guidelines of FIS. Or, that the manipulative cultivation of the relationship breached the standards and guidelines of FIS. You pay your money and make your choice. Except that this is not true. You will have the choice made by the director PSU to suit his or her determination to make out a case against you, without you being able to take proper steps to protect yourself because you do not know what it is you have to protect yourself from.

What is clear is that the new ‘offence’ is shrouded in complexity, evidentiary problems and, I would also suggest, it does not even address a clear need for disciplinary action.  More a case for wise counsel and guidance, to quote FIS as discussed in Part 1.

The FIS standards applicable to pastoral ministry[3]

              What are the overriding principles contained in these standards relating to pastoral ministry? They are these-

• That the person with overall authority in a church body (like a parish) is responsible for a safe working environment which includes such things as constructive feedback and the provision of opportunities for personal development to staff.
• The need to put the interests of the person you are relating to in pastoral ministry ahead of your own and to avoid and resolve a conflict of interest.
  • Not to inappropriately discriminate against a person.
  • To maintain privacy of information
  • To make alternative arrangements for pastoral ministry where you cannot fulfill your duties.

  As you can see, some of these echo legal obligations (OH&S requirements; anti-discrimination law; privacy laws); and some are rules of ethical behaviour that involves possible conflicts of interest, discouraging gossip and doing your duty to enure that your work is covered by someone else when you cannot do it.

It is possible that some of these standards may apply to a pastoral relationship with a child. But are any of them so serious as to warrant more than wise counsel and guidance to the point of having a hearing in a church tribunal at enormous expense to both the diocese and the person charged? I do not think so.

When we come to the guidelines there is a lot more complexity and confusion as to what actually is (enforceably) required.

The FIS guidelines applicable to pastoral ministry

              The first thing to note is the purpose of the guidelines:

‘These guidelines explain and illustrate best practice and highlight practical ways to achieve it.’

This does not sound as though they will be couched in proscriptive language so that a person knows clearly what it is that will bring on their heads allegations, complaints and charges in terms of the new ‘offence’. And so it proves to be.

The guidelines are divided into subheadings: boundaries, personal and professional development, confidentiality and confessions, communication in a ministry context (which includes a highlighted section entitled ‘Risks associated with using technology in communication’[4]), and record keeping and privacy.

Remembering that the new ‘offence’ has to relate to a breach of these in relation to a child and must NOT involve child grooming (because of deficiencies of evidence), then it is difficult to see why, in the absence of trying to cover up a false complaint and the ramifications of that for the complainant and the director PSU, a person should stand in peril of a church tribunal hearing of charges in respect of things that are not crimes and not unlawful in civil society and not major sins in the church community.

Things such as:

4.16 Avoid behaviour that could give the impression of favouritism and inappropriate special relationships, particularly with individual children.

This is really bad drafting for the purposes of creating an ‘offence’. The use of the word ‘avoid’ is not the same as ‘Do not engage in …’ This means there may be occasions when an impression of favouritism is unavoidable: for example, when the child (in reality a 16-year-old young man) is engaged in part-time work preparing programs and with whom you have to spend a fair amount of time both supervising and directing his work. It is not rational that he might think that there was favouritism or an inappropriate special relationship in these circumstances, but perhaps someone else might be jealous or neurotic enough to form that impression.

Then in the same clause you find you have to make a line-call on whether the behaviour could give that impression and what is more, a line-call as to whether the impression could be that the behaviour that is not only ‘favouritism’ but also an ‘inappropriate special relationship’. We are not told who it is who is who will receive that impression – so it could be anyone: not just the child or a close relation but the local soccer coach, the lady at the cash register at the supermarket: you name it.

You also have to make a line-call as to what distinguishes a special relationship that is appropriate and what is a special relationship that is not: is the latter on the basis of being related to the child or simply that the child is from a violent and abusive family who needs special care. It is entirely possible that the relationship is appropriate but could give the impression, to the uninformed, neurotic or immature person, that it was inappropriate.

The child – him or her – could also be someone who is afflicted with a mental disability (as discussed in Part 1) of which you are either unaware or not aware of the ramifications of. His or her parent might also be afflicted with mental illness or malice or greed, of which you are unaware or unable to do anything about.

Yes: as a matter of risk management the church worker needs to heed the advice in this guideline as far as is possible and practical, to ensure he or she can sleep well at night and not have years of good ministry undermined and trashed by a false complaint. But to make this the basis of an ‘offence’ when things go wrong?

No, this is injustice waiting to happen.

And then, what about this one:

4.34 To minimise the risk of being accused of or engaging in misconduct, particularly when conducting interviews, think carefully in advance about:

• the place of the meeting, the arrangement of furniture and lighting, and your dress;
• whether the physical location allows for privacy of conversation while maintaining the opportunity for supervision.  (For example, doors to interview rooms, if closed, should not be locked.);
• the physical distance between you and the other person to maintain both hospitality and respect;
• whether the circumstances would suggest a social interaction;
• the propriety and circumstances of the interview when you are visiting or being visited alone, especially at night;
• the personal safety and comfort of all participants;
• establishing at the outset the interview’s purpose and the boundaries with respect to the subject matter, confidentiality and its duration;
• the appropriateness of initiating or receiving any physical contact, such as gestures of comfort, that may be unwanted or misinterpreted; and
• whether the presence of a child’s parent, guardian or another person chosen by the child is appropriate. (My emphasis added)

This is an extended version of one contained in the Guidelines for persons working with children and young people in the Code of Conduct for Clergy 1998 which I examined in the previous series ‘Is buying a lost child an ice cream child abuse?’ in Part 2 concerning the fictional relationship between Harry Potter and the Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Professor Dumbledore and which I rubbished because of its ineffectual language. As I said there in relation to the slightly differently worded clause where ‘give consideration to’ has been replaced in FIS by the exhortation ‘think carefully’:

‘if consideration has been given to these things then what is one to do about the consideration? The answer to the question ‘Did you consider these things when planning … ?” again only has to be ‘Yes’ to satisfy the guideline, even if the consideration would seem to have had a less than fortunate outcome in the actual execution.’

There is an awful lot left unspecified in this clause. What is the reader (‘you’) to whom this is addressed supposed to think carefully about when it comes to dress? Whose taste and standard is supposed to be thought carefully about in this context[5] – presumably yours because no one else is cited as arbiter of these things.

That on its own makes it extremely inappropriate to make such a clause the basis for an ‘offence’, a charge and a church tribunal hearing.

And this one:

4.12 Recognise the limits of your skills and experience.  Do not undertake any ministry (such as relationship counselling, counselling for abuse or addictions, or an exorcism) that is beyond your competence or the role for which you have been employed or trained.  If in doubt seek advice.  A person who requires specialised help should be referred to an appropriately qualified person or agency.

This is very good advice. However, in Drew’s case he did have the training through the highly respected programs run by John Mark Ministries and plenty of experience of success in his counselling of young men struggling with sexuality issues as a Christian and with an addiction to internet pornography, particularly using a Christian program of accountability devised by Promise Keepers. Why then is he being pursued with charges before a church tribunal when he has in fact complied with this guideline and it is admitted that there was no sexual intent in his counselling?

And yet: Bryant of the PSU has laid a charge in respect of this ‘behaviour’. What then will he do to many other people in ministry who are seeking to make the lived Christian life relevant to real life issues faced by so many young people if he is given expanded powers under the proposed new ‘offence’? Will he be able to recognise that young people do not need platitudes when they ask for help and advice; they need concrete programs of proven success such as the ones used by Drew? That to have a one-on-one meeting with a ‘child’ (in reality in his mid-teens) and to use the proven skills and training to help is not abuse, it is not a course of grooming conduct and it is not a breach of this guideline for pastoral ministry.

 

I think I have made the point. I hope that there will be wise heads who reject the proposed amendment, who will see that to accept it is to expand the operations of the PSU way too far beyond its charter[6] and certainly very far beyond its budget, especially when the money can be better spent than pursuing people who, for example, wear Speedo swimwear at the beach and regularly use this informal setting to have important discussions with young men in their mid-teens about sexuality and Christianity.

In Part 3 I look at the specific standards and guidelines in FIS relating to working with children and young people.

 Extract from Faithfulness in Service (October 2004 as amended up to and including 2012)

4. Pastoral Relationships

Preamble

4.1      All people are created in the image of God and are of equal value.  This is the foundation of all pastoral relationships.

4.2      Clergy have authority conferred upon them by their ordination, consecration and licensing.  Church workers have authority conferred upon them by their appointment.  The authority and training associated with their roles means that they have power in pastoral relationships which is always to be exercised in the service of others.

4.3      Trust is of primary importance in the creation and maintenance of an effective pastoral relationship.  Trust grows with the maintenance of physical, sexual, emotional and psychological boundaries suitable to pastoral ministry.  (The issues of Children and Sexual Conduct are addressed in Sections 5 and 7 respectively.)  Clergy and church workers will enhance their ability to maintain these boundaries by attending to their own wellbeing.

4.4      While clergy and church workers often enjoy personal friendships with those to whom they minister, their pastoral ministry responsibilities take precedence.

4.5      Clergy and church workers are colleagues in pastoral ministry: the activity of one inevitably impacts upon the ministry of others.

Standards for clergy and church workers

These standards state the Church’s expectations for personal behaviour and the practice of pastoral ministry.

4.6      If you have overall authority in a church body, you are to ensure that clergy and church workers for whom you are responsible are provided with:

• a safe working environment, including safe housing, where housing is provided;
• opportunities to maintain and enhance their ministry skills; and
• personal encouragement, support and regular feedback.

4.7       When exercising pastoral ministry you are to act in the best interests of those to whom you are ministering.  You must recognise any potential conflict of interest and take steps to resolve it.

4.8       When exercising pastoral ministry you are not inappropriately to discriminate between people.

4.9       You are not to disclose confidential information received in pastoral ministry to your spouse, family, friends, colleagues or any other person without the consent of the person providing the information, except where:

• the information is known publicly;
• as required or allowed by law; or
• it is in the public interest (such as to avoid the risk of serious injury or harm to any person).

4.10 When you are on leave or unable to fulfil your responsibilities through illness or any other reason, you are to make alternative arrangements for pastoral ministry.

Guidelines

These guidelines explain and illustrate best practice and highlight practical ways to achieve it.

Boundaries

4.11 Make sure you are clear about the requirements of your role, including the hours to be worked and the nature of your responsibilities as well as your leave and other entitlements.  You need to be sure that your legitimate personal needs can be met.

4.12 Recognise the limits of your skills and experience.  Do not undertake any ministry (such as relationship counselling, counselling for abuse or addictions, or an exorcism) that is beyond your competence or the role for which you have been employed or trained.  If in doubt seek advice.  A person who requires specialised help should be referred to an appropriately qualified person or agency.

4.13 Where ministry responsibilities overlap, be aware of the activities, function and style of other clergy and church workers.  Consult with these colleagues and cooperate wherever possible.

4.14 Where your ministry responsibility to one person may conflict with your responsibility to another person to whom you are ministering, or with your own needs, you should seek advice from a colleague or supervisor. Consider the possibility of transferring ministry responsibility for one or both of these to another minister.

4.15 If you are unable to act in the best interest of the person to whom you are ministering because of your own interests you should seek advice from a colleague or supervisor and transfer ministry responsibility for the person to another minister.

4.16 Avoid behaviour that could give the impression of favouritism and inappropriate special relationships, particularly with individual children.

4.17 Think carefully before providing pastoral ministry to a person with whom you already have a close personal relationship, such as a friend or member of your family.  Care is needed because confusion between close personal relationships and pastoral relationships can lead to a loss of objectivity, failure to act in the other’s best interest and harm to both parties.

4.18 Pastoral relationships can legitimately develop into romantic relationships.  If this begins to happen:

• acknowledge to yourself that your personal interest and the pastoral relationship are at risk of becoming confused;
• tell the other person that your relationship is changing and becoming romantic;
• disclose the nature of the relationship to a supervisor or colleague to ensure accountability and prevent misunderstanding; and
• where practicable:

disclose to a supervisor or colleague any proposed alternative arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry;

make alternative arrangements for ongoing individual pastoral ministry; and

cease providing individual pastoral ministry to the person.

4.19 If you are providing ongoing individual pastoral ministry or counselling, engage someone to provide regular professional supervision.  This will help protect you and those to whom you minister.

4.20 When you resign or retire, you should generally terminate existing pastoral relationships.  You should do this in a sensitive and timely manner to allow these responsibilities to be undertaken by your successors.  Consult with your successor where the other person wishes to maintain an ongoing pastoral relationship with you.

Personal and professional development

4.21 Maintain a healthy lifestyle and do not over commit yourself.  Make sure you have adequate leisure time, through regularly taking time off, including your full holiday entitlement annually.

4.22 Try to develop interests outside your main area of ministry and continue to care for yourself and your personal and family relationships.

4.23 Look for, and take advantage of, opportunities to maintain and enhance ministry skills appropriate to the responsibilities of your role, through:

• regular ministry development;
• professional supervision / consultation;
• peer support;
• having a mentor; and
• regular feedback including an annual ministry review.

Confidentiality and confessions

4.24 When you are seeking or providing professional supervision / consultation you should not identify any person and only disclose what is necessary to obtain the supervision or advice.

4.25 In most cases you should tell someone who is to give you confidential information of the limits to confidentiality and the arrangements for supervision or obtaining advice.  This should be done before the disclosure of the confidential information, such as at the beginning of an interview.

4.26 The Confessions Canon 1989 or the proviso to Canon 113 of 1603 is in force throughout the Church.  These Canons make provision for the confession of sins to clergy and for the confidentiality of this confession.  If you are a member of the clergy, you should be aware of the scope of, and your obligations under, the applicable Canon.  For example, absolution is not automatic and may be withheld.  You may require of the person making the confession of sins some appropriate action of contrition and reparation before you give them absolution.

4.27 There is a distinction between disclosures made in ordinary pastoral situations and disclosures made as a confession as provided in the applicable pastoral service in the Church’s authorised liturgies.  This service should normally be heard in a public place at advertised times or by arrangement.

4.28 If you are a church worker, remember that only clergy have the authority to receive a special confession of sins as provided in the applicable pastoral service in the Church’s authorised liturgies.

4.29 You may have a legal obligation to report criminal offences to the applicable civil authorities (the issue of child abuse is addressed in Section 5).  You may be subpoenaed to produce documents or to attend court to give evidence, or both.  In some States or Territories, clergy may be able to claim privilege from producing documents and/or disclosing information obtained in a confession referred to in paragraphs 4.23 to 4.25.

4.30 You should be aware of and, when appropriate, seek advice in regard to:

• your legal obligations with regard to confidential information received during an interview or a confession, particularly in relation to criminal offences and child abuse;
• the pastoral consequences of breaching confidentiality; and
• the risk of physical, financial or emotional harm or hardship to another person by disclosing or not disclosing such information, particularly in writings, sermons or other public media.

4.31 Exercise special care that any illustrative material you use from personal experience does not involve a breach of confidentiality.

Communication in a ministry context

4.32 Any communication in a ministry context, whether formal or informal, is a pastoral encounter.  Communication may be face-to-face, in writing or involve some form of technology.  Consider the appropriateness and impact of your words and actions.

4.33 Innuendoes or compliments of a sexual nature are always inappropriate. When a person asks questions or seeks advice around topics of a sexual nature, be aware that they may have motives or needs that you do not understand.  Be realistic about your own ability to assist them.

4.34 To minimise the risk of being accused of or engaging in misconduct, particularly when conducting interviews, think carefully in advance about:

• the place of the meeting, the arrangement of furniture and lighting, and your dress;
• whether the physical location allows for privacy of conversation while maintaining the opportunity for supervision.  (For example, doors to interview rooms, if closed, should not be locked.);
• the physical distance between you and the other person to maintain both hospitality and respect;
• whether the circumstances would suggest a social interaction;
• the propriety and circumstances of the interview when you are visiting or being visited alone, especially at night;
• the personal safety and comfort of all participants;
• establishing at the outset the interview’s purpose and the boundaries with respect to the subject matter, confidentiality and its duration;
• the appropriateness of initiating or receiving any physical contact, such as gestures of comfort, that may be unwanted or misinterpreted; and
• whether the presence of a child’s parent, guardian or another person chosen by the child is appropriate.

4.35 When considering using technology for communication, you should apply the same principles as you would in any other form of communication. Minimise the risk of harming others or yourself by asking:

• is this an appropriate way to communicate about this matter?
• should this communication be confidential? If so, do not use electronic media;
• how will the language and images used impact upon the person receiving the communication and any other person who may access it?
• could the circumstances of the communication, including the language and images used, suggest your relationship with the other person(s) is inappropriate?

 

Risks associated with using technology in communication

Clergy, church workers, and other participants in church activities – including children – often communicate using text and picture messaging, email, instant messenger services and chat rooms, video conferencing, blogs and internet forums, websites, social networking sites, and other forms of electronic interaction. Remember information posted online is tracked and can be retrieved. Dangers associated with the use of communication technology are not always appreciated by clergy and church workers.  These dangers include: losing your privacy; losing control of information (such as photographs or emails); ignoring personal security settings on social networking sites; being unable to determine if people are who they say they are; being exposed to unwanted information; and becoming a victim of cyberbullying when someone sends or spreads threatening or embarrassing  information.

Record-keeping and privacy

4.36 If you are engaged in individual pastoral ministry, consider keeping a factual record of your daily pastoral activity.  Record details such as the date, time, place, participants, subject, and any proposed action arising from each activity.  Record personal remarks accurately.

4.37 You need to know the relevant principles of the applicable privacy legislation in relation to the collection, use, disclosure and management of personal information.  These have implications for:

• the publication of personal information in church directories, newsletters, rosters and websites;
• the recording and publication of voices and images of individuals; and the use and security of all personal information, and especially sensitive information, held by clergy and church workers or in church offices

 

Post filed under Anglican Church, Drew & Pippa.