Tend My Flock. Kate Litchfield

you see ordained ministry as a ‘profession’ and how does this influence your ministry, whether paid or voluntary, ordained or lay?

       What are the tensions between ordained ministry as vocation and contemporary expectations about career development?

       What are the risks and challenges for you of understanding pastoral care as a covenant relationship?

       In which areas of your life do you find it hard to live up to the expectations that you or others have of you as a Christian minister?

      1.10. Confidentiality and trust

      Confidentiality is crucial to the development of trust in pastoral care. This applies not only to situations where the expectation of confidentiality is clear, but also to the many informal pastoral contacts that ministers have, where they may be given information because of their role and because they are trusted. In a pastoral relationship self-disclosure to the minister makes the person vulnerable, and increases the minister’s power in relation to him or her. Ministers need to be sensitive to the way they hold this power. If the minister keeps firm boundaries around confidentiality this enables the vulnerable person to retain control over their life. Breaches of, or leaks in, confidentiality disempower a person by undermining their ability to control what other people know about them (Gula 1996). Where dual roles and relationships are involved there needs to be particular sensitivity to confidentiality (3.5). For example, if an ordinand is also an employee of the diocese they may feel very vulnerable about information being passed, without their knowledge, between tutors on their training course and diocesan staff. In such circumstances transparency is essential and the complex boundaries of confidentiality should be discussed and mutually agreed from the start.

      1.11. Context and confidentiality

      Ministers should reflect upon how information received in one setting affects their relationship with a person in other situations. They also need to be very aware of how easy it is, even if unintentionally, to misuse confidential information. This can happen in private conversation with colleagues, lay ministry team members, or friends within the parish community, or even with the person concerned, in a different context.

      Explicit clarification on confidentiality and reassurance that on meeting in a different context nothing will be raised, alluded to or, as it were, ‘known’ or ‘remembered’ by the minister, helps people feel safer. Amid many other preoccupations the minister who has received many personal disclosures may find it easy to set aside or forget what has been divulged. It is therefore important for all ministers to remain sensitive to the reality that, for the person who has disclosed personal information, perhaps for the first or only time in their life, the memory of that disclosure will always remain vivid. In consequence, feelings of vulnerability are likely to persist for a very long time after the disclosure was made. The person may therefore be particularly sensitive to any perceived criticism, avoidance or withdrawal on the part of the minister. They may easily and understandably misinterpret behaviour which is, in reality, the result of the minister’s other preoccupations or tiredness.

      1.12. Clergy and confidentiality

      Information shared in confidence with an ordained person must, in all but the most exceptional circumstances (1.13; 1.16; pp. 34–5), be regarded as confidential and only divulged with the other person’s properly informed consent. Learning when and how to hold confidentiality and when and how to share information is an essential part of ministerial formation. However, confidentiality is particularly complex in pastoral care, because information may be obtained in situations and encounters, such as committee meetings or phone conversations, where it may not be so obvious that there is an expectation of confidentiality.

      Training incumbents and curates face particular issues of confidentiality which they need to reflect upon together. Some hold the view that assistant clergy in training posts should normally share with their training incumbent information given to them within a parish pastoral context (Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy 2003). If this is the agreed policy then parishioners should be made aware of it. Others would say that the curate should always obtain explicit consent before sharing information with their incumbent and respect any refusal.

      Being told other people’s secrets can place heavy burdens on the ordained person. Such secrets may involve distressing or disturbing information or may be about experiences of deep spiritual meaning, such as experiences of God, which the person has never dared to share before. All clergy need to learn how to manage the spiritual, emotional and psychological demands which this responsibility to hold confidential information will make on them during the course of their ministry. Clergy who have a ministerial consultant or supervisor, with whom they can share some aspects of their pastoral ministry, may be at less risk of inappropriate and potentially damaging ‘leaks’ of confidential information which they are finding it difficult to hold safely. However, ministers who have such support still need to adopt safeguards to protect confidentiality. These may include:

       informing the person they are pastoring that they have a ministerial supervisor or consultant with whom they sometimes share information about their ministry

       seeking the person’s permission to share in this way, if they might perceive it to be jeopardizing confidentiality

       choosing a supervisor or consultant who has sufficient distance from the minister’s pastoral work not to be able to identify whom they are talking about

       disguising names and other details that might reveal the person’s identity.

      Ministers also need to bear in mind that the Church at both local and national level is a comparatively small community, where relationship networks can easily jeopardize confidentiality, and individuals and their circumstances may be identifiable, even when names are not used. Information divulged under the ‘seal of the confessional’ cannot be shared with a ministerial supervisor, although it may be possible to discuss underlying issues and principles, but without any reference to the person concerned.

      Unless explicit permission has been given, clergy and others involved in pastoral ministry should not share confidential information with their spouses, family or friends. They should also treat information shared among colleagues as confidential (Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy 2003).

      1.13. Confession

      Canon law imposes an obligation upon the priest not to break ‘the seal of the confessional’. A priest who discloses matters revealed in the course of formal confession commits an ecclesiastical offence (except possibly in matters of treason) under the unrepealed Canon 113 of 1603 (Leeder 1999).

      There can be no disclosure of what is confessed to a priest. This principle holds even after the death of the penitent. The priest may not refer to what has been learnt in confession, even to the penitent, unless explicitly permitted. Some appropriate act of contrition and reparation may be necessary before absolution is given. (Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy 2003)

      If a crime or offence is revealed in the particular context of formal confession, the seal of the confessional applies. However, the priest should urge the person to report his or her behaviour to the police or social services and may decide to withhold absolution until they have demonstrated this evidence of repentance (House of Bishops 2004).

      It is unclear how far secular courts would consider communication within confession privileged from the requirement to give evidence in court. The weight of current opinion seems to be that confessions made to a minister of religion are not privileged from such disclosure although, in practice, it would seem that the courts respect the tradition of absolute confidentiality (Hill 2001).

      If a priest were summoned to give evidence in court and the court held that, despite Canon 113, the priest was not entitled to refuse to answer questions, the Legal Advisory Commission Opinion is that an ecclesiastical offence would not be committed, if the priest then revealed information. However, any priest summoned to give evidence on information received under Canon 113 should seek legal advice. Under the Act of Terrorism 2000 it is unlikely that Canon 113 would be accepted as a defence against the legal requirement to disclose information concerning terrorism (Legal Advisory