The Texas Supreme Court has made a mockery of professional standards for licensed counselors by dismissing a woman’s negligence case against a pastor who disclosed her extramarital relationship to church members.
“We conclude that the secular confidentiality interest Penley’s professional-negligence claim advances fails to override the strong constitutional presumption that favors preserving the church’s interest in managing its affairs,”
CrossLand follows the Biblical principle that if a sinner is unrepentant, the sin should be told to the church. In a letter to CrossLand members, Westbrook and the church elders said Penley had engaged in a “biblically inappropriate” relationship for which she refused to repent.
Why would any parishioner now confide secrets to a pastor who holds himself out to be a secular counselor? What Westbrook’s defenders with the Liberty Legal Institute may have gained here for church autonomy may be outweighed by what they have lost in parishioner trust.Why would any parishioner now confide secrets to a pastor who holds himself out to be a secular counselor? What Westbrook’s defenders with the Liberty Legal Institute may have gained here for church autonomy may be outweighed by what they have lost in parishioner trust.
Just another example of some religion freak encumbered with “morals” that match his Stone Age genes.
That pastor should be defrocked; the seal of the confessional should never be broken. This is a biblical matter not a constitutional matter; when I go to my pastor I know/expect that what is said in the confessional dies there. And if she was refusing to repent as the pastor said then he as the option as Christ said to not forgive her sins. The forgiveness of sin is for the repentant.
Also she should have gone to the church not the courts, the courts are ill-equipped to deal with such an issue.
it’s her own stupid fault for
1.) betraying her husband’s trust
2.) trusting a religious leader
And you’re upset with the Court’s decision because???
#2. I didn’t think that Catholics still believe in confessionals. Apparently some still do.
I don’t think this is a bad thing. This merely means that there is no force in law to require conducts based on religious regulation.
Would you rather there be laws enforcing religoius conduct? Such as, how to worship?
Hey, it’s Texas, what do you expect? I’m surprised the Texas Supreme Court didn’t recommend that the woman be stoned to death for infidelity. Or at least be given the Hot Needle.
This is only part of the ruling… the second part detailed the requirement to brand an ‘A’ on her chest.
5) I am not of Rome I am a Lutheran (LCMS)
*shoves Texas up Mister Mustards ass*
Preachers arent legally obligated to keep secrets and if she wasnt listening to the guidance he was providing then she did so to her own detriment.
>>*shoves Texas up Mister Mustards ass*
>>Preachers arent legally obligated to keep secrets
Well, I kinda thought “preachers” answered to a higher authority than the Texas Supreme Court. Of course, I don’t know too many Texas preachers, praise the Lord.
And even if their “Jesus” suggests that the preacher spill the confidential confessions of a congregant, in most states, any legitimate licensed counselor would have his or her license yanked in a New York minute for betraying confidentiality. In any case, it’s a betrayal. So take that and shove it up your ass, Arrius. Why don’t you go out and drag some gay people behind your pickup truck? Your “Jesus” likes that too, right?
Rediculous. It’s an unspoken agreement that confessions are private. This pastor should be excommunicated.
In other news, I like the picture, she’s cute.
The pastor should be excommunicated, and their license revoked. I’m not going totally Texas though, so I’m not recommending stoning the person to death, or even the Hot Needle. My Jesus is a little more loving than the “jesus” of C.L. Westbrook. But hey, it’s Texas. Yee haw. Bet he knows how to squeal like a pig, even if he can’t keep confidentiality.
I’m not clear on the facts. I agree no court should enforce a relgious dispute (eg–whether or not a confession should be divulged) but a secular mental health counselor should be held to that professions standards as enforced by the court.
Here we have a person holding dual roles. Now, I’m guessing the lady sought counselling for the affair and then confessed it as well? Otherwise, the courts ruling is wrong.
Whatever wacky rules their cult religion has, the guy should have his state license yanked. Right now. Before he harms anyone else with his “counseling”. But hey. It’s Texas. Maybe they have different licensing rules for counselors.
15 – That’s assuming Texas licensing holds secular counselors to confidentiality. If she went to this asshole as a parishioner, the state has no business butting in. If she went as a paying human seeking secular help, the loudmouthed asshole needs to be held to Texas legal standards. Which may be an oxymoron in any case. Or would that be oxymoran?
Except for the fine city of Austin, I am uncertain what use Texas is…
# 2, #12, #13. I don’t see anything in the Bible that overrules Christ’s command in Mt 18:15-17. Aren’t you endorsing a very medieval idea, recently discredited before the whole world, that basically says that if you’re guilty of horrific crimes, such as being a pedophile priest, and you confess it to your superiors in the church, then they are obligated to keep your detestable abuse of children a secret?
#18 If you think having a relationship with someone while you’re in the process of divorcing your “husband” is tantamount to priests fucking 8-year-old altar boys up the ass……well, I don’t know. I’ll bet you voted for Bush, right?
#19. You misunderstood my argument. In the Bible, adultery is a serious sin. Jesus didn’t say that the church should embrace adulterers and cast out only mother-stabbers and father-rapers. You also didn’t guess my political beliefs correctly. I didn’t vote for either Bush. Furthermore, I plan on voting for Barack Obama in 2008.
#20
Many sins are serious sins. AThat’s why people go to state-licensed psychological counselors, to deal with their guilt. With the assumption (legally binding in most places, although I’m not sure about Texas) of confidentiality.
When the state-licensed counselor turns out to be an adherent of some whackadoodle religious cult, and breaks that confidentiality, he should be held accountable. License yanked immediately, damages to be awarded by the court.
This kind of shit might cut the mustard in that guy’s Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it’s contrary to the principles upon which America was founded, and the basis of psychological counseling. And I’ll bet Barack would agree.
Not sure if it matters, but it doesn’t appear that the pastor or the parishiner were Catholic. I didn’t think any of the “evangelical” Christian organizations had a confessional like Catholics. The need for a priest to conduct confessions and the authority of the Pope were what caused so many to splinter off from the Roman Catholics.
As a licensed counselor though he shouid definitely lose his license. It should be possible to follow up on whether that happens or not, but it wouldn’t be as good a story so I doubt any “journalists” will do so.
And I agree, good pic.
>>it doesn’t appear that the pastor or the parishiner were Catholic.
They weren’t. And if he were just a member of a whackadoodle fringe religious cult, I guess he could betray any confidence that he wanted.
He’s not being sued as a whackadoodle Kool-Aid drinker though, he’s being sued for his role as a state-licensed psychological counselor. And as such, he had no right to divulge things told to him in confidence by a client. So his license should be yanked, he should pay damages to the client, and then he can spend full-time worshiping the Flying Spaghette Monster.
And yes, VERY good pic. Yum.
#2, Phuk the confessional. You are applying the standards of your own superstitious beliefs with those of another’s superstitious beliefs.
The issue is whether a licensed counselor may divulge information (s)he obtains through the course of counseling. In this case the Texas Supreme Crèche decided that it was a religious case and said the courts may not interfere.
At a minimum the governing society should revoke this counselor’s license to practice. Unless, of course, the license was just a piece of paper given to all Pastors to use when they administer to their flock.
I wonder if she might now have recourse to appeal to a Federal Court since the State of Texas has put parochial activities ahead of secular rights.
#21, #24. I believe that you’re misstating the facts of the case. The woman who brought the lawsuit was a church member of the very church that the counselor was pastoring. That makes this case entirely religious and the court rightly stated that the court has no jurisdiction over matters of church discipline. Now if that woman had renounced her beliefs early on and declared that she wanted her church membership canceled, I think this would be a completely different story.