The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
I was recently asked this question by a national publication. “Is the First Amendment concern over the confidentiality of pastoral counseling legitimate? Or should the welfare of children be the primary issue?” The question was based upon this official statement from SGM on its website.
“SGM leaders provided biblical and spiritual direction to those who requested this guidance. This care was sought confidentially, as is a right under the First Amendment. We are saddened that lawyers are now, in essence, seeking to violate those rights by asking judges and juries, years after such pastoral assistance was sought, to dictate what sort of biblical counsel they think should have been provided. SGM believes that allowing courts to second guess pastoral guidance would represent a blow to the First Amendment, that would hinder, not help, families seeking spiritual direction among other resources in dealing with the trauma related to any sin including child sexual abuse.” (Tommy Hill, Director of Administration and Finance, Nov 14, 2012)
Here's how I answered.
##
This class action lawsuit is not about the First Amendment or the confidentially of pastoral counseling. It is about criminality. There is every reason to believe heinous crimes have been committed and perverse criminals have been protected. The Complaint references 10 victims, 11 juvenile or adult predators, a “pedophilic ring,” and the need for a pretrial “discovery…to ascertain the size of the class.” (i.e., find out how many other children have been sexually abused).
Return to Article