Anti-gay pastor is gay shocker...(ethics of the violating support group confidence)

The_Minister

http://www.lavendermagazine.com/this-issue/featured-article/antigay-lutheran-pastor-protests-too-much/

...But, this story has a twist.

He is gay, but he does not act on his feelings - he attends a 'gay support group' designed to help homosexuals overcome their 'desires'.

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

On the other hand the simple fact is that support groups can only function if the members involved can be assured of anonymity - if word gets around that journalists are now willing to break the confidentiality of groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, then those groups will likely become defunct.
Also, he deliberately joined the group with a view to breaking confidence.

I would edge towards the view that the article should not have been written, and that the privacy of the group should have been respected. I don't think it's my call whether or not I think a group is 'valid' or not.

EDIT: Wouldn't the contents of a support group have been considered off-the-record?

robbie_998

Daddy, Where do babies come from ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ah yes. "Journalistic integrity" - my favourite oxymornon.

AnonoBoy

It's not really that much of a shocker really though, is it?

The_Minister

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's not really that much of a shocker really though, is it?

My shocker was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

AnonoBoy

The_Minister wrote: »

My shocker was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

That's what he said!!!












Wait, that doesn't work.

Herb Powell

this happens surprisingly often

Gummy Panda

well he is still anti-gay if he joins the support group. It shows he doesn't agree with his instincts/desires.

Tbh, i think its a bit dirty to be joining this groups to name and shame people. It would be a bit different if the pastor was preaching anti-gay propaganda then going to the equivalent of the George on a saturday night.

Chuchoter

What this journalist did was wrong. I don't think anyone deserves to be outed. Sexuality is an intensely private thing and for that journalist to go into a place where people made themselves vulnerable and expose them and embarrass them in front of the whole world is cruel. As much as I disagree entirely with the views of the pastor, the journalist didn't do it to help the man or else. He just did it to get a story. This is going to cause damage to a lot of confidential support groups if you can't even trust that there isn't a reporter there.

tommy21

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.lavendermagazine.com/this-issue/featured-article/antigay-lutheran-pastor-protests-too-much/

...But, this story has a twist.

He is gay, but he does not act on his feelings - he attends a 'gay support group' designed to help homosexuals overcome their 'desires'.

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

On the other hand the simple fact is that support groups can only function if the members involved can be assured of anonymity - if word gets around that journalists are now willing to break the confidentiality of groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, then those groups will likely become defunct.
Also, he deliberately joined the group with a view to breaking confidence.

I would edge towards the view that the article should not have been written, and that the privacy of the group should have been respected. I don't think it's my call whether or not I think a group is 'valid' or not.

EDIT: Wouldn't the contents of a support group have been considered off-the-record?

Interesting that a poster named "The Minister" started this thread ...;):eek:

The_Kew_Tour

Gays rock

plein de force

i can understand support groups to help people with problems like alcohol, hard drugs and even the trial and tribulations that come with being gay
but come on, get over your desires? i'm gay and i would never want to overcome my fondness for the fellas, it's not exactly an ilness or a life-damaging activity, it's just the way you are

Chuchoter

plein de force wrote: »

i can understand support groups to help people with problems like alcohol, hard drugs and even the trial and tribulations that come with being gay
but come on, get over your desires? i'm gay and i would never want to overcome my fondness for the fellas, it's not exactly an ilness or a life-damaging activity, it's just the way you are

Though I am gay I don't begrudge people who go to these groups. I completely disagree with the methods of groups like focus on the family, but I mean people have to weigh up losing their family, friends, job, religion against following their desires. I obviously don't know your story, but not everyone has it as easy as their family and friends being all accepting. Some people could lose everything, and I mean you only get one life, you should get to live it the way you want, even if that means going against your heart.

plein de force

crayolastereo wrote: »

Though I am gay I don't begrudge people who go to these groups. I completely disagree with the methods of groups like focus on the family, but I mean people have to weigh up losing their family, friends, job, religion against following their desires. I obviously don't know your story, but not everyone has it as easy as their family and friends being all accepting. Some people could lose everything, and I mean you only get one life, you should get to live it the way you want, even if that means going against your heart.

oh don't get me wrong i'm more than for the groups that give support to people that are having problems coming to terms with their sexuality
but it's just absurd to think you can overcome sexual orientation that is healthy, i can't change the colour of my eyes, well i can put a contact lense that turns them brown but no matter what i do they'll always be truly green same way people can cover up their sexuality

Hunchback

OP says that the minister in question doesn't act on his impulses but the article states that he acted on his homosexual impulses in slovakia, during the period he was attending the group

Coriolanus

Bring in non-disclosure agreement for them I guess.
Whatever about the pastor, it's pretty sucky to break confidentiality like that.

Zen65

The_Minister wrote: »

A journalist infiltrated the support group, took notes on what was said, and broke confidentiality, outing the pastor using information gleaned while he was in the group.

This raises a dubious moral question: "Is it acceptable to break the confidentiality of a support group?"

On the one hand the members of his flock have a right to know the truth about their pastor, and obviously the revelations damage his credibility when condemning gays (a good thing).

I think the editor should be held accountable for this. No public good is served by this article, indeed the breaking of the confidentiality of a support group is very much against the greater good.

I do not understand why OP thinks the members of the flock have a right to know. To know what? That the pastor who condemns GLBT lifestyles is himself gay? So what? If he condemned the abuse of alcohol but was a member of AA for many years does this make his argument any weaker? If anything it shows the convictions he has in his beliefs because he is seeking support to stop himself acting on those feelings he believes are wrong.

Far too often we confuse the message with the messenger. We are all flawed humans, but this should not stop us from seeking to achieve a higher level of achievement in our lives, nor stop us from expressing our beliefs in what is right or wrong.

BTW, I cannot agree with this pastor's views on GLBT lifestyles, but I respect his right to those beliefs. I hope in time that we humans can all get over the unimportant in life, stop judging others by their life preferences, and treat each other with real love and acceptance. I also believe in capital punishment for serious crimes of aggression, and I can live with the dichotomy of those beliefs.



Z

Prof.Badass

I wonder do those groups have "gay shame" festivals......

Chuchoter

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I wonder do those groups have "gay shame" festivals......

Gay shame exists!

Gay Shame is a movement from within the LGBT and queer communities described as a radical alternative to gay mainstreaming and directly posits an alternative view of traditional "gay pride" events and activities which have become increasingly commercialized with corporate sponsors and "safer" agendas to avoid offending supporters and sponsors.

http://www.gayshamesf.org/
Its really quite interesting.

Overheal

All this means is Support groups will require legally binding confidentiality agreements.

gulf

Gummy Panda wrote: »

well he is still anti-gay if he joins the support group. It shows he doesn't agree with his instincts/desires.

Tbh, i think its a bit dirty to be joining this groups to name and shame people. It would be a bit different if the pastor was preaching anti-gay propaganda then going to the equivalent of the George on a saturday night.

The majority of the world's population would be "anti-gay" according to the system that's developed inside your head.

strobe

plein de force wrote: »

oh don't get me wrong i'm more than for the groups that give support to people that are having problems coming to terms with their sexuality
but it's just absurd to think you can overcome sexual orientation that is healthy, i can't change the colour of my eyes, well i can put a contact lense that turns them brown but no matter what i do they'll always be truly green same way people can cover up their sexuality

Well for some religious people they believe that commiting homosexual acts means they will spend eternity being tortured once they die. So for them it is a logical thing to try and suppress that behaviour. So the groups, if they are genuine, believe they are helping people to avoid that fate.

gulf

strobe wrote: »

Well for some religious people they believe that commiting homosexual acts means they will spend eternity being tortured once they die. So for them it is a logical thing to try and suppress that behaviour. So the groups, if they are genuine, believe they are helping people to avoid that fate.

Sodomy is not restricted to acts committed by a man on another man or a woman on another woman.

Gummy Panda

gulf wrote: »

The majority of the world's population would be "anti-gay" according to the system that's developed inside your head.

what are you on about?

strobe

gulf wrote: »

Sodomy is not restricted to acts committed by a man on another man or a woman on another woman.

and.......? Is that the set up to a punchline you forgot to include or something?

Doop

I heard these groups are a great way to pick up..

Dean820

'Bitch and Brunch'....ding ding! We have a winner!

Handsome Bob

Ah journalists, ethics don't mean **** to them.

What this person did was wrong on so many levels. For one, no-one should be forced out of the closet. Secondly, infiltrating groups is fine for research just as long as you ensure the anonymity of the people within the group. This "journalist" should be held up as a hack, but truth be known he'll get a pat on the back.

That journalist and his editor should be fired. Appalling behaviour.

sponsoredwalk

This is a joke right?

You people are defending a gay man for hypocritically insulting people just like him from the sanctity of a religious pulpit.

You people are defending this man for hypocritically demeaning, with pseudo-authority, people who are naturally just like him.

I'm sure you don't mean to do that, but you are implicitly conceding that when you condemn the journalist for exposing the truth.

Did any of you read the article? This man has a history of publicly condemning gay people and women from his podium and when it arises there are ulterior motives for him doing these sickening things to other human beings you ignore this - and try to talk about ethics... :mad:

Taken to it's not-so-far-off logical extreme margin this BS argument a few of you are using can be used by the KGB, or the CIA, or Stalin etc... who, in secret documents classified confidential by law, order wars or murders etc... should such a thing happen.
I suppose it's the journalists fault for telling the world in that case too :rolleyes:
After all, they had the law/vow of secrecy on their sides :rolleyes:

This is the one piece of credible journalism that's surfaced in the public sphere in quite a while and people condemn it...

The whole idea of the support group is a sham too, there is no credible scientific/psychological evidence that people can iron out teh ghey,
but barely anyone here sees fit to criticize the whole facade of this meeting, no - it's the journalist who goes undercover to expose a public charlatan and hypocrite that's immoral :rolleyes:

No public good is served by this article, indeed the breaking of the confidentiality of a support group is very much against the greater good.

So exposing a gay priest who very vocally criticises other people for being gay as a complete hypocrite to inform the general public that he is a hypocritical charlatan serves no purpose?

Brock regularly broadcasts conservative views on homosexuality and criticizes the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for liberalizing its gay clergy policy.

I wonder, does his own hate-filled rhetoric put him out of a job :rolleyes:

Nervous Wreck

Tbcfh, I don't give the slightest shít what happens to a homophobe.