Secrets In The Church

[connermt]

As long as humanity exists, we will thrive on conspiracies: from JFK to Abe Lincoln to human cloning. It's been said, with much certainty, that in all conspiracies and stereotype, there exists some sliver of truth, no matter how small.
The church is no exception: from hidden/not released gospels/books of the bible, to the protecting of child molestors by shuffeling them around; from old popes burning writings of jesus they didn't want to get out to 'the gay maffia' that's reported, etc.

The question to ponder:
Is it OK for the church - any church of the christian god - to have &/or maintain secrets?

It seems that each time there's an issue, the church should address it appropiately which would mean no need to hide the issue. Do you agree or no?
If not, why not?

[Zzyzx]

.
In my experience secrets usually conceal a hidden agenda which, if publicized, would be recognized as self-serving (and would be to the disadvantage of the secretive organization). Secrecy is often employed to conceal misdoings of one kind or another – or power and influence plays.

I see no valid reason why any religious organization should be anything short of totally transparent – including finances, personnel, policies / practices, etc. If they honorably represent a favorite god, what do they have to hide?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

...what do they have to hide?

Perhaps something(s) that would level the foundation of their power and influence; something(s) that would question their current 'reason for existing'.
Or innocent things that the media could take and twist to their own agenda (ratings?). Maybe secrets are, then, needed to some extent?

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps something(s) that would level the foundation of their power and influence; something(s) that would question their current 'reason for existing'.
Or innocent things that the media could take and twist to their own agenda (ratings?). Maybe secrets are, then, needed to some extent?

I do not disagree (too much) but media twists things regardless (sometimes apparently unintentionally). Secrets, however, are often used to cover up what media SHOULD expose -- such as sexual usury in any form, accumulation of wealth, hateful behavior, etc.

[connermt]

.

Perhaps something(s) that would level the foundation of their power and influence; something(s) that would question their current 'reason for existing'.
Or innocent things that the media could take and twist to their own agenda (ratings?). Maybe secrets are, then, needed to some extent?

I do not disagree (too much) but media twists things regardless (sometimes apparently unintentionally). Secrets, however, are often used to cover up what media SHOULD expose -- such as sexual usury in any form, accumulation of wealth, hateful behavior, etc.

Why should the media expose it?
Surely, god would either deal with it now or justice would prevail later, would it not?

[janavoss]

.
I see no valid reason why any religious organization should be anything short of totally transparent – including finances, personnel, policies / practices, etc. If they honorably represent a favorite god, what do they have to hide?

I mostly agree, with the exception that employees as individuals should have the same privacy as you or I would. Churches are not publicly-traded corporations after all.
The choice to make available to the general public anything that would be considered confidential for you or me should be up to the individual.
Everything else should be transparent.

[connermt]

O[Replying to post 6 by janavoss]

The choice to make available to the general public anything that would be considered confidential for you or me should be up to the individual.

1) a priest molesting a child.
Should that be public or kept private?
2) a priest getting drunk and cursing out another priest.
Should that be public or kept private?
Does it not seem that the things done that impact others outside of their circle be made public and other things kept confidential?
Or would that be considered 'un-reasonable'?

[janavoss]

1) a priest molesting a child.
Should that be public or kept private?

A criminal offense that should be prosecuted, which would make it public.
The church involved should also make some sort of public statement IMO, the same as a school would if it were a teacher/child situation.

2) a priest getting drunk and cursing out another priest.
Should that be public or kept private?

Not a criminal offense, might be against church policy (at least I hope it would be) and should be dealt with internally.

Does it not seem that the things done that impact others outside of their circle be made public and other things kept confidential?
Or would that be considered 'un-reasonable'?

If you did something at work that was not illegal but against workplace policy, would that be made public or kept confidential? The same rules should apply as far as the general public is concerned.
It might be appropriate for the church to inform the members that priest so-and-so was involved in something that was being dealt with according to internal policies. Maybe, maybe not, I guess it depends on the severity and whether or not it would impact his duties as priest.
The same privacy as you or I would have, that's what I think is reasonable.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 8 by janavoss]

Thanks for your reply. Your reasoning seems very sound!

If you did something at work that was not illegal but against workplace policy, would that be made public or kept confidential?

That would depend on the 'manner of work'. For my work, no. But if I worked in the public office, directly with the public, etc, then yes. Basically, if what I did impacted the public, illegal or not, it should be made public IMO.

The same privacy as you or I would have, that's what I think is reasonable.

Again, very reasonable.
Please note: I wasn't challenging you earlier, simply listing examples for discussion

[bluethread]

Paul's take is that civil matters be handle internally. There is no reason why the message to the general public be compromised by TMZ style spin. If there is a criminal act, then that needs to be handled through standard police investigation.