CHURCH BOARD GUIDE TO A CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION POLICY


members may be misinformed or have no idea of why the dismissal occurred. Some see church leaders acting indiscriminately and believe their actions reflect poor judgment or even worse. Supporters and friends of the dismissed staff member can be ruthless in their attacks upon church leaders. Church leaders want to clarify their actions to the congregation but are afraid that if they do so, they may be sued for def- amation or invasion of privacy. Some church leaders throw caution to the wind and defend themselves and their actions as they describe the sordid details of the misconduct during public services. Both extremes— to say nothing or to announce everything to everybody—miss the mark and make the situation worse. To say nothing creates suspicion and backlash that jeopardize the ministry of a church. To say everything can put the church and the leaders at legal risk. Fortunately, the courts have addressed this issue and a third, more desirable alternative exists.


The qualified privilege In some cases, it is advisable for the church board to inform the church members of incidents of sexual misconduct occurring on church prop- erty or in the course of church activities. Such communication should be done in such a way that it is protected by a “qualified privilege.” In one case involving communication between the church board and the congregation, the court noted that a qualified privilege protects


communications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty if such communication is made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty.


The court concluded that the church’s members had an interest in


receiving information from their official board, and accordingly the board’s communication was protected by a qualified privilege. This means that the information shared cannot be defamatory unless it is made with legal malice, meaning that the persons who communicated the information either knew that it was false, or shared the informa- tion with a reckless indifference as to its truth or falsity. The court concluded that the board had not acted with malice, and accordingly their letter was not defamatory. The court emphasized that the board communicated only with


members of the church who attended a congregational meeting, and that no nonmembers received the information. The qualified privilege


52


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74