Oath of Confidence

Rosalyn J wrote: Ordained Clergy please post your Oath of confidence here

Oath of Confidence: "I profess before all that I, [legal name], born the dd/mm/yyyy, shall honour the Seal of Confidence as prescribed by the Temple of the Jedi Order and its Clergy. That which I come to know, through my service to any other fellow human being, through interaction, observation or from other's account, I will not divulge to any other, in recognition that these matters are by nature Secret. I understand that should I compromise or violate this Oath, my statute as a Clergy member, regardless of grade or position, shall be forfeit."

Doh, I thought this was something else, sorry.

Whyte Horse wrote: wtf is is this sh!t? There are no secrets here. There is no seal of confidence except what the members agree upon. Take this back and go no further.
Peace

Yes, there is. TotJO observes the Tradition of Clergy-Congregant Confidence, which is supported by the laws by which TotJO is governed.

This is not the place for such disagreements.
Mods, please move these two posts to a new thread.

Whyte Horse ...

Your concerns are noted.

This Oath of Confidence is to replace the seal of "Confession", since Confession -- just the word, carried a lot of baggage that people distrust for diverse and varied reasons to diverse and varied degrees. By taking this Oath - which is for our Clergy members only, really - one is officially bound to not divulge confidences entrusted to them.

There has always been a form of this recognised confidentiality among the Clergy of the TotJO, it was just called the "seal of Confession" ... This is now re-labelled "Confidence" to reflect its more practical nature (distanced from the framework of "sin & repentance" -- which it is not).

By all means, anyone is free to discuss what they would like to about it, but the Clergy have opted to take this oath and no one else is really bound by it. We are not asking Temple Members to swear it.

With all respect, were I a clergy member (and I have been considering pursuing it) would I be able to call emergency services in a case where the confessor had just made it very plain that they had intentions to hurt themselves or someone else? Even licensed therapists and medical doctors are able to do such things. If that is part of what clergy are permitted, it seems reasonable to include that in this section of text to protect them, don't you think?

I know I have had desperate moments, thank goodness for the people who didn't keep their mouths shut! I wouldn't want those people to have to decide if their job was more important than calling for help.

Snowy Aftermath wrote: With all respect, were I a clergy member (and I have been considering pursuing it) would I be able to call emergency services in a case where the confessor had just made it very plain that they had intentions to hurt themselves or someone else? Even licensed therapists and medical doctors are able to do such things. If that is part of what clergy are permitted, it seems reasonable to include that in this section of text to protect them, don't you think?

I know I have had desperate moments, thank goodness for the people who didn't keep their mouths shut! I wouldn't want those people to have to decide if their job was more important than calling for help.

Of course. Acknowledging that we should know to do so in those kinds of matters is actually part of seminary training.

Proteus wrote:

Snowy Aftermath wrote: With all respect, were I a clergy member (and I have been considering pursuing it) would I be able to call emergency services in a case where the confessor had just made it very plain that they had intentions to hurt themselves or someone else? Even licensed therapists and medical doctors are able to do such things. If that is part of what clergy are permitted, it seems reasonable to include that in this section of text to protect them, don't you think?

I know I have had desperate moments, thank goodness for the people who didn't keep their mouths shut! I wouldn't want those people to have to decide if their job was more important than calling for help.

Of course. Acknowledging that we should know to do so in those kinds of matters is actually part of seminary training.

And one of the reasons I brought to the clergy that this oath, as originally worded, didn't fit with the guidelines the clergy already agrees to follow, or the law in many places. It's being looked at so that oversight can be fixed.

Hiya!

We see the error. Thank you. We are looking into it. This is not a topic for conversation, but for recording the oaths of ordained clergy as the original post states.

Mod Alert: I have split this thread to return the original to its purpose, and so that conversation can continue.

It seems a slight irony to me that an oath of confidence requires personal information to be shared.

I was hoping that that would get addressed... The whole "what if this is going on" situation thing.

Like, people are legally obligated to report the potential for future crimes, especially if those crimes put others at risk.

When I was in the military, if a friend came to you in confidence and told you they had been raped or assaulted, unless you held a certain job (in the Navy, SAPR, originally known as SAVI), you were obligated to inform the command. In doing such, the victim's right to a closed investigation were automatically terminated. Why do you think so few rapes go reported in the military? (I know, completely different topic, but still...)

If they told you that they had personally committed x, y, z crime, you were obligated to inform the command. If they told you they knew that [random person] had committed x, y, z crime, you were obligated to inform the command.

If you failed to inform the command of any of the above, as mere examples, you could be found guilty of committing your own crimes. (Yes, that includes the rape scenario...)

I get that being clergy is a different situation, but even they have the obligation to report certain things, depending on where you're at.

Further.... Not every country is going to honor the current terms of that oath. Just sayin..

Edan wrote: It seems a slight irony to me that an oath of confidence requires personal information to be shared.

Nothing is ever required...

Simply dont become clergy...

We do not ask folks to do anything...

If they want something, then yes, they may decide to meet the criteria to meet the eligibility... lol...

Jestor wrote:

Edan wrote: It seems a slight irony to me that an oath of confidence requires personal information to be shared.

Nothing is ever required...

Simply dont become clergy...

We do not ask folks to do anything...

If they want something, then yes, they may decide to meet the criteria to meet the eligibility... lol...

I didn't say you were.. I was just pointing out the irony.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Whyte Horse ...

Your concerns are noted.

This Oath of Confidence is to replace the seal of "Confession", since Confession -- just the word, carried a lot of baggage that people distrust for diverse and varied reasons to diverse and varied degrees. By taking this Oath - which is for our Clergy members only, really - one is officially bound to not divulge confidences entrusted to them.

There has always been a form of this recognised confidentiality among the Clergy of the TotJO, it was just called the "seal of Confession" ... This is now re-labelled "Confidence" to reflect its more practical nature (distanced from the framework of "sin & repentance" -- which it is not).

By all means, anyone is free to discuss what they would like to about it, but the Clergy have opted to take this oath and no one else is really bound by it. We are not asking Temple Members to swear it.

Oh THOSE secrets. I thought it was totjo secrets, sorry. hehe

Edan wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Edan wrote: It seems a slight irony to me that an oath of confidence requires personal information to be shared.

Nothing is ever required...

Simply dont become clergy...

We do not ask folks to do anything...

If they want something, then yes, they may decide to meet the criteria to meet the eligibility... lol...

I didn't say you were.. I was just pointing out the irony.

I shoulda told you I was 'just sayin' for the newer folks...

Is my humor rubbing off on you, lol...

Snowy Aftermath wrote: With all respect, were I a clergy member (and I have been considering pursuing it) would I be able to call emergency services in a case where the confessor had just made it very plain that they had intentions to hurt themselves or someone else? Even licensed therapists and medical doctors are able to do such things. If that is part of what clergy are permitted, it seems reasonable to include that in this section of text to protect them, don't you think?

Confidence Seminary Lesson wrote: If one believes the Confider poses a danger to another, or to themselves, then one has a duty to report this to the appropriate local authorities to prevent such harm from occurring.

Followed later by:

2. Under what circumstances should you report something said under confession to the authorities?

Jestor wrote:

Edan wrote:
If they want something, then yes, they may decide to meet the criteria to meet the eligibility... lol...[/color]

That's all. That's all there there is.... Sorry, but quit whining.

What!?? What are you afraid of? If you are confident and proud I don't see an issue. If you are weak then I do.

Get in touch with yourself and find peace within. Be happy.

This may not be popular but contentment is found within.

Rickie wrote: ...quit whining...

This may not be popular but...

I have learned more about TOTJO through "compassionate" responses like these than in any coursework I've done here. I no longer wonder why people jump ship.

steamboat28 wrote:

Rickie wrote: ...quit whining...

This may not be popular but...

I have learned more about TOTJO through "compassionate" responses like these than in any coursework I've done here. I no longer wonder why people jump ship.

That particular person can't even be bothered to begin the IP and is not a fair representative of the community. You'll have to find better evidence to support what you've learned

(no offense, Rickie, hehe)

edit: oh. it wasn't Rickie. *sneaks away*

steamboat28 wrote:

Rickie wrote: ...quit whining...

This may not be popular but...

I have learned more about TOTJO through "compassionate" responses like these than in any coursework I've done here. I no longer wonder why people jump ship.

Taken as you have posted it, it would appear this is what they guy is saying...

"quit whining ya baby"

However, he is saying to put on your (metaphorical you) big boy/girl panites and keep on going... 'Jedi UP' to quote tzb...

Sure glad words mean things...

It was fairly obvious, i thought, lol...

I'm serious, Jestor.

You're right when you say we don't know what you have done or how hard you've worked to accommodate people.

So believe me when I say you have no concept of how hard I have worked to keep people in this Temple.

At any given point, at least half of my clerical ministry is convincing members that TOTJO actually cares about them, that they are actually welcome here, and that we do value their presence. That the nonsense that gets spouted by well-regarded members of this church (including Synod and Council members) is just poorly worded and not actually dismissive. That there are actually people in positions of power that care whether or not they continue their membership here.

And I'm getting really tired of feeling like I'm lying because of responses like this one, and your and Cabur's apparent tones in the other thread.

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk