|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Home Communion to vulnerable adults
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
We are in the process of drawing up our Vulnerable Adults policy and are working with a draft from the diocese, which itself is based on House of Bishops guidelines. As I am responsible for nearly all the home communions in my parish, I am rather concerned with: "Visiting in pairs is best practice - not husband/wife pairs. Never visit someone of the opposite sex on your own. "
There is no way I could recruit another person to accompany me 'on my rounds'.
Ideally, I like to encourage a friend or partner to receive communion with the housebound because it makes it more opf a celebration that when there are just two of us - and I often communicate more than once in a day rather than have the person visited on his/her own.
I am also a bit nonplussed by the 'opposite sex' assumption.
Anyway, what do others do when taking the blessed sacrament to vulnerable adults in relation to guidelines?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We are in the process of drawing up our Vulnerable Adults policy and are working with a draft from the diocese, which itself is based on House of Bishops guidelines. As I am responsible for nearly all the home communions in my parish, I am rather concerned with: "Visiting in pairs is best practice - not husband/wife pairs. Never visit someone of the opposite sex on your own. "
There is no way I could recruit another person to accompany me 'on my rounds'.
Ideally, I like to encourage a friend or partner to receive communion with the housebound because it makes it more opf a celebration that when there are just two of us - and I often communicate more than once in a day rather than have the person visited on his/her own.
I am also a bit nonplussed by the 'opposite sex' assumption.
Anyway, what do others do when taking the blessed sacrament to vulnerable adults in relation to guidelines?
I think all of that counts very much as ringfencing the Torah. Totally silly and unnecessary, imo, because home communion is rarely taken to a complete stranger, totally unknown to anyone at all.
The 'opposite sex' bit is particularly daft. If we allow for gay people then surely priests ought never visit anyone at all on their own, and what then becomes of pastoral care? What happens in confession? Do we need a chaperone hanging around then as well?
The priests I know do not take a chaperone with them. One evangelical Anglican minister did ask to meet me in a coffee shop, but then complained when I spoke of confidential matters (in relation to a school) in public. I said you chose the venue, not me.
Speaking as a vulnerable adult I would be very unhappy to think that my own priest would not dare to visit me at my home without a chaperone, or that I could not speak in confidence to him or her in church, or anywhere else.
When a priest visits me I will usually tell him if there is someone else in the house (my d is often upstairs), and I will always open the blinds in the living room. If there is nobody else in the house I will say so, and he can decide whether to stay or not.
When my h died the blinds at the front of my house were closed as a mark of respect. When my priest visited I raised the blind in the front room until he left, and then I closed it again. I was not sure to begin with, but decided that the requirement to protect Father's reputation from scandal was greater than that of marking my h's death.
In my view vulnerable people are as entitled to confidential access to a priest as anyone else; the location is immaterial. In my view it is far better to treat people as trustworthy unless they are known not to be.
Priests have CRB clearance. They also have intuition and the ability to determine safety for themselves. Very often a home communicant will be well known to them; perhaps a former parishioner who is no longer able to get to church. To suggest that a chaperone be always required is something of an insult, I would say.
If the person making a request is not known to the priest, and not referred by a third party (ie a mother or father of a parishioner) then perhaps the priest could take someone with him or her for the first visit, but I think this is very rarely going to be necessary.
I once acted as chaperone for a priest, when he was asked to conduct an exorcism. But this same priest does not take chaperones on hospital, home communion or pastoral visits.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It all depends. Best practice suggests that a visit (of any nature) to a vulnerable person is not carried out alone. Whether you know the person or not is immaterial - inappropriate behaviour and/or allegations can still be made on both sides.
Life though can differ from best practice. Most of us will visit alone and will distribute home communion alone. At the very least an independent person should be aware and your diary should record it.
If there's any doubt that matters may be moving beyond the sensible, then I'd suggest you get as quickly as possible and make notes asap.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Thanks - so far very helpful comments.
I have to say that I once had a home communicant who was so seriously disabled that there were always 3 other people - carers and his wife, in the house whenever I called.
It was barely possible to get through the 10 minutes or so of the actual communion without constant interruptions - bust he was hyperactive and didn't seem to mind interruptions.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It all depends. Best practice suggests that a visit (of any nature) to a vulnerable person is not carried out alone.
I very much disagree. The clergy standards document says that a priest should behave in the best interests of the vulnerable person. If those best interests call for another person to be present (as with minors) then that ought to happen. If those best interests call for complete confidentiality (with competent adults), then that confidentiality ought to be honoured. It very much depends on the person and the situation.
We can all be vulnerable at times, and many vulnerable people can be strong at times. There really is no way to determine who may or may not be vulnerable at any given time. Is a new widow or widower to be considered vulnerable? Someone who has lost a child? Or is it only mentally or physically disabled people? Or perhaps those with dementia?
If priests have to start considering who is safe to visit and who is not, then very soon pastoral ministry will break down. I think this is far more a feature of evangelical thinking than of Catholic thinking; encouraging women to turn to women for pastoral support, and men to turn to men.
Catholics have to speak confidentially to a priest in confession, so why not at other times as well?
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It all depends. Best practice suggests that a visit (of any nature) to a vulnerable person is not carried out alone.
I very much disagree. The clergy standards document says that a priest should behave in the best interests of the vulnerable person. If those best interests call for another person to be present (as with minors) then that ought to happen. If those best interests call for complete confidentiality (with competent adults), then that confidentiality ought to be honoured. It very much depends on the person and the situation.
That's exactly why I qualified it with "it all depends." Some documents stipulate that you should always visit with someone or that there should be someone else in the building. Clearly that's not always possible but it is often then a risk to be assessed on the fly. And yes, your insurers public indemnity and liability require you to have undertaken such an assessment for sole visitation. If you don't, then in the event of a complaint you (and the church) are not covered.
What's the difference between a minor and a vulnerable adult anyway?
I agree that we are all vulnerable from time to time. I also agree that there are circumstances where confidentiality is required but the priest must reserve the right, for example, to step back or not to promise to keep a confidence should a statement be made which amounts to disclosure.
It is the priest who has to be aware of the potential dangers in any circumstance - sadly, not all do and there have been all sorts of accusations about impropriety made over the years. Some have no basis in fact, others are sadly only too true.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's exactly why I qualified it with "it all depends." Some documents stipulate that you should always visit with someone or that there should be someone else in the building. Clearly that's not always possible but it is often then a risk to be assessed on the fly. And yes, your insurers public indemnity and liability require you to have undertaken such an assessment for sole visitation. If you don't, then in the event of a complaint you (and the church) are not covered.
I do not think that stipulation was included in our insurance documents, but I don't have them to refer to at present.
Funnily enough, however, my concern is appropriate pastoral care, not litigation.
I wish that were the first concern of the church as well. I know it isn't, from experience, but I wish it were. Where fear of litigation gets in the way of the pastoral care of innocent people, then something is seriously wrong.
quote:
What's the difference between a minor and a vulnerable adult anyway?
Age.
A minor is always a minor. A vulnerable adult is always vulnerable, but may at the same time be highly competent and able to serve his or her church very well indeed.
In an ideal world the church will understand the vulnerable adult's limitations, and make reasonable allowances for them. Even a vulnerable adult remains responsible for what he or she does, in a way that would not be regarded as appropriate in relation to a child.
A vulnerable adult can share responsibility for inappropriate behaviour to some degree, depending on their abilities. A child never can.
quote:
I agree that we are all vulnerable from time to time. I also agree that there are circumstances where confidentiality is required but the priest must reserve the right, for example, to step back or not to promise to keep a confidence should a statement be made which amounts to disclosure.
Well, that is a grey area in relation to confession, but otherwise of course the law applies. Disclosure is mandatory in some situations.
Doesn't stop the church deciding to ignore that mandatory disclosure, but it should certainly happen.
quote:
It is the priest who has to be aware of the potential dangers in any circumstance - sadly, not all do and there have been all sorts of accusations about impropriety made over the years. Some have no basis in fact, others are sadly only too true.
In the case of a discussion between a parishioner and a priest both have a duty of care. The duty of care of the priest is greater, because he or she has the greater power, but both have a duty of protection towards the other.
Where the parishioner is vulnerable, then the duty of care shifts; there is a greater onus on the priest (or other professional) and an appropriate degree on the parishioner, but unless that person is completely incapacitated, they retain responsibility for appropriate behaviour.
In other words, I am a vulnerable adult, but I am still responsible for making sure that my home is safe for anyone who visits it, and that anyone who comes here is treated with respect, with courtesy and consideration. My condition may call for understanding where I cannot help how I am, but it does not give me the right to treat anyone badly. It never has, and it never will.
A priest can get to know me over many months of going to church, and seeing how I interact with other people. He or she can then decide whether it is possible to take the risk of visiting me at home, should I ever need home communion. And the same goes for anyone else.
To impose a rule about this, and say a priest and parishioner ought never to be alone is unnecessary. It imposes a barrier to pastoral care which is unfair on people who are already disadvantaged enough.
I would offer guidance; I would suggest certain parameters for some cases. But I would not say that priests cannot visit parishioners, and particularly not just because those parishioners are vulnerable. Why should I not be entitled to confidentiality, just because I have a difficult life? Why would that be fair?
[ 16. September 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
I'm not bothered by litigation - it's just part of life and it doesn't stop me (and many others) offering pastoral care.
I'm not totally convinced by your assertion that all vulnerable people are responsible for their actions. There are some whose personal conditions means that they have no recollection of things done and said at some times yet 100% recall of things said/done at others.
I wouldn't let anything stop me being pastoral or even visiting alone but good practice says "eyes wide open" for us all.
[ 16. September 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm not bothered by litigation - it's just part of life and it doesn't stop me (and many others) offering pastoral care.
I'm not totally convinced by your assertion that all vulnerable people are responsible for their actions. There are some whose personal conditions means that they have no recollection of things done and said at some times yet 100% recall of things said/done at others.
I wouldn't let anything stop me being pastoral or even visiting alone but good practice says "eyes wide open" for us all.
I think we agree then.
I did not say 'all.'
I think I said people have an appropriate duty of care, depending on their circumstances, and that it is not totally left to the priest in every case.
In the case of a minor the duty of care always resides 100% with the adult; the minor has no duty to keep the adult safe from inappropriate behaviour, it is always the other way round.
In the case of a vulnerable adult the proportionate duty of care will vary with each person, and even from one day to another. Some will always be highly vulnerable and unable to protect themselves, some will be vulnerable in one situation but not another.
People are complex, which is why simplistic rules are rarely going to work, imo.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't approve of the policy of local authorities who wait until there have been a number of accidents before installing a pedestrian crossing. But I would expect some research to be done into the likelihood of such accidents happening.
In the same way, I would agree on stricter safeguards if there were evidence that a number of vulnerable communicants have been abused by pastoral visitors. But surely it would be greater abuse to deny faithful Christians the Sacrament, because in most cases it would be difficult/impracticable to ensure the presence of a chaperone. (It would be impossible anyway in his/her presence for the sick person to make a personal confession, as the Prayer Book recommends). Is there any evidence that any sort of abuse has resulted from the traditional practice of a priest or lay person visiting alone?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Church seems to want me to fill out a lot of forms and get background checked just to be in the main hall with lots of other people helping kids do their crafts three evenings in summer (VBS).
It's the times. I don't think in my case it's even fear of accusations, not much mischief a person could do with 50 others in the same well lit room. More like the church needs to show it's aware of the Kids Safe program and show it's cooperating by getting some adults enrolled.
But I think there is also a lot of fear of false accusations. That's why closed meeting rooms have glass walls these days. And when I drive a neighbor to the doctor, the doctor insists I come into the examination room too - even though I barely know the person I drove and really don't want to hear her health details. But it's safer for him to have a third person present.
Safer to take someone with you, even if for confidentiality reasons they sit a room way at the shut-in's house.
Safer isn't always the right thing, but do be always aware why the concerns, and choose carefully when to ignore the safety practices.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Catholics have to speak confidentially to a priest in confession, so why not at other times as well?
Because it isn't worth getting sued by the delusional.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
