Courtesy www.nfl.com and Muck This sort of thing bothers me greatly, the pastor/redskins fan was told something that while not strictly speaking a religious matter, but it has implications simply because the pastor showed such little discretion that it is surprising that the man is a clergymen. Haslett did not tell him this stuff in the confessional, he did however rely on his discretion due to his position, and this dude could not wait to blab about a private conversation on a public forum, that is unethical and clodish and could get Jim Haslett into deep trouble all due to this lunkheads' zeal to seem important on a football fan forum for goodness sakes.
In a nutshell, Haslett chatted with the Charlotte based pastor, who was a big Redskins fan, about the internal thinking about the Qb position in Washington, and the pastor decided to post the contents of the conversation on a Redskins fan forum. The story was picked up by PFT and NFL.com, and now Haslett has to deny the whole thing and the pastor got himself into hot water for his utter lack of discretion.
While I understand your position, I have to ask, was Haslett seeking spiritual advice from this pastor or did he just bank on the fact that since the guy was a pastor, he was bound by confidentiality? I realize this sounds like a petty thing to ask but from my understanding, it does make a difference.
Sounds more like a private conversation LO, this was not a duty of his position. It is also a good example of gossiping.
Legally unless it was bound by the confessional the pastor was free to disclose. Morally it was reprehensible. I get lots of privileged information in the course of pastoral conversations that are not "bound" but I keep them inviolate anyway. As a pastor, you just can't do that!
Exactly, there is a difference between functions of the office, like confessions or counseling, and general conversations however the pastor was lacking the discretion to realize even general conversations "count" as something you just do not put out on front street with names attached to them. Now "if" the pastor felt the need to speak, at best he should have not attached a name to it, even then it still would have exposed Haslett to detective work to discover he was the one who said it, so it would have been more professional just to not have said anything at all.
Let me ask the chaplains of the board this; Doesn't Haslett share some of the blame here due to ignorance as well? I understand that it was unprofessional for the pastor to say anything, or to even put a name to it to lend it credence.
For relying on the pastor to be a conscientious? Clergy have an obligation to deny themselves a simple pleasure such as gossipiing on a message board about even casual conversations. Basically what is told to you even in casaul conversations simply must go through a filter of "what is best for the person who spoke to me?" rather than how much one's ego can be pumped up by spreading what was told in confidence. In some ways, clergy are Maitre' De's... A wise old owl sat in an oak, the more he heard, the less he spoke, the less he spoke the more he heard...
Fair enough, now let us think about why he would be speaking out of school in the first place.. Uhm self obvious or no?
Takes me back to my original question of ignorance. This discussion could go round and round. I know it was unprofessional for the pastor to gossip. I know it was equally unprofessional for Haslett to say anything to anybody outside of Washington Redskins staff. They were both in the wrong, I think we can all agree to that, no?
No. The pastor was wrong. Haslett's only error was the same error "Flounder" made in Animal House, "Hey, you f***** up, you trusted us!"
I don't disagree that the pastor was wrong, only saying that Haslett has some blame in this too. I even said that in the post you quoted. Haslett displayed an equal lack of professionalism by saying that to someone outside the Redskins organization.
No, Haslett has every reason to think his words are safe with clergy. If you, me, padre, ohio and Haslett all think the pastor should have kept it to himself, then its pretty reasonable to assume Haslett thought his words were safe.
So, speaking to a stranger about potential personnel decisions doesn't show a lack of professionalism because it was said to a pastor?
It's also pretty reasonable to assume that an NFL coach who has been a head coach knows to not talk outside the organization about potential personnel moves.
I disagree. I think many coaches have probably talked to clergy, therapists, family, friends, etc about major decisions.
And I am sure that those mentioned save for friends and family were recommended by the organization. Not some random pastor you just met at a children's sporting event
The profession of "clergy" has had a reputation for confidentiality and discretion. It has been earned over the centuries. This, like the misconduct of too many others cuts away at that. You may argue whether it should it exist at all but it is something that helps me do my job and I guard it religiously (pun intended). Haslett appears to have counted on that. It should have been there. Was Haslett wrong? I still don't think so.
Once again, the pastor was wrong to say anything. Haslett was wrong for saying anything to a complete stranger who was a pastor. They BOTH exercised bad judgement in this case
No, the pastor by virtue of his office is supposed to be trustworthy, that comes with the job so to speak.