Showing posts with label Clergy-Penitent Privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clergy-Penitent Privilege. Show all posts

Thursday, February 01, 2024

Recorded Statements Made to Church Leaders and Pastor Not Privileged

In State of Florida v. Gonzalez, (FL App., Jan. 31, 2024), a Florida state appellate court held that a video recording of a meeting between defendant and some 14 to 20 church leaders (including the pastor) did not meet the statutory requirements for the communication to be privileged. The court reversed the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress the video at defendant's trial for sexually molesting the church pastor's 12-year-old granddaughter. The pastor called the meeting and instructed defendant "that he would need to explain to the church leaders the details of what he had done and that he would need to ask for forgiveness." The court said in part:

We reject the State's attempt to frame the communication here as being made only to S.S. [the victim's mother] and to the other church leaders.  Having viewed the video and reading the transcript therefrom, we conclude that M.S., Gonzalez's pastor, was among the recipients of Gonzalez's communication and, therefore, that part of section 90.505(2) was met. However, the privilege requires more than just a statement being made to a member of the clergy.  The dispute in this case centers on the other requirement: that the communication was confidential.  And that part of the test requires that the communication be "made privately for the purpose of seeking spiritual counsel or advice from the member of the clergy in the usual course of his or her practice or discipline and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the communication."  § 90.505(1)(b)....

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

Court Defines Clergy-Penitent Privilege Under Montana Law

Caekaert v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, (D MT, May 22, 2023), involved a motion by plaintiff to compel production of documents that the Jehovah's Witnesses parent body withheld in discovery claiming clergy-penitent privilege. At issue were reports from congregations to the parent body of known child molesters currently or formerly in appointed positions in the congregation. In defining the scope of the clergy-penitent privilege, the Montana federal district court said in part:

The Court recognizes the deference it must give religious groups in the organization of their internal affairs. However ... such deference does not mean a religious organization determines for the Court what is privileged merely by contending that it is confidential under the religious body's doctrine...

At the same time, the Court recognizes that the privilege is not so narrow so as to exclude non-penitential statements made in the course of the church's disciplinary process....

Friday, January 10, 2020

Wife of Sex Offender Sues Church For Reporting Confessed Abuse

The Salem (OR) Statesman Journal reports on a suit filed recently in an Oregon state trial court by the wife of convicted sex offender Timothy Johnson. She claims that leaders of the Turner, Oregon Latter Day Saints congregation breached their duty to her husband in reporting his confessed sex abuse to authorities. According to the report, Johnson followed church doctrine by confessing and repenting his sins in front of clergy and the church court:
The clergy portrayed that such a confession and repentance was dictated by church doctrine, and church doctrine required strict confidence of such confessions, according to the lawsuit.....
But what leaders failed to advise Johnson of is that if he confessed to the abuse, they would report his actions to local law enforcement, according to the lawsuit. 
The lawsuit filed in Oregon singled out a man who served as a counselor to Johnson's bishop, claiming the church failed to properly supervise him and train him of his obligations as a member of the clergy.
The suit seeks damages of $9.5 million on behalf of Johnson's wife and four children.

Jehovah's Witness Practices Are Within Confidentiality Exception To Mandatory Abuse Reporting

In Nunez v. Watchtower Bible and  Tract Society of New York, Inc., (MT Sup. Ct., Jan. 8, 2020), the Montana Supreme Court reversed a jury award of $35 million in compensatory and punitive damages against the Jehovah's Witnesses for violating Montana's statute mandating reporting of child abuse.  The court concluded that Jehovah's Witnesses came within an exception in the statute for communications required to be confidential under church law or established practice. The court said in part:
[W[e decline to conduct further inquiry into the validity of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ tenets and doctrines, including its canon and practice for adherence to a requirement of confidentiality in handling child abuse reports. Jehovah’s Witnesses representatives testified that its process for addressing these reports is strictly confidential, notwithstanding the involvement of numerous church clergy and congregants.... 
We hold accordingly that the undisputed material facts in the summary judgment record demonstrate as a matter of law that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not mandatory reporters under § 41-3-201, MCA, in this case because their church doctrine, canon, or practice required that clergy keep reports of child abuse confidential, thus entitling the Defendants to the exception of § 41-3-201(6)(c), MCA. The reporting statute as written accommodates Jehovah’s Witnesses’ definition and practice of confidentiality.
[Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]

Wednesday, July 03, 2019

Vatican Reiterates Inviolability of Confessional

On Monday, the Vatican, with the approval of Pope Francis, released the Note of the Apostolic Penitentiary on the Importance of the Internal Forum and the Inviolability of the Sacramental Seal.(Full text in Italian.)   The Note reads in part [unofficial translation]:
Any political action or legislative initiative aimed at "forcing" the inviolability of the sacramental seal would constitute an unacceptable offense against the libertas Ecclesiae , which does not receive its legitimacy from individual States, but from God; it would also constitute a violation of religious freedom, legally fundamental to all other freedoms, including the freedom of conscience of individual citizens, both penitents and confessors. Breaking the seal would be tantamount to violating the poor who is in the sinner.
The Apostolic Penitentiary is a Vatican tribunal dealing with issues of confession and absolution. According to an AP report, Cardinal Piacenza, head of the tribunal, issued a statement interpreting the Note, and saying in part:
It’s opportune to make clear that the text of the statement cannot and doesn’t want to be in any way a justification or a form of tolerance of the abhorrent cases of abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy.
No compromise is acceptable in promoting the protection of minors and of vulnerable persons and in preventing and combatting every form of abuse, in the spirit of that which has been constantly reiterated (by Francis).
[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Florida Appeals Court Upholds Priest's Objections To Testifying About Statements Made In Confessional

In Ronchi v. State of Florida(FL App., June 15, 2018), a Florida state appellate court held that it would violate Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to require a Catholic priest, Fr. Vincenzo Ronchi, to testify about a sex abuse victim's statements made during a confession, even though the victim had waived the priest-penitent privilege.  The alleged abuse occurred when the victim was 7 and 13. She was 18 when the trial of her abuser was to take place. In quashing the trial court's order that the priest testify, the appellate court said in part:
.. [I]f Ronchi complies with the State’s demand that he testify as to his communications with the alleged victim during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Ronchi would be forced to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the Catholic Church (and, indeed, would subject him to possible excommunication from the Church). Thus, the trial court’s order can only be upheld if the State establishes that coercing Ronchi’s testimony furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means to further that interest.
Here, it is undisputed that the State has a compelling governmental interest in prosecuting sex offenses perpetrated against children.... 
However, we disagree with the State’s contention that coercing Ronchi to testify ... would be the least restrictive means to further its compelling governmental interest of prosecuting Burton. First, as the State acknowledges, the testimony of Ronchi would, at most, be corroborative evidence.... Second, this case does not involve a child victim who, because of his or her tender age, might be unable to adequately testify as to the alleged sexual abuse. The alleged victim in this case is now an adult, and there is nothing in the record that suggests that she would be unable to testify as to the relevant events.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Australian Commission Recommends That Child Sex Abuse Learned In Confession Must Be Reported To Authorities

Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse yesterday issued a release  (which includes links to full text) announcing its publication of a report titled Criminal Justice.  The report puts forward 85 recommendations for reforms aimed at providing fairer responses to victims of institutional child sexual abuse. Here is the Commission's summary of its recommendations on disclosure of abuse learned by clergy during confessions:
The report recommends making failure to report child sexual abuse in institutions a criminal offence. This recommendation extends to information given in religious confessions. Clergy should not be able to refuse to report because the information was received during confession.
Persons in institutions should report if they know, suspect or should have suspected a child is being or has been sexually abused.
The Royal Commission heard of cases in religious settings where perpetrators who made a religious confession to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness. The report recommends there be no exemption, excuse, protection or privilege from the offence granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession.
AP reports on the Commission's action.

Thursday, March 02, 2017

Suit Over Priest's Breach of Confessional Secrecy Is Dismissed

In Sonnier v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26498 (WD LA, Feb. 23, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27235, Jan. 18. 2017) and dismissed an action alleging invasion of privacy and defamation brought by a member of a Catholic church who claimed that a priest violated his 1st Amendment rights by disclosing plaintiff's use of the confessional to communicate with individuals involved in a civil litigation matter. The court concluded that the 1st Amendment does not apply because no state actor was involved in the conduct.  The court went on to hold that in addition:
Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of internal religious affairs as they are predicated on: (1) the breach of the sacramental seal of confession, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church; and (2) Bishop Jarrell's failure to remedy the breach in accordance with church doctrine. In order to discern whether Plaintiff has asserted meritorious claims against Defendants, the Court would have to interpret church doctrine relating to the sacrament of confession and otherwise encroach upon the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. Application of long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, mandates that this Court refrain from considering Plaintiff's claims.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Louisiana Supreme Court Says No Mandatory Reporting of Abuse Discovered In Confessional

In Mayeux v. Charlet, (LA Sup. Ct., Oct. 28, 2016), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that under Louisiana statutes Catholic priests when administering sacramental confession are not "mandatory reporters" of child abuse. Therefore the provision in La. Child. Code art. 609 that eliminates a defense of privileged communications in some instances for mandatory reporters does not eliminate protections for priests.  The court concluded:
Because the provisions of La. Child. Code art. 609 speak only to “mandatory reporters,” a priest when administering the sacrament of confession has no duty to report any confidential communications made during the confession that, by the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, he is authorized to hear and is also duty bound to keep confidential.
(See prior related posting.)

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

In Discovery, Most Documents Fail Clergy-Penitent Privilege

In McFarland v. West Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Lorain, Ohio, Inc., (OH App., Aug. 22, 2016), an Ohio appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's rejection of the clergy-penitent privilege as the basis for a Jehovah's Witness congregation to refuse to produce 19 specific documents sought in discovery by a plaintiff suing over alleged sexual abuse as a minor by another church member.  The appeals court found that only four of the documents met the statutory criteria for the clergy-penitent privilege.  Communications between bodies of church elders did not qualify for the privilege.  The court rejected the argument that production of the unprivileged documents would expose the church's internal discipline procedures and beliefs regarding repentance, mercy, and redemption to external, secular scrutiny in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Penitent May Testify To Her Statements To Priest In Confession

As previously reported, in February a Louisiana trial court held that a plaintiff suing the Catholic Church and a priest can testify that in 2008 she told the priest during confession that she was being abused by a 64-year old parishioner. The Church and the priest appealed, but in a 2-1 decision in Mayeux v. Charlet, (LA App., July 29, 2016) the appeals court affirmed the trial court decision.  However Judge Holdridge dissenting argued:
The statements sought to be excluded were made during the Sacrament of Confession, which is one of the central institutional practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Pursuant to the "seal of confession", a priest is prohibited from revealing anything learned during confession under any circumstance.... The violation of the seal of confession subjects the priest to automatic excommunication.... Accordingly, allowing Plaintiffs to mention, reference, or introduce evidence at trial of the confessions at issue will place an undue burden on Father Bayhi' s right to the free exercise of his religion and violates the constitutional command of separation of church and state. La. Const. art. I, § 8. 

Monday, February 29, 2016

State Exception To Priest-Penitent Privilege Violates Louisiana Religious Freedom Act

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports on a Louisiana state trial court decision handed down on Friday that upholds, on religious freedom grounds, a priest's right to refuse to disclose confidential information regarding sexual abuse of minors received during confession. The court invalidated a provision in LA Children's Code Sec. 609(A)(1) which requires clergy to report abuse or neglect that threatens a child's physical or mental health or welfare, notwithstanding any privilege.  Apparently relying on Louisiana's Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, the court held that while the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, this is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The decision by Judge Mike Caldwell comes in a suit by Rebecca Mayeaux, now 22, who says that in 2008 she told Rev. Jeff Bayhi during confession that she was being abused by a 64-year old parishioner. Under the ruling, Mayeaux will be able to testify about what she told Bayhi, but her attorneys will not be permitted to argue to the jury that Bayhi was required to report her allegations to authorities.  The ruling is subject to immediate appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The lawsuit, originally filed in 2009, has already been up to the state Supreme Court once. (See prior posting.)

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Court Says Priest-Penitent Privilege From Reporting Child Abuse May Be Unconstitutional

Delaware Code, Title 16, Chap. 9 requires reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect to authorities. Under Sec. 909, the only privileges that excuse reporting are the attorney-client privilege and the privilege "between priest and penitent in a sacramental confession."  State of Delaware v. Laurel Delaware Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, (DE Super., Jan. 26, 2016), is an enforcement action against elders of a Jehovah's Witness congregation who did not report a sexual relationship between a 14-year old boy and an adult female member of the congregation.  Defendants' motion to dismiss raised the question of whether this priest-penitent privilege applies to these elders. The court held that if the privilege language is read narrowly, it is unconstitutional because it creates an exception only for certain religious denominations.  Even if read more broadly to cover similar kinds of conversations with clergy, here the conversations with elders were for the purpose of seeking spiritual advice and counsel, and were likely not for the purpose of penitence. Reveal reports on the decision.

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Clergy-Penitent Privilege Does Not Shield Disclosure of Writer of Defamatory Letter

In Jaime Doe v. Catholic Diocese of Rockford, (IL App., Sept. 4, 2015), plaintiff sued seeking the identity of the writer of an allegedly defamatory letter about her son.  The letter, sent to the pastor of the parish, alleged that plaintiff's son engaged in the sexual touching of another minor child.  The appeals court affirmed the trial court's order that the writer of the letter be disclosed.  In doing so, the court concluded that the letter is not covered by the Clergy-Penitent Privilege, saying in part:
The writer was a volunteer for a religious-education program conducted by the parish and had the responsibility of monitoring the children in the program. In our view, at least on the present record, the statements in issue are simply not of the character of a confession or admission for which the writer was seeking spiritual guidance. Rather, they are outlining a potential source of risk for the parish and the children if J. Doe were to repeat such conduct while participating in the educational program offered by the parish. This is fundamentally not a matter of conscience for the writer; rather it is a matter of risk management for the writer as an agent of the parish and a guardian of children. Accordingly, we hold that the clergy-penitent privilege is simply inapplicable.