I’m genuinely curious: Do we have any idea which denominations impose a duty on their clergy to preserve confidentiality? Every Sunday I read in the Style section of the Times of couples who are married by someone who has been licensed by the Universal Church (I think it’s called) to perform weddings. Often, of course, the officiant is a close friend of one or both of the couple being married. Would we/should we take seriously an internet declaration by the Universal Church that it requires its “clergy” to keep confidential whatever the bride(s), groom(s), members of the wedding party, etc., might have said in the run-up to tying the knot?
sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics (religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) Subject: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties I don’t know how it is in other states, but Cal. Evid Code 1030-1034 absolutely covers any “communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.” So the question isn’t whether it’s “for salvation or other religious goal” as such; rather, it’s whether the clergy member “has a duty to keep those communications secret” under his religious denomination’s tenets. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:59 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: The clergy-penitent privilege and burdens on third parties Steve-- That may be true in your experience, but it doesn't make those discussions "confessional" for purposes of the clergy-penitent privilege. It typically requires a showing that the discussion was not counseling, therapy, or simply an exchange of information. Rather, it must be for salvation or other religious goal. Even discussions between co-religionists, however, may not qualify as confessions for purposes of the privilege. For example, a conversation between a bishop and a pedophile priest about his abuse of children and his next placement is not a confession, despite the elements of counseling involved. No privilege attaches to such conversations. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
