Opinion ID: 1969742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: scope of clergy-communicant privilege

Text: The Pennsylvania statute protecting confidential information acquired by members of the clergy provides: No clergyman, priest, rabbi or minister of the gospel of any regularly established church or religious organization, except clergymen or ministers, who are self-ordained or who are members of religious organizations in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers, who while in the course of his duties has acquired information from any person secretly and in confidence shall be compelled, or allowed without consent of such person, to disclose that information in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5943 (emphasis added). In analyzing the scope of the clergy-communicant privilege, we must be mindful that evidentiary privileges are not favored. [E]xceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth. Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa.Super. 138, 146, 606 A.2d 905, 908 (1992)(quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 175, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1648, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)). Thus, courts should accept testimonial privileges only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 383 (3d Cir.1990)(quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 46, 100 S.Ct. 906, 910, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980)). Considering these principles, Pennsylvania courts have interpreted our clergy-communicant privilege as applying only to confidential communications between a communicant and a member of the clergy in his or her role as confessor or spiritual counselor. See, e.g., Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa.Super. 138, 146, 606 A.2d 905, 908 (1992); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 392 Pa.Super. 331, 572 A.2d 1258 (1990); Fahlfeder v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 80 Pa.Cmwlth. 86, 470 A.2d 1130 (1984). In Hutchison, the plaintiff filed a civil action against a priest for alleged pedophilic acts and against the priest's diocese (collectively, the diocese) for the alleged negligent hiring and retention of the priest. During pre-trial discovery, the plaintiff sought, inter alia, the production of church documents concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minor male children by priests assigned to the diocese; the complete personnel files of specified priests; and documents kept by the diocese in its secret archives. The diocese refused to produce any documents contained in its secret archives. The trial court ordered discovery of documents relating to incidents of actual or alleged sexual misconduct by priests with minor, male children and information concerning the assignment and transfer of priests. The court's Order, however, granted the church leave to present the documents for an in camera review before disclosure to the adverse party. After examining the relationship between canon and civil law, the statutory clergy-communicant privilege, and the constitutional right to freedom of religion, the Superior Court affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Superior Court explained that the clergy-communicant privilege is limited to statements made in confidence to a member of the clergy for spiritual considerations or penitential purposes. The court stated that the mere fact that a communication is made to a member of the clergy, or that documentation is transmitted to a member of the clergy, is not sufficient alone to invoke the privilege. The court concluded that the diocese had failed to show that the communicant had disclosed the requested information in confidence to a member of the clergy in the context of a confession or spiritual matter. The Hutchison court relied on the Patterson and Fahlfeder cases that examined whether the privilege protects inculpatory statements to members of the clergy acting in secular roles. In Patterson, a murder prosecution, a court assigned a priest to the defendant as a court-appointed counselor following the defendant's unrelated arrests for indecent exposure. At trial, the priest testified concerning the defendant's desire to confess to the murder. The Superior Court found no evidence in the record indicating that the defendant had communicated with the priest in his capacity as a minister rather than as a court-appointed counselor. The court, therefore, held that because the defendant's statements to the priest were not motivated by religious considerations, the trial court properly admitted the priest's testimony. Fahlfeder involved communications to a clergyman who was the director of a residence to which the petitioner had been assigned as a condition of his parole for morals crimes involving young boys. At the petitioner's parole violation hearing, the director testified that the petitioner had admitted to associating with young boys while on parole. On appeal, the petitioner alleged error in the admission of the director's testimony. The Commonwealth Court held that the statutory clergy-communicant privilege does not prohibit all testimony by members of the clergy. Instead, the court stated that it is limited to information told in confidence to the clergy in their roles as confessors or counselors. The court concluded that the record did not establish a confessor/penitent relationship between the petitioner and the director or that the petitioner offered his admissions in confidence. The court determined that the director's role toward the petitioner was that of volunteer or auxiliary supervisor to help in his rehabilitation on parole. Without a showing that the director's role was one of confessor or confidant, the court held that the challenged admissions did not fall within the protection of the clergy-communicant privilege. Nearly every jurisdiction in the United States has recognized a clergy-communicant privilege and, like Pennsylvania, requires the communication to have been motivated by penitential or spiritual considerations. Although the statutes establishing the privilege vary in language from state to state, the most prevalent feature prescribed by the typical statute is that the communication be made to a member of the clergy in the course of discipline enjoined by his or her denomination. Annotation, Matters to Which the Privilege Covering Communications to Clergyman or Spiritual Adviser Extends, 71 A.L.R.3d 794 (1995). Judicial interpretation of the meaning of discipline enjoined by the denomination has ranged from a narrow construction limiting the privilege to doctrinally required confessions, see, e.g., Sherman v. State, 170 Ark. 148, 279 S.W. 353 (1926), to a broader application to the practice of providing religious guidance, admonishment or advice, see, e.g., Scott v. Hammock, 870 P.2d 947 (Utah 1994). In either case, the privilege applies only to confidential communications to a member of the clergy acting in a spiritual capacity. Likewise, in federal proceedings, it is stated: [t]hat such a privilege exists . . . in at least some form has long been generally recognized,. . . . [W]hether a particular communication lies within the protection of the privilege, the courts have recognized and applied certain criteria to determine whether the communication was intended by the parties to be truly confidential  that is, to be kept secret from the world at large . . . and whether, granted that the communication was to a clergy person within the scope of the privilege, it was made in that person's spiritual capacity, since otherwise, they would not be deemed to be confidential. Russell Donaldson, J.D., Annotation, Communications to Clergyman as Privileged in Federal Proceedings, 118 A.L.R. Fed. 449, 457 (1996). [2] Thus, as demonstrated in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374 (3d Cir.1990), federal courts have held that the federal clergy-communicant privilege protects (1) communications to a member of the clergy, (2) in his or her spiritual or professional capacity, (3) by persons who seek spiritual counseling, and (4) who reasonably expect confidentiality. Id. at 377. The Third Circuit has recognized that the clergy's professional capacity comprises a broad range of pastoral counseling practices, including family counseling and the handling of personality problems. Nonetheless, the inquiry in federal proceedings remains whether the communications at issue are confidential and spiritual in nature. Id. [3] Our review of the relevant case law reveals no jurisdiction extending the privilege to communications that are not penitential or spiritual in nature. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law embodied in Hutchison, Patterson and Fahlfeder, application of the clergy-communicant privilege is not based solely on the clergy's status, but whether the communication was made in confidence in the context of a penitential or spiritual matter. By seeking to eliminate the requirement of a confessional or spiritual relationship between the communicant and the clergy person, the Diocese would so broadly construe the meaning of information acquired in the course of [a clergyman's] duties as to effectively extend the privilege to communications involving entirely secular concerns. Contrary to the Diocese's contention, limiting the privilege to communications penitential or spiritual in nature does not insert non-existent language into the statute. Instead, this requirement provides a rational and well-established interpretation of confidential information acquired in the course of [a clergyman's] duties. We, therefore, hold that application of the privilege distills to a single inquiry: whether the communicant disclosed information in confidence to a member of the clergy in his or her capacity as confessor or spiritual advisor. Accordingly, confidential communications to a member of the clergy, even for counselling or solace, do not fall within the protections of the privilege unless motivated by spiritual or penitential considerations. Likewise, the privilege does not protect information regarding the manner in which a religious institution conducts its affairs; nor does the privilege protect information acquired by a religious institution through independent investigations not involving communications with a member of the clergy for penitential or spiritual purposes.