Opinion ID: 2220335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excessive Government Entanglement with Religion

Text: I necessarily begin my analysis of this question with our decision in Odenthal. Although Odenthal focused on civil, not criminal, liability statutes, its analysis is quite useful in identifying the limitations that the Establishment Clause imposes on a state's ability to regulate religion, religious organizations, and religious activities. 649 N.W.2d at 434-41. To ensure that the standards applied for the civil liability of clergy were secular, not religious, we confined our consideration in Odenthal to the standards embodied in three statutes that were also applicable to counselors who were not clergy members, namely: statutes regarding unlicensed mental health practitioners, Minn.Stat. §§ 148B.60-.71 (1998); statutes setting forth licensure requirements for marital and family counselors, Minn.Stat. §§ 148B.29-.39 (1998); and statutes creating a cause of action for sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist, Minn. Stat. §§ 148A.01-.05 (2000). Id. at 436. [4] We concluded in Odenthal that clergy who provided mental health services equivalent to those provided by other mental health practitioners were subject to the statute; that the statutory definition of mental health services was neutral on its facedescribing counseling in secular terms without regard to whether religious or spiritual principles are involved; and that, accordingly, the application of the statute to clergy would not impinge on the religious character of the relationship or excessively entangle the courts in religion. 649 N.W.2d at 437-38. We emphasized that the standards of conduct for those providing mental health services apply to all who meet the definition of unlicensed mental health practitioner, regardless of whether the relationship is one of clergy and church member. The statutory standards identified by Odenthal as establishing negligence, including protecting the health, safety and welfare of clients, the confidentiality of communications, and the impartiality of the mental health professional, do not suggest any unique or distinct application with respect to clergy. Id. at 440. Viewed in the context of Odenthal, the absence from the clergy sexual conduct statute of neutral or secular standards raises several concerns. Contrary to the statutes relied on in Odenthal to establish secular standards, the clergy sexual conduct statute criminalizes solely the conduct of clergy and prohibits sexual penetration solely when the counseling is religious or spiritual in nature. As argued by Bussmann, the statutes in Odenthal applied in spite of [a person's] membership in the clergy, whereas the clergy sexual conduct statute applies because of [a person's] membership in the clergy. In my view, the standards of the clergy sexual conduct statute are not secular on their face, but instead proscribe conduct by expressly incorporating the religious aspect of the relationship and the religious content of the counseling. I also conclude that the clergy sexual conduct statute establishes legislatively-determined facts that need not be proven at trial or decided by a jury. For example, the statute establishes the irrebuttable presumption that all clergy-advisee relationships have the same religious attributesthat is, that the clergy member is always in a position of power over an advisee; that such power is always embodied in the clergy member's role as a religious or spiritual advisor; that religious or spiritual advice always renders the advisee legally incapable of giving consent to sexual penetration; and that an advisee's consent to sexual penetration is always legally ineffective so long as the advisee is receiving religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort. If I am correct that these legislative determinations have established these facts as a matter of law, the only proof that would be required in a prosecution under the clergy sexual conduct statute is that the clergy member had sexual contact with an advisee at a time when the advisee was meeting on an ongoing basis with [the clergy] to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private. Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1( l ). In this respect, the clergy sexual conduct statute stands in sharp contrast to the psychotherapist sexual conduct statute, which eliminates consent as a defense only where the state proves facts that render the consent legally ineffective. Thus, if the victim is a current patient, consent is not a defense for a psychotherapist if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship (section 609.344, subdivision 1(h)(ii)), which requires proof that the patient is a person who suffers from a mental or emotional illness, symptom, or condition (section 609.341, subdivision 18). If the victim is a former patient, consent is not a defense for a psychotherapist if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the patient is emotionally dependent upon the psychotherapist (section 609.344, subdivision 1(i)) or the sexual penetration occurred by means of therapeutic deception (section 609.344, subdivision 1(j)). Thus, under the psychotherapist [criminal] sexual conduct statute, the vulnerability of the victim is not presumed to exist, but must be proven by either the pre-existence of a mental or emotional condition or by the deceptive conduct of the psychotherapist. The presence of one or both of these facts is presumed to exist under the clergy sexual conduct statute. In Odenthal we noted that the provider of mental health services was governed by a neutral, non-religious standard because the statute required proof that the person was providing assessment, treatment, or counseling for conditions that were specified in the statute, which did not require inquiry into any religious aspect of the counseling. 649 N.W.2d at 438. The conditions specified in the statute which defined the scope of mental health services, were a cognitive, behavioral, emotional, social, or mental condition, symptom, or dysfunction, including intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunctions. Id. (citing Minn.Stat. § 148B.60, subd. 4 (1998)). These conditions provided a secular basis for determining that the consent of the victim was not legally effective. In my view, the clergy sexual conduct statute does not require proof of any such conditions. The absence of secular standards, and the legislative determination that no consent could be legally effective, would mean that the statute is violated solely or primarily because of the religious identity of the actor or the religious nature of the relationship. For example, an unmarried clergy member who dated a parishioner and had sexual contact by mutual consent would be guilty of the crime if the two were also discussing spiritual and religious matters on an ongoing basis. Or, a parishioner who initiated and persistently pursued a sexual relationship with a member of the clergy would nevertheless be deemed to be incapable of effectively consenting to that relationship so long as the two discussed religious or spiritual issues, however disconnected with the sexual contact that discussion may have been. The absence of secular standards would support the conclusion that the statute is the result of excessive government entanglement with religion. Ultimately, I conclude that the standards of the clergy sexual conduct statute are not secular and neutral, but instead incorporate religious doctrine, as reflected in the legislative determinations that the clergy member is always in a position of power over an advisee, that any sexual penetration with an advisee is always causally related to the religious and spiritual advice given by the clergy member to an advisee, and that an advisee always lacks capacity to effectively consent to that sexual penetration. I believe that this absence of secular and neutral standards makes the statute unconstitutional on its face. [5] I would therefore hold that section 609.344, subdivision (1)( l ) fosters excessive government entanglement with religion, violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, and is unconstitutional.