Faithful to his promises and the work that had shaped him, Pastor Hedstrom instinctively understood his role when he learned of Isaac's crime. He repeatedly visited Isaac who was jailed in Fairplay, Colorado, 85 miles from Colorado Springs. During each visit he "followed the Lutheran rite for confession and absolution consisting of pastoral counsel, confession, absolution, prayer, consideration of a scriptural text, consecration of the bread and wine, communion, and benediction." Pastor Hedstrom also knew that Isaac's parents were devastated and promptly began seeing them for what would become more than 50 pastoral visits and counseling sessions—all subject to an expectation of confidence.
On March 12, 2002, Isaac confessed in court to one count of second-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. During the hearing, Judge Plotz gave Isaac an opportunity to speak. Isaac apologized to Tony's parents and to his own, to the defense and prosecuting attorneys, and to the judge and investigators. Tony's mother choked out "thank you" from the back of the court, and then Isaac said, "I won't ask for forgiveness. I don't deserve it. I thank God that I was caught and that all of this was stopped."
On August 14, 2002, Simon Sue's defense attorney issued a subpoena that ordered Pastor Hedstrom to hand over all of his notes regarding the pastoral care he had given Isaac and his family and to appear at the Park County District Court to testify about all of these confidences. Pastor Hedstrom knew he could not do this. He had vowed long ago to preserve inviolate such confidences. Pastor Hedstrom reflected on the witness that Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer had given against the German state in World War II and determined that he could not comply with the subpoena.
Pastor Hedstrom, with the support of Bishop Alan Bjornberg and the national denomination, then asked our firm for assistance. We determined that his penitential communications with Isaac were almost certainly subject to the statutory confidential clergy communications privilege, but that it was unclear whether the statute would also protect the counseling communications between Pastor Hedstrom and Isaac's parents. Because of our daily work assisting congregations and denominations, we were aware of a large number of disparate cases that protected, from government review or oversight, a wide variety of church communications. The recent Bryce case from the Tenth Circuit held that government courts had no jurisdiction over parish dialogues or a pastor's controversial handouts to his parishioners. The 1964 Iowa case Cimijott v. Paulsen held that the government could not adjudicate defamatory statements made before a church marriage tribunal. The 1990 Griffin v. Coughlin decision from New York protected even the rights of prisoners to speak confidentially with their pastor, and the 1981 Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary case from the Fifth Circuit held that the EEOC could not even force a seminary to disclose demographic information about its faculty and administrators. There were many other cases in which the First Amendment Doctrine of Church Autonomy protected from government intrusion church membership lists, church financial records, church personnel information, penitential communications, church statements regarding discipline of members and ministers, and more. We promptly filed a motion to quash Simon Sue's subpoena, and Judge Plotz did so.
Application. There are many instances in which government power is used to invade church communications. Parties in a divorce proceeding sometimes serve a subpoena on the pastor who counseled them hoping that his or her testimony will help one side or the other regarding a child custody or other issue. The Census Bureau, the EEOC, and other government agencies may demand sensitive church information. Prosecutors, grand juries, and private litigants seek to acquire and review minister personnel files. Others try to use the formal discovery tools to acquire information from elder boards and church tribunals.
If a church teaches that some church communications are confidential, it—like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America—should carefully articulate the character and theological basis for such confidentiality. It should then publish those statements in its governing documents, handbooks, and, when appropriate, liturgical books. After a church or denomination has articulated that some of its communications are confidential, it should protect that confidentiality by education and persuasion of anyone using government authority to invade the confidence and, if that fails, by engaging competent counsel to invoke the many legal precedents preserving church confidences. Pastor Hedstrom and the Lutheran Church have provided a first-rate example of how to preserve inviolate the confidentiality of their pastoral care.
A partner practicing in RJ&L's Colorado Springs office, Martin Nussbaum co-chairs the firm's Religious Institutions Group. He represents churches and religious organizations across the nation in a variety of legal matters, including risk management, ministerial misconduct, corporate, tax, property, tax-exempt financing, licensing, employment, First Amendment rights, and related litigation. He can be reached at 719-386-3004 or by e-mail at mnussbaum@rothgerber.com.