Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Clergy-Penitent Privilege and Seal of Confession

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and individual clergy members, alleging failure to report child sexual abuse. According to court records, a church member confessed to abusing his children during the faith’s formal repentance process in 2011 to his bishop—the equivalent of a pastor in the Latter-day Saint faith—and later confessed again to his wife in the presence of the bishop. The perpetrator subsequently died by suicide in 2017.

While the lawsuit directly targeted the Latter-day Saint church, the ruling carries profound implications for other denominations, including the Catholic Church. The Catholic dioceses of Arizona—comprising the Diocese of Phoenix, the Diocese of Tucson, and the Diocese of Gallup, New Mexico, which includes parts of Arizona—filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Legal Arguments and Constitutional Protections

Attorneys representing the Arizona Catholic dioceses argued that evaluating the validity or confidentiality of a confession through a secular factfinder violates core constitutional protections. “While the Catholic Entities do not in any way minimize or dismiss the tragic facts of the underlying case, the decision is legally untenable for two reasons,” the dioceses’ attorneys stated in court filings.

The first argument asserts that allowing civil courts to judge whether a communication qualifies as a valid confession under specific religious teachings infringes upon the church autonomy doctrine. According to the legal brief, “The interpretation of matters of Catholic faith and doctrine, especially regarding the sacramental law and the sacred seal of Confession, are not matters within the civil court’s jurisdiction.”

The second argument centers on the free exercise of religion. The dioceses warned that compelling clergy to disclose confidential confessions would force priests into an untenable dilemma. According to their filings, a compelled disclosure would place a priest “at the expense of his eternal soul” by violating the inviolable seal, or else subject him to significant civil and criminal penalties.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s seven justices—consisting of six Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee—unanimously agreed that permitting the litigation to proceed under those circumstances would breach First Amendment guarantees.

Statutory Exemptions and Reporting Mandates

Arizona law generally mandates that any person who reasonably believes a minor is a victim of abuse must immediately report the information to law enforcement or government authorities. However, the state statute contains a specific exemption for clergy members.

Under the statutory framework, a religious leader is not required to report child abuse if the information is learned during a “confession” or “confidential communication” and the clergy member determines that refraining from reporting is reasonable and necessary within the theological concepts of their religion. The July 30 ruling reinforces this statutory safeguard by affirming that civil courts cannot override a church’s internal determinations regarding what constitutes a protected confession.