DOCSLIB.ORG

The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: an Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: an Overview The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: An Overview The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: An Overview F. Robert Radel, II Andrew A. Labbe I. Introduction The clergy-penitent privilege is one of the oldest and most well-recognized privileges in the United States. While other once-recognized privileges have since withered or fallen from the vine, there remains considerable support for the clergy-penitent privilege.1 How- ever, many debate the rationale behind this privilege, and some question whether it will survive. Nowhere is this controversy clearer than in the interplay between the privilege and mandatory child abuse reporting laws, which have limited, and in some instances abrogated, the privilege. Jurisdictions throughout the country have struggled with striking a balance between what many consider one of the most sacred privileges at law and the safety of children. Some argue that the privilege must be protected at all costs, some that it should be done away with completely, and others attempt to find a middle ground. This debate was reignited last year following a decision from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which revived a lawsuit contending that a priest should have reported accusations of sexual abuse disclosed to him during a confession.2 This decision is discussed in this article. This article discusses the history of the clergy-penitent privilege, considers the interplay between the privilege and mandatory child reporting laws, and addresses the arguments for limiting or abrogating the privilege. Finally, this article suggests a workable balance between protecting confidential religious communications and protecting children from abusers. 1 Even the attorney-client privilege, which is undoubtedly the most well established privilege, has become more limited in its application. See, e.g., United States v. Jacobs, 117 F. 3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997) (applying “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege), abrogated, Loughrin v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2384 (2014). 2 [Parents of Minor Child] v. Charlet, 135 So. 3d 1177, 1181 (La. 2014). 385 FDCC Quarterly/Summer 2015 Rob Radel, a partner at Groelle & Salmon, P.A., in the firm’s Tampa office, devotes his practice to the defense of insureds and self-insureds. He handles various large-loss liability defense matters, including, premises liability; sexual mis- conduct; products liability; employment; long-term health facilities; and psychological and neuropsychological claims. He has defended lawsuits filed against churches and other religious and charitable organizations; hotels, bars and con- venience stores; restaurants and small businesses; long-term care facilities; and manufacturers. Mr. Radel is a member of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, where he has served as chairperson for the Healthcare Practice Section and Vice-Chairperson of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Section. He is also a member of the Defense Research Institute (DRI), serving as Co-Chairperson of the Trial Techniques Sub-Committee for the Product Liability Section. He often chairs and/or speaks at conferences for the FDCC, DRI and ABA, and gives presentations to insurance companies, self-insureds, and church and charitable entities. Prior to joining Groelle & Salmon, he was a partner at Butler Pappas, working in the Tampa office for 22 years. II. The Clergy-Penitent Privilege A. History of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege The clergy-penitent privilege originated in the Canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, under which, “the seal of the confessional is ‘inviolable.’”3 A priest could be excommuni- cated for disclosing the contents of a confession.4 England recognized this privilege while the Roman Catholic Church was still prominent, but the privilege dissolved with the power of the Roman Catholic Church, and currently does not exist in England.5 The first known case in America recognizing the privilege isPeople v. Philips,6 which was decided in 1813. In Phillips, the New York court held that free exercise of religion provi- sions would not force a Catholic priest to testify as to a confession made to him regarding a 3 R. Michael Cassidy, Sharing Shared Secrets: Is It (Past) Time for a Dangerous Person Exception to the Clergy Penitent Privilege, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1627, 1695-96 (2003). 4 Id. at 1696. 5 Id. at 1637. Cassidy notes that, “[c]onfession in the Anglican Church, unlike the Roman Catholic church, was voluntary and not compulsory.” Id. This distinction was likely of great importance in abolishing the privilege. 6 Id. 386 The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: An Overview Andrew Labbe, an associate at Groelle & Salmon, P.A., handles every aspect of insurance coverage law, including first-party property disputes and third-party liability claims. Mr. Labbe also handles all facets of civil appeals and has directly handled numerous appeals throughout Florida. He also assists insurers in developing effective claim-handling strategies and advises insurers on coverage issues, bad faith exposure and best practices. Mr. Labbe is a member of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and is licensed to practice in Florida and Massachusetts. theft.7 The court stated that to do so would infringe upon the priest’s right to freely practice his religion.8 This first recognition of the privilege was followed by People v. Smith9 in 1817, in which the court distinguished a confession made to a Catholic priest, which is required by the Catholic Church, and those made to a Protestant minister, where it was not required but merely made for spiritual guidance. The latter was not afforded protection.10 Based on this decision, it seems clear that the early versions of the clergy-penitent privilege focused not on whether the communications were private or made for spiritual advice/counseling, but whether such “confessions” were mandated by a particular religion. The Smith decision prompted New York to enact the first clergy-penitent privilege statute in 1828, which provided the privilege to priests, ministers, and similar religious denomina- tions.11 By enacting the statute to include other religions, New York took an approach (now the “Model” approach) to the privilege to include communications that are not required by the mandates of a specific religion, but that were made in confidence to a religious leader. B. The Modern Privilege Today, every one of the fifty U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia, has some version of a clergy-penitent privilege.12 Jurisdictions differ on their definitions of clergy and/ 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 See Cassidy, supra note 3, at 1638-39. 12 See Claudia G. Catalano, Annotation, Subject Matter and Waiver of Privilege Covering Communications to Clergy Member or Spiritual Adviser, 93 A.L.R. 5th 327, 350 (2001). 387 FDCC Quarterly/Summer 2015 or confidential communications, as well as who holds the privilege. However, the majority of states have substantially similar clergy-penitent privilege statutes. These same jurisdic- tions also have child abuse reporting laws, which can alter the effect of the clergy-penitent privilege or, in some cases, abrogate the privilege in its entirety. Similar to the clergy-penitent privilege, these reporting laws, while similar, vary from state-to-state. An attorney must be aware that there are differences, sometimes subtle, in the clergy- penitent privilege and child reporting laws of a particular jurisdiction as compared to others. Also, there is usually case law in each jurisdiction dealing with such issues as the presence of third parties, who holds the privilege, and whether the privilege can be waived. Practitioners should advise their clergy clients of the law in their jurisdiction. The clergy need to be aware of when they must disclose information regarding child abuse, when they may disclose such information, when they may not, and the legal ramifications for failing to comply with whatever their duty may be. To aid in this endeavor, this article addresses the different approaches to the clergy-penitent privilege and mandatory reporting laws, and it includes a national survey of the clergy-penitent privilege and child abuse reporting laws. See Appendix A for reference to a particular jurisdiction’s statutory scheme. 1. Definition of “clergy” The first step in analyzing the application of the clergy-penitent privilege is to determine who qualifies as “clergy” in the jurisdiction. The definition of “clergy” can vary from state- to-state and completely alter the effect of the privilege. Uniform Rule of Evidence 505 defines “clergy” as “a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him.”13 The Uniform Rule provides a broad definition; in fact, the privilege would even apply to an individual who is not “clergy,” as long as the parishioner reasonably believed he or she was serving in that capacity. While many jurisdictions have used the Uniform Rule as a guideline, most have altered the definition in one way or another. For example, Michigan defines “clergy” broadly, to include a “minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner.”14 Conversely, Georgia adopted a much more narrow definition and does not appear to extend the privilege to any religions other than Christianity and Judaism.15 13 Unif. R. Evid. § 505 (1999). 14 Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2156 (2015). 15 Ga. Code Ann. § 24-5-502 (2015) (“Every communication made by any person professing religious faith, seeking spiritual comfort, or seeking counseling to any Protestant minister of the Gospel, any priest of the Roman Catholic faith, any priest of the Greek Orthodox Catholic faith, any Jewish rabbi, or any Christian or Jewish minister or similar functionary, by whatever name called, shall be deemed privileged.”). 388 The Clergy-Penitent Privilege: An Overview 2. Definition of “confidential communications” After determining to whom the privilege applies, the next step is determining what com- munications are covered.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Tribunals and Rules of Evidence: the Case for Respecting and Preserving the "Priest-Penitent" Privilege Under International Law
    American University International Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 3 Article 3 2000 International Tribunals and Rules of Evidence: The Case for Respecting and Preserving the "Priest- Penitent" Privilege Under International Law Robert John Araujo S.J. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Araujo, S.J., Robert John. "International Tribunals and Rules of Evidence: The asC e for Respecting and Preserving the "Priest-Penitent" Privilege Under International Law." American University International Law Review 15, no. 3 (2000): 639-666. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS AND RULES OF EVIDENCE: THE CASE FOR RESPECTING AND PRESERVING THE "PRIEST-PENITENT" PRIVILEGE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ROBERT JOHN ARAUJO, S.J." INTRODUCTION .............................................. 640 I. THE PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGE'S ORIGINS ........ 643 II. THE PRIVILEGE AT CIVIL AND COMMON LAW ....... 648 A. EUROPE, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW ZEALAND ....... 648 B. THE UNITED STATES ...................................... 657 Ed. THE PRIVILEGE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ....... 661 CONCLU SION ................................................. 665 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelites-When a man or woman wrongs another, breaking faith with the Lord, that person in- curs guilt and shall confess the sin that has been committed. The person shall make full restitution for the wrong, adding one fifth to it, and giving it to the one who was wronged!' If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
    [Show full text]
  • Clergy Personnel Manual Archdiocese of Portland Preface to the 2014 Edition of the Clergy Personnel Manual
    CLERGY PERSONNEL MANUAL ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND PREFACE TO THE 2014 EDITION OF THE CLERGY PERSONNEL MANUAL On December 8, 1979 Archbishop Cornelius Power promulgated the Clergy Personnel Manual. This Manual was the product of extensive study and consultation by the Clergy Personnel Board and finally a vote of the entire presbyterate. Since the original promulgation of the Manual, some chapters have been revised. This edition prints all the chapters in a uniform format. The organization and position titles within the Pastoral Center have changed. This edition references positions of offices that coincide with our current Pastoral Center organization. This 2014 edition of the Clergy Personnel Manual reflects our current personnel policies and structure. Members of the Clergy Personnel Board: Rev. Todd Molinari, Most Rev. Alexander K. Sample, Most Rev. Peter Smith, Rev. Jeff Eirvin, Rev. James Coleman, Rev. Ronald Millican, Rev. Richard Thompson, Rev. Michael Vuky, Rev. Angelo Te. Vicar for Clergy: Rev. Todd Molinari Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Portland: Most Rev. Alexander K. Sample i PREFACE TO THE 1995 EDITION OF THE CLERGY PERSONNEL MANUAL On December 8, 1979, Archbishop Power promulgated the Clergy Personnel Manual. This Manual was the product of extensive study and consultation by the Clergy Personnel Board and finally a vote of the entire presbyterate. Since the original promulgation of the Clergy Personnel Manual, some chapters, like the one on area vicars, have been added; others, like the one on pastors, have been revised. This edition prints all the chapters in a uniform format and notes the date each chapter was promulgated or revised.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Evidence
    SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE Title 225 - Rules of Evidence [225 Pa. Code ART 1] Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.E. 104 and Revision of Comment The Committee on Rules of Evidence is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania approve the Amendment of Pa.R.E. 104 and Revision of Comment. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The text for the proposed changes precede the Report. Additions are bold and underlined, and deletions are in [bold and brackets]. We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal to the Committee through counsel: Daniel A. Durst, Chief Counsel Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Committee on Rules of Evidence Pennsylvania Judicial Center 601 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 6200 P.O. Box 62635 Harrisburg, PA 17106-2635 Fax: (717) 231-9536 Email: [email protected] no later than July 30, 2010 By the Committee on Rules of Evidence PROFESSOR SANDRA D. JORDAN, CHAIR REPORT Proposed Amendment of Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 104 (Preliminary Questions) and Revision of Comment Often the admissibility of evidence is conditioned upon the proof of foundational facts. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 104, modeled after Federal Rule of Evidence 104, adopted a process whereby preliminary questions concerning foundational facts are to be decided by the judge before the evidence can be admitted. To illustrate, a statement by a co-conspirator of a party made during the course and in the furtherance of a conspiracy may be admissible and not excluded as hearsay. However, a preliminary question must be answered before the statement can be admitted as a hearsay exception, to wit, whether there was a conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Rules of Evidence Article V. Privileges Rule 502. Attorney-Client
    Alabama Rules of Evidence Article V. Privileges Rule 502. Attorney-client privilege. (a) Definitions. As used in this rule: (1) “Client” is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, that is rendered professional legal services by an attorney, or that consults an attorney with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the attorney. (2) “Representative of the client” is: (i) a person having authority to obtain professional legal services or to act on legal advice rendered on behalf of the client or (ii) any other person who, for the purpose of effecting legal representation for the client, makes or receives a confidential communication while acting in the scope of employment for the client. (3) “Attorney” is a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to engage in the practice of law in any state or nation. (4) “Representative of the attorney” is a person employed by the attorney to assist the attorney in rendering professional legal services. (5) A communication is “confidential” if not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is made in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication. (b) General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made for the purpose of facilitating
    [Show full text]
  • Proffer Agreements
    BAR OURNAL J FEATURE States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York provides: [T]he Office may use any statements made by Proffer Agreements Client: (A) to obtain leads to other evidence, which evidence may be used by the Office in any stage of a criminal prosecution (including What Is Your Client Waiving but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing), civil or administrative proceeding, (B) as substantive evidence to and Is It Worth the Risk? cross-examine Client, should Client testify, and (C) as substantive evidence to rebut, directly or indirectly, any evidence offered or elicited, BY JOHN MCCAFFREY & JON OEBKER or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of Client at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, our client is the target of a federal a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible trial or sentencing).(Emphasis added.) investigation. He is offered the against the defendant. It is well-settled that the In practice, the particular language of these opportunity to speak with prosecutors protections afforded under these rules can be agreements determines what triggering events Yand investigators so that they have “his side” waived in proffer agreements, thus opening the open the door to the admission of a client’s of the story before determining whether door for a client’s statements to be used against proffer statements at trial. For example, in charges will be pursued. You may ask yourself, him at trial. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th “What do I have to lose?” Well, the answer is U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 501 MRE 501 Privilege; General Rule
    501 MRE 501 Privilege; General Rule Privilege is governed by the common law, except as modified by statute or court rule. History 501 New eff. Mar 1, 1978 I. Explanation §501.1 II. Practice Suggestions §501.2 III. Prior Michigan Law §501.3 IV. Federal Rule §501.4 V. Cases Interpreting MRE 501 A. Accountant-Client Privilege 1. In General §501.5 2. Cases §501.6 B. Attorney-Client Privilege 1. In General §501.7 2. Attorney-Client Relationship §501.8 3. Scope §501.9 4. Waiver §501.10 5. Who May Assert §501.11 C. Attorney Work-Product Privilege §501.12 D. Clergy-Penitent Privilege §501.13 E. Deliberative Process Privilege §501.14 F. Husband-Wife Privilege 1. In General §501.15 2. Communications Privilege §501.16 3. Spousal Privilege and Exceptions §501.17 G. Informant’s Identity §501.18 H. Journalist’s Privilege §501.19 I. Optometrist-Patient Privilege (Not Recognized) §501.20 J. Physician-Patient Privilege 1. In General §501.21 2. Autopsies §501.22 221 © 2013 The Institute of Continuing Legal Education | 1020 Greene Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1444 | www.icle.org [email protected] | Phone 877-229-4350 or 734-764-0533 | Fax 877-229-4351 or 734-763-2412 | M-F 8:00am-5:00pm §501.1 Michigan Courtroom Evidence 13 Supp. 3. Cause of Action §501.23 4. Discovery of Medical Information §501.24 5. Scope §501.25 6. Waiver §501.26 K. Probation Records Privilege §501.27 L. Psychologist/Psychiatrist-Patient Privilege §501.28 M. Self-Incrimination, Privilege Against §501.29 N.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report of the Study Concerning the Ordination of Women
    A Report of the Study Concerning the Ordination of Women Undertaken by the Anglican Mission in America (A Survey of the Leading Theological Convictions) Submitted by: Women’s Ordination Study Team The Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers, Jr., Chairman July 31, 2003 © 2003 Anglican Mission in America Women’s Ordination Study 2 Women’s Ordination Study Table of Contents Introductory Matters Aim of the Study and Report .................................................................................................... 4 Historical Background ............................................................................................................ 4 Controversial Nature ............................................................................................................. 5 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 6 Presuppositions .................................................................................................................... 8 Structure ........................................................................................................................... 8 Report Part 1: The primary reasons for the ordination of women to the priesthood/ presbyterate and their consecration as bishops .......................................................................................................................... 9 Part 2: The primary reasons for a male priesthood/presbyterate and episcopate and against the ordination of women as priests/presbyters
    [Show full text]
  • Confessions of Third Persons in Criminal Cases L
    Cornell Law Review Volume 1 Article 3 Issue 2 January 1916 Confessions of Third Persons in Criminal Cases L. A. Wilder Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation L. A. Wilder, Confessions of Third Persons in Criminal Cases, 1 Cornell L. Rev. 82 (1916) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol1/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONFESSIONS OF THIRD PERSONS IN CRIMINAL CASES By L. A. WILDER1 Why should a confession of a specific crime, which would be admis- sible against the confessor if he were on trial, be inadmissible in favor of a third person charged with the offense, when the confessor is not available as a witness? No doubt the average layman would declare this state of the law glaringly inconsistent in itself, and wholly incompatible with the professed attitude of criminal courts toward accused persons. And while the general sense of justice in the abstract is not always a true test of justice in the concrete, the fact that it is shocked by the denial to A of the benefit of B's confession, however voluntary and reliable it may be, is sufficient to justify a comment upon the rule which so excludes the confession. Of course, it is understood that the confession (as distinguished from an admission) is admitted in evidence against the confessor by virtue of that exception to the hearsay rule, which lets in declara- tions against the interest of the declarant.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodox Churches
    Orthodox Churches The Cross of the Romanian Orthodox Church is the symbol of the Irish branch of the Church and one of a number of crosses venerated across the Orthodox Traditions. ORTHODOX CHURCHES Orthodox Churches trace their roots to the twelve male apostles who, according to Christian teaching, were chosen by Christ to continue his teaching. The Orthodox movement comprises a group of independent churches that follow particular teachings, each having the right to elect its own leaders. The Christian Bible is the key holy book of the Orthodox Churches, who share the principal beliefs of other traditions of Christianity (described on page 16). The Orthodox movement is the largest Christian community in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, while it is the second largest Christian community in the world. Clergy are referred to as priests. 145 Summary of Essential Practice Points: Please refer to the full text of the highlighted points related to the following summary points. Profile of the Orthodox Churches of a threat to the life of an infant the Orthodox 1 in Ireland: Churches prefer that the child is baptised. This should ideally be done by an Orthodox priest. If Orthodox Churches in Ireland correspond to two none is immediately available then the Orthodox main traditions who share core Christian beliefs, Churches would wish that the parents baptise the ceremonies and rituals. The membership of each child themselves using the guidance given under church is highly culturally diverse. In summary, Initiation ritual/infant baptism below. members come from Ireland, European and Eastern European countries, parts of the Middle East, parts of Asia, parts of Africa and North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions and Answers
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 34 | Issue 1 Article 8 1943 Questions and Answers Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Questions and Answers, 34 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 43 (1943-1944) This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Questions and Answers David Geeting Monroe (Ed.) Long before the science of criminal investigation came into repute, enforcement officials had come to rely upon the confession as an important means of establishing guilt. The courts, for example, viewed confessions as one of the best and most substantial species of evidence. They assumed, and correctly, that no person in the full possession of his faculties would voluntarily' sacrifice life, liberty, or property by confessing to a crime he did not commit. And from the point of view of the police, the confession offered an invaluable means of disclosing guilt in light of the exceptional difficulties involved in fixing criminality. For crimes in large part are cloaked in secrecy and men conscious of criminal purpose seek to shelter their knavery from the observing eyes of others. Thus, through the ages, the confession has held a significant position in the field of crime repression. Nevertheless, use of confessional evidence has suffered an harrassed and checkered career and on innumerable occasions has obstructed the normal functioning of enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, Or King? . . . Gerry Breshears
    JETS 37/1 (March 1994) 3-26 THE BODY OF CHRIST: PROPHET, PRIEST, OR KING? GERRY B R E S H E A R S * David Fisher has helped me to see that the flurry of ecclesial articles and books describe activity rather than define essence. Even theologians reflect on the Church more organizationally and functionally than ontolog- ically and missiologically. We do word studies of qähäl and ekklësia, speak quickly of a few Biblical analogies, and move on to organization and ordi- nances of the Church. Our pragmatic preoccupation with the nitty-gritty running of the Church forces our ecclesiology to suffer from a lack of tran- scendence.1 We must reflect first on the essence of the Church. The Church is essence taking form. I propose to begin the process by defining the essence of the Church in terms of carrying on the mission of Jesus. I will develop this following the paradigm of the offices Jesus fulfilled while he was on earth. The prelimi- nary level of my thinking means that this will be more an agenda with ex- amples than a finished product. I. THE HE4RT OF THE CHURCH The key concept of the Church is that it is a Spirit-led people of God who carry out Christ's mission in the world. It works because he is present. Matthew's gospel begins (1:18) and ends (28:20) with the presence of Christ. The people who make up the Church are the concretely living body of Christ, which is his person turned outward in action.
    [Show full text]
  • Privileges and Hearsay
    Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 2 10-15-1985 Two Notes on Evidence: Privileges and Hearsay J. W. Deese Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation J. W. Deese, Two Notes on Evidence: Privileges and Hearsay, 5 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judges. (1985) available at https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol5/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. TWO NOTES ON EVIDENCE: PRIVILEGES AND HEARSAY Hon. J. W. Deese / A. PRIVILEGES I. Introduction Evidentiary rules of privilege differ from other rules of evidence or rules of admissibility in two important ways: (1) at some administrative tribunals, such as those under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act and some State Administrative Procedure Acts, the rules of evidence applicable in courts of general jurisdiction are not requir- ed to be applied; but even in these tribunals the rules of privilege still apply. (2) Unlike other rules of admissi- bility, which either determine the relevance of evidence or impose conditions of admissibility directed to improving the quality of proof and rejecting evidence which is either untrustworthy or unreliable; rules of privilege exist, not to enhance the search for the truth, but instead to forbid the admission of evidence because some consideration extrin- sic to the search for the truth is regarded as more impor- tant.
    [Show full text]