Groups from almost every major faith group in the state supported the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling related to religious clergy's duty to report suspected child sex abuse.
The opinion, which has led to an outcry among abuse survivors, held that such disclosure isn't required when clergy learn about it through confidential disclosure.
The Roman Catholic Diocese; Seventh-Day Adventists; African Methodist Episcopal Church; Baps Swaminarayan Santhsa, a Hindu denomination; and the Church of Scientology International each voiced support for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints in a case brought by three victims whose father sexually abused them.
Also in support were the American Islamic Congress, a self-described "non-religious, civic society
organization that provides an alternative voice for Muslims;" the Jewish Coalition for Religious Freedom and The Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, a non-profit legal group known for its role in religious freedom cases at the U.S Supreme Court.
In multiple letters to Arizona's high court, the religious groups laid out a number of concerns with an earlier appeals court ruling that said LDS bishops may have waived their confidentiality privilege when they discussed a man's confession jointly with the man's wife and before a formal disciplinary council.
The Arizona Supreme Court's opinion rejecting that ruling lays bare the critical role secrecy plays in many religious communities and the depths to which they will fight to defend it; it also reflects the seriousness that the state’s high court places on protecting religious exercise.
In the case, a father admitted to his bishop that he sexually abused his daughter. The bishop did not report it to law enforcement, and the father abused two of his other children for years. He eventually was arrested when law enforcement found he had posted a video of the abuse online.
The concerns raised by religious organizations in court filings varied from harming core religious practices like the Catholic sacrament of confession to improperly allowing judges and juries to interpret a church's doctrine. Doctrine refers to the principles, rules and teachings of a group.
The Becket Fund said the Court of Appeals' ruling "created constitutional havoc." The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Tucson and Gallup said it would have "devastating effects on the Church, its priests, and the religious liberties of every Catholic in Arizona."
The case also provoked passionate responses from abuse survivor advocates.
Tim Lennon, an Arizona advocate with the Abuse Survivors Coalition, called the Supreme Court's decision “reckless, irresponsible and harmful."
Lynne Cadigan, attorney for the victims in the case, said, "They basically said, 'You can trumpet your confession to a stadium full of people, and if the Mormon Church decides that's confidential, then you don't have to report it. So it has made Arizona a very dangerous place for children."
"Why is the price we pay for religious freedom letting sex abuse continue for seven years?" she added.
The background of the Arizona case on reporting sexual abuse
A Bisbee father named Paul Adams admitted to a LDS bishop in 2011 that he sexually abused his daughter. He went on to abuse his other two children until at least February 2017, when he was arrested after police found the online video, court records show.
The victims sued the church in 2022, claiming the bishops had a duty to report the abuse. They argued that Adams' initial confession to his bishop was protected but that, under Arizona law, he waived his confidentiality privilege when he told his wife about the abuse in the bishop's presence and again later when he discussed his actions during a formal church disciplinary hearing. With Adams' privilege lost, the plaintiffs argued, the bishops were required by law to report the abuse.
But the Arizona Supreme Court said the question of privilege was beside the point. They explained that the bishops weren't obligated to report the abuse because the law exempted clergy from disclosing "communication or confession" if the clergy member "determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."
Such a determination, the justices, said, could only be made by a church itself. For a judge or jury to do so would violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which forbids the government from infringing on the public's right to freely exercise their religion.
'Devastating effects' on core religious practices
The Catholic groups said letting the appeals court ruling stand would have "devastating effects" on the faith's core belief of the "seal of Confession." The practice forbids priests from disclosing a confessor's statements, and leaders who renege on that commitment are excommunicated and risk "damnation."
"The obligation is so fundamental that Catholic priests have historically accepted imprisonment, exile, and even martyrdom rather than violate the seal," the groups' letter said.
It went on to explain that the sacrament of confession comes from the belief that contrite sinners who confess their wrongdoing, even criminal acts, can receive God's mercy and be saved from eternal punishment.
"Confession 'represent[s] the only true antidote to the evil that threatens man and the whole world,'" the letter says, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a reference guide to Catholic beliefs and teachings.
Concern over who determines what's 'reasonable' within a religion
The Becket group said the appeals court ruling would invite "religious discrimination by favoring some confessional and repentance procedures over others."
That's because Arizona's duty-to-report law exempts clergy from disclosing to the government abuse of a minor when the clergy learns about it through a "confession” or “confidential communication” and when the member “determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."
The Becket Fund argued that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause forbids a court or jury from determining what is considered "confession," "confidential" or "reasonable" within a religious doctrine.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
"Churches retain 'the right of construing their own church laws,' especially in addressing matters of 'theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, [and] the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them,'" the court filing said, referring to an 1871 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Watson V. Jones.
A joint letter filed by the Seventh-Day Adventists, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Baps Swaminarayan Santhsa and the Church of Scientology International echoed the arguments from the Becket group.
The groups, in the joint court filing, expressed concern over the appeals court's "reaction to the fact that the (LDS) clergy here required the father to confess a second time, in the presence of the mother, because of the faith’s demands."
The Court of Appeals determined that a jury may find the LDS bishop, in that scenario, wasn't taking a confession but rather observing one.
But the groups said different religions would have different approaches to repentance.
"Regardless, the government, whether via court decision or statute, cannot require a one-size fits all for faiths," the letter said.
Taylor Seely writes about First Amendment issues at The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by phone at 480-476-6116.
Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Major religious groups backed Arizona Supreme Court sex abuse decision
