Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2001 · 61st Convention › Page 355

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 355

front matter 1 front matter 2 front matter 3 front matter 4 front matter 5 front matter 6 front matter 7 front matter 8 front matter 9 front matter 10 front matter 11 front matter 12 front matter 13 front matter 14 front matter 15 front matter 16 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Sheet 142 Sheet 143 Sheet 144 Sheet 145 Sheet 146 Sheet 147 Sheet 148 Page 2 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268 Page 269 Page 270 Page 271 Page 272 Page 273 Page 274 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 Page 300 Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Page 327 Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334 Page 335 Page 336 Page 337 Page 338 Page 339 Page 340 Page 341 Page 342 Page 344 Page 345 Page 346 Page 347 Page 348 Page 349 Page 350 Page 351 Page 352 Page 353 Page 354 Page 355 Page 356 Page 357 Page 358 Page 359 Page 360 Page 361 Page 362 Page 363 Page 364 Page 365 Page 366 Page 367 Page 368 Page 369 Page 370 Page 371 Page 372 Page 373 Page 374 Page 375 Page 376 Page 377 Page 378 Page 379 Page 380 Page 381 Page 382 Page 383 Page 384 Page 385 Page 386 Page 387 Page 388 Page 390 Page 391 Page 392 Page 393 Page 394 Page 395 Page 396 Page 397 Page 398 Page 399 Page 400 Page 401 Page 402 Page 403 Page 404 Page 405 Page 406 Page 407 Page 408 Page 409 Page 410 Page 411 Page 412 Page 413 Page 414 Page 415 Page 416 Page 417 Page 418 Page 419 Page 420 Page 421 Page 422 Page 423 Page 424 Page 425 Page 426 Page 427 Page 428 Page 429 Page 430 Page 431 Page 432 Page 433 Page 434 Page 435 Page 436 Page 437 Page 438 Page 439 Page 440 Page 441 Page 442 Page 443 Page 444 Page 445 Page 446 Page 447 Page 448 Page 449 Page 450 Page 451 Page 452 Page 453 Page 454 Page 455 Page 456 Page 457 Page 458 Page 459 Page 460 Page 461 Page 462 Page 463 Page 464 Page 465 Page 466 Page 467 Page 468 Page 469 Page 470

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 355

THE PASTOR-PENITENT RELATIONSHIP!

Privileged Communications

A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
September 1999

Introduction

lationship have been considered legally privileged. It was
generally thought that a clergyman could not be compelled
by law to divulge the contents of such communications. However,
pressures within the legal system in recent years have been brought
to bear upon certain of these types of communications. A report in
Christianity Today titled “Pastoral Privilege Questioned” detailed
a possible court battle over the use of information confessed to a
priest in the confessional in a case involving sexual abuse among
Roman Catholic clergy.” Attempts have been made to record the
private confessions of prisoners in the State of Oregon. The result
was a vigorous protest from the Portland Archdiocese.’ And, in
England Basil Cardinal Hume, the late Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Westminster, thwarted attempts by the British government to
conceal microphones in confessionals to catch criminals.‘
Particularly with the rise of reports of sexual abuse, pressure is
being placed on clergy to reveal what is said to them by the peni-
tent under the seal of the confessional. Some states have enacted
statutes compelling certain professionals, including clergymen, to
report suspected cases of child abuse, even where the suspicion or
knowledge arises in the context of a confession.* A recent article
by a Congregational Church pastor details some of the specific
concerns shared by clergy over these issues.°

"Tiistershi} communications within the “pastor-penitent” re-

The Lutheran View of “Privileged
Communications and the Pastoral Office”

In the Lutheran church communications between a pastor and
a penitent in the pastor’s administration of the duties of his office,
particularly in the care of the souls entrusted to him, consistently
have been regarded as confidential. Such communications include
private confession and absolution’ and private pastoral instruction
and counsel. By virtue of his ordination and the office into which
he is called, the pastor has had his lips sealed from speaking about
the sins of the penitent to anyone, including a court of law.’

Martin Luther said very little about privileged communication
between the pastor and the penitent, especially in terms of some of
our contemporary concerns. However, he did write a brief pam-
phiet in 1521 titled “An Instruction to Penitents Concerning the
Forbidden Books of Dr. M. Luther” in response to the use of the
confessional by confessors to investigate whether the penitents
were reading Luther’s writings. He encourages those penitents who
are subjected to such scrutiny to say the following to their father-
confessor:

“My dear sir, you are a father-confessor, not an officer. | am
obliged to confess what my conscience prompts me to confess. It is
not your duty to force me to confess; neither is it your duty to probe
the secrels of my heart. You might just as well inquire how many
pennies | have in my pocket. If I do not tell something | know, then
the risk is mine—what business is it of yours? Absolve me as is
your duty, and after that argue with Luther, the pope, or whomever
you like. Do not make the holy sacrament of confession the occa-
sion for a quarrel, or a disputation, or a source of danger for me.
This kind of matter does not belong to the confessional. I will an-
swer these charges at the proper place or time.”

| also make the same request of the father-confessors and ask
them to restrain themselves and not snatch at God's jurisdiction.
The secrets of the heart are reserved for him alone, as Psalm 7[:9]
says, “He searches the reins and the heart.” They should thank God

that they are through with a line of inquiry so fraught with danger
and are obliged to do nothing more than to hear confession and pro-
nounce absolution. There is no need to force anyone to disclose the
secrets of his heart.°

Dr. C.F.W. Walther refers to Luther’s comments concerning
privileged communication between the pastor and penitent in
Luther’s Table Talk:

The preacher must not reveal what has been confessed to him. In
Luther’s Table Talk it says: “Someone asked Dr. M. Luther and
said: If a pastor and father confessor had absolved a woman who
had killed her child, and it was later revealed and made known by
other people, would the preacher also have to testify to the judge if
he were asked about it? Then he [Luther] answered: Absolutely not!
For one must distinguish between churchly and worldly government
since she has confessed it not to me but to the Lord Christ, and if
Christ keeps it secret, I should also keep it secret and say nothing
more than: I have heard nothing; if Christ has heard something, let
Him tell it” (XXH1, 879).

When Luther was told that the [city] council of Venice had sen-
tenced to be burned a monk who had absolved someone for a mur-
der he had confessed to him and had then let himself be moved by
bribery to reveal it, Luther stated: “This is a correct, good, reason-
able sentence and wise decision of the council, and the monk is
properly burned as a betrayer.”'”

It is clear that the privacy of the confessional was taken very seri-
ously by Luther.

Dr. Walther devotes considerable space in his Pastorale to the
seal of confession and confidentiality. Appealing to Johannes
Fecht, a theology professor at Rostock (1636-1716), and an ortho-
dox Lutheran who was opposed to Pietism,'' Walther writes:

A preacher who gossips about what has been confessed to him
has forfeited his office and deserves 10 be deposed. Fecht writes:

“That obligation (not to break the seal of confession) is based on a

tacit contract between the one hearing and the one making the con-

fession. For if a minister of the church were not obligated to the
strictest silence, ihe listener would be acting very foolishly if he
confessed anything to him that could be damaging . . . . Also in this
action the minister of the church is not considered to be an accuser,
an investigator, or a judge. Finally not only the Roman church but
also our whole Lutheran church commands that this silence be con-
sidered holy. With reference to the seal of confession, however, it
should also be noted that it extends not only to what occurs in the
confessional chair ilself between the one hearing and the one mak-
ing the confession, but also to all other private actions which the fa-
ther confessor undertakes paslorally [see/sorgerisch] with the one
making the confession unless he had explicitly recognized what he
was speaking to him in a different relationship [in other words, the
whole pastoral relationship is confidential]. (Instruct. pastoral., Cap.

XIII, sec. 33, p. 151).

The preacher should guard his tongue with all seriousness. Even
if he presents a case without names for instruction, he should see to

il that he does not do it in such a way that others can guess about

whom he is speaking. He should destroy letters that contain confes-

sions as soon as their purpose has been fulfilled.'*

A clear line of continuity exists between Walther and 20th cen-
tury Missouri Synod practice as it is expressed in John H.C. Fritz’s
Pastoral Theology and the Pastoral Theology of Norbert H.
Mueller and George Kraus.'* Dr. Fritz’s Pastoral Theology con-
tains an extended discussion concerning the seal of the confes-
sional. In a section titled “Sigillum Confessionis” [the seal of con-
fession] within Chapter 12 on “The Sacrament of the Altar,” Fritz
writes:

A pastor should never reveal what has been told him by way of pri-
vate confession. A pastor who becomes guilty of such an offense, says
Walther, deserves to be deposed from office. When a confession is
made, it is in the very nature of the case that there really exists a silent
agreement between both parties that whatever is confessed is said inter
nos in the strictest sense of these words and dare not be revealed. That
holds good not only when persons make a confession prior to receiv-
ing Communion, but at any time: at the sick-bed, when the pastor makes
a pastoral call, when a member comes to see the pastor expressly for
that purpose, or whatever the circumstances may be. In this respect
Christians ought to be in a position to put absolute confidence in their

2001 Convention Workbook