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
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