I agree with Brian. 😆
This follows Minnesota law which I believe is the touchstone of the seal of the confessional, as opposed to the LCMS CTCR document which gives a false, weasel exception to the confessional seal in the "Distinctions in Pastoral Practice" section.
Something I wrote years ago regarding this issue and child abuse:
In Minnesota, a clergyman is not a mandatory reporter (or rather is, but then there is an exception re: the confessional seal) for child abuse by a confessee about which the clergyman learns in the context of confession.
Minnesota Statute 626.556 deals with the reporting of maltreatment of minors. Subdivision 3 states in pertinent part:
“Persons mandated to report. (a) A person who knows or has reason to believe a child is being neglected or physically or sexually abused, as defined in subdivision 2, or has been neglected or physically or sexually abused within the preceding three years, shall immediately report the information to the local welfare agency, agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report, police department, or the county sheriff if the person is:
(1) a professional or professional's delegate who is engaged in the practice of the healing arts, social services, hospital administration, psychological or psychiatric treatment, child care, education, correctional supervision, probation and correctional services, or law enforcement; or
(2) employed as a member of the clergy and received the information while engaged in ministerial duties, provided that a member of the clergy is not required by this subdivision to report information that is otherwise privileged under section 595.02, subdivision 1, paragraph (c).”
So, looking to Minn. Stat. 595.02, subd. 1(c), it states in pertinent part:
“A member of the clergy or other minister of any religion shall not, without the consent of the party making the confession, be allowed to disclose a confession made to the member of the clergy or other minister in a professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other minister belongs; nor shall a member of the clergy or other minister of any religion be examined as to any communication made to the member of the clergy or other minister by any person seeking religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort or advice given thereon in the course of the member of the clergy's or other minister's professional character, without the consent of the person.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court has found that “the discipline enjoined” is akin to an uncodified principle of secrecy requiring a clergyman to hold communications in absolute confidence. See In re Swenson, 182 Minn. 602, 237 NW 589 (1931). Since we practice under this discipline of absolute secrecy, as memorialized in our ordination and installation vows, the statutory requirement that the communication be made according to the discipline of the church is of no consequence. Thompson, Minnesota Rules of Practice, Evidence, Section 501.06.
So it appears to me that, certainly in the context of a private confession situation, a pastor is not required under Minnesota law to divulge a confession of child abuse by the confessee and is, in fact, not to do so under State statute as well as our ordination vow. Moreover, the phrase “any person seeking religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort or advice given thereon in the course of the member of the clergy's or other minister's professional character” seems to liberally construe what is a case of private confession.
Minnesota law coincides quite nicely with our ordination vow, even extolling it. My ordination vow included an affirmative to the question: “Will you forgive the sins of those who repent, and will you promise never to divulge the sins confessed to you?”
I recall both upperclassmen at Sem and pastors at winkel making downright unsettling comments about a confessee confessing a crime to them, such as, "If they don't turn themselves in, I will."
I think this issue has been extensively discussed hereon in the past.