Arizona court blocks predator's confession from trial—because it was made to a pastor
A disturbing ruling highlights how clergy-penitent privilege protects predators instead of victims
This newsletter is free, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe to Substack or use my usual Patreon page!
There was recently a bizarre legal ruling out of Arizona that hasn’t received any media coverage yet, but it was brought to my attention in light of a topic I’ve written about for years: clergy-penitent privilege.
Generally speaking, if you confess your sins to a priest, you can rest assured those conversations are confidential. Even if you say you’ve committed a petty crime or that you’re the victim of a crime, the priest is under no legal obligation to share that with law enforcement… unlike, say, social workers and teachers and anyone else considered a mandated reporter.
The problem is that there’s a major loophole in that rule: What happens if someone confesses to committing sexual abuse of a child? (In Washington, state lawmakers just passed a law requiring priests to report those confessions to the police, though Catholic bishops are now suing to undo that because they prioritize dogmatic secrecy over the safety of children. )
It sounds like something that would never happen. Yet that’s exactly what happened in Arizona. That confession of sexual abuse has now taken center stage in a legal battle that has yet to be resolved.
Back in early 2021, Mario Rodriguez-Ramirez was arrested in Tempe, Arizona on charges of child sexual abuse. He had been the pastor of Arcadia Park Baptist Church for many years but he was apparently dismissed from that job months earlier (after those allegations first came to light).
According to a months-long investigation by the Tempe Police Department, one of the reasons cops were able to take this guy into custody was because he supposedly confessed to everything:
During the investigation, court documents say Rodriguez-Ramirez admitted his actions and said, “he knew it was wrong and regrets it.”
During a recorded conversation with a family member, the suspect said, “his mind was clouded and was fighting his urges.”
He was “fighting his urges” because he knew those urges were immoral and illegal. He “regrets” what he did because he acted on those urges.
There were at least two victims, one of whom was only nine years old.
He was arrested on two counts of sexual abuse, sexual conduct with a minor, child molestation, aggravated assault and voyeurism, and indecent exposure while at the Tempe Home Depot.
Rodriguez-Ramirez is facing one charge of felony sexual conduct with a minor.
Rodriguez-Ramirez is currently on trial but there’s been a recent snag in the case… which is confusing because it didn’t sound like there was much controversy here. He admitted to everything, right?
Not exactly.
It turns out that the “recorded conversation with a family member,” in which Rodriguez-Ramirez confessed to “fighting his urges” and essentially admitted the allegations were true, were made… to a fellow pastor.
In fact, it was his brother-in-law, a man who helped lead their church and who also happened to be the uncle of one of the victims.
It appears that in mid-2020 (after the allegations surfaced but before Rodriguez-Ramirez was arrested), he met his brother-in-law at a public park due to COVID restrictions to talk about what they should do. How would the church move forward? Should he tell the congregation the truth or just walk away quietly?
He also expressed concern about the harm to the church, the congregation, the alleged victim, and the alleged victim’s family. The co-pastor acknowledged those actions, discussed the harm it caused the alleged victim, and spoke about the spiritual ramifications for Rodriguez-Ramirez.
Unbeknownst to Rodriguez-Ramirez, though, his brother-in-law was recording everything. That recording was later shared with church members and another pastor—and it eventually landed in the hands of the police. They used that as evidence to arrest him.
But here’s the question that created all the controversy: Can that recording be used against Rodriguez-Ramirez during his trial?
The state argued that it could be used because this wasn’t a formal religious “confession.” After all, just look at everything they talked about! It’s not like he was only asking for forgiveness. They were chatting about business!
Lawyers for Rodriguez-Ramirez argued the tape could not be used since the only reason he was spilling his guts was because he knew he was speaking to a fellow pastor. The specifics of their conversation should be irrelevant in the court’s eyes, they say.
When Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kristin Culbertson heard these arguments, she allowed the recording into evidence because it was “not reasonable” to pretend this conversation was for the “purpose of spiritual guidance.”
In response, lawyers for Rodriguez-Ramirez—with support from the right-wing group First Liberty Institute—asked an Arizona appellate court to step in and undo that decision before the judge could issue any formal ruling in his trial.
And now they have.
In a unanimous ruling filed in April, the Arizona Court of Appeals said the recording could not be admitted into evidence in the pastor’s trial because their conversation was “privileged.”
They explain that reasoning by saying the two men were talking about religious stuff… which makes it a confession…. so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to the victims.
Just look at what they’re citing in defense of that:
Rodriguez-Ramirez spoke with his co-pastor about his earlier actions, said he was struggling with unwanted urges, and acknowledged concern about what he did. He also expressed concern about the harm to the church, the congregation, the alleged victim, and the alleged victim’s family. The co-pastor acknowledged those actions, discussed the harm it caused the alleged victim, and spoke about the spiritual ramifications for Rodriguez-Ramirez.
During the discussion, Rodriguez-Ramirez sought the co-pastor’s help to minimize harm to the congregation. The communication also addressed matters of church management. They talked about whether it would be better for him to just leave without telling the congregation the truth. Alternatively, they considered whether it would be better to face the congregation. It reflected a concern for the congregation. For Rodriguez-Ramirez, a clergy member, church management concerns reflect how he could reach harmony with himself and the other members of his church… The conversation thus was a “confession”…
It goes on like this for a while. Because the co-pastor offered spiritual guidance, we’re supposed to assume Rodriguez-Ramirez saw this as a confession worthy of confidentiality. It doesn’t matter that they met at a park, the court says, because this was during the pandemic so they didn’t have the usual in-church options.
The end result is that the recording, the transcript of the recording, and the testimony from the brother-in-law about what they discussed will not be allowed in the criminal trial. Since Rodriguez-Ramirez has pleaded not guilty, that severely limits the tools law enforcement can use to send this guy to prison.
The case now goes back to the lower court, and who knows what happens now. It’s possible this pastor gets little or no punishment despite plenty of evidence he did what he’s accused of, all because a lot of that evidence was mixed in with religion during a conversation with his brother-in-law/co-pastor. It’s a ridiculous reason to ignore that evidence and it would be a damn shame if the victims didn’t see justice all because they got abused by a pastor instead of a teacher.
That’s also why the clergy-penitent privilege is so damning and why every state should make sure predators don’t get to use it as a loophole.
(Thanks to Dianne Post of Secular AZ for bringing this story to my attention)
Obligatory:
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗔 𝗗𝗿𝗮𝗴 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗲𝗻.
There is no horror that cannot be, and has not been, justified in the name of religion.