Arizona Supreme Court says pastor’s admission of abuse is NOT protected by religious privilege
The ruling will let prosecutors use Mario Rodriguez-Ramirez’s recorded confession in his criminal trial because he was discussing damage control, not seeking absolution
This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, 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 subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.
The Arizona Supreme Court has just ruled that a confession of a pastor admitting to sexual abuse can be used in the criminal case against him… which sounds like it should be obvious. But the fact that this was ever in doubt says a lot about the problem with religious privilege.
Here’s the situation: 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 many states, it’s an open question whether a confession of sexual abuse must be relayed to law enforcement. Religious leaders typically oppose such rules because they prioritize dogmatic secrecy over the safety of children.)
What happened in Arizona a few years ago, however, blurred those lines completely.
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’s trial remains ongoing, but last year, there was a snag in the case… which sounds confusing because it didn’t seem 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: Could 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 said.
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 that’s what they did last year. In a unanimous ruling filed in April of 2025, 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 explained that reasoning by saying the two men were talking about religious stuff… which made it a confession…. so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to the victims.
Just look at what they cited 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 went on like that for a while. Because the co-pastor offered spiritual guidance, we were supposed to assume Rodriguez-Ramirez saw this as a confession worthy of confidentiality. It didn’t matter that they met at a park, the court said, because this was during the pandemic so they didn’t have the usual in-church options.
The end result was that the recording, the transcript of the recording, and the testimony from the brother-in-law about what they discussed wouldn’t be allowed in the criminal trial. Since Rodriguez-Ramirez pleaded not guilty, that severely limited the tools law enforcement could use to send this guy to prison.
But now there’s some good news.
The Arizona Supreme Court has just unanimously vacated the ruling from the Court of Appeals, basically saying that wasn’t a formal “confession” at all, so the recording can absolutely be used against him.
How did they arrive at that decision? Basically, they said lower courts never truly defined what a “confession” was, and to assume Rodriguez-Ramirez was giving a confession to his brother-in-law is an illogical leap, as the Arizona Republic explained:
… The ruling clarifies what counts as a confession in a religious context when the person making the statement wants to keep it from law enforcement.
The high court said Rodriguez-Ramirez couldn’t use the clergy-penitent privilege because his conversation with the other pastor was largely about reputation management, not “absolution,” and therefore wasn’t actually a religious “confession.”
The opinion, written by Justice James Beene, clarified how courts should assess privacy between religious leaders and confessors when confessors want to shield their disclosures from law enforcement or the courts.
“A communication does not cease to be a confession merely because it also includes discussion of non-spiritual matters. Similarly, a communication is not transformed into a confession merely because it contains admissions of wrongdoing, spiritual discussion, or a prayer. Instead, a communication must be for the purpose of absolution,” the opinion says.
That makes a lot of sense. Rodriguez-Ramirez wasn’t seeking absolution. He was discussing damage control (what to tell the congregation, whether to disappear quietly, etc). Just because they prayed or included religious language in that conversation didn’t make it a confession.
The good news is that this ruling means the recorded confession—the slam dunk piece of evidence—can be used in the criminal trial.
But this should never have been in question. It’s the reason “clergy-penitent privilege” is a problem to begin with. It allows abusers to feel better about themselves even if they’re struggling with a crisis of conscience. This is why confessions of abuse should be required to be reported regardless of circumstances—and why they shouldn’t be shielded from prosecution.
I guess we should consider it lucky that Rodriguez-Ramirez didn’t just seek absolution because the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests there was a very simple way for him to have both confessed to the crime while also making sure the recording would never see the light of day in court. That loophole should never exist. The legal system shouldn’t depend on whether an alleged abuser used the correct religious language before discussing the sexual abuse of a child.
(Portions of this article were published earlier)
He committed a felony against a child and yet is still looking for a pass because of his putrid religiosity. Religious people always try to take credit for all that's good in the world, while turning a blind-eye to the countless horrors perpetrated by religious people in the name of their religion.
Why is it that the oh-so-moral religious are seemingly the only ones who have these issues? And daily, it appears.
Those immoral atheists sure don't.