1. PRIVILEGE Communication and Confidentiality REL e 602
Manual for Courts-martial united states (MCM)

2. Manual for Court Marshall (MCM) Edition 2012
Rule 503. Communications to clergy
(a) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman or to a clergyman’s assistant, if such communication is made either as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience.
(b) Definitions. As used in this rule:
(1 ) A “ c l e r g y m a n ” is a minister, priest, rabbi , chaplain, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting the clergyman.
(2 ) A “ c l e r g y m a n ’ s assistant” i s a p e r s o n employed by or assigned to assist a clergyman in his capacity as a spiritual advisor.
(3) A communication is “confidential” if made to a clergyman in the clergyman’s capacity as a spiritual adviser or to a clergyman’s assistant in the assistant’s official capacity and is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the purpose of the communication or to those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.
(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by the guardian, or conservator, or by a personal representative if the person is deceased. The clergyman or clergyman’s assistant who received the communication my claim the privilege on behalf of the person. The authority of the clergyman or clergyman’s assistant to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. III-24

3. US vs. Moreno US vs. Moreno Rule Found:
(1) The communication must be made either as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience; (2) it must be made to a clergyman in his capacity as a spiritual advisor or to his assistant in his official capacity; and (3) the communication must be intended to be confidential.
The Moreno case not only determine the criteria by which the existence of privilege might be judged, but established that the chaplain / assistant’s personal feelings regarding revelations made to them, those that meet the Moreno criteria, are not sufficient to override the privilege.1
1. Charlotte Hunter, “A Deal with the Devil? The Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the U.S. Military” (PhD diss., Salve Regina University, 2006), 259.

4. Military mission Helped by Preserving Confidentiality
Hunter Argues the following:
The clergy penitent privilege serves the military mission in offering an individual service member a safe haven available no where else in the institution.
Because the privilege allows military members to confer with chaplains without fear that the chaplain, or the chaplain’s assistant, will reveal the contents of the communication to the command or other authorities, the privilege acts as an indirect means of creating a safety valve for the institution.
Chaplain are privy to confidences form all military members, confidences that my contain info. Important to the wellbeing of the entire unit.
The clergy-penitent privilege is inextricably tied to the preservation of religious freedom for all members in a military unit.
1. Charlotte Hunter, “A Deal with the Devil? The Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the U.S. Military” (PhD diss., Salve Regina University, 2006),

5. Military mission Helped by Preserving Confidentiality
By his patient, sympathetic labors with the men, day in, day out, and through many a night, every chaplain I know contributed immeasurably to the moral courage of our fighting men. None of this effort appears in the statistics. Most of it was necessarily secret between pastor and his confidant. It is for that toil in the cause of both God and country that I honor the chaplain most. (Admiral Chester W. Nimitz)2.
2. Charlotte Hunter, “A Deal with the Devil? The Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the U.S. Military” (PhD diss., Salve Regina University, 2006), 342..