The clergy sexual conduct statute makes it a crime for a member of the clergy to engage in sexual penetration with a person who is seeking or receiving “religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private.” Bussmann argues that the clergy sexual conduct statute is unconstitutional because it is void for vagueness and it violates the Establishment Clause of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Because we (1) conclude that the clergy sexual conduct statute is not void for vagueness; (2) are equally divided on whether the statute facially violates the Establishment Clause; but (3) conclude that Bussmann’s conviction, based on the admission of extensive evidence concerning religious doctrine and church policies and practices, violated the Establishment Clause, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision on the first two issues, reverse the court of appeals’ decision on the third issue, and remand for a new trial.The judges who concluded that the statute was facially inconsistent with the Establishment Clause argued that its provisions: "are not secular and neutral, but instead incorporate religious doctrine, as reflected in the legislative determinations that the clergy member is always in a position of power over an advisee, that any sexual penetration with an advisee is always causally related to the religious and spiritual advice given by the clergy member to an advisee, and that an advisee always lacks capacity to effectively consent to that sexual penetration."
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Minnesota High Court Reverses Clergy Sexual Conduct Conviction In Split Decision
In a fragmented decision handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court last week, Catholic priest John Joseph Bussmann's conviction under the state's clergy sexual conduct statute was reversed and remanded for a new trial. At issue was the priest's relationships with two adult female parishioners who he was counselling on religious and marital issues. In State of Minnesota v. Bussmann, (MN Sup. Ct., Nov. 1, 2007), the court described its ultimate holding as follows: