A letter to a Catholic priest and pastor containing allegations of sexual conduct are not protected by privilege in the same manner as a confession made to that pastor, a state appeals panel has ruled.

As such, the pastor of a Kane County parish must reveal who sent him a letter that alleged a parish member’s son engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, the 2nd District Appellate Court ruled earlier this month.

The opinion does not identify the pastor, instead referring to him as John Doe.

The letter — delivered in October 2013 to the pastor “in his capacity as pastor of the parish” by an unidentified writer — described instances in which parish member Jaime Doe’s son, J. Doe, engaged in “a sexual touching” with another minor and threatened harm if the other minor told anyone. The letter also alleged one of J. Doe’s parents admitted to the conduct.

Jaime Doe in January 2014 filed a Rule 224 petition for limited discovery in Kane County Circuit Court, seeking the Catholic Diocese of Rockford and the pastor to produce both a copy of the letter and its writer’s identity.

She alleged the letter, as described by the defendants, contained several false accusations against her son which were defamatory on their face and resulted in community isolation.

The diocese and pastor moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the plaintiff didn’t allege sufficient facts for a defamation suit. They also argued the clergy-penitent privilege barred any disclosure of information the petition sought.

Outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, the privilege states a clergyman or practitioner of any religious denomination is not required to disclose to any court, public entity or public officer a confession or admission made in his or her “professional character” or as a “spiritual adviser” in the course of his or her religious discipline.

In an affidavit to support his privilege argument, the pastor asserted the writer sought consultation and advice about church law, ethics and policy pertaining to his or her role as a parishioner and volunteer who is responsible for monitoring children.

Jaime Doe included a copy of the correspondence she received from the church’s attorney. That correspondence, Jaime Doe argued, made it clear the diocese and pastor viewed the letter as an accusation against her son that required investigation according to the diocese’s sexual misconduct standards.

Kane County Circuit Judge David R. Akemann ordered the defendants to disclose only the letter writer’s identity, but not a copy of the letter itself — holding the letter contained statements that could not be innocently constructed and could reasonably be considered asserted facts.

The 2nd District Appellate Court clerk’s office said it would not release the names of the attorneys on record with the case while the case is still active.

A 24-page opinion issued Sept. 4 and authored by Justice Joseph E. Birkett affirmed Akemann’s decision.

The panel rejected the diocese and pastor’s clergy-penitent privilege defense, holding a clergy member’s professional character is no broader than his or her role as a “spiritual adviser” under the statute.

“Even though ‘professional’ character and ‘spiritual adviser’ are linked disjunctively, the requirement that a ‘confession’ or ‘admission’ to the clergy member be made ‘in the course of the discipline’ applies to all confessions and admissions received by the clergy member,” Birkett wrote.

The “course of discipline” clause is crucial to the church’s case, the panel held, because it protects any confession or admission only if it was made with either mandate or intent to receive spiritual counsel or consolation.

And neither of those applied to the letter, the panel held.

“Rather, they are outlining a potential source of risk for the parish and the children if J. Doe were to repeat such conduct while participating in the education program offered by the parish,” Birkett wrote. “This is fundamentally not a matter of conscience for the writer; rather it is a matter of risk management for the writer as an agent of the parish and a guardian of children.”

The defense argued that disclosing the writer’s identity would breach church rules as well as the parishioner’s confidence, which drove him or her to seek spiritual guidance with the letter in the first place.

The panel rejected that argument, holding the diocese and pastor failed to acknowledge that the writer is a volunteer with a clear responsibility within a specific program to monitor children who participate in that program.

“Thus, the allegedly defamatory statements are more clearly seen as a request for guidance in conducting the program and discharging the writer’s responsibility than as a request for consolation or counseling over a matter of conscience,” Birkett wrote. “In other words, the request for guidance was for the purpose of minimizing risk to the parish and the children, rather than seeking spiritual instruction.”

Justices Susan Fayette Hutchinson and Kathryn E. Zenoff concurred in the opinion, Jaime Doe v. The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, et. al, 2015 IL App (2d) 140618.