Do you have a problem in your life?

4 Steps to Problem Solving

A FOUR-STEP PROCESS

Billstein, Libeskind and Lott have adopted these problem solving steps in their book "A Problem Solving Approach to Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers (The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.). They are based on the problem-solving steps first outlined by George Polya in 1945.

1. UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

* Can you state the problem in your own words?

* What are you trying to find or do?

* What are the unknowns?

* What information do you obtain from the problem?

* What information, if any, is missing or not needed?

2. DEVISING A PLAN

The following list of strategies, although not exhaustive, is very useful.

* Look for a pattern.

* Examine related problems, and determine if the same technique can be applied.

* Examine a simpler or special case of the problem to gain insight into the solution of the original problem.

* Make a table.

* Make a diagram.

* Write an equation.

* Use guess and check.

* Work backward.

* Identify a subgoal.

3. CARRYING OUT THE PLAN

* Implement the strategy or strategies in step 2, and perform any necessary actions or computations.

* Check each step of the plan as you proceed. This may be intuitive checking or a formal proof of each step.

* Keep an accurate record of your work.

4. LOOKING BACK

* Check the results in the original problem. (In some cases this will require a proof.)

* Interpret the solution in terms of the original problem. Does your answer make sense? Is it reasonable?

* Determine whether there is another method of finding the solution.

* If possible, determine other related or more general problems for which the techniques will work.

How to stay cool for next to nothing

Central AC is for suckers. Why are you cooling every inch of your house, even the dust bunnies under the couch, when the only part that actually needs to be cooled is your body?

Having endured, sans air conditioning, countless summers in locations including the deep South and the middle of the gigantic urban heat island known as Brooklyn, I've developed the following ultra-simple method for saving myself hundreds of dollars a year in electricity bills.

For lack of a better term, I'll call it the Personal Swamp Cooler, because it works on more or less the same principle as the energy-efficient evaporative coolers that can be found in dry climates everywhere.



1. Buy a fan. A good one. Not too big.

Why would you pay $40 for a 12-inch fan? Because it moves more air than fans twice its size, and for half the energy, that's why. Which is another way to say that I like the Vornado Compact 530.



2. Secret Sauce: Buy a polymer bead-filled bandana or a synthetic "cooling towel"

This is where the magic happens and the unbelievers become converts. Campers, outdoorsfolk and people who work outside for a living have known about these things forever, but office workers, understandably, do not. There is a whole class of bandanas/towels out there that use a variety of synthetic substances to hold onto water for hours, allowing it to slowly evaporate.

Soak something comparable to a HeatMax EverCool bandana, a Frogg Togg Chilly Pad or a Chill Its Cooling Towel in water for a few minutes, wring it out, and wrap it around your neck like you’re Fred from Scooby Doo.



3. Aim fan at head. Marvel at results.

Once you've got one of your special outdoorsperson cooling things draped about your neck, you will be amazed at the degree to which the power of your conventional fan has been magnified. That's because now you're exploiting the magic of evaporative cooling. Every molecule of water that evaporates off your neck carries with it an amount of heat equivalent to water's latent heat, which is pretty damn high.

It also helps that your super-cool definitely-doesn't-make-you-look-like-a-weirdo evaporative bandana is now immediately adjacent to a pair of gigantic arteries running straight into your head. It's as if you've attached your Personal Swamp Cooler directly to a heat exchanger carrying your blood supply.

As I write this, the mercury is climbing. I'm sequestered in my home office, it's 83 degrees inside, yet I'm perfectly comfortable. I'm not spending a dime on air conditioning. Wouldn't you like to be able to say the same?

Ringling College Commencement Address

by J.C. Herz

The following is a transcript of Ringling College of Art and Design's 2011 Commencement Address given May 6, 2011

"It is an honor and a privilege to be speaking to you today. Because at most commencements, you can talk about following your dream and keep your passion alive. But most of the people you're talking to are going to build careers sending and receiving e-mail, composing Powerpoint slides, and generating Excel spreadsheets. “Click strong! Thank you very much.”

But you? You have gone to school to pursue a creative vision, and have now acquired the skills to do so. This puts you miles ahead of most recent college graduates, who have yet to realize that skills exist, and that skills matter. Expertise matters. The important work that you build your reputation on – you can’t just Google it. You don’t cut and paste it from Wikipedia. You roll up your sleeves, and bring all your creativity and meaningful skills to bear on the problem of building something.

This is what the world requires – this is what the world rewards. Not just calling yourself creative, but understanding how to exercise your creative powers to some end, to bring your vision and skills together in a meaningful way. This is a powerful thing to be able to do. It gives you tremendous value in a society where attention is currency – being able to capture people’s imaginations is the scarcest kind of power in a fractured culture. Creating work that transports and transcends is one of the few ways to create sustainable value in a disposable society. What you do, if you do it well, is never going to be a commodity. Vision, magic, delight. Heart-rocking spectacle. Pulse-pounding action. These things don’t get outsourced to some cubicle drone in the developing world.

You are an influential group of people, and today is an important moment, as you set forth to become the chief stewards of your gifts. Because, this is what it means to be a creative professional: figuring out how to be the best steward of your gifts, so that your power to create grows and deepens meaningfully over time. So that your edges stay sharp, and your light stays bright. The life you’ve chosen is not one that simply requires clocking in and clocking out. You’ve got to bring your soul to it every day. You’ve got to be on your game.

That takes discipline. And it takes awareness – of how you’re spending your time, and of how what you’re doing affects your capability and your capacity. You are going to have to ask yourself, at every turn: is this project making me smarter, or making me stupider. Is this job stoking my fire, or burning me out? How do I top this? How can I learn from this? How do I produce my best work in this kind of environment? Should my next set of projects build up from what I’ve already done? Or do I need to branch out, go sideways, and push myself to try something new, that I’m less comfortable with.

Of course, people in other fields also have to grapple with these issues. But you have to make stuff that concretizes your decisions. You have artifacts of your choices to invest and grow – or coast and call it in. You will build a body of work that reflects those choices at every turn. Some of it – hopefully a lot of it – will make you proud. Some of it will make you cringe. But this is what you have to show for yourself, at the end of the day. And you need to tackle your work, every day, with this in mind: at the end of the month, at the end of six months, a year, five years, this is what I’m going to have to show for myself. There are only so many hours in the day, and when this day is over I’m not getting it back. So how do I make it count.

Think carefully about how you spend your time, because your work isn’t like other people’s work. There isn’t a hard line between uptime and downtime. Your brain is always working, and what you experience in your downtime influences the quality of what you do when you’re on task. Be mindful of what you’re getting out of the time that you spend. Does your downtime refresh and recharge you? Or does it narcotize you? Does it spark new ideas? Or do you find yourself thinking, “well, there’s three hours of my life I’m never getting back.”

Log the amount of time you spend watching TV shows or videos on YouTube. Log the amount of time you spend on Facebook. Add it up, and figure out whether that’s the best use of an astonishing number of hours. It’s so easy to dribble your time away on time-suck distractions that dull your capabilities. Here’s a good rule of thumb: if the amount of time you spend on something leaves you feeling vaguely embarrassed, think twice about what you’re really getting out of it. And if you can’t think of a good answer, just stop for a while, long enough to get in the habit of spending that time differently.

Habits are powerful – people don’t realize how powerful habits are, and how much of their success or lack of success in life is attributable to sheer habit. Be aware of your habits, and what is turning in from an occasional to a regular thing, and what are the regular things that you don’t even think about any more, because they are so habitual that they have become invisible. Down to the very basics: how much and when do you sleep, what you eat, how you sit, whether you walk or bike or drive. When and where do you get your best ideas? What sorts of activities and conversations leave you feeling happier and smarter? What do you continually do that leaves you feeling demoralized. Be mindful of your habits. Make them intentional.

Speaking of habits: take care of your body. Your physical condition affects your mental and psychological state in profound ways. Wherever you end up, run a Google map search for CrossFit and check it out. CrossFit is a way of organizing compressed, high-intensity workouts that make you incredibly strong in less than 30 minutes a day. More importantly, doing CrossFit makes you psychologically capable of tackling things that are challenging and out of your comfort zone, with a kind of psycho glee. CrossFit gyms tend to attract an interesting assortment of characters, who, in addition to spurring you on to mind-blotting sequences of box-jumps, pull-ups and deadlifts, will be different from the people you work with. And it’s important to socialize with different groups of people, especially if the little girls among them can clean your clock. Also, CrossFitters love to make fun of themselves using XtraNormal animation, and posting those videos online. It’s a good sign when people take their pursuits seriously, but themselves, not so much.

But back to the business of creative work: Getting stuck is a big part of creative work, and it’s really important to be good at getting unstuck. There are two main reasons why creative people get stuck on a piece of work: The first is, you don’t actually have an idea. You may have requirements, and you may have tools. But you don’t actually have an idea that’s going to carry the day, and you’re going to be stuck until you get a solid idea. The second reason creative people get stuck is that, while they have the idea, executing the idea takes a lot of work, and not all of that work is fun, and basically you don’t want to do the work, because having the idea in the first place was the fun part. The problem is, you don’t get to say “check mate in four.” You actually have to finish the project. So you get mystically “stuck” after the brilliant sketch is done.

It is very, very important to accurately understand which of these problems you’re having when you get stuck. If you don’t have an idea, you need to play around a little, take a walk, have a good conversation, open the aperture. As they say in drawing class, explore the negative space. If you’re balking at the work, you need to stop playing around, sit down, shut up, go offline, and focus single-mindedly on executing the work, and make it real. In either case, if you try to solve one problem when you’re really having the other, you’re going to waste a lot of time.

When you do procrastinate, learn how to procrastinate productively. This sounds like an oxymoron, but there are a lot of things you can accomplish in ten to 15 minute increments when you’re supposed to be working on something else, and it makes your life a lot smoother, because by the time you get through with the big thing, the other thing that can be accomplished in little chunks is already done. Sometimes your brain does need a break. But it doesn’t need to be playing Angry Birds or checking Facebook during that break. All it needs is a switch – figure out what you can quickly switch to, that’s going to add up to something, five minutes at a time. You’ll be amazed at how productive you become.

Always have a side project that allows you to learn and express things differently than your main work. Side projects are a way to invest in your own growth, and provide a constructive counterpoint and counterbalance to your primary endeavors. Side projects can be small when your main work is big – giving you the satisfaction of completing a personal piece of work while you spend most of your time eating the proverbial elephant. Conversely, a side project can be complex and long-term while your main work is piece-meal, giving you a satisfying sense of progress and accretion towards a more significant achievement while your main work flies out the door in snack-sized bites. When your main work is stretching your brain until it hurts, a side project can be a comfortable piece of familiar knitting. When your main work is all about focused execution, with little room to explore, your side project can furnish oxygen and white space. When your main work is industry-focused, your side project can draw from areas that your colleagues and co-workers are not familiar with, and can prevent you from getting tunnel vision.

Side projects build options, which allows you to walk away when things aren’t working. Sometimes your side project will become your main project. When that happens, recognize that, by virtue of becoming the main project, it will change. It will gain propulsion, but lose the discretionary charm of being a side project. Find another side project, and don’t blame the old side project, now the main project, for not providing the same kind of break-time relief as it used to.

Other times, your side project will flatline, or fizzle. Don’t be afraid to let it go, put it in mothballs, or put it out of its misery. If it’s not adding fizz to your brain or improving your social life, it’s not doing its job. Ask yourself: if I were starting a personal project now, would it be this one? And if the answer is no, find something else to play with.

As a creative professional, you have to get over the idea that your employer or your client owes you a wide blue sky or a creative romper room. You are the one who’s responsible for your continued growth and development. Sometimes, you have to make your own fun, on your own time. The downside is, you don’t necessarily get paid for that. The upside is, you don’t need sponsorship or buy-in. Realize the leverage you have when no-one’s paying you to do something, and use that leverage to carve out new opportunities. Remember: you have talents and skills that are valuable, and there are a lot of ways to leverage that value. It might be the chance to contribute visually to a non-profit organization or shoe-string arts effort that appeals to you. It might give you a chance to collaborate with writers, musicians, or other artists you respect or admire. When you bring your own talent to the table, there are a lot of social and creative dividends you can earn. It’s not just about the dollars.

But when you are talking dollars, realize one thing: Most people say that time is money. But for a creative professional, it’s exactly the opposite. Money is time. Having some extra money gives you time to say no to things that will put you in a professional holding pattern. Money gives you time to say yes to the right thing, not just to the first thing. It’s hard, but try to live in a way that leaves you with enough of a financial buffer to take enough time to make the right career choices. Incidentally, it helps if you marry someone with a job – a real jobby job where artistic fulfillment is not a core on-the-job pursuit. One artist in the family is enough, for all kinds of reasons.

As an artist, realize that mere artistry is not enough, and realize the limits of what your artistry can bring to a project that demands other kinds of talent. One year I went to Game Developers’ Conference, and 3D animation software had evolved to the point where game artists were crowing about being able to put a tiny upside down image of the outside scene in every raindrop on a car windshield. It was impressive. But at the same time, a popular online game review site was rating game quality by the amount of time it took the player to blow up the first crate full of ammunition or new weaponry. The less time it took to blow up the first crate of ammunition or weapons, the more the game sucked, because the designers couldn’t think of anything better to do in the opening moments of a game than blow up crates of ammunition. The most stunning animation in the world won’t make a bad game (or a bad movie) good – if anything, the artistic quality will highlight the project’s creative failure in other respects. This isn’t your fault, as an artist. But it is an occasion to realize that great artistry is only one element of most creative projects, and heighten your awareness of other talents as you choose your next project. Look out for great writers, game designers, musicians – people who can amplify your best efforts.

Realize that “no’s” are good. Yesses are better, but maybes will kill you. The world is full of “maybe” people who want an infinite amount of research and specifications but won’t actually make a decision until something is inevitable. Push those people to say no – or to tell you exactly what they need to say yes. It’ll sae you time and help you figure out who’s serious and who’s just winding you up.

Lastly, consider your portfolio – and your life – from the perspective of yourself at 80 years of age. When you don’t know what to do, picture your old-guy or old-lady self looking back on this moment and being proud of the work you did, or the decision you made, or how you conducted yourself. Picture yourself looking back, and don’t do something that old guy or old lady would regret, or be embarrassed about. Because someday, you will be that old guy or old lady, and you really do want to be proud of the work that you’ve done, and the decisions that you’ve made, and how you acquitted yourself, and how you were the best steward of your gifts.

Thank you, and good luck."

Risk, probability, and how our brains are easily misled

By John Timmer

The World Science Festival's panel on Probability and Risk started out in an unusual manner: MIT's Josh Tenenbaum strode onto a stage and flipped a coin five times, claiming he was psychically broadcasting each result to the audience. The audience dutifully wrote down the results they thought he had seen on note cards, and handed them in when the experiment was over. Towards the end of the program, he announced there were low odds that even one person in the audience had guessed the right order of results. When he announced them, however, about a dozen people raised their hands, saying that was what they had written down.

Is Tenenbaum psychic? The audience sprinkled with liars?

Neither, according to Tenenbaum. Instead, we're the victims of our own tendency to expect that a series of coin tosses will produce results that look satisfyingly random to us. As a result, we're unlikely to suggest a series of four heads followed by a tails. In the same way, we're likely to end up choosing something like TTHTH. So likely, in fact, that if the coin flips do happen to produce one of these random looking patterns, it'll be overrepresented in whatever crowd we're testing. Instant psychic ability, with built in statistical significance.

The funny thing is that this isn't the product of some mental weakness—Tenenbaum suggested that it's the product of an excellent built-in sense of what makes for a random pattern. If you graph the frequency of various possible results, it's possible to see a pattern of peaks at random-looking series and valleys at the ones that chance would seem to disfavor. Comparing the graph generated from our audience to one produced in the 1930s, and it was obvious that the pattern was nearly identical—what we think of as random appears to be quite stable.

The one exception, he noted, was when he performed the experiment with a math-savvy audience. There, a part of the audience recognizes that any series is equally probable, so they are more likely to put down all heads or all tails.
Subverting wisdom

Although Tenenbaum clearly felt that our intuitive feel for randomness was a positive feature, other speakers on the panel noted that human decision-making could obviously get stuck or be manipulated. Mathematician Amir Aczel mentioned that many trained mathematicians can't wrap their heads around the Monty Hall problem, in which changing probabilities dictate how you should act on a popular game show. It's relatively easy to run through the probabilities that show which action you should take, but the answer remains counterintuitive—even for those with an exceptional grasp of math.

And that's assuming, as co-panelist Gerd Gigerenzer noted, that Monty isn't being malicious. A crowd experiment run by physicist Leonard Mlodinow showed how easy it is to manipulate a people's answers to simple questions without doing anything overt. Mlodinow divided the audience in half, and asked both halves separately to estimate the number of countries in Africa. This is a standard "wisdom of the crowds" sort of question, where the mean should be somewhere close to the actual number. Instead, the two groups had wildly divergent means, with one half of the audience answering well above the actual answer, the second significantly below.

How'd he manage this? Prior to asking the actual number, Mlodinow had asked a question that subtly primed each group. For one half of the audience, he asked if they thought there were more than 180 countries in Africa; this group ended up with a much higher mean. The second half was asked if there were more than five. Their answers were, on average, too low. Although this was a case of conscious manipulation, it's easy to see how a similar effect could be generated accidentally, simply based on (for example) the order of questions in a survey.
How do we fix this?

Does all this mean that humans will perpetually remain stuck when it comes to risk and probability? Possibly not, but we have to be careful. That was the message of Gerd Gigerenzer, who helps train decision makers in how to evaluate probabilities. Gigerenzer consistently noted that language was important when it comes to dealing with probabilities.

The most compelling example he gave was one he used when working in medical education. He described the probabilities associated with a breast cancer test: one percent of women tested have the disease, and the test is 90 percent accurate, with a nine percent false positive rate. With all that information, what do you tell a woman who tests positive about the likelihood they have the disease? For a lot of people in medicine, the question leaves them stumped; a typical survey of doctors (and the World Science Festival audience) reveals that there's no single consensus about the probability that the test indicates a real case of cancer.

Gigerenzer then rephrased the statistics: if we ignore the negative tests, nine times out of ten, a positive test for cancer is a false positive. Put that way, it's easy to see that you can tell the person who got a positive result in the test that there's still only a ten percent chance that she has cancer. The use of language makes all the difference.

In short, we've got a good idea of some of the things that the human brain does when when it comes to probabilities, and an even better idea of all the ways in which it goes wrong. If we really want people to understand a given probability, then we have to play to the human brain's strengths, and adjust how we present the information. But there's not a lot we can do if someone decides to intentionally target the brain's weak spots.

Small areas of the brain go to sleep when we're up too late

By John Timmer

Sleep deprivation is one of the most common forms of mental impairment, as it reduces performance in a variety of cognitive and motor tasks. A new paper has identified what might be the cause of this poor performance: small parts of a mammal's brain appear to go into a sleep-like state while they're otherwise apparently awake. And, in rats, the degree to which the brain is experiencing these tiny episodes of sleep correlates with their decline in performance on a simple task.

The study relies on differences in the resolution at which we measure neural activity. On a crude level, rats and humans show a similar pattern of neural activity when non-REM sleep is recorded with an EEG: rhythmic peaks of activity, in between which the brain goes largely silent, with the neurons effectively "offline," as the authors call it.

To get down to the level of individual cells, you have to implant electrodes in the brain. When this is done in rats, it's possible to see that the "offline" periods are the product of nearly every neuron in a given brain region going silent, while the peaks of activity involve the frequent firing of most neurons. So, sleep seems to be the product of the coordinated action of most of the brain's neurons, which drop offline and return to activity on a regular cycle.

For the new work, the researchers had both an external EEG reading and electrodes implanted in the frontal motor cortex. It turns out it's remarkably easy to cause rats to deprive themselves of sleep: simply keep giving them new toys for several hours. Although the rats were, by all appearances, wide awake, their performance on a simple motor task (reaching for a sugar pellet) declined with the sleep deprivation.

The readings of the brains, however, often looked like the rats were experiencing what the authors termed "local sleep." After four hours of deprivation, the EEGs would often show the spikes associated with the rhythmic activity of sleep, and most of the neurons near the implanted electrodes would go silent. This wasn't a global phenomenon, however, as other areas of the brain didn't show the same pattern of activity. And, in some cases, the electrodes recorded standard waking activity from many of the neurons they were near. Thus, instead of being part of a global, coordinated sleep pattern, small clusters of neurons were simply taking themselves offline while the animal itself was awake. As the sleep deprivation continued, these local sleep events became more frequent and coordinated.

The authors also obtained an indication that these local sleep events might be related to the poor mental performance seen during sleep deprivation. They looked at the pattern of brain activity when the animals were performing the motor task, and found that they were more likely to fail if a bit of local sleep occurred just before the rats attempted the task.

The paper concludes that local sleep is a precursor to a more general sleep, and resembles the converse of the waking process. Its authors also make comparisons between this local sleep and the needs of birds and marine mammals, which can apparently take large regions of their brains offline instead of sleeping to meet the needs of their lifestyle. That adaptation, they suggest, may be an elaboration of the local sleep that rats appear to use.

An accompanying perspective makes a separate suggestion: the fundamental unit of sleep may be a single cell. When an animal is sleep deprived, individual cells are more likely to take themselves offline. By chance, that will eventually start producing the clusters that produce local sleep events. Over time, the frequency of local events goes up, and the neurons begin to coordinate their activity, ultimately producing the large-scale rhythms seen in sleep.

Raid uncovers 10 Commandments of the Mafia

Posted by Mark Frauenfelder 

 

The BBC reports that when Italian police searched a Mafia boss' hideout, they found a list of ten rules for proper mafioso etiquette.

1. No-one can present himself directly to another of our friends. There must be a third person to do it. 2. Never look at the wives of friends.
3. Never be seen with cops.
4. Don’t go to pubs and clubs.
5. Always being available for Cosa Nostra is a duty - even if your wife’s about to give birth.
6. Appointments must absolutely be respected.
7. Wives must be treated with respect.
8. When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
9. Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
10. People who can’t be part of Cosa Nostra: anyone who has a close relative in the police, anyone with a two-timing relative in the family, anyone who behaves badly and doesn’t hold to moral values.

Compare it to Gene Autry's Cowboy Code (from 1930), which I think is just about the best set of rules for living a good life that I ever seen: 1. The Cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man or take an unfair advantage. 2. A Cowboy must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.
3. A Cowboy must always tell the truth.
4. A Cowboy must be gentle with children, the elderly and small animals.
5. A Cowboy must not adovcate or possess racially or religiously interolerant views and ideas.
6. A Cowboy must help people in distress.
7. A Cowboy must be a good worker.
8. A Cowboy must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action and personal habits.
9. A Cowboy must respect women, parents and his nations's views.
10. A Cowboy is a patriot.

Handling Confrontation in Leadership

Handling confrontation is a part of every leader's unspoken job description. Overcoming fear of confrontation is helped by taking some time to think about it and plan for it happening prior to it every actually occurring.

Deal with conflict and confrontation. You are the leader. If it is your job, don't let it sit. Develop the confrontation skills needed and use them. Agreed, it's not pleasant and you don't want to do it, but handling confrontation is yours to deal with.

1. Rehearse the upcoming conversation in your mind. Operate and benefit from preparation.
2. Anticipate possible reactions and your responses to them.
3. Practice diffusing the situation – lowering tensions.
4. Consider constructive alternatives for the person to follow.
5. Adapt what you need to say, to their communication style.
6. Separate the person from the behavior. Never ‘attack’ the person.
7. Speak directly to the issues. Don’t divert off onto some other area of behavior.
8. If possible, stand up. It will give you a greater sense of control.
9. Speak in a low, calm and controlled voice.
10. Don’t betray confidentiality. You may have information that others have told you in confidence.
11. As far as possible, confront in private.
12. It may be necessary to be in view of other people, but the conversation should be private.
13. Expect a reaction. You can be the greatest person ever at handling confrontation but reaction will still happen.
14. Sensory information has to go through an area of emotions in the brain before it gets to an area of rationalizing and thinking. The first reaction may be emotional. Let them get to the other part of the brain.
15. Know your recipient. This person may not be particularly good at handling emotional information or criticism so don’t expect it of them as much as you would of others.
16. Write down your thoughts. Handling confrontation is often best done on paper, prior to any meeting.
17. Have an appropriate third party present if necessary, to verify information or witness the conversation.
18. Don’t back down from what you know to be true.
19. Make sure you sort truth from assumption.
20. Remember this confrontation will be brief. It doesn’t determine the rest of your life. Don’t carry the emotional weight of it for long.
21. Deliver your information in charge neutral voice. If you are emotionally packed, they may react in kind.
22. Be compassionate. You are talking to a person of dignity and value.
23. If concerned about your handling it well, role play with someone else prior to the meeting.
24. Be clear and direct in what you are saying. It is of no help to beat around the bush. Bad news is better delivered quickly. A person senses something is going on anyway.
25. Take charge of the conversation. Don’t let the other person set the agenda. Handling confrontation means you know where you are going.
26. Don’t let the recipient divert you from your task. Sometimes people sense something unpleasant is coming and they will do everything they can to avoid it.
27. If you can find something good and honest to acknowledge, do so.
28. If you are sitting across the desk or a table, put your hands on the table showing you have nothing to hide.
29. If you are standing, don’t cross your arms, which is a defensive position and indicates a barrier is being put up between you and the other person. Hold you hands at your side.
30. Look the other person in the eye when you are talking to them. Be sincere.
31. Don’t avert their gaze.
32. Use their name and respect who they are as an individual.
33. If action on their part is required, be very clear on what that action is and any timelines that go with it.
34. Ask if they understand what has been said.
35. Do not enter into an argument. Handling confrontation is never about throwing more fuel on the fire.
36. Say it once and be clear.
37. If there is a genuine response and openness to listen and accept change on the part of the other person, then take an appropriate amount of time to help or refer them.
38. Don’t act condescending and superior but be in charge. You are the leader.
39. If others must know the results, and if appropriate, offer to assist them to craft a statement.
40. Be prepared to give them resources that will be helpful to them.
41. A sincere smile can go a long way. In most confrontations you don’t feel like smiling, but if it is appropriate somewhere, do it.
42. Take a few deep breaths before entering into the room. This will allow oxygen to come to the brain.
43. Take a drink of water. You may need this for a dry mouth and throat prior to talking.
44. Take a few moments to calm yourself prior to the confrontation.
45. If there is any appeal to someone else, let them know who that is and have contact information ready for them.
46. Know what your emotional triggers are and have strategies to deal with them, so that you don’t ‘blow up’ or ‘break down’ while speaking with this person.
47. Pray for strength and calm as you enter into an undesirable confrontation situation.
48. In the absence of confrontation, simply be prepared. Conflict and confrontation will happen. Rare is the person or leader who doesn’t experience it sometime in life.

Some items on this list will be more important to you than others. Take the time to discuss them with your Coach if that would assist you. If needed, role play a possible meeting, going over various scenarios to have you as prepared as possible for handling confrontation.

7 Steps to Prepare Yourself For Handling Confrontation

Handling confrontation generally doesn't appear on the leader or executive's job description. But it raises its objectionable head on every leader's to-do list. Everyone has to deal with conflict and confrontation many times throughout their career.

Sometimes there is no warning. Confrontation just happens. Other times we know it needs to happen and we do our best when in the heat of the moment. We somehow get through it, as distasteful as it is.

There is a better way. In all cases we can prepare for handling confrontation when and wherever it comes up. It doesn't mean the actual event will be easy. It doesn't always mean it will go the way we think it should. But it does mean we will be more equipped to deal with the situation when it happens.

Take some time now to develop your own strategy for dealing with confrontation prior to any confrontation taking place.

1. Write down your thoughts. Handling confrontation is often best done on paper, prior to any meeting.
2. Know your emotional triggers are and have strategies to deal with them, so that you don't 'blow up' or 'break down' while speaking with this person. Much like an actor, go to those places in your mind that can help you 'feel' the confrontation. Take note of what sets you off. If you can name it, you can do something about it and be much more prepared for the real thing.
3. Determine to be compassionate. You are talking to a person of dignity and value. Plan to walk away with your personal integrity intact, not having said or behaved in a way that violated your personal standards or belittled the other person. Value the person, deal with the behavior. If you're looking for something good and honest to acknowledge, think about it now. If you are delivering sharply critical information, how can you be truthful yet respectful?
4. Sort truth from assumption. Most people spend their lives living on assumptions. It's easy for the leader to do as well. "He never did like working here," is different from, "Your performance has declined since being transferred to this project." Take the time now to write down what you know to be absolutely true. Also make a list of your assumptions. The place to start is with truth.
5. Anticipate possible reactions and your responses to them. When handling confrontation there is almost always a reaction. How will you respond to stone silence, a barrage of excuses, vehement denial, escalating anger or dissolving into tears? What happens if they quit, totally agree with you or ask for immediate help? Thinking through each of these scenarios and having a plan sketched out in your mind will give you something to draw from when you need it. Rehearse possible conversations.
6. Role play with someone else. If you are concerned about improving the way you handle confrontation, role play any number of scenarios to refine your responses. Responding out loud using your own words and approach will increase your confidence and help you refine your delivery.
7. Plan to be clear when outlining next steps. If action on their part is required, be very clear on what that action is and what timelines are involved. Be prepared to give them resources that will be helpful to them. Suggest constructive alternatives they might consider. If an appeal is possible, give them contact information and inform them of the process to follow.

In this most sensitive and potentially explosive of human interactions, be prepared. You have experienced confrontation in the past and if you are still in leadership, you will most certainly experience it in the future. Determine now to improve how you will respond. Take control of yourself and the situation. Your preparation will place you that much closer to achieving the desired outcomes with your integrity and professionalism intact.

Handling Confrontation

What is confrontation?
Confrontation is used for many things. It is used to address a negative situation; express a negative emotional response; let others see and feel your anger and ventilate your anger openly. It can also be used to change other's behavior; change the things that make you angry; help you stand up for your rights if you feel they are being violated; clarify what has happened and why it is upsetting and get corrective action taken or act out hostility on people (inappropriate) rather than inanimate objects (appropriate). 

What are the types of confrontations?
Angry confrontation is when you're angry with someone and you reveal your anger to that person by words and actions. It is explosive. For example, saying "you've really done it this time!'' while throwing objects down or slamming the door or telling another "get out of here'' while physically pushing the person out of the way.

Assertive confrontation is when you stand up for your rights with a person who has ignored your rights. It is objective and non-accusatory. For example, "I get frustrated when you ignore my offers of help'' or "I was angry when I got passed over for that promotion.''

Direct confrontation is a clear, precise statement of the facts to a person whom you believe needs direction and guidance. You either want quality action taken or you want this person to do something for you. For example, "John, please clean this place before I return'' or "Mary, the way to get my attention is by writing a memo to me, not by skipping work.''

Indirect confrontation is a statement of concern you make to a group of people with no specific person pinpointed. The purpose is to let people know your feelings in a general way. No one gets singled out. For example, "I want each of you to get behind your desire to improve our production'' or "I am upset with the way some of you are acting around here.''

Accusation is a direct confrontation of a person regarding your belief that their behavior was upsetting or unacceptable. For example, "you were the person who started the fight'' or "your use of sarcasm upsets the tone of our meeting'' or "all those calls couldn't be business related.''

Ordering is an attempt to straighten someone out by giving directions that need to be followed to the letter. For example, "to improve your performance you must work at least 30 minutes extra each night for the next month'' or "change your clothes immediately! Get that earring out of your ear and wash your face!''

Blaming is similar to an accusation but it puts the responsibility on another person for a problem that angers you. For example, "your careless playing caused us to lose the game'' or "your lack of interest in our relationship led to your having an affair.''

Belittling is when you're displeased with someone's behavior and you try to make that person feel especially bad by severely criticizing their unacceptable behavior. For example, "you are a sorry excuse for a human being'' or "your presentation was pitiful. Did you notice everyone yawning? They were all bored!''

Lecturing is when you really want to make a point. You become grandiose and pompous and give a person rigid directions for what you feel is imperative. For example, "the only way to cut a lawn is from left to right overlapping one inch between rows'' or "the dining room table must be set exactly right, napkins folded so, chairs angled so.''

Scolding occurs when you are upset and disappointed with the behavior of a person. You resort to a finger-pointing tirade to let that person know of your displeasure. For example, "I'm tired of this. I'm in charge and you don't act like anything is important'' or "your grades in school are horrible! What have you been doing this semester? Daydreaming?''

Name calling happens when you are really upset, out of control and at an irrational level of anger. You resort to shouting or angrily calling out names of disdain, displeasure and disrespect. For example, "you worthless bum! How dare you!'' or "stupid idiot! Can't you see?''

Put downs occur if a person has upset you and you want that person not only to squirm but also to be equally upset, then you resort to a sarcastic put down, trying to make the person feel miserable and embarrassed. For example, "Thank God we have `white out' around here. You will need a paint can of it for your work'' or "What do you expect from a college graduate?''

How do people usually react to your inappropriate confrontations? 
Using assertive confrontation, people recognize that you have hurt feelings, and that needs of yours have not been met. They know how they can correct the situation for you. Using angry confrontation, others usually react like they understand how you're feeling. Their reaction to your anger depends on how they would react to any anger situation. Trying direct confrontation, people realize what you are upset about and they either respond or ignore what you say. 

With indirect confrontation, associates know what is bothering you but usually don't respond; they are never quite certain to whom it was directed. Accusation results in people becoming defensive and protecting themselves from your confrontation as if they had been attacked. Ordering causes people to be offended by your authoritarian attitude and often react in a passive aggressive manner. Blaming causes hurt and offense and people are usually quick to defend themselves. If you use belittling, people are usually so befuddled, dismayed and feeling insignificant and devalued that they retreat from you with lowered self-esteem. 

Lecturing causes people to ignore you and what you are telling them because you come across as too strong, too autocratic and unbending. If you scold, people feel like they are being treated with disrespect, a lack of understanding and often turn away from you instead of correcting their behavior as you've demanded they do. Name calling results in people being upset by the cursing, negative attitude and rage. They back off from, avoid, and ignore you. Put downs cause people to be put off by your sarcasm and cynicism. They are incensed and either ignore you and avoid future contacts with you or fight back with vigor. 

What irrational thinking results in inappropriate confrontations?
Irrational thinking might stem from on of many thoughts: such as the belief that you should say whatever comes to mind; that's the way you do it; you shouldn't hold anything back; you should say what you're feeling regardless of how people react; you'll get an ulcer if you hold in your anger; you should stand up for yourself; it's too much effort to think before you speak; if people get you angry, they deserve what they get; you should react right away; it's better to make a show of power and so on.

What style of confrontation is most effective?
The most productive confrontation you can use is direct, assertive, angry confrontation. It lets others know you're angry and how you feel about the event which precipitated the confrontation; identifies the rights you believe are being ignored and directly addresses the person with whom you are angry. It leaves no room for misunderstanding just who is being addressed; doesn't force anyone to become overly defensive, feel offended, or experience devaluing as a person and doesn't put you in the role of an autocratic despot or irrational, raging fool. This type of confrontation shows respect to others and lets them know that you are angry with the behavior and not with the person; describes the negative behavior rather than attacking the person; is corrective-action oriented, not punitive and elicits a direct response rather than a generalized one and doesn't shut people down and make them want to run away. It allows for compromise and a "win-win" solution. 

How do you conduct a direct, assertive, angry confrontation?
When someone or something gets you angry, you need to:
Identify exactly what gets you angry. What do you feel is a violation of your rights? Which rights have been violated? For example, you're ignored by the leader of your group, and this affects your right to be heard. Next, identify the behavior that is so upsetting. Why do you feel the way you do. For example, "the leader acting all knowing." Then tell the person directly how the behavior makes you feel by using an "I" statement, like: "When you did (the behavior) it made me angry (or other feeling)." For example, "When you ignored your input last night and you were acting like a know-it-all I was angry, hurt and upset."

Once you've given your "I" statement, you can describe corrective action, such as, "in the future when you feel like (describe person's feelings) then you have your permission to take the following action: (describe it.)" You think that's fair. For example, "In the future if you feel my input is irrelevant, you have permission to tell me and ask me to explain myself." When you've secured corrective action for the confrontation, you give the person permission to "call you on it'' if you continue to dwell on this episode anytime you get angry in the future. Last, do healthy anger workout until you have exhausted your anger over this episode and those involved. This is done in private with an inanimate object.

Steps to improving your use of confrontation
Step 1: You first need to assess your feelings about confrontation. You need to answer these questions in your journal: Do you use confrontation when you are angry? What type of confrontation do you use? What is the typical response to your confrontation? How successful is your use of confrontation? How healthy are your confrontations? Why do you resort to poor confrontation techniques when you are angry? Do you have time when you get angry to prepare your confrontation and be sure it is healthy? What irrational thinking blocks your use of confrontation? What thinking leads you to the use of negative confrontation? How can you correct this irrational thinking?

Step 2: You are now ready to explore a healthy model of direct, assertive, angry confrontation. To do this you need to analyze instances of anger from your past and re-script them for a healthy confrontation. To analyze your anger sequences you will look at five incidents of anger during which you were unsuccessful. You'll use the scenarios described in "How do you conduct a direct, assertive, angry confrontation?" to write new scripts and show how the situation could have been improved.

Step 3: Now that you have written five re-scripted confrontations, you need to practice the six-step confrontation model in current situations. You'll record your progress.

Step 4: If you are still having problems with confrontation you need to return to Step 1 and begin again.

Marriage Laws by State

Following is a summary listing of the wedding guidelines for each state in the USA, as they were believed to exist at the time of this publication.    Laws are subject to change, and it is the legal responsibility of the individual minister to know and comply with the laws of the state in which the marriage is to be officiated.  A very few states require the minister to register his or her credentials or file for permission from the state prior to officiating a marriage.   This is not considered to be an infringement on religious liberty, because marriage is a civil contract as well as a spiritual rite, and to the extent that the couple wishes their marriage to be recognized as a legal marriage by the government, you must adhere carefully to such laws.  In some states, it is a public offense to unlawfully solemnize a marriage, which means you should be certain that you are ordained and are complying with the requirements of the state in which the marriage occurs.

If you are officiating a "Renewal of Vow" or an "Affirmation of Love" ceremony, you do not need to be concerned with this.   Renewal of Vows is a ceremony to commemorate existing an existing marriage.  An Affirmation of Love is a ceremony to commemorate a pledge of love that a couple has for one another that they choose not to make legally recognized by the state for their own reasons, or are prevented from doing so by state laws.  Neither ceremony has any legal standing, although the Affirmation of Love might be used as one form of evidence to help establish the existence of a domestic partnership for employers or for other reasons.    You should make certain that the couple involved is aware of this and does not believe that they are being legally married.

If the marriage is to be performed in a state which requires documentation from the church of the minister's authority to officiate marriage, this documentation will be provided by the church, free of charge.   Please understand however, that this does require a significant effort from the church staff.   If the letter will be for a marriage in New York, Virginia, or Washington DC, the letter must be notarized, which will require a $10 payment for the notary fee.   If you wish to help support the work of the church with a free-will donation when making your request for such documentation, it will be sincerely appreciated.   Send your request, along with your complete name, address, and the date of your ordination (if known) to: ULC Headquarters, 601 Third St., Modesto, CA  95351.   Please allow ample time for them to respond to your request.  Also, if you have moved or changed your name since your original ordination, you will need to make note of this information in your request as well.  Please do not request such documentation if it is not required by your state.  Headquarters has limited resources for providing these free services and cannot respond to those who do not legally require them.

Because laws are subject to change, it is wise to check with the government agency having jurisdiction in the state where the wedding is to be performed prior to solemnizing the marriage.   A Universal Life Church minister is a minister, just like any other, and the same requirements must apply equally to ministers of all churches.  Government agencies are expressly prohibited from preferring one religion over another, or one church over another.    This fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution is lost on some government bureaucrats however, and they develop a mindset that everything must be "approved" or sanctioned by the government. 

In most places, employees of  the government agencies are well aware of the First Amendment, and do not cause any problems for ULC ministers.  In some smaller locations, however, ULC ministers have run into opposition when they ask a bureaucrat a specific question such as "Are ULC ministers permitted to officiate marriage?"  The church which has ordained you has no bearing on the question, and such questions can confuse someone who is not well-trained.  They may not know the answer, but be unwilling to acknowledge their ignorance, in which case, you can face hostility.  

If you wish to confirm that you can perform a wedding in a certain jurisdiction, it is suggested that you ask simply what is required for a minister to officiate marriage.    If they ask you what church you belong to, you can simply reply, "Is that important?"  It is a gentle way to remind them that it is not important, and does not bring you into conflict with a stubborn government flunky trying to assert authority.      You can also ask them if the requirements are different for "non-resident ministers" (ministers who do not live in the state where the marriage is to be performed), than they are for resident ministers.  Some states specifically state that the minister must be at least 18 years old.   It is likely that the minister must be of the age of majority in all states, because this is a legal contract.  If this is an issue for you, you can check with the local authority to determine the rules there.  In most places, you will encounter no difficulties.  In those places where you do, patience and reliance on calm, professional demeanor will often prevail.  If not, a polite request to speak to a supervisor or manager may be useful.

Outside of the USA, marriage laws vary widely.  You may check with the local government regarding the laws pertaining to marriage in the country where the marriage will be solemnized, however keep in mind that the US Constitution does not apply, and although many civilized nations do embrace religious freedom, it is not always as complete as we have thus far come to enjoy in the USA.    As of this writing, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia do NOT permit ULC ministers to officiate legal marriage ceremonies.

Details of the ceremony are not governed by state law.  You and the couple are free to write whatever vows are desired.    The elements involved must include some sort of acknowledgement by the couple of their desire to be wed to one another, which is witnessed, and a form of pronouncement by the minister that they have been married.  It can be simple or elaborate, heavily spiritual and religious or only tangentially so, it does not matter.    There are many excellent ceremonies, non-denominational and otherwise, from which you may choose.  We offer several books which include such ceremonies, and you will also find many resources on the Internet, your local public library, or local bookstores.  You or the couple can use these resources as a starting point to create your own ceremonies that are completely personalized.

One of the most important parts of the responsibility of solemnizing a marriage is to make sure that the completed marriage license is returned to the state or other government agency that issued it, so that it can be recorded.   The marriage will not be recognized if this requirement is overlooked, which could cause serious problems for the couple, and liability to the minister.  Prior to the wedding, you should obtain the marriage license from the couple and review it carefully.  Make sure that it is valid for the date and location where the wedding will be performed.   You should also request to see government issued identification from both parties, even if you know them.  They won't be offended, and will appreciate the fact that you are taking your duties seriously.   Write down the ID numbers, and later record this information on your photocopy of the completed marriage license.

After the wedding ceremony, you must complete the marriage license, filling in the blanks for your name, the date, etc.  Be sure your writing is legible.    If the license asks for the ministers denomination, you should specify "Universal Life."   If asked for the number of the minister's license or registration number issued by the church for the minister, you may enter "n/a", because such numbers are not issued by the church.    Sign the license, along with the witnesses, and make a photocopy of the completed license to retain in your permanent records.  Some states require you to keep a record of the marriage, and in all states it is a very good idea to do so.

Some states require you to provide a marriage certificate to the bride and groom.    If so, this will most likely refer to a certificate form that is provided by the state with the license.   You may also wish to provide them with an official ULC church certificate, but a church certificate is entirely optional.   It is a nice touch however, the church certificate is an attractive document they will want to hang on the wall in their new home.  You can obtain a church certificate from the web store.

It is your responsibility to make sure the completed marriage certificate is returned to the state for recording within the specified time period, which is different in each state.   Do not neglect or postpone this important aspect of your duties, or the marriage will not be legal.  The license should come with instructions on where to return it for recording, which will be the same government office which issued it.   If you don't take the license to the office in person, you should send it by certified mail, return receipt requested, and keep a copy of both the receipt of mailing and the return receipt with your photocopy of the license.   This may sound like a lot of effort, but remember, you are fulfilling an important role in the lives of this couple, and your duties should be taken seriously, even if this will be the only act as a minister you ever expect to perform. 

Following is an alphabetical listing of the guidelines believed to be current for each state at the time of this publication.  Laws are subject to change, and it is the legal responsibility of the individual minister to know and comply with the laws of the state in which the marriage is to be officiated.  This information was accurate to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication, however it is not intended to be legal advice, nor do we guarantee that the information is accurate or up to date.   Sometimes you will find that bureaucrats in the government offices will impose additional restrictions or apply their own interpretations of the law.   Be sure to comply with any reasonable and lawful requirements, and allow for time to respond to any additional requirements they might impose.  

Following is an alphabetical listing of the guidelines believed to be current for each state at the time of this publication.  Laws are subject to change, and it is the legal responsibility of the individual minister to know and comply with the laws of the state in which the marriage is to be officiated.

ALABAMA
Any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which he is a member may perform marriages. Also, marriages may be performed by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules of the religious society. --- Ministers must provide a certificate of the marriage to the judge of probate within one month after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk for the judge of probate.

Section 30-1-7
Persons authorized to solemnize marriages.

(a) Generally. -Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which he is a member, by a judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court or any district court within this state or by a judge of probate within his county or any retired judge of the Supreme Court, retired judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, retired judge of the Court of Civil Appeals, retired judge of the circuit court, retired judge of the district court within this state or a retired judge of probate within his county.

(b) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. -Marriage may also be solemnized by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules ordained or custom established by such society. The clerk or keeper of the minutes of each society must keep a register and enter therein a particular account of all marriages solemnized by the society, which register, or a sworn copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the fact.

(c) Quakers, Mennonites or other religious societies. -The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations, may solemnize marriage according to their forms by consent of the parties, published and declared before the congregation assembled for public worship.

(Code 1852, §1946-1948; Code 1867, §2335-2337; Code 1876, §2674-2676; Code 1886, §2311-2313; Code 1896, §2841-2843; Code 1907, §4881-4883; Code 1923, §8995-8997; Code 1940, T. 34, §6-8; Acts 1988, No. 88-551, p. 867.)

This information can be found by following this link: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/30-1-7.htm


ALASKA
The minister, priest or rabbi of any church or congregation in the state may perform marriages. --- Ministers must provide marriage certificates to the couple married and report the marriage to the Marriage Commissioner.


ARIZONA
Any licensed or ordained clergyman may perform marriages. --- Ministers must record the marriage on the marriage license and return it to the clerk of the Superior Court within 20 days after the marriage. - -- For questions see the clerk of the Superior Court.


ARKANSAS
Any regularly ordained minister or priest of any religious sect or denomination may perform marriages. --- Ministers must have their ordination credentials filed by the county clerk who will then issue a certificate to the minister. --- The marriage license must be completed by the minister and returned to the county clerk within 60 days from the date the license was issued. --- For questions see the county clerk.


CALIFORNIA
Any priest, minister, or rabbi of any religious denomination, of the age of 18 years or over may perform marriages. Ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the county clerk within 10 days after the marriage. Minister must review the license before the marriage to make sure it is valid for the date of the marriage and for the two persons being married. Same-sex couples are permitted to marry if they hold a valid marriage license. For questions, contact the county clerk or visit the California web site.


COLORADO
Marriages may be performed by any minister. --- Ministers must send a marriage certificate to the county clerk. --- For questions see the county clerk.


CONNECTICUT
All ordained or licensed clergymen belonging to this state or any other state may perform marriages as long as they continue in the work of the ministry. -- -Marriage license must be completed by the minister and returned to the city or town clerk. --- For questions see the city or town clerk.


DELAWARE
Any ordained minister of the gospel and every minister in charge of a recognized church may perform marriages. --- Ministers do not need to be licensed to perform marriages but they must report their name and address to the local registrar in the district in which they live. --- Ministers must keep the marriage license or a copy for at least one year. Also, the minister must, within 4 days, complete and return forms required by the State Board of Health to the clerk of the peace. --- For questions see the clerk of the peace.


FLORIDA
All regularly ordained ministers of the gospel in communion with some church may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete a certificate of marriage on the marriage license and return it to the office from which it was issued. --- For questions see the county clerk.


GEORGIA
Any minister who is authorized by his or her church may perform marriages. ---Ministers must complete a certificate of marriage and return it to the ordinary within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the ordinary's clerk at the county courthouse.


HAWAII
Any minister may perform marriages if they are authorized by their church to do so. Ministers must obtain a license from the department of health before performing marriages. -Ministers must keep a record of all marriages they perform. Ministers must report all marriages they perform to the department of health. ---For questions see the department of health.


IDAHO
Marriages may be performed by priests or ministers of the gospel of any denomination.  Ministers must give a marriage certificate to the bride and to the groom. Also, the minister must complete the license and marriage certificate and return it to the recorder who issued it within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county recorder.


ILLINOIS
Marriages may be performed by ministers of the gospel in regular standing in the church or society to which they belong. --- The marriage license and certificate must be completed by the minister and returned to the county clerk within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.


INDIANA
Ministers of the gospel and priests of every church throughout the state may perform marriages. ---Ministers must return the marriage license and a certificate of marriage to the clerk of the circuit court within 3 months after the marriage. ---For questions see the clerk of the circuit court.


IOWA
Ministers of the gospel who are ordained by their church may perform marriages. --- Minister must give a certificate of marriage to the bride and to the groom. Also, the minister must report the marriage to the clerk of the district court within 15 days after the marriage. -For questions see the clerk of the district court.


KANSAS
Any ordained clergyman of any religious denomination or society may perform marriages. --Ministers are required to file credentials or ordination with the judge of a probate court before performing marriages. --- Minister must return the marriage license and a certificate of marriage to the probate judge who issued the marriage license within 10 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the probate court.


KENTUCKY
Marriages may be performed by any minister of the gospel or priests of any denomination with any religious society.   Ministers must return the marriage license and marriage certificate to the county clerk within 3 months after the marriage. --- It is illegal to solicit marriages. --- For questions see the county clerk.

LOUISIANA
Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination in regular communion with any religious society may perform marriages. --- Ministers must register with the clerk of the district court of the parish or with the health department if in New Orleans. --- After performing a marriage, the minister must complete a marriage certificate and return it to the clerk of the district court. --- For questions see the clerk of the district court.


MAINE
Ordained ministers of the gospel may perform marriages. Ministers may obtain an application for registration from the county or town clerk.


MARYLAND
Any minister of the gospel authorized by the rules and customs of their church may perform marriages. --- Minister must complete the marriage license and marriage certificate and give one certificate to the couple. Another certificate and the license must be returned to the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas within five days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas.


MASSACHUSETTS
Ordained ministers of the gospel may perform marriages. --- Before performing marriages, ministers are required to apply for a certificate from the state. For applications write to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Secretary, Supervisor, Commissions Division, State House, Boston, Massachusetts 02133. You must file a copy of your ordination certificate and a statement from the church saying that you are in good standing. Please let us know well in advance if you need a statement from us. --- Ministers must keep records of all marriages they perform. Also, ministers must return a certificate of the marriage to the town clerk or registrar who issued the marriage license and to the town clerk of the town where the marriage was performed. --- For questions see the town clerk or registrar or write to the Secretary of State.


MICHIGAN
A minister of the gospel who is ordained or authorized by his or her church to perform marriages and who is a pastor of a church in this state, or continues to preach the gospel in this state may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete a marriage certificate and give one to the couple. Another marriage certificate must be returned to the county clerk who issued the license within 10 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.


MINNESOTA
Any licensed or ordained minister of the gospel in regular communion with a religious society may perform marriages. --- Ministers must file a copy of a letter of good standing with the clerk of the district court of any county. --- Ministers must give a marriage certificate to the bride and groom and also file a certificate with the clerk of the district court in the county, which issued the marriage license. --- For questions see the clerk of the district court.


MISSISSIPPI
Any ordained minister of the gospel who is in good standing with his or her church may perform marriages. --- Ministers must send a certificate of marriage to the clerk who issued the marriage license within three months after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the circuit court.


MISSOURI
Marriages may be performed by any clergyman who is a citizen of the United States and who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state. ---Ministers must keep a record of all marriages they perform. They must give the couple a marriage certificate and must complete the marriage license and return it to the recorder of deeds within 90 days after the marriage license was issued. --- For questions see the recorder of deeds.


MONTANA
Ministers of the gospel of any denomination may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete and return a marriage certificate to the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the marriage. Also the minister must provide marriage certificates to the bride and groom upon request. ---For questions see the clerk of the district court.


NEBRASKA
Any ordained clergyman whatsoever, without regard to the sect to which they belong may perform marriages. --- Ministers must report marriages they perform to the county judge who issued the marriage license within 15 days after the marriage. Also the minister must provide marriage certificates to the bride and groom upon request. --- For questions see the county clerk.


NEVADA
Any ordained minister in good standing with his denomination, whose denomination is incorporated or organized or established in the State of Nevada may perform marriages.  Ministers must apply to the County Clerk in Washoe or Clark Counties, providing a letter of good standing and possibly other documentation.  In other Nevada counties, contact the county clerk for current requirements.


NEW HAMPSHIRE
Marriages may be performed by any ordained minister of the gospel who resides in the state and is in good standing with his church. Ministers not residing in the state may obtain permission to perform a marriage upon application to the Secretary of State. --- Ministers must send a copy of the marriage certificate to the town clerk. ---For questions see the town clerk.


NEW JERSEY
Every minister of every religion may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete a certificate of marriage and return it to the county clerk. --- For questions see the county clerk.


NEW MEXICO
Any ordained clergyman whatsoever, without regard to the sect to which he or she may belong may perform marriages. --- Ministers must provide the county clerk with a marriage certificate within 90 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.


NEW YORK
Marriages may be performed by a clergyman or minister of any religion. Ministers do not have to be licensed except that before performing marriages in New York City, the minister must register his or her name and address in the office of the city clerk of the city of New York.  Documentation, to be obtained from ULC Headquarters must be provided with the application for registration in New York City.  Ministers must complete a marriage certificate and return it to the town or city clerk who issued the marriage license within 5 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the town or city clerk.  


NORTH CAROLINA
Any ordained minister of any faith who is authorized to perform marriages by his church may do so. --- ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the register of deeds who issued it. --- For questions see the register of deeds.


NORTH DAKOTA
Ordained ministers of the gospel and priests of every church may perform marriages. --- Ministers must file a certificate of marriage with the county judge who issued the license within 5 days after the marriage. Certificates must also be given to the persons married. --- For questions see the county clerk.

OHIO
You must request a license to perform a marriage in Ohio and can receive one from the Office of the Secretary of State.   Ministers in Ohio have reported that they have been required to produce an ordination credential with an "original signature" on it.    For all orders for credential certificates placed through the ulc.net web site, the appropriate credential with an original or "live" signature on it will be supplied.


OKLAHOMA
Ordained ministers of the gospel of any denomination who are at least 18 years of age may perform marriages. --- Ministers must file a copy of their credentials with the county clerk before performing marriages. ---Ministers must complete a certificate of marriage and return it to the clerk or judge who issued the marriage license. --- For questions see the clerk of the county court.


OREGON
Ministers of any church organized, carrying on its work, and having congregations in this state may perform marriages in this state if authorized by their church to do so. Ministers must give the bride and groom a marriage certificate upon request. Also, the minister must send a marriage certificate to the county clerk who issued the marriage license within one month after the marriage. When asked for the address of the church, use 601 Third St., Modesto CA 95351; phone (209) 527-8111. For questions, contact the county clerk.


PENNSYLVANIA
Ministers of any regularly established church or congregation may perform marriages. Also, persons may marry themselves if they obtain a certificate from the clerk of the orphans' court. --- Ministers must provide a certificate of marriage to the bride and groom. Also, they must send a marriage certificate to the clerk of the orphans' court who issued the marriage license within 10 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the orphans' court.


RHODE ISLAND
Everyone who has been, or is, the minister of any society professing to meet for religious purposes, or incorporated for the promotion of such purposes, and holding stated and regular services, and who has been ordained according to the customs and usage's of such society may perform marriages. --- Ministers must obtain a license from the city or town clerk before performing marriages. ---Ministers must endorse and return the marriage license to the town or city clerk in which the marriage was performed. --- For questions see the town or city clerk.


SOUTH CAROLINA
Ministers of the gospel who are authorized to administer oaths in this state may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete the marriage license and give one copy to the parties and the other two must be returned to the county judge of probate who issued it within 15 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county judge of probate or his clerk.


SOUTH DAKOTA
Marriages may be performed by a minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination.  Ministers must provide the bride and groom with marriage certificates upon request. Ministers must also keep a record book of all marriages they perform. Finally, the minister must send a marriage certificate to the clerk who issued the marriage license within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of courts.


TENNESSEE
All regular ministers of the gospel of every denomination, and Jewish rabbis, more than 18 years of age, having the care of souls may perform marriages. ---Ministers must endorse the marriage license and return it to the clerk of the county court within three days after the marriage. ---For questions see the county clerk.


TEXAS
Ordained Christian ministers and priests; Jewish rabbis and persons who are officers of religious organizations and who are duly authorized by the organization to conduct marriage ceremonies may perform marriages. --- Ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the county clerk who issued it within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.


UTAH
Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination who are in regular communion with any religious society may perform marriages. ---Ministers must provide a certificate of marriage to the county clerk who issued the marriage license within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county clerk.


VERMONT
Ordained ministers residing in this state may perform marriages. Non-resident ordained ministers may perform marriages with the permission of the probate court of the district within which the marriage is to take place. --- Ministers must complete the marriage license and certificate of marriage and return it to the clerk's office from which it was issued within ten days from the date of the marriage. --- For questions see the town clerk.


VIRGINIA
Ministers of any religious denomination may perform marriages. --- Before performing marriages, ministers must provide proof of their ordination and proof that they are in regular communion with their church to the circuit court of any unity or city or to the corporation court of any city in this state. The judge will then authorize the minister to perform marriages provided the minister obtains a bond in he amount of 500 dollars. --- Ministers may receive a fee of no more than 10 dollars for performing a marriage. ---Ministers must complete the marriage certificate and return it to the clerk who issued the marriage license within 5 days after the marriages certificate and return it to the clerk who issued the marriage license within five days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the county circuit court or the clerk of the corporation court.


VIRGIN ISLANDS
Clergymen or ministers of any religion, whether they reside in the Virgin Islands or elsewhere in the United States may perform marriages. ---Ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the clerk of the municipal court, which issued the license within 10 days after the marriage is performed. --- For questions see the clerk of the municipal court.


WASHINGTON
Regularly licensed or ordained ministers or any priest of any church or religious denomination anywhere within the state may perform marriages.--- Ministers must send two certificates of marriage to the county auditor within 30 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the county auditor.


WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ordained ministers of the gospel may perform marriages. --- Marriage licenses are addressed to the minister who will perform the ceremony.   Ministers must file a letter of good standing, articles of incorporation and bylaws, which may be obtained from ULC Headquarters.  The minister must complete a marriage certificate for the bride and for the groom and return another certificate to the clerk of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions within 10 days after the marriage. --- For questions see the clerk of the Court of General Sessions court.


WEST VIRGINIA
Any minister, priest or rabbi, over the age of 18 years, may perform marriages. Before performing marriages, ministers must file a form with the Secretary of State, pay a registration fee (approx. $25) and provide a photocopy of their ordination certificate credential, a copy of the minister's drivers license or birth certificate, and a letter of authorization to be obtained from ULC Headquarters.  The minister will then be placed in the statewide registry and authorized to officiate marriage throughout the state of West Virginia.   Ministers must return the completed marriage license to the county clerk who issued it on or before the 5th day of the month following the marriage. For questions see the clerk of the county court or the office of the Secretary of State.  The required form can be found on the Secretary of State website.  


WISCONSIN
Any ordained clergyman of any religious denomination or society may perform marriages. Before performing marriages, ministers must file their credentials of ordination with the clerk of the circuit court in the county in which their church is located. The clerk will give the minister a certificate. Ministers must complete the marriage certificates and give on to the bride and one to the groom. The original must be returned to the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage was performed or if performed in a city, to the city health officer. This must be done within 3 days after the marriage. Non-resident ministers need a letter of sponsorship from a Wisconsin minister, which can be arranged through ULC Headquarters. For questions see the clerk of the circuit court.


WYOMING
Every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel may perform marriages. Ministers must give a marriage certificate to the bride and to the groom upon request and must return a certificate to the county clerk. For questions see the county clerk.

The Clergy/Penitent Privilege

Every state1 has a law making certain communications to clergy “privileged”. This generally means that neither the minister nor the “penitent” can be forced to testify in court (or in a deposition or certain other legal proceedings) about the contents of the communication. What is the justification for this rule, that “contravenes the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence”?2 The United States Supreme Court has observed that “the priest--penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return.”3 A federal appeals court judge stated the justification for the privilege as follows:

Sound policy—reason and experience—concedes to religious liberty a rule of evidence that a clergyman shall not disclose in a trial the secrets of a penitent's confidential confession to him, at least absent the penitent's consent. Knowledge so acquired in the performance of a spiritual function . . . is not to be transformed into evidence to be given to the whole world. . . . The benefit of preserving these confidences inviolate overbalances the possible benefit of permitting litigation to prosper at the expense of the tranquility of the home, the integrity of the professional relationship, and the spiritual rehabilitation of a penitent. The rules of evidence have always been concerned not only with truth but with the manner of its ascertainment.4
Not every communication made to a minister is privileged and thereby protected from disclosure. The typical statute applies only to (1) communications (2) confidentially made (3) to a minister (4) acting in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser. To illustrate, Rule 505 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, which has been adopted by several states, provides:

(a) Definitions. As used in this rule:
(1) A “clergyman” is a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting him.
(2) A communication is “confidential” if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
(b) 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 the clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.
(c) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, by his guardian or conservator, or by his personal representative if he is deceased. The person who was the clergyman at the time of the communication is presumed to have authority to claim the privilege but only on behalf of the communicant.
Some states add a fifth requirement—the communication made in confidence to a clergyman must be made “in the course of discipline.” All five elements of the clergy--penitent privilege will be considered in turn.

1. WERE THE STATEMENTS INTENDED TO BE COMMUNICATIONS?

The privilege against divulging confidential communications extends only to actual communications between an individual and a clergyman. Communications obviously include verbal statements, but they also can include nonverbal forms of communication. One court ruled that the delivery of a gun to a minister constituted a “privileged communication” that was not admissible in court. A New York City police officer who also served as assistant pastor of a local church was approached one evening (while in civilian clothes on the church grounds) by an elderly man who addressed the minister by name and stated that he had something at home that he wanted to give him. A few minutes later, the individual returned, and was escorted into an office where he handed the minister a plastic bag containing a .38 caliber revolver. Not wanting to the leave the gun on church premises overnight, the minister flagged a patrol car that was passing by the church, and handed the gun to the officer driving the vehicle. A few months later, the minister was accused of violating several police department regulations in the proper disposition of the gun. The minister claimed that the incident could not give rise to any disciplinary action since it was a “privileged communication” under New York law and therefore could not be used in any legal proceeding. A trial judge found the minister guilty of all charges, and concluded that the “privileged communication” defense was not available since the gun had been delivered to the minister in his capacity as a police officer rather than a clergyman.

A state appeals court reversed this ruling, and dismissed the charges. The appeals court concluded that the gun had been delivered to the minister in his capacity as a minister, and that the manner in which the gun was delivered constituted a “confidential” nonverbal communication. The court found it significant that the elderly gentleman had gone to the church with the gun rather than to a police facility, and that the minister was wearing civilian clothes.5

Another court ruled that the act of a murder suspect in displaying a gun to a minister was a “communication.”  The court reasoned that the word communication is not limited to conversation but includes “any act by which ideas are transmitted from one person to another.”6

But acts that are not intended to “transmit ideas” are not deemed communications. Thus, it has been held that a minister's personal impressions of a person's mental capacity were not privileged,7 nor were a minister's personal observations of the demeanor or reactions of another.8 In a case involving a challenge to the will of an elderly decedent, a minister who testified concerning the speech, hearing, and sight of the decedent was held not to have “waived” the privilege since he only testified concerning personal “observations.” He therefore was permitted to claim the privilege with respect to confidential communications he had conducted with the decedent.9 And a minister who assumed the custody of a two--month--old child was permitted to testify concerning the child's condition and the conduct of the child's parents, since such testimony related only to observations and not to communications arising out of spiritual counseling.10

There is no reason why communications transmitted by telephone should not be privileged, if they satisfy the applicable requirements under state law. What about correspondence? Should a letter to a minister be privileged? One federal court ruled that a letter written by a prisoner to a priest, requesting the priest to get in contact with an FBI agent and have him visit the prisoner, was not privileged.11 The court observed: “The letter contains no hint that its contents were to be kept secret, or that its purpose was to obtain religious or other counsel, advice, solace, absolution, or ministration. It merely requested assistance by putting [the prisoner] in touch with the agent and explained [his] purpose and plan in asking this.” Under the circumstances, the court concluded that the letter was not confidential. However, the court's decision strongly suggests that a letter written to a minister may be privileged if it (1) seeks religious counsel, and (2) indicates on its face that its contents are to be kept secret.

One court concluded that the clergy--penitent privilege covered personal records of a deceased church member that were in the possession of the pastor.12


2. WAS THE COMMUNICATION MADE IN CONFIDENCE?

To be entitled to the privilege against the disclosure of confidential communications made to a minister, a communication must be made in confidence. This generally is interpreted to mean that a communication must be made under circumstances which indicate that it would forever remain a secret. Otherwise, the privilege does not apply. Thus, statements made to a minister in the presence of other persons generally will not be privileged.

To illustrate, no privilege existed with respect to statements made by a murder suspect to his minister in the presence of a church elder;13 nor did a privilege exist in the case of statements made by a church member to his minister in the presence of his pastor's wife,14 a confession by a church member to his minister in the presence of two other persons,15 and a confession made to a minister by a prisoner in the obvious presence of a prison guard.16

Similarly, statements made by a suspected rapist to a minister immediately following a Sunday morning worship service three days before the rape were not privileged since they were not made in confidence. The minister testified that the conversation had occurred while “many people were hanging around as they usually do” following a service, and that “we [the minister and the accused] talked with quite a number of people.” The accused claimed that the prosecution erred in allowing the statements made by the accused to the minister to be introduced in court, since such statements were the product of the “clergy--penitent” privilege. The court rejected this claim, noting that only confidential communications made to a minister acting in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual advisor are privileged from disclosure in a court of law, and that the statements made by the accused in this case were not privileged. It concluded that “the record supports the trial court's finding that the conversation had not taken place in private and therefore was not a privileged confidential communication.”17

If the presence of a third person is legally required (e.g., a prisoner who cannot communicate with a minister unless a guard is present), the privilege may apply.18 A few courts have concluded that communications made to a minister in the presence of elders, deacons, or other church officers are privileged, at least if the communication involved a confession of sin made in the course of a disciplinary proceeding.19 And, a few state laws seem to extend the clergy--penitent privilege to situations in which other persons are present “in furtherance of the communication.”20

Statements made to a minister by a spouse during marriage counseling may be privileged despite the presence of the other spouse, and a few state laws specifically so provide.21 In other states, the same will be true because of liberal interpretations of state law.22 Certainly, the objective of the privilege (as noted above) applies to marital counseling involving one or both spouses perhaps as much as in any other context. Ordinarily, however, statements made to a minister in the presence of deacons, elders, church members, or any other persons will not be privileged, unless specifically recognized by state law.23 Statements made to a minister in the course of friendly, informal conversation ordinarily are not privileged, since the circumstances do not suggest that the conversation will be kept in confidence.24 Communications made to a minister with the understanding that he or she will transmit them to a third party obviously lack confidentiality, and are not considered privileged.25

In summary, privileged communications to a minister must not only be made in private, but they also must be made with an express or implied understanding that they will never be disclosed. The substance of the communication, the place where it is made, and the relationship, if any, between the minister and the one making the communication, are all factors to be considered.


3. WERE THE STATEMENTS MADE TO A CLERGYMAN?

The typical statute provides that only those confidential communications made to clergymen, priests, or ministers of the gospel are privileged. Communications made to nuns,26 an elder and deacon in the Christian Church,27 lay religious counselors whose services are not indispensable,28 “lay ministers”29 and unordained, self--proclaimed ministers,30 and a “born--again” police officer who was a former deacon in his church,31 have been held not to be privileged. But communications made to lay religious counselors whose services are necessary because of the number of people requiring counseling,32 and to elders in the Presbyterian Church,33 have been deemed privileged.

It has been held that the IRS could not be prevented from inspecting church records on the basis of the privilege against disclosure of confidential communications to clergymen, since the term clergyman applies only to natural persons and not to church corporations.34

4. WAS THE MINISTER ACTING IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY?

Most state laws require that the communication be made to a minister acting in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser. Certainly there can be no expectation of confidentiality—and therefore no privilege—unless a statement is made to a minister acting in a professional capacity.

If a statement is made to a minister as a mere friend, the privilege does not apply. To illustrate, a murder suspect's incriminating admissions made to a clergyman who was a friend and frequent companion were held not to be privileged. The court reasoned that the statements had been made to the clergyman as a friend and not as a professional spiritual adviser.35 Statements made by a murder suspect to a minister were not privileged when the suspect (1) was not a church member, (2) had entered a minister's home to conceal himself from the police, (3) did not seek spiritual counseling and did not request that their conversation be kept confidential, and (4) the minister did not believe the conversation was confidential. The court reasoned that the facts did not establish the confidential nature of the statements or that the minister was acting in his professional capacity as a spiritual adviser.36

In another case, statements made to a clergyman by an individual who was attempting to sell him a watch were held not to be privileged.37 And, statements made to a priest who worked as an executive in a secular business (while on a leave of absence from the priesthood) were not privileged since they were not made to a minister acting in his professional capacity as a spiritual adviser.38

A New York state appeals court addressed the issue of privileged communications to clergy in an important decision. An individual entered an office building in New York City, pulled a gun and ordered several people to lie on the floor, and fired at least one shot. He later left the building and went to a nearby Catholic church. The church secretary informed the priest that there was a man in the office who wanted to see him. The priest met the individual in the church sanctuary a short time later. The individual appeared very distraught, and informed the priest that his mother was a member of the parish and that she was a saint, and that he had done something very bad. Upon further questioning by the priest, the individual disclosed the actions he had taken earlier in the day. The priest advised the individual that if he had not hurt anyone he “would be better off” turning himself in to the police. The individual rejected this advice and stated that he wanted to pray. A short time later, the priest slipped outside and ran to a police headquarters a block away. On his way, he yelled to several police officers that there was a man in the church with a gun. The officers went into the church, removed the gun from the individual and placed him under arrest. The individual was later indicted on 24 counts by a grand jury which based its decision in part on the conversation that occurred between the priest and the accused in the church. The individual sought a court order dismissing the indictment on the ground that it was based on privileged communications between himself and the priest. New York law provides that “unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege, a clergyman . . . or minister of any religion . . . shall not be allowed to disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.” The court observed that “not every communication between a clergyman and a penitent is considered privileged.” To be a privileged communication (i.e., not admissible in court), the communication made to the clergyman “must have been made to him in his or her professional character as a spiritual adviser.” The court cited an earlier case in which a letter written to a priest was not privileged since it contained no hint “that its contents were to be kept secret, or that its purpose was to obtain religious or other counsel, advice, solace, absolution or ministration.” In the present case, however, the individual with the gun “was seeking some type of spiritual advice from [the priest] and had the reasonable expectation that his conversation with the priest was to be kept secret. Therefore, [the priest] was not at liberty to testify before the grand jury as to his conversation with [the accused].”39

Another New York state court ruled that a priest's testimony in a criminal hearing was not “privileged” since the information shared with the priest by a criminal suspect was not communicated in the course of spiritual counseling.40 The court acknowledged that there was a difference of opinion as to why the suspect had spoken with the priest. The suspect claimed that he spoke with the priest solely to ask him to contact an attorney on his behalf. On the other hand, the priest testified that the suspect sought him out in order to apologize personally to him for burglarizing his home. The court concluded that only those communications made to a minister while acting in his or her professional role as a spiritual adviser are privileged from disclosure in a court of law. Under either the suspect's or the priest's account of the communication, it was not privileged since the priest had not been sought out for spiritual counsel or advice. Accordingly, it was appropriate to admit the priest's testimony over the defendant's objection.

A California state appeals court ruled that confidential statements made by a church treasurer to an Episcopalian priest were not “penitential communications” exempted by law from involuntary disclosure in a civil court. Late one night, the treasurer arranged a meeting with the priest after informing him that she “had done something almost as bad as murder.” The treasurer, after requesting that their conversation be kept confidential, informed the priest that she had embezzled nearly $30,000 in church funds from a church account. The priest, with the permission of the treasurer, sought the assistance of the church wardens and vestry. Soon thereafter, the vestry decided that the embezzlement had to be reported to the local police. At a subsequent criminal prosecution, the treasurer was convicted and placed on formal probation including four months in jail (prior to trial, she had fully repaid the church).

The treasurer appealed her conviction on the ground that it had been based on her confidential statements to the priest which, in her opinion, were “penitential communications” that were privileged against disclosure in court. California law specifies that “a penitent . . . has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a penitential communication” made to a clergyman.  A “penitential communication” is defined as a confidential communication to a clergyman “who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his church, denomination, or organization is authorized or accustomed to hear such communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep such communications secret.”

The court concluded that the statements made by the church treasurer to the priest were not privileged since they involved a “problem--solving entreaty” by the treasurer rather than “a request to make a true confession seeking forgiveness or absolution—the very essence of the spiritual relationship privileged under the statute.” That is, the treasurer sought out the priest not for spiritual counseling, but to disclose her embezzlement and to seek his counsel on how to correct the problem. Further, the court observed (despite testimony to the contrary) that while Episcopalian priests have a duty to maintain the secrecy of a confession by a penitent seeking God's forgiveness, there is no corresponding duty with respect to statements made to a priest in the course of ordinary “pastoral counseling.” The court also emphasized that the treasurer had “released” the priest from his assurance of confidentiality by consenting to his disclosure of the facts of the case to the church wardens and vestry.  Unfortunately, the court's decision contradicts the very purpose of the “penitential communications” privilege. Church members in California may be dissuaded from seeking pastoral counseling now that there is no assurance that communications made in confidence in the course of such counseling sessions are privileged from involuntary disclosure in a court of law. Such a crabbed interpretation of the California statute is unwarranted, and hopefully will be rejected by the state supreme court and by other appeals courts in the state.41

One court ruled that statements made by a murder suspect to a minister regarding his intent to kill his wife were not privileged since they were not made by the suspect “in professing religious faith or seeking spiritual comfort or guidance.”42

A Pennsylvania state appeals court ruled that statements made by a murder suspect to a minister were not “privileged” since they were not made to the minister while acting in his professional role as a spiritual adviser.43 The facts of the case are tragic. In 1966, a 10--year--old girl and her 6--year--old friend were playing by a creek near their homes. A man approached the children, and asked them to help him “catch minnows” around a bend in the stream. He offered them chewing gum if they would accompany him. The 6--year--old declined the invitation, but the 10--year--old girl went with the man. A search for the girl was launched when she failed to return home for lunch. Her body was discovered, with her throat slashed, behind some bushes a few hundred yards from where the children had been playing. A small, plastic “sheriff's badge” was found under her body. An intensive search was conducted, and several suspects were questioned, but no arrests were made.

Twenty--two years later, a man was arrested in the same community for indecent exposure. The court appointed a local minister to counsel with the individual. While he was not an active member of the minister's church, he and his wife occasionally attended services at the church. During a counseling session, the individual informed the minister that he was guilty of the murder of the girl 22 years before, and he asked the minister to accompany him to the police station where he stated he would confess to the crime. The minister also noticed that the individual had a plastic sheriff's badge in his pocket. Largely on the basis of this new evidence, a murder prosecution was commenced and the individual was convicted of first degree murder. The murderer appealed his conviction on the ground that the statements he had made to the minister were protected by the clergy--penitent privilege, and accordingly should not have been introduced in evidence during the trial.

A state appeals court rejected this claim, and upheld the murder conviction. The court began its opinion by noting that Pennsylvania law provides that “no clergyman . . . who while in the course of his duties has acquired information from any person, secretly and in confidence shall be compelled, or allowed without consent of such person, to disclose that information in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any governmental unit.” The court concluded that this statute did not apply in this case, since “the circumstances in which the statements were made were not religious, in that nothing spiritual or in the nature of forgiveness ever was discussed.” The court emphasized that “our legislature did not intend a per se privilege for any communication to a clergyman based on his status. We therefore look to the circumstances to determine whether [the murderer's] statements were made in secrecy and confidence to a clergyman in the course of his duties.” The court noted that the minister had been appointed by the court to counsel with the murderer concerning his indecent exposure conviction, and that it was the minister who sought out the murderer. The court observed:

[The murderer] never sought [the minister] in a confessional role; further, there was no evidence that [the minister] was acting in any capacity other than that of counselor. Thus, the statements were not motivated by religious considerations or in order to seek the forgiveness of God. Accordingly, they were not made to [the minister] in the course of his duties as a minister. Instead, they were made because he was a court--appointed counselor. Further, [the murderer] never was a member of the church. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the fact that [the minister] is ordained was not relevant to [the murderer's] statements to him and there is no basis to conclude that his statements were made confidentially or for religious, penitent purposes.44
Accordingly, the clergy--penitent privilege did not apply, and the minister could testify regarding the murderer's confession. Further, the court stressed that “we categorically reject the allegation that this privilege extends to openly--displayed objects, as was the toy sheriff's badge.” This case illustrates two important principles. First, the clergy--penitent privilege generally extends only to those confidential statements that are communicated to a minister while acting in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser. Second, the privilege ordinarily does not extend to observations made by a minister during the course of counseling.

Many, perhaps most, of the communications made to clergy are not made to them in their professional capacity as spiritual advisers. They are made, by church members and nonmembers alike, at church functions, following church services, in committee rooms, in hospital rooms, at funeral homes, on street corners, and at social and recreational events. Such communications ordinarily are not privileged, since other persons typically are present and it is difficult to conclude that the “counselee” sought out the minister in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser. This is not an absolute conclusion, since it is entirely possible that such conversations, even if they begin as a purely social exchange, could become spiritual in nature. In other words, by the end of a conversation the “counselee” may well be communicating with the minister because of his or her status as a spiritual adviser. There is no reason why such a conversation should not be privileged, assuming that the other requirements are satisfied. On the other hand, even strictly private conversations may be made for purposes other than spiritual advice, and thus are not privileged.

A minister (or court) may need to ascertain the objective of a conversation in determining whether a communication is privileged. Was the minister sought out primarily for spiritual advice? Were the statements of a type that could have been made to anyone? Where did the conversation take place? Was the conversation pursuant to a scheduled appointment? What was the relationship between the minister and the person making the communication? These are the kinds of questions which help to clarify the purpose of a particular conversation, thereby determining the availability of the privilege.

5. WAS THE COMMUNICATION MADE IN THE COURSE
OF DISCIPLINE?

Several state laws require that the communication be made to a minister “in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice” of his or her church. Some courts have interpreted this language strictly. As a result they apply the privilege only to communications “made in the understood pursuance of that church discipline which gives rise to the confessional relation, and, therefore, in particular to confessions of sin only, not to communications of other tenor.”45 Other states construe such language broadly, extending the privilege to all confidential communications made to clergy acting in their professional capacity as spiritual advisers. In a leading case, one court, in interpreting the phrase in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of the  religious body to which he belongs, observed:

The word “discipline” . . . has no technical legal meaning. . . .  The “discipline enjoined” includes the “practice” of all clergymen to be trained so as to . . . concern themselves in the moral training of others, and to be as willing to give spiritual aid, advice, or comfort as others are to receive it . . . . So it is in the course of  “discipline enjoined” by the “practice” of their respective churches that the clergyman is to show the transgressor the error of his way; to teach him the right way; to point the way to faith, hope, and consolation; perchance, to lead him to seek atonement.
. . . .

It is important that the communication be made in such spirit and within the course of “discipline,” and it is sufficient whether such “discipline” enjoins the clergyman to receive the communication or whether it enjoins the other party . . . to deliver the communication. Such practice makes the communication privileged, when accompanied by the essential characteristics.
. . . .

The fundamental thought is that one may safely consult his spiritual adviser. . . . When any person enters that secret chamber, this statute closes the door upon him, and civil authority turns away its ear.46
At least one state has recognized that a narrow interpretation of the requirement that confidential communications be made “in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice” of a church would largely restrict the privilege to the Roman Catholic Church, since most Protestant denominations have no formalized system of “discipline.”47 One court has labeled any such limitation of the privilege to the clergy of one denomination an “absurdity.”48 Such an interpretation, favoring the clergy of one sect, would present serious constitutional problems, since the first amendment prevents states from passing laws which arbitrarily favor one sect to the disadvantage of others.49 In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that “when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat such a law as suspect” and that it be invalidated unless it (1) is justified by a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is closely fitted to further that interest.50 This standard could not be satisfied by a state law recognizing the privileged status of confidential communications only in the context of a few religious organizations.

Most states broadly interpret the requirement that the confidential communication be made in the course of discipline. It may be safely assumed in most states that the privilege will extend to any communication made in confidence to clergy acting in their professional capacity as spiritual advisers. Such an interpretation is not only permissible in view of the lack of any technical legal definition of the term, but it is also a socially desirable interpretation, since it encourages spiritual counseling. Some of the more recent state laws recognizing the privilege have avoided any reference to the term discipline. Rule 505 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, which has been adopted in several states, provides that the privilege extends to any confidential communication made “to a clergyman in his professional character as spiritual adviser.”

Finally, it should be noted that some states protect confessions from compulsory disclosure in court. This term generally has been broadly interpreted. One court has observed that “[t]he `confession' contemplated by the statute has reference to a penitential acknowledgment to a clergyman of actual or supposed wrongdoing while seeking religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort, and . . . it applies to a voluntary `confession' as well as to one made under a mandate of the church.”51

6. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS

a. Clergy--Parishioner Relationship

Most courts that have addressed the question have concluded that a clergy--parishioner relationship is not necessary to invoke the privilege.52 Thus, even though the person making the communications is not a member of the minister's church, his or her confidential communications to that minister generally will be privileged. This would appear to be the correct view, for the purpose underlying nondisclosure of confidential communications made to clergy applies with equal force to all who seek out a minister in confidence for spiritual guidance and help.53

b. Marriage Counseling

Many courts have had difficulty in deciding whether to apply the privilege to communications made to clergy in the course of marriage counseling. The prevailing view is that such statements will be privileged so long as all of the various elements of the privilege are satisfied. Most courts have assumed that statements made to a minister in the course of marriage counseling are made to the minister in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser, and in the course of discipline.54 One court observed that the presence of both spouses during marital counseling with a minister “did not destroy the confidential nature of the admissions the husband made during marriage counseling—to attempt reconciliation of the parties in a troubled marriage reinforces the confidential nature of communications made during those sessions.”55 Some courts have reached the opposite conclusion.56 A few state laws specifically extend the privilege to marital or family counseling sessions even if both spouses are present.57

c. Who May Assert the Privilege

In most states, either the person who made the communication or the minister to whom it was made may claim the privilege. Many states permit the person who made the communication to prevent the minister or any other person from disclosing the communication.58 In some states, only the penitent or “counselee” may assert the privilege, not the minister. Such was the conclusion of an Arizona state court. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter--Day Saints (the church) informed three church officials that he had sexually molested a number of children. The mother of one of the victims sued the church, arguing that its negligence in not reporting the molester to civil authorities and in carelessly counseling with him had contributed to the molestation of her daughter. The molester later confessed to at least 33 acts of child molestation, and freely disclosed to the police the confessions that he had made earlier to the church officials. The mother sought to compel the church officials to testify regarding the confessions as part of her attempt to demonstrate that the officials had been aware of the risks posed by the molester and had been negligent in failing to report him to the authorities. This request was opposed by the church officials, who claimed that the confessions previously made to them were shielded from disclosure in court by the “clergyman--penitent privilege.” The court ruled that under Arizona law the clergyman--penitent privilege “belongs to the communicant, not the recipient of a confidential communication,” and accordingly only the molester could assert it. Further, the court concluded that the molester had “waived” the privilege by his voluntary disclosures to the police. The court rejected the church's claim that the church officials to whom the confessions were made could independently assert the clergyman--penitent privilege as a means of avoiding the obligation to testify. It observed that the clergyman--penitent privilege was a response “to the urgent need of people to confide in, without fear of reprisal, those entrusted with the pressing task of offering spiritual guidance so that harmony with one's self and others can be realized. This urgent need is the penitent's, not the clergyman's. And once the penitent has waived the privilege, his penitential need is unserved and the public's evidentiary need disserved by permitting a clergyman to assert the privilege independently.”

The court acknowledged that “complex issues” would be raised if the church officials, like Roman Catholic or Episcopalian clergy, were bound by an absolute obligation of silence “unwaivable by a penitent.” However, it observed that the church officials had failed to demonstrate that they were similarly bound by an absolute obligation of silence, and therefore it refused to rule on this issue. The church officials were required to testify in court about the confessions that the molester had made to them in the course of counseling.59

Many state laws give the minister the right to claim the privilege only on behalf of the penitent, meaning that if the penitent waives the privilege and agrees to testify, the minister cannot assert the privilege independently. In other states, the minister can assert the privilege independently of the penitent (see Appendix 2).

d. When to Assert the Privilege

The privilege does not excuse a minister or the person making the communication from appearing in court. It merely excuses them from disclosing the communication in court against their will. The proper time to assert the privilege is when the person who made the communication or the minister to whom it was made is asked about the communication in court. The question must be objected to prior to an answer on the ground that it seeks to elicit privileged information. If the privilege is not claimed, it is waived. Thus, if the person who made the communication answers questions about the communication on the witness stand, without objecting, the privilege will be deemed waived, even if the question is later challenged. If a timely objection is overruled, it will serve as a basis for appeal.

e. Waiver of the Privilege

The clergy--penitent privilege can be “waived,” meaning that it no longer protects confidential communications against compelled disclosure in court of law or judicial proceeding. One court ruled that a counselee waived any privilege when he disclosed to the police the substance of confidential communications he had made to his clergyman.60 Another court concluded that a couple had waived their clergy--penitent privilege under New York law by alleging damages to their “marital relationship” in a medical malpractice lawsuit. To refute the claim of marital injury, the physician sought to obtain the counseling records of a Roman Catholic priest to whom the couple had gone for marriage counseling.  The priest refused to comply on the ground that such records were protected by the New York clergy--penitent privilege, which provides:  “Unless the person confessing or confiding waives the privilege, a clergyman or other minister of any religion . . . shall not be allowed to disclose a confession or confidence made to him in his professional character as a spiritual adviser.”  

The court concluded that by alleging damage to their marital relationship the couple had “waived the privilege of their communication with [the priest] during his counseling with them, solely as to their marital problems.  Insofar as other communications with [the priest] not pertaining to marriage counseling, the privilege remains intact.”  The court suggested that the couple delete their claim for damages to their marital relationship as a means of avoiding the necessity of having the priest's counseling records subject to disclosure.61  

f. Federal Courts

In 1972, the United States Supreme Court adopted a set of rules of evidence for use in federal courts.62 Congress later suspended implementation of these rules pending a thorough review. In 1975, Congress enacted into law a revised version of the Federal Rules of Evidence, incorporating several changes in the rules as originally proposed by the Supreme Court. One of the most significant congressional modifications pertained to privileged communications. The Supreme Court had proposed nine specific privileges for use in the federal courts, including the clergy--parishioner, attorney--client, husband--wife, and psychotherapist--patient privileges. Congress, however, deleted all of the Supreme Court's specific rules of privilege and replaced them with a single principle:

[T]he privilege of a witness . . . shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which state law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness . . . shall be determined in accordance with state law.63
g. Constitutionality

Often, a communication made to a minister will fail one or more of the requirements for a valid privilege, yet the minister or the person making the communication will argue that the first amendment's “free exercise of religion” clause prohibits compelled disclosure of the communication. To illustrate, in one case a Catholic nun who was not eligible for the privilege argued that the first amendment protected her from being compelled to testify regarding communications made to her by a murder suspect. The court, in rejecting the nun's claim, observed that “this case calls for a balancing of interests—that of the state in enforcing the power of the grand jury to inquire into the commission of a crime, and that of [the nun] who claims she responds to a call of conscience. In the particular circumstances of this case the latter must give way to the former.”64

Another court, in rejecting a priest's claim that requiring a bishop to disclose unprivileged records relating to the priest violated the first amendment, observed: (1) disclosure of the documents pertaining to the priest would not interfere with the bishop's “right to believe as he chooses and to engage in the religious observances of his faith”; (2) no impermissible “entanglement” between church and state would result; (3) information in the possession of a church “has always been subject to civil process”; and (4) there would be no need for the clergy--penitent privilege if the first amendment's “free exercise of religion” clause protected information in the possession of a church from civil process.65

h. Child Abuse Reporting

What if a church member confesses to abusing his or her minor child in a state requiring the minister to report such information to the civil authorities? Can the minister excuse a refusal to report on the basis of the clergy--penitent privilege? This is a controversial question. A number of state clergy--penitent laws specifically nullify the privilege in the context of child abuse reporting,66 meaning that a minister cannot rely on the privilege in explaining a refusal to report. Further, the concept of “privilege” generally applies only to court--room testimony (or depositions), and not to contacts with state officials. On the contrary, a few state laws specifically preserve the clergy--penitent privilege in the context of child abuse reporting.67

One court refused to recognize the clergy--penitent privilege in the context of child abuse reporting. The case is discussed above.

While no court has addressed the issue directly, it is possible that clergy having religious opposition to disclosing confidences may be able to defend a failure to report a confession (or indication) of child abuse on the basis of the first amendment's guaranty of religious freedom. This position would be the strongest for those clergy whose churches or denominations have taken specific positions prohibiting disclosure of confessions or confidential communications as a matter of ecclesiastical doctrine or practice. Even here, it is possible that a civil court would conclude that the state's interest in obtaining information about child abuse is so compelling that it supersedes the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. Generally, religious freedom may be limited or abridged by a state law or practice that is supported by a compelling governmental interest. One commentator has concluded that the first amendment guaranty of religious freedom outweighs the state's interest in uncovering cases of child abuse if a minister's failure to disclose is based on the established dogma or practice of his or her church or sect.68

The issue of child abuse reporting is discussed fully in chapter 4 Failure to Report Child Abuse.

i. Confidentiality

If a counselee shares confidential statements with a minister acting in his or her professional capacity as a spiritual adviser, the minister ordinarily cannot be compelled to reveal such communications in a court of law (or other judicial proceeding). Such communications are “privileged” against compelled disclosure. Closely related to the concept of privilege is the issue of confidentiality. Generally, “confidentiality” refers to a duty not to disclose to anyone the substance of communications shared in confidence. While the impropriety of disclosing confidential information is universally acknowledged, few clergy have been found legally accountable for unauthorized disclosures. This is because, until recently, the duty of clergy to preserve confidences was considered to be moral rather than legal in nature. However, in recent years come clergy have been sued for divulging confidences.

To illustrate, a bishop who confessed to church leaders that he had committed adultery sued his church when church leaders disclosed the confession without the bishop's consent.69 The bishop had specifically asked his church leaders to keep his confession in confidence, and they promised to do so. A short time later, the female church member who was the other party to the affair confessed to a church leader who promised to keep her confession in confidence. The church leaders allegedly disclosed these confidences to a local church's board of elders, and to numerous other persons. One of the church leaders allegedly disclosed the confidences to the assembled congregation in a Sunday worship service, and then proceeded to “excommunicate” the bishop and “cast his spirit” from the church. A family counselor to whom the female member had also made a confession and obtained a promise of confidentiality also allegely disclosed the information to others. And, the bishop alleged that one of the church leaders disclosed his confession to a “gathering of local priests, ministers, pastors, and guests.”

As a result of these disclosures, the bishop and the female church member were shunned by friends, family, and members of their local church and denomination. The two sued the church and various church officials, alleging invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and malpractice. The church countered by arguing that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction over the controversy since “the conduct complained of is ecclesiastical in nature.” A trial court agreed with the church's position, and dismissed most of the claims. On appeal, a state appeals court ruled that the church could be sued for emotional distress and related claims, and it ordered the case to proceed to trial. The court began its opinion by noting that “religious disputes can take a number of forms . . . and do not always result in immunity from liability.” The court acknowledged that the civil courts may not intervene in disputes over church doctrine, but it was not willing to accept the trial court's summary conclusion that this dispute in fact involved church doctrine. It observed: “The trial court was not told, and we do not know, whether it is a canon of [the church's] belief that confessions (penitential or not) are revealed to the congregation . . . ; whether it is church practice for the substance of a confession to be shared among church officials; or whether it is consistent with church doctrine to reveal the substance of a confession to anyone outside the church, and if so, under what circumstances.” Even if church doctrine prescribed the disclosure of confidences, this would not end the analysis, for certain types of behavior may be regulated or subjected to legal liability by state law, even if rooted in religious doctrine, so long as the state has a compelling interest that justifies the burden on religious conduct. For example, “under the banner of the first amendment provisions on religion, a clergyman may not with impunity defame a person, intentionally inflict serious emotional harm on a parishioner, or commit other torts.” In other words, the first amendment guaranty of religious freedom does not necessarily insulate clergy from liability for their actions.

The court acknowledged that “apparently there are no generally reported opinions where a counselee or communicant has sought to hold a religious officer liable in tort for [an unauthorized disclosure of confidential communications].” However, it saw no reason why clergy and church leaders should not be held legally accountable for injuries they inflict when they disclose confidential information to others without consent. What is the significance of this case to church leaders? Simply this—clergy must recognize that a failure to maintain confidences may lead to personal legal liability. It is universally acknowledged that unauthorized disclosure of confidential information is unethical; but this case indicates that such disclosures may also result in legal liability. The lesson is clear—clergy should avoid disclosures of confidential information without the express consent of the counselee. One exception that will apply in some states is the legal duty to report known or reasonably suspected incidents of child abuse. This possible exception is discussed in chapter 4 Failure to Report Child Abuse. Related topics are also discussed in chapter 4 Defamation and Invasion of Privacy.