I suggest you speak with an attorney about filing suit aginst the church and the counselor. As background, read Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, et al, Nos. C1-01-278, C4-01-291, slip op. (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2003). and the following:
Where a pastor reveals confidential information about a wife’s family acquired during a counseling session, the spouse of the wife may recover for loss of consortium stemming from psychological harm, even in the absence physical injury to the wife Case # 288 (10/98) (Ariz.)
Plaintiff’s confession to frequenting prostitutes was disclosed by pastor to congregation as part of process of church discipline; plaintiff commenced actions against pastor and church for violation of the statutory priest-penitent privilege, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; trial court granted summary disposition for the defendants on all counts, holding that the priest-penitent privilege was a rule of evidence and did not create a cause of action for the disclosure of private or privileged communications, that plaintiff could not prove the elements of a breach of contract because there was no agreement that plaintiff's disclosure would be kept confidential, and that plaintiff had not adequately pleaded his tort claims, but even if he had, the question whether clergy must keep confidential a personal disclosure is a matter of religious doctrine that a civil court cannot decide;
the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the statutory and contract claims, but remanded the tort claims for a determination of whether plaintiff was a member of the church when he was disciplined, reasoning that if plaintiff was a member at the time of the church discipline then judicial examination of the process would be barred by the free exercise clause, but that if he was not a member, the church would have had no power to discipline plaintiff, and his tort claims may have been viable;
the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the summary dismissal of the tort claims on the ground that the crucial issue was not whether plaintiff was or was not a member of the church at the time of discipline, but whether he consented, implicitly or explicitly, to the discipline; under the facts of the case it was clear that plaintiff had consented to subjecting himself to church discipline Case # 858 (1/01) (Mich.), reversing, Case # 372 (2/99) (Mich. Ct. App.)
