503(b)(2). While other rules regarding testimonial privileges set out various exceptions, see Mil.R.Evid. 502(d) (lawyer-client), 504(c) (husband-wife), and 507(e) (identity of informant), the privilege governing communications to clergy includes no such list. Therefore, once the facts establish the three-part test articulated in Moreno, the privilege is absolute. Although it was never articulated in precisely this way, both the appellant and the chaplain understood that the confidentiality of the communications would be preserved to the greatest extent possible, but that the chaplain would make further disclosure as necessary to carry out what the appellant was seeking when he came in to see the chaplain. See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374, 384-85 (3d Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>). This included getting help for his spiritual
holding that clergypenitent privilege applied in statements made during family counseling sessions conducted by lutheran minister with others present recognizing privilege holding that a patient waives the patientpsychotherapist privilege by voluntarily disclosing the substance of therapy sessions to third parties holding that the conversations between a patient and her psychotherapist and the notes taken during their counseling sessions are protected by the privilege holding that farcical interview published in pornographic magazine in which minister admits to a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse was not actionable because it could not reasonably be understood as describing actual facts  or actual events in which the minister participated 