Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Corki]

How did the priest end up being the one on trial here?

How does anyone on the outside know what this girl spoke of in the confessional?

If SHE told people what she spoke of in the confessional, then it is a case of her reporting it herself, so why involve the priest?

It appears the priest or the Church is being put on trial here for the practice of their sacraments.

I assume the parents brought this child up Catholic and encouraged her to participate in the sacrament of reconciliation understanding that nothing she says in the confessional can ever be shared by the priest.

Now they want to sue the church for their choice to raise their child and have her participate. HUH?

The priest is on trial because the alleged abuser died during the investigation. The family already had a lawyer. So they just shifted the target to another defendant since they couldn’t sue the dead man. Evidently the number one priority is to sue somebody.

 

[Atisor207]

The priest is on trial because the alleged abuser died during the investigation. The family already had a lawyer. So they just shifted the target to another defendant since they couldn’t sue the dead man. Evidently the number one priority is to sue somebody.

Unreal.

 

[CalCatholic]

The priest is on trial because the alleged abuser died during the investigation. The family already had a lawyer. So they just shifted the target to another defendant since they couldn’t sue the dead man. Evidently the number one priority is to sue somebody.

This is so reflective of our society today! Very sad. If I am this in this priest’s shoes, I would go to jail any day rather than break the seal of confession!

 

[ccmcmg]

So why didn’t the priest counsel the girl to report the abuse to her parents, police, another priest outside of a confessional, etc.? It seems to me that the Seal of the Confessional only binds the priest or anyone hearing the confession, not the penitent. If it did apply to the penitent, how could a priest ever advise someone to turn themselves in for crimes confessed in confession? Shouldn’t she be free to speak of her own experiences while enjoying the security of knowing that her priest will not disclose them, not herself be as bound as the priest?

EDIT: If someone could link to the relevant section of Canon Law or whatever that might contribute to the discussion.

Actually, I don’t believe that the priest can bring up anything outside of the confessional that he heard IN the confessional; not to the penitent, nor to anyone else. The young lady would have had to come to him outside of the confessional and have the conversation again. He still couldn’t make reference to the confession she made.

Do we know that he did or didn’t counsel the young lady to go to someone? She said he told her to ‘take care of it’. I believe it might have been more than that; surely we’ve all been emotional during a rough confession and might have not caught all that the priest said.

We are only getting one side of the story, and that’s all that we are ever going to get. It’s also possible that the young lady is remembering it differently than it happened.

 

[irishpatrick]

That is what I am not seeing. I am not seeing they are forcing him to talk about it but rather, they will determine if something was said in the confession and if he learned outside.

To me, it could look like this (answer): I am not allowed to speak of anything concerning anyone’s confession.

IrishPatrick, even if she had gone in a confessional with a grill only, this still could be brought up this way. Many parishes only have one priest and scheduled times.
I don’t see how it could completely do away with this unless it was like a World Youth Day. Then again, some have the priest’s name listed, so the penitent would know who it was. Even at EWTN, a name of the priest is above the door and they have grill only confessionals.

Again, this is very easy to solve. First, do not post Priest names. Second, go back to old-style confessional boxes with screens only (parishioners can build those for their Church). Third, have the Priest enter from behind the confessional box, out of view of the confessing lay Catholics. Fourth, each parish can make arrangements with other nearby parishes to rotate Priests for confession only. This comes very close to making idenity of the Confessor and Confessee impossible to know with certainty.

We live in a world that has shown we must be proactive in order to protect the faith. Sadly.

 

[irishpatrick]

The way I am understanding it, along with some lawyers, is that what is to be determined is if what was said was in a confession or if he learned outside the confession which he is mandated to report.

That is all I am seeing.

I am wondering if the girl knew he couldn’t say anything. But that will come out. And could come out with him respecting the seal.

The Priest can speak about matters outside the confessional, but he cannot speak to what he heard in the confessional. He cannot even acknowledge a negative if it has to do with the confessional.

 

[aTraditionalist]

seaton2005:

Quote:

Originally Posted by glendab

A little girl was violated by someone. She went to Confession. She told her parents and they filed suit against the Church and a Priest, Father Bayhi to make him break the seal and defend himself against charges of being accomplice to the acts because of his silence. While my heart breaks for those whose lives were devastated by what happened, the perp isn’t the Priest and the Louisiana Supreme Court is way out of line. The Zenit article contains the Diocese’s response. I’ve quoted the part of the Diocese’s Response that impresses me the most:

"The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment. For a civil court to impinge upon the freedom of religion is a clear violation and the matter will be taken to the highest court in the land by the Church in order to protect its free exercise of religion. "

zenit.org/en/articles/bat…-of-confession

Glenda

Yes, the seal should be broken. We are talking about a crime here. The priest should report that to the police authorities. That is the duty of every citizen including a priest. I know the church’s position on this so I don’t need a lecture here. But if a priest has knowledge that a crime has been committed, especially against a child, he needs to report it ASAP. This has nothing to do with the freedom of religion - this has everything to do with doing the right thing.

You should change your “Catholic” status on the forum. You clearly have chosen to stand against the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Atisor207]

Yes, the seal should be broken. We are talking about a crime here. The priest should report that to the police authorities. That is the duty of every citizen including a priest. I know the church’s position on this so I don’t need a lecture here. But if a priest has knowledge that a crime has been committed, especially against a child, he needs to report it ASAP. This has nothing to do with the freedom of religion - this has everything to do with doing the right thing.

The seal should be broken?

You say you care for a child yet you don’t care for all the souls that might lose eternal life because they won’t go to confession?

I suggest you learn the faith you claim you believe in.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

I go to confession frequently and I agree with the decision. I agree that the young lady and any penitent should be able to speak of their confession and what was said. In the SP’s decision, they even said it should be found in the trial if what was heard was in confession, privileged, or outside which he would be subjected to mandatory reporting.

I believe she should be able to speak of her confession IF she wants to.

You’ve got it backwards. No one compelled the girl to talk about her Confession experience. Everyone in the whole wide world who has ever gone to Confession is free to say anything they want. The Seal doesn’t apply to penitents. It applies to the Priest. He cannot even acknowledge that he heard her Confession. Her parents knew she went to him. They are the one pointing the Priest and accused him of covering for the perp. The courts took over and tried to compel the Priest to break the Seal. That’s the problem. Not the poor little girl who thought it was her sin to be molested. She’s still the victim here and it seems those who hate the Church took advantage of her and her tragedy to attack the Church. Get it right.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Corki.

The priest is on trial because the alleged abuser died during the investigation. The family already had a lawyer. So they just shifted the target to another defendant since they couldn’t sue the dead man. Evidently the number one priority is to sue somebody.

Yep. Agree 110%. They are also trying to make a buck of a sad, tragic event. If you ask me, that is why the parents sued - to get money out of the Church. That is what blinded them to their child’s plight. Add this: how is that poor little girl ever supposed to heal? She got hurt by the perp, turned to the Church for help and healing then spoke to her parents who turned her tragedy not only against the Priest and the Church but also against her. How do you supposed she feels by now? Like it is all her fault and all these bad things are happening because she told. That’s exactly how I imagine she feels and unless someone tells her otherwise in counseling, she’ll remain a traumatized person who was doubly hurt by telling. Victimized all over again by those around her.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Traditionalist.

You should change your “Catholic” status on the forum. You clearly have chosen to stand against the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I don’t know how you added to what I said, but I said no such thing about the Seal. I’ve said the opposite. I’m reporting you for falsification. Do NOT tamper with my words again.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Traditionalist.

You should change your “Catholic” status on the forum. You clearly have chosen to stand against the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

The part you quote were I supposedly said that the Seal should be broken was a comment on what I actually said by Seaton2005. Here it is:

Yes, the seal should be broken. We are talking about a crime here. The priest should report that to the police authorities. That is the duty of every citizen including a priest. I know the church’s position on this so I don’t need a lecture here. But if a priest has knowledge that a crime has been committed, especially against a child, he needs to report it ASAP. This has nothing to do with the freedom of religion - this has everything to do with doing the right thing. ** Actually said by Seaton2005 in Post # 10!!!**

If you are going to blast someone, please blast the right someone. I’m offended.

Glenda

 

[Hopey]

Hello Hopey.

You’ve got it backwards. No one compelled the girl to talk about her Confession experience. Everyone in the whole wide world who has ever gone to Confession is free to say anything they want. The Seal doesn’t apply to penitents. It applies to the Priest. He cannot even acknowledge that he heard her Confession. Her parents knew she went to him. They are the one pointing the Priest and accused him of covering for the perp. The courts took over and tried to compel the Priest to break the Seal. That’s the problem. Not the poor little girl who thought it was her sin to be molested. She’s still the victim here and it seems those who hate the Church took advantage of her and her tragedy to attack the Church. Get it right.

Glenda

The whole reason it went to the Supreme Court was because the Diocese filed a motion for her not to be able to speak of her confession. Lower court agreed. Supreme Court reversed it with what I put above.

I haven’t seen anyone try to compel the priest to break the seal as they can’t, against the law. But, what the SP did say was that it would be determined where the information was heard.
If he heard outside the confession, then he will be held responsible. If he heard in confession, then no.

 

[Hopey]

Again, this is very easy to solve. First, do not post Priest names. Second, go back to old-style confessional boxes with screens only (parishioners can build those for their Church). Third, have the Priest enter from behind the confessional box, out of view of the confessing lay Catholics. Fourth, each parish can make arrangements with other nearby parishes to rotate Priests for confession only. This comes very close to making idenity of the Confessor and Confessee impossible to know with certainty.

We live in a world that has shown we must be proactive in order to protect the faith. Sadly.

I could see some wanting to do that but it doesn’t need to go that far.
Even in the Church, there are crimes that are committed in the Confessional and the priest needs to be identified. So, we really don’t want to do something that would prevent something being handled, grave crime, within the Church.

 

[Atisor207]

I could see some wanting to do that but it doesn’t need to go that far.
Even in the Church, there are crimes that are committed in the Confessional and the priest needs to be identified. So, we really don’t want to do something that would prevent something being handled, grave crime, within the Church.

Perfect example of enemy within.

You are either with the Church of Christ or against it. There is no question about the sacrament. It is a seal that has not been broken in 2000 years and it won’t be broken now.

Try and care a little more about salvation of the soul for a second.

 

[Hopey]

LOL!
Ok.

 

[Atisor207]

The whole reason it went to the Supreme Court was because the Diocese filed a motion for her not to be able to speak of her confession. Lower court agreed. Supreme Court reversed it with what I put above.

I haven’t seen anyone try to compel the priest to break the seal as they can’t, against the law. But, what the SP did say was that it would be determined where the information was heard.
If he heard outside the confession, then he will be held responsible. If he heard in confession, then no.

Really?
The Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi are the defendants not the plaintiffs.

"The issue as it relates to the “Church defendants” (Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge) attacks the seal of confession and the attempt by the plaintiffs to have the court compel testimony from the priest, Fr. Bayhi, as to whether or not there were confessions and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were. - See more at: catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/07/12/official-statement-of-the-diocese-of-baton-rouge-regarding-order-for-priest-to-break-confessional-seal/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#sthash.YppXyMgc.dpuf

 

[Hopey]

Really?
The Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi are the defendants not the plaintiffs.

"The issue as it relates to the “Church defendants” (Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge) attacks the seal of confession and the attempt by the plaintiffs to have the court compel testimony from the priest, Fr. Bayhi, as to whether or not there were confessions and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were. - See more at: catholic-convert.com/blog/2014/07/12/official-statement-of-the-diocese-of-baton-rouge-regarding-order-for-priest-to-break-confessional-seal/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#sthash.YppXyMgc.dpuf

The diocese first filed a motion to prevent her testimony about what was said in the confession. Lower court said yes, Supreme Court reversed it and said SHE could decide if she wanted to say/use/reveal what was said in the confession.

 

[Hopey]

Actually, the diocese filed to not allow her testimony of confession, what was said in it, to be used, district court denied it, appeals court reversed and dismissed, Supreme Court reversed that decision.

 

[Atisor207]

The diocese first filed a motion to prevent her testimony about what was said in the confession. Lower court said yes, Supreme Court reversed it and said SHE could decide if she wanted to say/use/reveal what was said in the confession.

The original lawsuit was filed against Fr. Bayhi.

The state high court’s decision, rendered in May of this year, demands that a hearing be held in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, where the suit originated, to determine whether or not a confession was made. It reverses an earlier decision by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the original lawsuit filed against Bayhi and the diocese.

Read more: nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/07/priest_confession_testimony_lo.html