Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Hopey]

The family doesn’t know the faith they claim to believe in then…

And it is interesting that the case is not just about the confession but whether or not the Priest had a duty to report allegations. If they are Catholic they would know that Priests can’t say anything that was told on confession.

So I don’t believe for a second that the family misunderstands what they are doing here.

Here is… as written

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2013-C-2879

[PARENTS OF MINOR CHILD]

VERSUS

GEORGE J. CHARLET, JR., DECEASED, CHARLET FUNERAL HOME,
INC., [THE PRIEST], AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE
DIOCESE OF BATON ROUGE

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST
CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE

PER CURIAM
This writ presents the issue of whether a party is precluded from offering
any evidence of her confession and whether a priest has a duty to report allegations
of sexual abuse perpetrated on a minor parishioner. For the following reasons, we
grant the plaintiffs’ writ, reversing and vacating the court of appeal’s judgment and
reinstating the trial court’s judgment.

It’s not hard for me to believe that they are confused because of what we have all been through - lack of teachings passed on.
There was a discussion about the seal, what was said, etc, and if the priest broke it. It isn’t uncommon anymore for people to not know.
That is why some people post here. If I would give the priest the benefit of the doubt, then I would surely do the same for them. They know not what they do. A priest does have an obligation to report abuse of a minor IF it is outside of the confession which will be determined.

 

[Atisor207]

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.

So essentially you are saying that you do not believe in the teachings of the Church regarding confession.

Why do you claim to be Catholic?

We can’t just pick and choose what we want to believe about what the Church teaches, you know that right?

 

[Hopey]

So essentially you are saying that you do not believe in the teachings of the Church regarding confession.

Why do you claim to be Catholic?

We can’t just pick and choose what we want to believe about what the Church teaches, you know that right?

Quote the teaching that you think I am in error of. I AM a Catholic, thanks!

 

[Atisor207]

Quote the teaching that you think I am in error of. I AM a Catholic, thanks!

You just stated you agree with the decision of the court to make the Priest break the sacramental seal.

1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives.72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains “sealed” by the sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Let’s refresh what the Diocese is now defending the Church for:

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.wN3txXaS.dpuf

 

[Hopey]

You just stated you agree with the decision of the court to make the Priest break the sacramental seal.

1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives.72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains “sealed” by the sacrament.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

Let’s refresh what the Diocese is now defending the Church for:

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.wN3txXaS.dpuf

That’s not what I said, that I would ever agree with anyone making a priest TRY to break the seal. That is not the decision of the SP either.
They have said it could attack it.
Again, there are many opinions out there and we will see how it ends or if it even starts.
I will always say a penitent has a right to speak what was said in their confession and so does the Church btw.
I don’t think it is charitable for you to claim who is Catholic and who isn’t.

 

[Hopey]

Again, they get to determine where the information was learned and if the priest was required to report. If it was during a confession, then no.

 

[zab]

It is in the decision by the Supreme Court. Although the church does say yes/no about the sacramental confession, seal and when it is/isn’t in place, the Court will determine if this is the case and the civil law needs to be respected. They also need to determine if he knew of anything outside of the confession.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has errored. And if necessary the Church will take it’s case to the Supreme Court of the United States to protect it’s free exercise of religion.
Official statement from the diocese of Baton Rouge diobr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=189

 

[Atisor207]

Again, they get to determine where the information was learned and if the priest was required to report. If it was during a confession, then no.

I wish you were right but the Diocese is saying this. It’s not an opinion. It is from the official statement of the Diocese. And as a Catholic I stand with the Diocese before any secular court.

The Diocese is concern then so am I.

I also doubt that the court would determine if it was said in confession and then not proceed to force the Priest to testify what was said during confession.

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.wN3txXaS.dpuf

 

[zab]

Again, they get to determine where the information was learned and if the priest was required to report. If it was during a confession, then no.

Why would it be assumed that the confessor had any more knowledge than what the girl told her parents?

 

[Hopey]

I wish you were right but the Diocese is saying this. It’s not an opinion. It is from the official statement of the Diocese. And as a Catholic I stand with the Diocese before any secular court.

The Diocese is concern then so am I.

I also doubt that the court would determine if it was said in confession and then not proceed to force the Priest to testify what was said during confession.

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.wN3txXaS.dpuf

I read what they said. I read the SP ruling. I read where it is to be determined where it was heard, etc.
I understand they are concerned but he may not even take the stand.

Why would it have to go to the SP again?

If it does, then I hope the Church does one thing. WE, penitents, can never speak of what is said in the confessional - ever. I just hope they do that SO it is consistent.
The girl can speak of her confession.
The court can determine if what was heard was in the confession and respect the law.
The court can determine if it was learned OUTSIDE the confessional.

If they do take it all the way up, I hope they do the same in the church and make every forum that anyone has ever spoken of their confession censored and threatened with penalties.

 

[Hopey]

Why would it be assumed that the confessor had any more knowledge than what the girl told her parents?

Because of what they are claiming. The court gets to decide if he learned anything outside of the confessional.
It may end with her testimony because it does seem what is being reported, they are in error. But, the girl can speak of what was said in the confessional - that was the big thing that was cleared up that the Diocese didn’t want.

 

[Atisor207]

If they do take it all the way up, I hope they do the same in the church and make every forum that anyone has ever spoken of their confession censored and threatened with penalties.

So you resent the fact that the Diocese might take it all the way up?

And for a second there I thought you respected the seal of confession. hmmmm

Fyi the Diocese is following Church doctrine. I wish all those who call themselves Catholics do the same.

"In this case, the priest acted appropriately and would not testify about the alleged confessions. Church law does not allow either the plaintiff (penitent) or anyone else to waive the seal of confession. - 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.wN3txXaS.dpuf

 

[Hopey]

You are twisting what I said.
They didn’t want her to speak of anything said in her confession. We, penitents, as of now, can.

If they take it all the way up, then they need to apply it to everyone, not just her. Starting with forums.

 

[Atisor207]

You are twisting what I said.
They didn’t want her to speak of anything said in her confession. We, penitents, as of now, can.

If they take it all the way up, then they need to apply it to everyone, not just her. Starting with forums.

I don’t think you understand. Whether a person says I did this or that is not the same thing as a court forcing to priest to even say a confession took place. To use what was said in confession by either the penitent or confessor AT ALL…

 

[Hopey]

I don’t think you understand. Whether a person says I did this or that is not the same thing as a court forcing to priest to even say a confession took place. To use what was said in confession by either the penitent or confessor AT ALL…

They are to determine where this occurred. That may not involve the priest at all. If the young girl, or her testimony makes it, they call an expert defining the seal, confession, what it is and how it is understood, that could be the end of it. He may not take the stand other than stating he knew nothing.

If they take it all the way, then they need to apply this to everyone, unable to speak of their confessions at all. They need to do it to everyone.
That was the SP decision and answer to the motion filed by the Diocese.

 

[Atisor207]

They are to determine where this occurred. That may not involve the priest at all. If the young girl, or her testimony makes it, they call an expert defining the seal, confession, what it is and how it is understood, that could be the end of it. He may not take the stand other than stating he knew nothing.

If they take it all the way, then they need to apply this to everyone, unable to speak of their confessions at all. They need to do it to everyone.
That was the SP decision and answer to the motion filed by the Diocese.

Let me ask you something, what does the family expect to gain from a disclosure that the girl went to confession without even mentioning the contents of the confession?

Explain that to me.

 

[Hopey]

Let me ask you something, what does the family expect to gain from a disclosure that the girl went to confession without even mentioning the contents of the confession?

Explain that to me.

I don’t know, what?
That is not the case anymore, that she just went to confession, but what she said and what was said to her.

I would like to know, on the side, what the Church has to say about advice in a Confession regarding this. They can respond to that. They can say they are teaching their priests to counsel penitents, children, in a certain way.

 

[Atisor207]

I don’t know, what?

I am asking you since you are the one who is in favor of the court’s decision.
What is the court supposed to gain from supposedly establishing that a confession was made (as you put it), if the contents are not revealed?

That is not the case anymore, that she just went to confession, but what she said and what was said to her.

Now you are admitting the case is about the contents of the confession and not establishing that a confession was made.

I would like to know, on the side, what the Church has to say about advice in a Confession regarding this. They can respond to that. They can say they are teaching their priests to counsel penitents, children, in a certain way.

wow you just contradicted yourself.

You said that you were in favor of the court’s decision supposedly making the girl speak and tell what she said in confession.

You also stated that the court wanted to establish that a confession was even made.

You then proudly state that you are a Catholic and state that you respect the Seal of confession.

I asked you what could the court gain from establishing that a confession was made without knowing the contents of the confession? You said “I dont’ know”

Now you divert and say that you would like to know what the Church states in these cases…

The Church is speaking now. The Church respects the Sacramental Seal before anything.

 

[Hopey]

I am asking you since you are the one who is in favor of the court’s decision.
What is the court supposed to gain from supposedly establishing that a confession was made (as you put it), if the contents are not revealed?

Now you are admitting the case is about the contents of the confession and not establishing that a confession was made.

wow you just contradicted yourself.

You said that you were in favor of the court’s decision supposedly making the girl speak and tell what she said in confession.

You also stated that the court wanted to establish that a confession was even made.

You then proudly state that you are a Catholic and state that you respect the Seal of confession.

I asked you what could the court gain from establishing that a confession was made without knowing the contents of the confession? You said “I dont’ know”

Now you divert and say that you would like to know what the Church states in these cases…

The Church is speaking now. The Church respects the Sacramental Seal before anything.

You don’t seem to be grasping that a penitent, as of now, can speak of what was said in confession IF they so wish.

Yeah, I said, I don’t know, rhetorically.
The question was how they were training their priests to handle difficult confessions with children NOT whether a priest should break the seal.

That’s the second time you have made reference to my being Catholic. Don’t do that again.

 

[zab]

You don’t seem to be grasping that a penitent, as of now, can speak of what was said in confession IF they so wish.

Yeah, I said, I don’t know, rhetorically.
The question was how they were training their priests to handle difficult confessions with children NOT whether a priest should break the seal.

That’s the second time you have made reference to my being Catholic. Don’t do that again.

I still don’t know what you mean by “…a penitent, as of now, can speak of what was said in confession If they so wish.” The church has never forbidden a penitent to speak of what they said in confession.