Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Hopey]

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.

Except the motion filed by the Diocese. They didn’t want her to be able to speak what was said in her confession.
If they continue, and take this all the way up, saying that she should not be able to speak what was said in her confession, I hope they apply it to everyone and not just her. That is what I mean, by what the motion the Diocese filed.

 

[Atisor207]

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.

This is the decision you agree with, right?

“Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing
plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by
the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact
concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the
confessional that would trigger his duty to report”

So again what does the court want to gain from establishing the fact that a confession took place without knowing the contents?

 

[zab]

Except the motion filed by the Diocese. They didn’t want her to be able to speak what was said in her confession.
If they continue, and take this all the way up, saying that she should not be able to speak what was said in her confession, I hope they apply it to everyone and not just her. That is what I mean, by what the motion the Diocese filed.

What they would be taking to the Supreme Court of the U.S. has nothing to do with preventing her from saying what she wants to say. I would still like to read what you say about the motion that was filed by the Diocese. I believe that you may be misinterpreting what happened. Again, do you have a link?

 

[Hopey]

What they would be taking to the Supreme Court of the U.S. has nothing to do with preventing her from saying what she wants to say. I would still like to read what you say about the motion that was filed by the Diocese. I believe that you may be misinterpreting what happened. Again, do you have a link?

page 3
Shortly before trial was scheduled to commence
in
the present matter, th
e
Church filed its motion in limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from
“mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions
that may or may not have taken place” between plaintiffs’ minor child and the
priest, while the priest was acting in his official capacity as a Diocesan priest and
hearing confession from his parishioner.

lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

 

[Hopey]

This is the decision you agree with, right?

“Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing
plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by
the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact
concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the
confessional that would trigger his duty to report”

So again what does the court want to gain from establishing the fact that a confession took place without knowing the contents?

Yes, I agree with it.
I think the answer your question is obvious.

 

[Atisor207]

Yes, I agree with it.
I think the answer your question is obvious.

Obvious? I dont’ know how could it be

 

[Butaperson]

I understand the Church’s position, but it is clearly wrong.

It is objectively evil to protect the rights of a rapist over the rights of his victims, particularly if the perpetrator is continuing to offend. If this offender is continuing his attacks, the priest and the diocese are legal accomplices for sure, and I would argue moral accomplices as well.

The perpetrator can still confess and receive absolution, but he shouldn’t be able to hide from criminal responsibility with complicity of the church.

Clearly there are competing interests here, but how the church can lift those of the perpetrator over the victim, I’ll never know.

Well, the Church values souls over state. If the Church said that anyone who confessed a criminal offensive would be turned in, how many fewer people would confess their offenses? There would be people who would be too afraid to seek absolution, and in my opinion…the seal is worth it. It is worth saving the souls of those who confess but are not taken in by authorities. Justice by the government is good, but forgiveness from God is infinitely better.
Now, if one is truly repentant and sorry for his sin, it would be a very good thing for him to turn himself in. And a priest can urge someone to do that, I believe he can even assign it as penance, but he cannot force him, and he cannot tell anybody himself. Confession is a safe place, a safe environment, under any and all circumstances, and forgiveness from God takes precedence over legal justice.

Also, the state does not have any right to try and force the priest to speak. The 5th amendment, right to remain silent, or if nothing else the 1st amendment and freedom of religion. They can’t make a priest defy his church under threat of criminal charges. Ridiculous.

 

[Atisor207]

Well, the Church values souls over state. If the Church said that anyone who confessed a criminal offensive would be turned in, how many fewer people would confess their offenses? There would be people who would be too afraid to seek absolution, and in my opinion…the seal is worth it. It is worth saving the souls of those who confess but are not taken in by authorities. Justice by the government is good, but forgiveness from God is infinitely better.
Now, if one is truly repentant and sorry for his sin, it would be a very good thing for him to turn himself in. And a priest can urge someone to do that, I believe he can even assign it as penance, but he cannot force him, and he cannot tell anybody himself. Confession is a safe place, a safe environment, under any and all circumstances, and forgiveness from God takes precedence over legal justice.

Also, the state does not have any right to try and force the priest to speak. The 5th amendment, right to remain silent, or if nothing else the 1st amendment and freedom of religion. They can’t make a priest defy his church under threat of criminal charges. Ridiculous.

Clear and concise. Well said.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

Except the motion filed by the Diocese. They didn’t want her to be able to speak what was said in her confession.
If they continue, and take this all the way up, saying that she should not be able to speak what was said in her confession, I hope they apply it to everyone and not just her. That is what I mean, by what the motion the Diocese filed.

The original motion to suppress her admittance that she had gone to Confession at all was a** failed legal strategy**, not a statement of belief by the Diocese. Keep the focus on that. I repeat, it was a **legal strategy **in an attempt to prevent further legal actions. It wasn’t, if you ask me, the correct legal strategy. But it was the way the lawyers decided to go and then everyone is left going in that direction. It failed and back-fired. Poor planning. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with the spiritual realm.

Glenda

 

[Adrian_2014]

This Seal should definitely never be broken.
It is essential to the integrity of the Catholic Church. The ways and rulings of the secular world change all the time, but the Catholic Faith represents God’s Law on earth. The Confession is essential to forgiveness of sins and if there start being things you can and can’t confess, then the integrity of the Churches ability to do this will be compromised. The state doesn’t understand the ways of the Catholic Church often and it is essential we support the Church and make it clear that it will not compromise its Sacraments.

 

[zab]

page 3
Shortly before trial was scheduled to commence
in
the present matter, th
e
Church filed its motion in limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from
“mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions
that may or may not have taken place” between plaintiffs’ minor child and the
priest, while the priest was acting in his official capacity as a Diocesan priest and
hearing confession from his parishioner.

lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

Sounds like the defendants/ defendants’ lawyer was trying to protect the seal of confession not only of the priest but for the girl too. The girl has always been free to say whatever she wants but for her parents /lawyers to attempt to enter as evidence is a problem. It is wrong to force a priest to violate the seal of confession even if the girl waived her own rights. Not only is it a violation of the rights of the priest, it is unfair to put him in a position where he cannot confirm or deny something presented as “evidence”.

 

[HelenRose]

Is leaving a child in such danger really worth it? There could be millions going to Confession, but if theyre not sincere in their hearts they are still not forgiven.Nothing has changed, except that a child and potential future victims can be spared.

I wonder if this mentality of keeping the seal at all costs is a matter of legalism. And we know Jesus was highly against legalism. IMO, its much like passing by a dying child and ignoring them and offering them no help because you have to make it to Sunday Mass on time.

We don’t know if the child was in danger. He can not defend himself. I expect that he will go to jail for contempt of court before he will break the seal of confession. And no, this is not like passing by a sick child. It is a sacrament and it has been tested and tried in many courts through out the centuries. Priest have no doubt died for this sacrament.

It is an old and tiresome argument used to misrepresent the intent of the Church.

 

[Phemie]

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

I think you misunderstand the statement. The diocese is right, no one can waive the seal of confession. That doesn’t mean that I can’t speak of my own confession, it means that I can’t give the priest permission to speak about what I confessed.

 

[Atisor207]

I think you misunderstand the statement. The diocese is right, no one can waive the seal of confession. That doesn’t mean that I can’t speak of my own confession, it means that I can’t give the priest permission to speak about what I confessed.

I understand that

 

[Hopey]

Sounds like the defendants/ defendants’ lawyer was trying to protect the seal of confession not only of the priest but for the girl too. The girl has always been free to say whatever she wants but for her parents /lawyers to attempt to enter as evidence is a problem. It is wrong to force a priest to violate the seal of confession even if the girl waived her own rights. Not only is it a violation of the rights of the priest, it is unfair to put him in a position where he cannot confirm or deny something presented as “evidence”.

It sounded like to me they wanted it over quickly but I do think they had the priest in mind. That said, it isn’t violating his rights because they haven’t asked him to break the seal. They have only said it will be determined what was said and where. A priest remains a mandatory reporter EXCEPT if it is said in a confession, where the seal would prevent him.

Atisor207, if they try and make the priest break the seal, and they take THAT all the way up, I will be behind them 100%, supporting the Diocese. If they take the motion they file, the girl can not speak of her confession, what was said, I will not.

I understand they are upset and afraid that this or that may happen. But what they did was not right either, allowing their legal team to push for something that isn’t right to begin with.

 

[AliR14]

page 3
Shortly before trial was scheduled to commence
in
the present matter, th
e
Church filed its motion in limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from
“mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions
that may or may not have taken place” between plaintiffs’ minor child and the
priest, while the priest was acting in his official capacity as a Diocesan priest and
hearing confession from his parishioner.

lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

You keep saying that this is what the court’s decision was about. It was not. Read the decision, not news reports about the decision or the Diocese’s statement.

The court has ruled that the privilege of the seal is the same as doctor-patient or attorney-client. That the privilege of confidentiality can be waived completely if the penitent wants to. They have ruled that the seal may be broken because the girl spoke of her confessions and because her parents would like Fr Bayhi punished for not reporting the abuser to authorities after, what they believe, the privilege of secrecy was waived. When the Diocese claims that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause, they are 100% correct. The Court may not determine how the seal of confession applies within the Church. The lower court upheld the Church’s rights, the LA Supreme Court vacated that ruling and so now the Diocese will have to continue at the federal level.

This fight is absolutely not about the Diocese wanting penitents to be suppressed. If that girl had spoken to Fr Bayhi outside of confession with THE SAME information she had confessed, he could have acted. It’s not enough for her to say, “I waive my right to privacy.,” as the court has interpreted. She must repeat the information.

 

[glendab]

Hello Phemie.

I think you misunderstand the statement. The diocese is right, no one can waive the seal of confession. That doesn’t mean that I can’t speak of my own confession, it means that I can’t give the priest permission to speak about what I confessed.

Yes, you are right in saying you can speak about your Confession, however you are wrong about giving the Priest permission. Any Priest in the Confessional can if there is a compelling reason may ask his penitent for permission to not only speak about what is said to him in the confession, but act on it as well. How do you suppose all the revelations of St. Faustina got taken care of? Most of her revelations were spoken of in the Confessional and each time her Confessor asked her permission to speak about, write about and act on those things she would tell him when she could receive the Sacrament.

So, you can give your Priest permission if he asks for it in the Confessional to speak about and act on things you tell. Him must ask and this permission is only good for one Confession. It must be obtained again if needed.

Glenda

 

[Hopey]

You keep saying that this is what the court’s decision was about. It was not. Read the decision, not news reports about the decision or the Diocese’s statement.

The court has ruled that the privilege of the seal is the same as doctor-patient or attorney-client. That the privilege of confidentiality can be waived completely if the penitent wants to. They have ruled that the seal may be broken because the girl spoke of her confessions and because her parents would like Fr Bayhi punished for not reporting the abuser to authorities after, what they believe, the privilege of secrecy was waived. When the Diocese claims that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause, they are 100% correct. The Court may not determine how the seal of confession applies within the Church. The lower court upheld the Church’s rights, the LA Supreme Court vacated that ruling and so now the Diocese will have to continue at the federal level.

This fight is absolutely not about the Diocese wanting penitents to be suppressed. If that girl had spoken to Fr Bayhi outside of confession with THE SAME information she had confessed, he could have acted. It’s not enough for her to say, “I waive my right to privacy.,” as the court has interpreted. She must repeat the information.

“Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing
plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by
the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact
concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were
7
confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the
confessional that would trigger his duty to report.”

That is how they ruled. Notice they included OUTSIDE the confessional which would TRIGGER his duty to report. They will determine what was said where.

 

[Hopey]

What they found was the priest could not say she couldn’t speak of her own confession, not that he had too.
"It follows, if the penitent
waives the privilege, the priest cannot then raise it to protect himself as he can only
“claim the privilege
on behalf of the person
,” not in his own right. La. Code E
vid
.
art. 511(C). Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in granting the Church’s
motion in limine, excluding all evidence of the confession in its entirety as the
child/penitent is free to testify and introduce evidence as to her own confession. "

Notice the last sentence.

 

[Lapey]

It sounded like to me they wanted it over quickly but I do think they had the priest in mind. That said, it isn’t violating his rights because they haven’t asked him to break the seal. They have only said it will be determined what was said and where. A priest remains a mandatory reporter EXCEPT if it is said in a confession, where the seal would prevent him.

Atisor207, if they try and make the priest break the seal, and they take THAT all the way up, I will be behind them 100%, supporting the Diocese. If they take the motion they file, the girl can not speak of her confession, what was said, I will not.

I understand they are upset and afraid that this or that may happen. But what they did was not right either, allowing their legal team to push for something that isn’t right to begin with.

I’m sure the Diocese of Baton Rouge is forming their case and plan of action according to your wishes…

The underlined statement of yours shows your ignorance of the situation and Church teaching. If the priest is forced to say there was or was not a confession, it breaks the seal. If he is forced to say the “whats” the “wheres”, etc. he is forced to break the seal. In that light, he has no duty to report; I would bet he tried everything in his power to get the little girl to report the abuse to someone, but since that didn’t happen he was not at liberty to report it. It’s just that simple.

You are not a Church official, you are not a member of the legal team for the diocese, you are an anonymous internet self-proclaimed “expert” who is trying to place civil law on top of Church law and force it to make sense, it won’t work. The Church and Her laws are above civil law, in this case the priest will disobey civil law and accept the civil consequences of this world for the Kingdom of God.

To continue this conversation with you is fruitless, you have all the answers. Every time you make statements like above you place the priest and Church in a disparaging light and you do Her no favor. Either you are a member of Mother Church or you are not; which do you choose?