Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Hopey]

I am not a Church official but laity that joins with many lawyers who have looked at this and see it the same way.

YOU are assuming that the only way to determine this would be to call the priest to the stand. That is not so. The Diocese can call expert witnesses to say that that was a valid confession and the seal applies, etc.

I understand their concern.
I join the others who do not and will not understand their legal action to not allow the girl to speak of her own confession. I have maintained IF they are going to do this in court, they need to do it inside first and say we are never allowed to speak of our confessions.

Peace be with you all. Prayers for all.

 

[Lapey]

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.

This is the heart of the conversation!!! Civil laws says this, Church law says the opposite! He cannot break the seal of confession even though civil authorities, the court, says that he must!!!

The court does not understand the meaning of claiming the seal of confession to protect the penitent, and neither do you obviously!

 

[Lapey]

I am not a Church official but laity that joins with many lawyers who have looked at this and see it the same way.

YOU are assuming that the only way to determine this would be to call the priest to the stand. That is not so. The Diocese can call expert witnesses to say that that was a valid confession and the seal applies, etc.

I understand their concern.
I join the others who do not and will not understand their legal action to not allow the girl to speak of her own confession. I have maintained IF they are going to do this in court, they need to do it inside first and say we are never allowed to speak of our confessions.

Peace be with you all. Prayers for all.

Lawyers and laity do not rule Mother Church…Praise God!

 

[Hopey]

That’s the whole stupid thing. What you underlined is then further explained that he tried to protect himself by not allowing her to speak of her confession, not that they were going to try to force him to break the seal!!!

 

[Hopey]

Lawyers and laity do not rule Mother Church…Praise God!

And praise God that we are allowed to read and reflect and come to different conclusions!

The Diocese is afraid. Be not afraid!

 

[Lapey]

That’s the whole stupid thing. What you underlined is then further explained that he tried to protect himself by not allowing her to speak of her confession, not that they were going to try to force him to break the seal!!!

Here you go again, the priest doesn’t want to talk because he may incriminate himself. This priest has much more on his plate then to keep this baby girl quiet in order to keep himself out of trouble.

You may want to review forum rules about making derogatory statements about clergy, on the forum or off.

 

[Lapey]

And praise God that we are allowed to read and reflect and come to different conclusions!

The Diocese is afraid. Be not afraid!

How sad that you feel it necessary to make a statement like this.

 

[Hopey]

Here you go again, the priest doesn’t want to talk because he may incriminate himself. This priest has much more on his plate then to keep this baby girl quiet in order to keep himself out of trouble.

You may want to review forum rules about making derogatory statements about clergy, on the forum or off.

?
That was the motion the Diocese filed! That SHE could not speak of her own confession!
One last time, this is what the Diocese wanted to do:
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. "

It didn’t work because a person CAN speak of their own confession. If the Supreme Court was not recognizing, acknowledging, the seal of a confession and respecting it, they would not have used words like, which would trigger him to report, etc…

You and others have the tendency to say a person is not a good Catholic, etc if they do not support the diocese. I support a priest has a right to not break the seal. Nowhere does it say they are trying to do that. Their attempt failed.

IF they do try to make him, then I am behind them.

That’s all I have to say.

 

[Lapey]

?
That was the motion the Diocese filed! That SHE could not speak of her own confession!
One last time, this is what the Diocese wanted to do:
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. "

It didn’t work because a person CAN speak of their own confession. If the Supreme Court was not recognizing, acknowledging, the seal of a confession and respecting it, they would not have used words like, which would trigger him to report, etc…

You and others have the tendency to say a person is not a good Catholic, etc if they do not support the diocese. I support a priest has a right to not break the seal. Nowhere does it say they are trying to do that. Their attempt failed.

IF they do try to make him, then I am behind them.

That’s all I have to say.

Nice repeat of an earlier performance. You still don’t get it. All of your words here cast the priest as a criminal and the diocese as a co-conspirator. All of the motions and actions have been to follow Church law and protect the girl.

This priest will go to jail before giving in, because of the sacredness of this little girl’s immortal soul.

From Yesterday’s Gospel;

You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them.

 

[Hopey]

That’s so ironic that you quote that because I do agree.

I have cast no one as a criminal. I have used what they tried to do (motion filed), which failed, because a person, penitent, can speak of their own confession.

You are the one who has been saying I must not be such and such Catholic etc if I don’t agree with the Diocese.

I don’t agree with the legal angle they took - for her to not be able to speak of her confession.

If it gets to the point where they try to make the priest break the seal, then I will support defending him as that wouldn’t be right. That is not what the Supreme Court said.

IF you try to claim I must not be a good Catholic, must be this or that which is disparaging, I will report you. Don’t do it.

I am sticking to what was filed, what was ruled on. I give the benefit of the doubt to all, not just the priest, but the girl also.

 

[Lapey]

That’s so ironic that you quote that because I do agree.

I have cast no one as a criminal. I have used what they tried to do (motion filed), which failed, because a person, penitent, can speak of their own confession.

You are the one who has been saying I must not be such and such Catholic etc if I don’t agree with the Diocese.

I don’t agree with the legal angle they took - for her to not be able to speak of her confession.

If it gets to the point where they try to make the priest break the seal, then I will support defending him as that wouldn’t be right. That is not what the Supreme Court said.
IF you try to claim I must not be a good Catholic, must be this or that which is disparaging, I will report you. Don’t do it.
I am sticking to what was filed, what was ruled on. I give the benefit of the doubt to all, not just the priest, but the girl also.

It’s already past the point of forcing him to break the seal; unless, and I beleve it will happen, the USSC over rules the state court.

As too your threat to report me? Ok. I will call you out every time you talk or imply negative talk towards fellow clergy and/or Mother Church. You have my full permission to report me.

BTW, I thought you were done commenting? This would save me from calling you out, then you wouldn’t have to report me. Just sayin’

 

[Hopey]

It’s already past the point of forcing him to break the seal; unless, and I beleve it will happen, the USSC over rules the state court.

As too your threat to report me? Ok. I will call you out every time you talk or imply negative talk towards fellow clergy and/or Mother Church. You have my full permission to report me.

BTW, I thought you were done commenting? This would save me from calling you out, then you wouldn’t have to report me. Just sayin’

You have called no one out, Lapey, because I have been commenting on what they filed, not how you wish it to be.

I have said nothing against a priest nor the Holy Mother Church. You are in error there.

If you will give the exact quote from the ruling of the Supreme Court, not the Diocese, that states they will require the priest to break the seal, I will appreciate it.

 

[Lapey]

You have called no one out, Lapey, because I have been commenting on what they filed, not how you wish it to be.

I have said nothing against a priest nor the Holy Mother Church. You are in error there.

If you will give the exact quote from the ruling of the Supreme Court, not the Diocese, that states they will require the priest to break the seal, I will appreciate it.

No you won’t, that made me laugh!

I don’t care to argue, but you have taken nothing from anyone who has tried to explain the situation to you. All you do is refer to civil law and what the court has stated, what the motion was/is, but you place nothing in context. It is making you appear to be targeting Fr. Bayhi and/or the Church.

It is not the court’s decision or ruling which dictates what is or is not breaking the seal of confession, it is the Church; in this case Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge. I don’t care what you say or repeat about the court case or motions or rulings; this truth will be truth no matter what the courts rule. Fr. Bayhi will go to the grave with his testimony, as would any holy priest.

 

[Phemie]

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.

So what the Court is saying is that if she testifies to her own confession the seal no longer exists therefore the priest can’t claim it “to protect himself” so the appellate court should have allowed the testimony to force the priest to testify.

But you know the seal is absolute on his part even if she reveals the content so this ruling it will result in one of two things: the priest will be found guilty of negligence or he will be excommunicated. I wager he’ll be found guilty, not because he is but because he won’t defend himself or speak of anything related to her confession.

 

[Hopey]

No you won’t, that made me laugh!

I don’t care to argue, but you have taken nothing from anyone who has tried to explain the situation to you. All you do is refer to civil law and what the court has stated, what the motion was/is, but you place nothing in context. It is making you appear to be targeting Fr. Bayhi and/or the Church.

It is not the court’s decision or ruling which dictates what is or is not breaking the seal of confession, it is the Church; in this case Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge. I don’t care what you say or repeat about the court case or motions or rulings; this truth will be truth no matter what the courts rule. Fr. Bayhi will go to the grave with his testimony, as would any holy priest.

You can not give where they will require him to break the seal, testify what was said in the confession, because it doesn’t exist.

How they will determine if a confession occurred will be interesting, but since it is sealed we will not know.

I have put it in context esp that the SP decision was based on what was filed by the Diocese, to keep her from testifying what was said in her confession.

I do not agree with that. Neither do a lot of people as we can.

 

[Hopey]

So what the Court is saying is that if she testifies to her own confession the seal no longer exists therefore the priest can’t claim it “to protect himself” so the appellate court should have allowed the testimony to force the priest to testify.

But you know the seal is absolute on his part even if she reveals the content so this ruling it will result in one of two things: the priest will be found guilty of negligence or he will be excommunicated. I wager he’ll be found guilty, not because he is but because he won’t defend himself or speak of anything related to her confession.

Because they used, would trigger him to report (if he learned outside of the confessional) is not how some are interpreting it.

What they said is HE can’t use it to prevent HER from speaking.

 

[Hopey]

So what the Court is saying is that if she testifies to her own confession the seal no longer exists therefore the priest can’t claim it “to protect himself” so the appellate court should have allowed the testimony to force the priest to testify.

But you know the seal is absolute on his part even if she reveals the content so this ruling it will result in one of two things: the priest will be found guilty of negligence or he will be excommunicated. I wager he’ll be found guilty, not because he is but because he won’t defend himself or speak of anything related to her confession.

I pray he is not found guilty unless he did learn of this outside of the confession, which if he did, then the law would apply.

 

[zab]

I pray he is not found guilty unless he did learn of this outside of the confession, which if he did, then the law would apply.

Well let’s pray that the truth comes out without the priest having to violate the seal of Confession. Would the law not apply to her parents to report abuse?

 

[Hopey]

Well let’s pray that the truth comes out without the priest having to violate the seal of Confession. Would the law not apply to her parents to report abuse?

Yes.
They did report it and the alleged perp died before they finished the investigation. The parents filed against alleged, deceased perp, the funeral home, the Diocese and priest. That was filed in '09.

 

[FJL]

To hockeyfan…I am the blogger/owner of the blog Rape Victims of the Catholic Church…you are a defender of the Pedophile Pimps,Priests and perverts of the Roman Catholic Church.

I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO USE MY INFORMATION ON MY WEBSITE, SEEKING TO BRING JUSTICE TO US, WHOM WERE RAPED, BRUTALIZED, AND HAD OUR SOULS STOLEN FROM US BY THESE DISGUSTING, PEDOPHILE PRIESTS AND COVERED UP BY THE PEDOPHILE PIMPS CARDINALS, BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS.

Listen up and listen good.

I do NOT care for YOUR excuses.

These scum raped us, they stole our lives, they stole our souls and you freaks keep standing up and defending them.

Get this through YOUR thick skull.

The rape of children, the cover ups of these rapes, is not only a sin, it is a freaking FELONY.

In my opinion, ANYONE whom rapes a child, whom covers up the rapes of children, in the Roman Catholic Church deserves to be executed by using the Roman Catholic Churches own tools of the Inquisition.

There can be NO FORGIVENESS FOR WHAT THESE DISGUSTING CARDINALS, LIKE TIMOTHY DOLAN, ROGER MAHONY, BERNARD LAW, DONALD WUERL AND OTHERS HAVE DONE TO US AND CONTINUE TO DO TO US…DENY US JUSTICE FOR THE CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST US AS CHILDREN.

NONE of you have ANY RIGHT to declare yourselves moral, nor holy. Your church raped us as children and now they seek to deny us justice, using the very same laws against us, they get our cases dismissed using the statue of limitations.

Then these disgusting freaks pay such degenerates as Bill Donohue to attack us, calling us liars, gold diggers out looking for a payday from this church.

I have had to listen to this disgusting excuse for a human being, say to my face, because I did not punch Leon Gaulin in the face while he was raping me, that meant not only did I want to be raped, I enjoyed being raped and I am a homosexual for it.

I got something to tell you boy…you are NOT worthy to even bend down and tie my laces…let alone use MY postings on my blog to spew your complete and utter garbage in your defense of allowing known pedophiles escape punishment for their crimes against us, by hiding behind your sick and twisted confessional bs.

Oh and boy?

Read the catechism:

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

Offenses against chastity

**2356: Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them. **

So listen up…don’t you EVER attempt to use my blog to defend these scum. Got me?