- Status
A
Atisor207
Guest
You are not answering the question.
Z
zab
Guest
The court does not determine what the seal of confession is. The outcome of this case will determine whether or not the court protected religious freedom.
H
Hopey
Guest
It doesn’t matter if it is fair or not, that is part of their job.
I doubt they would be complaining this or that is fair either. I’ve only heard that on this forum, really.
I doubt they would be complaining this or that is fair either. I’ve only heard that on this forum, really.
A
Atisor207
Guest
Nice way to avoid the question… then you wonder why some wonder if some on this forums are truly with the Church of Christ or not despite the fact that they call themselves Catholics.
Confession was really established by Christ when he told the Apostles the sins you forgive I forgive…
A true follower would be defending the Diocese, the seal, and defend the priest who has been forced into this situation.
Z
zab
Guest
I know that priests would go to jail than violate the seal of confession. But I am asking you-Do you think it is fair. And your answer is- it doesn’t matter. Well it does matter that a person gets a fair trial.
A
Atisor207
Guest
Yes it is. You know why? Because if one single priest breaks the seal then maybe vast numbers of souls can lose their salvation. We are talking about eternity.
Reflect on that.
H
Hopey
Guest
Ok. If it is fair to you that charges can be brought internally against a priest, and he can not say anything to defend himself, then in this case, it is the same.
I don’t look at it as fair or not.
F
fred_conty
Guest
I agree. But there is a “but”. She is not breaking it, but she is waiving it. She is in effect waiving the burden of priestly silence by telling the court of what was said in the confession. Now the court wants to waive this silence also and expects the priest to tell them what was said. She cannot waive it, and the court can’t waive it. And the priest certainly can’t waive it.
Official Statement of the Diocese of Baton Rouge
“Church law does not allow either the plaintiff (penitent) or anyone else to waive the seal of confession.”
The girl’s parents sued Father Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge for failing to report the abuse. But of course he didn’t, can’t and shouldn’t.
Here is the sticky part. They can’t ask him if he knows anything apart from the confession because of the confessional secrecy which obliges him to give no acknowledgement of a confession at all, since this acknowledgement of a confession is also under the secrecy. So this very question is illicit and may not be answered one way or the other.
Praise be Jesus Christ.
A
Atisor207
Guest
I look at this unfairly. Charges SHOULD NOT have been brought against the Priest in the first place. NONE.
No charges of negligence, NOTHING
The girl could act without the counsel of the priest.
When one actually understand that one realizes the motive of this case.
The motive is probably financial or an attack.
R
Rico_S
Guest
If the priest advised her as she claims, but did so outside of confession, would you consider the priest negligent? Criminally negligent?
I am sure it is mentioned somewhere in this thread, but how old was the girl when this happened?
A
Atisor207
Guest
This case is about what apparently happened during confession.
If the priest says anything, and I mean anything, that happened during confession he would be negligent to Christ’s sacraments.
The parents of the girl should know that.
My suspicion is that they are doing this out of spite or for financial reasons or even a personal grudge against the Priest.
There is absolutely nothing they will gain from this case other than affect the Priest.
They claim to be Catholic and the secrecy of confession is taught and known. They know about the sacrament. They have absolutely no excuse.
I am also wondering why didn’t the girl tell one of her teachers. That would have solved many things. Instead they are now claiming it was the priest who is under a seal who they told.
There is something really fishy about this case.
R
Rico_S
Guest
A
Atisor207
Guest
You are asking about a hypothesis not the case.
The answer is yes and so would anyone.
Getting back to the case, this is about what the girl claims she told the Priest during confession. So even your hypothetical question is not correct.
I can also ask a hypothetical question… Why didn’t the girl tell a teacher who she knew was not under a seal of secrecy?
Local Catholic school here teaches that the priest can reveal what was in the confessional if they deem it serious.
Really messed up my sons. My oldest still will not go to confession.
So how can we be certain the parents here really know?
A
Atisor207
Guest
When one goes to confession, even the first one, that is the first thing they teach you.
It is known and it is as old as 2000 years old.
And in that case if the family is Catholic, as they claim, when they learned about confession, why pursue with the case?
No matter from which angle one looks at this case, I just see ill intent.
There is absolutely nothing the family will gain from forcing a priest to break the seal of confession other than to affect only the priest.
I mean come on ppl,
So the girl didn’t tell her parents?
If the girl told her parents, then why didn’t they report it?
This case smells bad.
All I am saying is that we cannot rely upon what they may or may not have been taught. It is fruitless to argue the parents should know better. They may not.
False teaching seems to be everywhere these days.
Even in Catholic schools.
R
Rico_S
Guest
So essentially, a priest may be criminally negligent , but as long as he only so within the seal of confession…no foul?
I can’t answer that, but it seems a stupid question. Perhaps she is just a child who was recently traumatized by another adult and felt ashamed and confused? Perhaps she wasn’t thinking about the details of the sacrament. Or perhaps that is exactly why she chose confession, bc she was afraid of this getting out. I find pretty incredible that you think that this is a critical question and somehow undermines her claim.
Look I understand that this puts the priest in a really defenseless position, and there is no way the church is going to go along with forcing the priest to break the seal or face charges. And I am not saying they should. I understand that if a precedent is set, it could make it super easy for someone to make a claim and sue as a money grab. I get it.
But I don’t understand how in everyone’s zeal to defend the priest and the seal, no one wants to acknowledge even the possibility that a child was severely wronged by priest and might be looking for justice. It is the automatic jump to “oh look we are being attacked”. I understand there are some here who know the priest personally, and I understand wanting to defend him. But it is startling the lack of any empathy for the little girl…
- Status