Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Atisor207]

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.

Yes I agree, however I find it very very suspicious that someone goes to confession and is 15 years old and doesn’t know that confession is a sacrament and that the Priest is only there for absolution. It is Christ who forgives.

That is basic Catholic teaching.

I don’t know any Catholics who were not taught before 1st Communion about the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

This entire case smells so fishy.
Something is not right.

 

[Atisor207]

So essentially, a priest may be criminally negligent , but as long as he only so within the seal of confession…no foul?

A priest is liable just as any sinner. However, if you are Catholic you would know that he can’t violate his vow to Christ and break the seal of confession.

No foul if whatever this girl claims she says was during confession.
For us, Catholics, the Sacrament of reconciliation is so important, but so important that it can saves souls for eternity, get it?

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.

I have heard this excuse before, however even before 1st Communion, the sacrament of Reconciliation is taught to kids. It is a pre-requisite.
And her claim is that she told the priest during confession. Why didn’t she tell someone else?
Why accuse him of anything, really…
Negligence? The family is Catholic they know the Priest can say anything. If they didn’t know before they should know now. Yet they continue with the case…

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…

See you think empathy is to force a priest to violate the seal of confession. I think empathy is to blame it on the real perpetrator if there was ever one.
I also have empathy for the priest. They are among the most persecuted and quite frankly I am sick of it.

Why didn’t the girl tell a teacher?

Didn’t the girl tell her parents?

Why didn’t they report it?

Something is very fishy with this case.

 

[Hopey]

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.

She can not waive the seal for the priest. The ruling, because it is mixed, as they said, and the parents seem to think that it wasn’t a confession or the part where she talked about this wasn’t, is where it will be determined if a confession took place.

 

[Hopey]

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.

Charges have been brought against him, the Diocese, the alleged perp and the funeral home.

It isn’t good to question motives. A victim will spend a lot of money over their life time trying to undo the harm that was done not excluding medicine they have to take for the rest of their lives in some cases. It may also help them move to reestablish in another place to heal. That is part of justice.

The girl may have been influenced by what was said in the confession as to what to do but she gets to explain that, why she didn’t go directly to her parents. It isn’t uncommon as kids are afraid, confused, etc. It can paralyze them for a very long time.

The parents found out via texts, confronted her. When they realized the seriousness of it, they reported it to the police. An investigation began and before they finished, the alleged perp died.

It isn’t good that we speak about motives of the victim. It isn’t good we speak about what motivated the priest to say what she says he said in the confession. Some things need to pass by without any comment because they can make things worse.

You say you don’t buy that the family is uncatechized and don’t know that what is said in the confession is under a seal and can never be spoken of by a priest. I think differently especially how I was taught. Just hanging around these forums is enough proof that most do not know everything about our faith. We are all at different stages.

 

[Hopey]

Some victims never receive any form of justice at all. They are told the time has run out. They are strapped financially with having to fix this themselves.

OR, go back a few pages for proof. They are denied any sort of justice and you see what could happen as the anger and hatred is still palpable even after all these years. Some of these men and women only found support in groups like SNAP who, unfortunately, are not friends of the Church. Isn’t that sad?

They haven’t heard, “That’s horrible, I’m so sorry. How can I help you?” Instead, many read on forums like this, she must be motivated by money, and get triggered again. Some don’t get triggered like the man, but go the exact opposite and unfortunately take their lives.

That is just a small glimpse of why, in my opinion, no amount of money will do for justice but it helps some. Or it can help them. That is also why we need to be very careful questioning motives because we really do not know who is reading this. If the young lady should happen upon it, it shouldn’t make her feel worse, but supportive even though we do not understand everything that is going on.

 

[Lapey]

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?

This is one issue that is very misunderstood, especially by the poster who continues to avoid questions and Catholic truths. Even if the discussion at times took place outside of confession, but it was connected to what was discussed inside of confession, the priest cannot talk about it. The seal is in effect.

He can’t even bring it up with the girl; she can, then it can be discussed further but the priest CANNOT. Now the public and the media will call that negliget, God and His Church will call it obedient. I rather worry about the second group.

I have worked with a few spiritual directors and once something is brought to the table in confession, it is off limits for any other discussions, unless in private consultations, the penitent brings up the subject. Remember, the confessor must “forget” the confession. That is in fact what it means; if it is forgotten it cannot be brought up by the confessor.

Now Hopey, answer the questions that were asked of you in a straight forward manner.

 

[Hopey]

This is one issue that is very misunderstood, especially by the poster who continues to avoid questions and Catholic truths. Even if the discussion at times took place outside of confession, but it was connected to what was discussed inside of confession, the priest cannot talk about it. The seal is in effect.

He can’t even bring it up with the girl; she can, then it can be discussed further but the priest CANNOT. Now the public and the media will call that negliget, God and His Church will call it obedient. I rather worry about the second group.

I have worked with a few spiritual directors and once something is brought to the table in confession, it is off limits for any other discussions, unless in private consultations, the penitent brings up the subject. Remember, the confessor must “forget” the confession. That is in fact what it means; if it is forgotten it cannot be brought up by the confessor.

Now Hopey, answer the questions that were asked of you in a straight forward manner.

I am pretty sure you are not correct as spiritual direction is privileged but not under the seal if it didn’t occur in the confession. That is where they could speak of it if the other person is OK with it.

You have your answer. I do not look at that as fair or not.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

I am not a Church official …The Diocese can call expert witnesses to say that that was a valid confession and the seal applies, etc…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.

There are a few misunderstandings on your part. The Diocese cannot evaluate the Confession at all in a courtroom. The validity of the Sacrament isn’t in question in the court and even if it was a valid but illicit Sacrament, the Seal still applies. There is no legal way around the Seal. It’s Authority is from God. No mere legal gymnastics can alter it. An invalid Confession because of a fault or failing isn’t enough to remove the Seal. When someone enters the Confessional, everything they say and do falls under the Seal, but it is the Priest who is bound. If I go to Confession yet never Confess, say because I’m flustered and lost my composure and say “Sorry Father, I’m not ready for this,” and leave without actually confessing my sins, the Priest is still bound to forget all that just happened. He cannot approach me later and say something to the effect, “Are you ready now?” nor if he were asked by my hubby who was anxiously awaiting my good Confession so we both could receive Communion, “Did she make her confession?” the Priest cannot even acknowledge he knows what hubby is talking about. So, if a representative got up in court and explained for hours about the Sacrament, the particular Sacrament in question still cannot even be acknowledged by the Priest under any and all conditions. Questioning its validity will have no effect on this fact. An invalid Confession is still a Confession and it is under the Seal.

The fact that any penitent can speak of their confessions will not change ever either no matter what court says so, the local Common Pleas court in Podunk, Kentucky or the Supreme Court of the USA or the World Court at the UN. * There never was a silence imposed upon the penitent*, ever, so your misunderstanding that what goes on in the court will change Church teaching is that, a misunderstanding. No matter what a court declares, it doesn’t alter Church teaching. The State isn’t over the Church. Individual persons are bound to follow the laws of the land, but that still has no bearing on one’s beliefs or religious practices nor can it alter Church teaching or practices either.

Hope this helps.

Glenda

 

[Hopey]

Hello Hopey.

There are a few misunderstandings on your part. The Diocese cannot evaluate the Confession at all in a courtroom. The validity of the Sacrament isn’t in question in the court and even if it was a valid by illicit Sacrament, the Seal still applies. There is no legal way around the Seal. It’s Authority is from God. No mere legal gymnastics can alter it. An invalid Confession because of a fault or failing isn’t enough to remove the Seal. When someone enters the Confessional, everything they say and do falls under the Seal, but it is the Priest who is bound. If I go to Confession yet never Confess, say because I’m flustered and lost my composure and say “Sorry Father, I’m not ready for this,” and leave without actually confessing my sins, the Priest is still bound to forget all that just happened. He cannot approach me later and say something to the effect, “Are you ready now?” nor if he were asked by my hubby who was anxiously awaiting my good Confession so we both could receive Communion, “Did she make her confession?” the Priest cannot even acknowledge he knows what hubby is talking about. So, if a representative got up in court and explained for hours about the Sacrament, the particular Sacrament in question still cannot even be acknowledged by the Priest under any and all conditions. Questioning its validity will have no effect on this fact. An invalid Confession is still a Confession and it is under the Seal.

The fact that any penitent can speak of their confessions will not change ever. There never was a silence imposed upon the penitent, ever so your misunderstanding that what goes on in the court will change Church teaching is that, a misunderstanding. No matter what a court declares, it doesn’t alter Church teaching. The State isn’t over the Church. Individual persons are bound to follow the laws of the land, but that still has no bearing on one’s beliefs or religious practices nor can it alter Church teaching or practices either.

Hope this helps.

Glenda

There was not a silence imposed upon her but a motion by the Diocese to keep her from even mentioning her confession. That is what this ruling is about.

A person can look at something, expert, and judge if it was a confession or not. If you think an expert can not do that, you need to inform Dr. Peters, canon lawyer, who does give opinions on when a break may have occurred and how, what you think he should and shouldn’t do. He is one expert that could listen to something and say yes or no. Another expert could be a Bishop.

 

[Lapey]

I am pretty sure you are not correct as spiritual direction is privileged but not under the seal if it didn’t occur in the confession. That is where they could speak of it if the other person is OK with it.

You have your answer. I do not look at that as fair or not.

If topic “A” is brought up in confession it is sealed. If it comes up in spiritual direction with the same priest who heard the confession it can only be brought up by the penitent. That is not opinion, that is fact. The topic heard in the confessional is forgotten by the priest, how can he bring it up? He cannot.

If this abuse came up outside of the confessional it must be brought up by the girl. Either way, the priest cannot bring it up, he is sealed.

 

[Hopey]

If topic “A” is brought up in confession it is sealed. If it comes up in spiritual direction with the same priest who heard the confession it can only be brought up by the penitent. That is not opinion, that is fact. The topic heard in the confessional is forgotten by the priest, how can he bring it up? He cannot.

If this abuse came up outside of the confessional it must be brought up by the girl. Either way, the priest cannot bring it up, he is sealed.

Spiritual Direction or advice outside the confessional is not under the seal.
We wouldn’t have the treasure of letters, spiritual direction, from priest to person if it did. The seal applies even after death. Spiritual direction, no.

 

[Rico_S]

This is one issue that is very misunderstood, especially by the poster who continues to avoid questions and Catholic truths. Even if the discussion at times took place outside of confession, but it was connected to what was discussed inside of confession, the priest cannot talk about it. The seal is in effect.

This has nothing to do with the comment of mine you quoted. The seal being in effect does not magically wash away the potentiality that, if the priest advised the child as she claims, the priest acted in a negligent manner (actually telling her to keep it to herself and not tell anyone is considered by anyone’s measure negligent, irreponsible and indicative of being unworthy of carrying out parish priestly duties).

I do not misunderstand the issue.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

There was not a silence imposed upon her but a motion by the Diocese to keep her from even mentioning her confession. That is what this ruling is about.

A person can look at something, expert, and judge if it was a confession or not. If you think an expert can not do that, you need to inform Dr. Peters, canon lawyer, who does give opinions on when a break may have occurred and how, what you think he should and shouldn’t do. He is one expert that could listen to something and say yes or no. Another expert could be a Bishop.

I already addressed this with you. We covered that part. I told you then it was a failed legal strategy, not a theological statement on the part of the Diocese. It’s author was a lawyer, not the Church pronouncing Church teaching. It was legal wrangling. One lawyer thought that if she acknowledged that she had indeed gone to Confession, then there would be a legal precedent forcing the Church’s hand. That is what they tried to prevent so the tried to prevent her from testifying that she had gone to Confession. The lawyers involved could have gone another route, but once they decided to go that way, they were stuck following through.

Perhaps this will help: suppose your expert gets up on the stand and decides it wasn’t a full confession, that there were faults made that rendered her confession invalid or illicit, that wouldn’t change the Seal one little bit and its implications for the Priest. He cannot even acknowledge that he heard her confession. The most he could do is say he was available for Confessions on a particular day at the scheduled time as he always is. But that is as far as he could go, no matter what expert testified. They could show him a copy of the church’s bulletin and point to the Confession schedule on the front and let every person in the courtroom read it. It still cannot alter the Seal and the obligations of the Priest.

I think you aren’t familiar with Church teaching about Confession and such. Have you gone lately? Do you go regularly? Do you know how to make a Confession and what it means? I don’t think so, because if you did, you wouldn’t be asking some of the questions you are nor be making the statements you are. Unless of course, you disagree with Church teaching regarding the Sacrament and think that under certain conditions, a Priest should be able to break the Seal, no, even better should have an obligation to break the Seal and act on it.

Glenda

 

[fred_conty]

Spiritual Direction or advice outside the confessional is not under the seal.
We wouldn’t have the treasure of letters, spiritual direction, from priest to person if it did. The seal applies even after death. Spiritual direction, no.

Tho I agree with you in this, but there might be an exception to this.

If a priest has confessional knowledge which is the same as he received outside of confession, because inside and outside knowledge match and is the same info, he could not talk about it since it is confessional knowledge.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

Spiritual Direction or advice outside the confessional is not under the seal.
We wouldn’t have the treasure of letters, spiritual direction, from priest to person if it did. The seal applies even after death. Spiritual direction, no.

Guess what? Spiritual Direction does also fall under the Seal. I was assigned a Spiritual Director once when I lived in the Convent and was told in our very first session that everything we discussed was Sealed. He couldn’t speak about it at all. Our sessions were private and I was free to discuss anything and everything I needed to so as to facilitate his direction of me, but he wanted me to know it was privileged communication between penitent, that’s me, and Priest and so was Sealed. Even though I sat in his office and we simply talked, it was still under the Seal. I got directed Spiritually and left knowing what I shared there stayed there.

Glenda

 

[Hopey]

Hello Hopey.

Guess what? Spiritual Direction does also fall under the Seal. I was assigned a Spiritual Director once when I lived in the Convent and was told in our very first session that everything we discussed was Sealed. He couldn’t speak about it at all. Our sessions were private and I was free to discuss anything and everything I needed to so as to facilitate his direction of me, but he wanted me to know it was privileged communication between penitent, that’s me, and Priest and so was Sealed. Even though I sat in his office and we simply talked, it was still under the Seal. I got directed Spiritually and left knowing what I shared there stayed there.

Glenda

You are not using the correct terms as it isn’t sealed as in a confession. It is privileged like a dr who could not speak about something said in the office with you. If you were to want it to become public for whatever reason, you could give the person directing you permission to speak of it.

Like it or not, there are experts who can listen to something and say yes or no as to if a confession occurred.
Yes, I thought we had discussed some before but you keep bringing it up. (“There never was a silence imposed upon the penitent, ever so your misunderstanding that what goes on in the court will change Church teaching is that, a misunderstanding.”) So…

 

[Hopey]

I tell you what, submit the question, whether spiritual direction is under the seal or not, to the expert apologists here and let’s see what they say, to settle it. Ok?

 

[fred_conty]

Hello Hopey.

Guess what? Spiritual Direction does also fall under the Seal. I was assigned a Spiritual Director once when I lived in the Convent and was told in our very first session that everything we discussed was Sealed. He couldn’t speak about it at all. Our sessions were private and I was free to discuss anything and everything I needed to so as to facilitate his direction of me, but he wanted me to know it was privileged communication between penitent, that’s me, and Priest and so was Sealed. Even though I sat in his office and we simply talked, it was still under the Seal. I got directed Spiritually and left knowing what I shared there stayed there.

Glenda

The seal of confession is called that because it belongs to the sacrament of confession. Anything outside of confession is not under the seal strictly speaking.

Now the priest may have said it falls under the seal, but strictly speaking, it didn’t. And if push came to shove, he could use that knowledge for a sufficient reason…to save live(s).

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Lapey]

Spiritual Direction or advice outside the confessional is not under the seal.
We wouldn’t have the treasure of letters, spiritual direction, from priest to person if it did. The seal applies even after death. Spiritual direction, no.

You do not listen well. It is the topic which is sealed. If the abuse was brought up in confession, it is sealed. The girl can say whatever she likes, the priest cannot. Spiritual direction is sealed much like confession when the topics parallel, this is why one’s spiritual director is most often one’s confessor; the two go hand in hand.

Remember, I will only speak in the Church’s terms, that is where I live. I am Catholic first, American second. My faith, my soul and my God will be in existence much longer than this country and our government.

Also, on the topic of treasures from the past, there are many treasures from confessions of saints. If you do the research you will see that before any documents are released it must be approved by the Church for public use and devotion. We do not normally see this because it is not often something that happens in our lifetimes. It’s much like the remains of people who have passed, are all Catholic remains exhumed and placed on display? No, those who have been canonized and permissions have been granted for this purpose have been granted.

All this is for the sanctification of the faithful. The situation we are discussing here is about money and blame unfortunately. It has nothing to do with sanctification.

 

[Hopey]

You do not listen well. It is the topic which is sealed. If the abuse was brought up in confession, it is sealed. The girl can say whatever she likes, the priest cannot. Spiritual direction is sealed much like confession when the topics parallel, this is why one’s spiritual director is most often one’s confessor; the two go hand in hand.

Remember, I will only speak in the Church’s terms, that is where I live. I am Catholic first, American second. My faith, my soul and my God will be in existence much longer than this country and our government.

Also, on the topic of treasures from the past, there are many treasures from confessions of saints. If you do the research you will see that before any documents are released it must be approved by the Church for public use and devotion. We do not normally see this because it is not often something that happens in our lifetimes. It’s much like the remains of people who have passed, are all Catholic remains exhumed and placed on display? No, those who have been canonized and permissions have been granted for this purpose have been granted.

All this is for the sanctification of the faithful. The situation we are discussing here is about money and blame unfortunately. It has nothing to do with sanctification.

You are wrong about spiritual direction and IF it was mentioned or not in the confessional. It doesn’t matter. If it is mentioned in spiritual direction it is separate. My spiritual director is not my confessor so he would have no clue what I have confessed but it doesn’t matter.

Submit the question. Seal applies even after death, spiritual direction does not.