Break the Seal said Baton Rouge Court

[Lapey]

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.

Whatever is talked about in confession, even the fact that it was talked about in or out, is sealed. Period.

Society may lable this as negligent, Mother Church sees it as required.

 

[Rico_S]

No foul if whatever this girl claims she says was during confession.

.

Thank you. Quite a travesty, don’t you think? I just don’t get how this doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

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 didn’t the girl tell a teacher?

Didn’t the girl tell her parents?

Why didn’t they report it?

I am baffled you continue to think along these lines. It reminds me of those who try to blame the rape victim “She knew what she was doing when she wore those provocative clothes and drank too much. She should have known better as to what she was doing.”

See you think empathy is to force a priest to violate the seal of confession.

I think empathy is understanding how the parents and girl must fell if this in fact went down like they said…as opposed to immediately declaring this a money grab and another secular attack on the church. No one, to my knowledge, seems to dispute the fact that she was abused in some way by the deceased parishoner, so I can only imagine the pain and grief they must feel. If I were her parent, and I believed what she said was true, I wouldn’t just say…“oh well, nothing we can do.” I am certain I would fight to see him held accountable.

 

[Hopey]

Whatever is talked about in confession, even the fact that it was talked about in or out, is sealed. Period.

Society may lable this as negligent, Mother Church sees it as required.

If the subject is brought up outside it is not sealed. Notice I said subject and not confession. You are wrong in this case.

 

[glendab]

Hello Hopey.

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…

Now you are not only telling me I’m wrong but you saying so was the Monsignor I had as a Spiritual Director while living in a Convent. I’m not wrong nor was he. You are misinformed and I’m not going to argue.

Glenda

 

[Rico_S]

Whatever is talked about in confession, even the fact that it was talked about in or out, is sealed. Period.
.

Doesn’t mean that what he said couldn’t be grossly negligent.

 

[glendab]

P.S. Hopey. My Spiritual Director was a JCD as well as a PhD in theology and he knew what he was doing and what he was talking about. You are wrong.

 

[fred_conty]

Hello Hopey.

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

There may be another angle to this that I did not take into consideration in my last post.

It may have fallen under the seal if the discussion was about a topic that was discussed in a previous confession. So this may have been the reason the priest said it was under the seal…and he would have been right.

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

 

[Lapey]

Doesn’t mean that what he said couldn’t be grossly negligent.

By public opinion and civil law, I agree 100%. By Church guidlines and practice he would be negligent to not keep it sealed.

 

[Hopey]

P.S. Hopey. My Spiritual Director was a JCD as well as a PhD in theology and he knew what he was doing and what he was talking about. You are wrong.

I submitted the question. I wouldn’t say he was wrong but the way you are stating it is. We shall see what the expert apologists have to say about it. If I am wrong, then I will gladly admit my error.

 

[Lapey]

If the subject is brought up outside it is not sealed. Notice I said subject and not confession. You are wrong in this case.

Within spiritual direction, and it is a topic specifically brought into confession; it is sealed. I don’t really care what your opinion is, this is my experience and what has been taught to me by my past SDs.

 

[Hopey]

Within spiritual direction, and it is a topic specifically brought into confession; it is sealed. I don’t really care what your opinion is, this is my experience and what has been taught to me by my past SDs.

Yes, if something is said in the confession it is sealed. That is not what you said though. Spiritual direction and advice may or may not be heard by the person who they confessed to. It is not under the seal but privileged. You don’t have to care about my opinion. But I do want to know because if I am in error, I need to correct myself.

So, if the girl approached him and said, I need to speak with you about something, it isn’t under the seal. That is how these priests are able to help these victims outside the confessional. If the seal applied, it wouldn’t matter and they couldn’t help them outside.

 

[Rico_S]

By public opinion and civil law, I agree 100%. :

So the Church wouldn’t see his alledged advise as negligent…only his breaking the seal?

 

[Hopey]

So the Church wouldn’t see his alledged advise as negligent…only his breaking the seal?

That is an interesting question and we may never know what penalties were applied to him internally. When priests do things, esp in the confessional, it can be looked at and judged. He could have had a sanction put on him, penance for x amount of time for the victim etc, and we may never know. I don’t think the parents or child have to do this but a Bishop could submit it to be looked at.

 

[Lapey]

Yes, if something is said in the confession it is sealed. That is not what you said though. Spiritual direction and advice may or may not be heard by the person who they confessed to. It is not under the seal but privileged. You don’t have to care about my opinion. But I do want to know because if I am in error, I need to correct myself.

So, if the girl approached him and said, I need to speak with you about something, it isn’t under the seal. That is how these priests are able to help these victims outside the confessional. If the seal applied, it wouldn’t matter and they couldn’t help them outside.

Go back and read the posts that I have posted about this; everyone will connect confession and SD. If the topic is spoken in confession, and the SD session, and the SD and confessor are not the same, then I would agree with you. I didn’t say anything different. What I did say was, if the two are the same, the topic is sealed as in confession.

 

[vz71]

So the Church wouldn’t see his alledged advise as negligent…only his breaking the seal?

Wouldn’t whatever information learned from breaking the seal be tainted evidence?
We cannot begin to judge anything said in the confessional without first breaking church law.

 

[Hopey]

Go back and read the posts that I have posted about this; everyone will connect confession and SD. If the topic is spoken in confession, and the SD session, and the SD and confessor are not the same, then I would agree with you. I didn’t say anything different. What I did say was, if the two are the same, the topic is sealed as in confession.

" 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. "

By that you meant SD was sealed or not?

 

[Rico_S]

That is an interesting question and we may never know what penalties were applied to him internally. When priests do things, esp in the confessional, it can be looked at and judged. .

Really? if the confession is sealed, how can the Church do anything to him at all? No one knows what happened except the priest and the penitent…and if the priest can’t defend himself, how can he ever be penalized?

 

[Lapey]

So the Church wouldn’t see his alledged advise as negligent…only his breaking the seal?

The Church would call the seal required. If the priest was in a session which is not sealed and the priest did not give good advice, then yes it would be negligent.

But let’s not make this more complicated than needed. This is the SD and confessor being the same person. If the topic of this case was brought into both the confession and SD, it is required the priest keep it under seal. He cannot even defend himself against accusations of negligence by the penitent. So in the hypothetical you bring up we will never know anything else but what the girl is claiming, or her parents and lawyers. You and I will not get any info from the priest as he is required to keep the seal.

 

[Hopey]

Really? if the confession is sealed, how can the Church do anything to him at all? No one knows what happened except the priest and the penitent…and if the priest can’t defend himself, how can he ever be penalized?

Because crimes can happen in the confessional and they can be judged and priest can be penalized/sanctioned without being able to defend himself.

Priests have solicited for sex before - grave crime - can’t defend themselves either.

That is why I also said I don’t look at this, the priest not being able to defend himself, as fair or not. It comes with the territory.

 

[Atisor207]

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.

You do know that there are hundreds of people vouching for the alleged accuser now, right?

And yes I don’t buy it for a second. We all learned about confession before our 1st communion.

I feel so sorry for this priest.

It really appears that this family has a grudge against him.

The more I find out about the case the more I distrust the family. Especially since the priest, I just found out, tried to do something about it and went to the family of the accuser and the family went to the other family.

This case reminds me of the movie about witch hunts in Salem. Someone here is Wynona Ryder.