The priest is the defendant. Do you think it is fair that the plaintiffs can bring up things said under the seal of confession that prevents him from either confirming or denying? How is that fair to the defendant?
Yes, and I’m now more confused than ever about why they’re suing the priest and what they hope to get out of it.
That the girl has
now testified of what she said in confession reveals to the court her side of the story–they don’t need the priest to reveal that, and it’s moot anyway, since the alleged abuser is dead.
That the girl has
now “released” the priest from the secrecy of the seal (which, according to the Church, she may not be able to do–but from my research does seem permissible in some circumstances) doesn’t really help matters much either. Practically speaking, what do they hope the priest to remember? You’re getting into a “he said, she said” thing that bears on word-for-word allegations 6-8 years ago.
Beyond that, what is it supposed to prove? What is actually under trial? It seems that the girl and the family really want to go after him for what she alleges was bad or callous advice. If true (which I doubt), that’s not a crime, so there’s not point in such a trial–but I don’t doubt that that is the primary motivation of the girl and the family (though they could be after money, too…)
So what’s left? That the priest should have reported the information?
You don’t even need to question him to determine whether a priest must abide by mandatory reporting laws with regard to information given in the confessional.
It is clear that the Seal does not permit a priest to report information gained within confession. The girl “released” the priest (even if that were possible) too late for that matter, too late for him to have reported. She obviously at the time did not come to him outside of Confession–which she could have done and likely was counseled to do–and she could have spoken to any number of other people. So that information was bound under the Seal, period.
That means that for the Court to even be interested in the question of “what the priest knew when,” it must be ruling against the sanctity of the Seal of the Confessional, as if state laws can demand a priest to break it.
So it makes perfect sense that the Church will fight that to the end. Louisiana seems to have decided that its mandatory reporting law supersedes the Seal (or they wouldn’t even be asking the priest what he knew when). The Church is
explicitly clear that priests cannot reveal that information even to report crimes, or defend their reputations or even their very lives.
That makes this case much simpler. It becomes a question only of whether Louisiana can pass laws that require a breaking of protected privilege, privacy,. It therefore puts into question and into jeopardy ALL forms of privilege (client-attorney, spousal, doctor-patient, etc), privacy rights (no point to HIPAA or the 5th Amendment), and yes, religious freedom (the 1st Amendment).
As such, it is an asinine claim with a massive weight of precedent and Constitutional structure against it. When people get so far into the weeds and so drunk with power or emotion, they lose sight of simple logic and the ability to examine consequences.
