O
otjm
Guest
that’s funny. I was taught that a quotation from a statute or other codified law was not hearsay; but it was to be entered in evidence properly. So I don’t see Benedict gal as exactly making a hearsay statement when she writes in the text of a document. She does not offer it to prove the truth of the statement therein, but rather to provide the context of determining something else.I am not being snippy. Please don’t take it that way. But as an attorney, I have always taken exception to the popular misuse of the term hearsay.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted. It is not synonymous with gossip or misinformation. Therefore, there are two elements to hearsay:
(1) The statement was not said in court (or in this case the forum), and (2) it is being offered to prove the truth matter at issue.
Hearsay is more than just a mere inquiry. “I heard that deacons aren’t supposed to say homilies. Is that true?” is not hearsay.
On the other hand, all the quotes that go on here from RS, the GIRM, the CCC and different members of the heirarchy are hearsay. When Benedictgal quotes RS, it is hearsay because she is using statements that weren’t made on this forum to prove her assertion. (No offense B’gal, my old college chum. But I would much rather be accused of using HEARSAY than of committing HERESY…that’s an old lawyer’s joke.)
And hearsay isn’t barred because it’s gossip. It’s barred because the declarant can’t be cross examined and tested for sincerity, veracity, perception, correct word usage and all the other things that courts and juries use to determine whether testimony is reliable. There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule where the situation creates an “indicia of reliablity.”
I’m sorry for the lecture on hearsay. However, this has been a crusade of mine since I took Evidence back during my midlaw year in law school.