Louisiana court's ruling that Catholic priest testify about confession criticized by Baton Rouge Diocese: UPDATED

[cycleman]

I’m not familiar with LA law, but do you know what exactly is the cause of action, here? Just a, “You failed to execute your statutory duty, which caused me harm?” type thing?

It’s not absolutely clear what the cause of action is here. There was talk about not executing duties as a mandatory reporter, but I think it’s more than that. It does appear that the priest may very well not be a mandatory reporter.

In the Supreme Court decision, they made reference to the fact that whether the priest was a mandatory reporter or not wasn’t all there was to it. It looks the LA civil code imposes a general ‘responsibility’ to be held accountable for the consequences of your actions, and they said that whether the priest had such a responsibility in this case was a mixed issue of fact and law that needed to settled at trial.

I think what the plaintiff is alleging was that by advising her to ‘deal with the problem herself’ and “if you tell people will get hurt” and to not tell her parents or the police (allegedly to protect the abuser), the abuse continued longer than it would have otherwise and she was harmed as a result.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Yeah, I find it kind of funny too, especially because I can think of NOTHING that would make people of today march down the street! I think even if Govt threatened to forcibly take away their first born, SOME people would just sit back and obey. LOL

Americans today are some of the most easily controlled people I can think of (compared to other countries and other time periods), I cant think of anything that would cause a large majority of people to riot in the streets or do anything that risks their own freedom or comfort/ quality of life, its simple, most people dont want to be bothered, they want to live in their little cul de sac worlds and want nothing to interfere with that…in return they are willing to pay literally any new taxes, fees, fines, etc. obey any new law, regulations, etc without a question…no matter what they are asked, they obey 100%. LOL

This is surely not what our founding fathers desired for the nation, we have lost alot of our patriotism over the years, now its all just talk, no action.

One thing the founding fathers surely didn’t intend with all their highfallootin’ law makin’ was mob rule.

 

[mikekle]

One thing the founding fathers surely didn’t intend with all their highfallootin’ law makin’ was mob rule.

You are right, but they did expect and actually require citizens to correct the ‘wrong’ within Govt if they know of such a thing, problem is, when Govt does not see it as wrong, and then tries to arrest a person for only doing their patriotic duty…I believe the statement is ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots’. We celebrate all the patriots centuries ago did, so why would anyone label a patriot today a domestic terrorist for trying to do the same thing? LOL

How many other citizens would call police and turn a fellow citizen in for doing such a thing, even if it was done as a patriotic act? I believe many citizens would turn others in…in a heartbeat!!! This is very sad imo, but its proof Govt brainwashing has worked in alot of people…many many people are soooo ready and willing to alert police to anyone doing anything, even if its a act of patriotism, done to right a wrong! What has become of this country? lol

 

[Dwyer]

Just keep fighting and dying in 9 + year long wars against the fanatical Muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan who want to take away our Freedoms and everything will be all right.

 

[seaton2005]

New Orleans Times-Picayune:

So is Louisiana’s plan to turn priests into mandated reporters?

That would be the correct thing to do if a priest has knowledge of the abuse of a child. Protecting the child/victim is the priority here and nothing else.

 

[pnewton]

That would be the correct thing to do if a priest has knowledge of the abuse of a child. Protecting the child/victim is the priority here and nothing else.

This is not the correct thing do to if the knowledge came through confession. Priests will never become reporters of what they hear in confession. Priests will be jailed first and this Sacrament will not be available for those in the state that makes them reporters.

The priority even greater than protecting children is eternity: Heaven and Hell.

 

[choose_to_love]

@cycleman: thank you for your kind words.

Re: the causes of action. Again, cycleman, I think you are correct. It seems to me there are two counts against the priest himself, as you stated in your post, one with respect to the mandatory reporter law, and one that says his (alleged) terrible advice allowed the abuse to go on longer. The Diocese is alleged to be negligent by failing to properly train/supervise its priests, i.e., the priest in question here.

To me the worst part of the decision is where it remands for an inquiry as to whether the girl went to confession “per se”. if she went to a scheduled confession time, or made an appointment for the same, that should be the end of that inquiry, IMO. I do not think the State should be determining if someone “really” went to confession or not, at least under the circumstances present here.

@vse: re: why would a priest cover up - - oh, maybe the abuser was a) major benefactor of the parish, b) related to a major benefactor of the parish, c) knows some other info that is embarassing about the priest. You can think of a lot of things, not that I have heard that any of them are actually present here. Fer cryin’ out loud, Bp. Finn had a computer full of kiddie porn and he didn’t think he should call the police ( I know that is a somewhat gross generalization of a situation with some involved facts, but still), and that was what, two years ago?.

 

[mikekle]

That would be the correct thing to do if a priest has knowledge of the abuse of a child. Protecting the child/victim is the priority here and nothing else.

Not so sure I agree with that, if it were something mentioned in a confession, I dont think the priest should talk about it outside of the confessional, and definitely not go to police! GEEZ! After that got out, no one would be going to confession anymore.

IN cases like this, I think priests can resolve problems like this with their own ways.

 

[Cricket2]

Even without the seal of the confessional there is no way to prove who said what. I’m surprised this case even went to court.

I think you are correct. In any other instance it might be declared “hearsay” and thus inadmissible. (He said she said.)

If the constitution is to be followed, which clearly indicates that the “state shall make no law” concerning the practice of our religion (freedom OF religion), then the court ruling should be viewed as unconstitutional to begin with. The courts should have no power regarding the seal of Confession.

 

[zab]

I have to wonder why the teenager did not go to her parents when she felt uncomfortable by what was going on with the family friend. If the teenager wanted the alleged to be reported to her parents or to the authorities, it WAS her responsibility to do so or to tell someone who was not binding by silence under the seal of confession. But that was the method that she chose and it should be respected.

 

[Travelinkid]

I do not know what the Priest told that girl, but I would hope he encouraged her to tell her parents, a teacher or someone in authority and give her support to be able to do that. If he did not, then I believe there was an error on his behalf. He could have been helpful to her without breaking the seal of confession.