D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. The stories in the media have not made sense on what this is about.
DGB
Louisiana court's ruling that Catholic priest testify about confession criticized by Baton Rouge Diocese: UPDATED
- Status
DGB
M
Memaw
Guest
That’s the silliest thing I ever heard. The Seal of Confession covers everything that is said in the confession. Most of the time there is likely someone else involved in our sins, so does that mean the Seal doesn’t cover them?? Going to Confession is not like talking to someone over the back fence. God Bless, Memaw
C
Corki
Guest
I know it’s silly and you know it’s silly. The line of “reasoning” seems to be that, since canon law mentions the betrayal of the penitent, then betraying someone who is not the penitent is not covered. I think they are just grasping and trying to capitalize on some anti-Catholic sentiment.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Thank you Deacon. This is the only post where someone brings up the real issue here.
What if the constitution is changed? What if we were in another nation where there is no constitutional protection or other civil law protecting the seal? Defending the seal of confession on a constitutional basis or based on the secular law is the exact wrong approach. Doing so renders unto Caesar that which is not his.
No secular government has the authority to compel the seal to be broken. Authority over the seal lies with the Church and comes from God. That’s the end of the argument right there. It is an injustice when someone tries to exercise authority which they do not have. Attempting to force someone to break the seal is unjust.
-Tim-
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m not sure that is much better. Since when does the state get to decide whether a confession happened or not?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
What if the priest heard the confession of the abuser? The priest can’t even make that claim in his own defense.
Peace
Tim
C
Corki
Guest
It’s not the priest making the claim, it’s the suing attorney.
If the priest heard the confession of the abuser, it would be cut and dried. He absolutely could not reveal anything about the Confession or in any way betray the penitent, even as part of his own defense.
Just to be clear, I don’t believe there is any leeway in the teaching about the seal just because the penitent, in the case of this young girl, would not be the one betrayed.
O
Orogeny
Guest
I understand. How would we know if the priest did hear the confession of the abuser? After all, according to the court ruling, the priest met with the abuser at least once following the confession of the girl. Since this guy was an active parishioner, it isn’t a stretch to think that he (the abuser) actually made a confession. That is my point. The priest cannot even bring that up as a defense or as a reason that he cannot discuss these things.
Peace
Tim
M
marymary1975
Guest
They need to know if it was a confession or no. The privilege applies to confessions only. If I go to chat with my priest about the war in Syria just to put an example, that is not a confession. Apparently one lawyer is saying it was not a confession instead it was a regular conversation. The priest say it was a confession. If the intent was no further disclosure…as in confession, then is a confession. The court ordered they need to figure out if it was a confession or no because one party seems to claim it was a regular conversation not under confession…
C
cycleman
Guest
It is important to remember that the girl is not asking the priest to reveal the contents of the abuser’s confession, I don’t there is any allegation he ever confessed or admitted to anything.
She is only asking him to 1) confirm the statements she alleges she made to him in confession, and 2) his responses to her.
She alleges that he told her (a 12 year old girl being molested by an older man, a prominent parishioner) to ‘keep quiet or people will get hurt’. The classic coverup and protection of the abuser, an all too familiar story in the Catholic church.
She was the penitent, and is freely releasing the priest from the seal. But, apparently the seal is absolute and cannot be released even by the one it is meant to protect.
Actually, in this case it’s quite possible the seal is being used by the priest and the diocese to shield themselves from potential civil liability for the coverup,
O
Orogeny
Guest
It is possible, assuming that there is a coverup. But it is just as likely, or even more so in my opinion, that this is a money grab and the parents and the lawyer know that the priest cannot defend himself.
Peace
Tim
L
Lapey
Guest
It is important to remember it doesn’t matter what the court or the girl and her family is asking; if it involves anything surrounding the sacrament of confession and/or spiritual direction with a person it is off limits and the priest cannot and will not divulge the information.
She is only asking him, actually it is a layer on behalf of her parents, to break his obligation of silence and in fact bring excommunication upon himself.
It is rather the classic fact that he cannot either affirm or deny the claims that have been made by this girl or her family. The priest cannot defend himself or even talk about it without bringing excommunication. Furthermore, you keep bringing up the past sexual abuse scandals trying to link this to it and it is completely out of ignorance that you do. The two are in no way connected nor related; they are not even in any way similar.
She cannot release the priest of a requirement which she is not in control of. She has no authority to release the requirement; neither is the US Supreme Court.
It is entirely possible that this family and their layers are trying to force a good man and a holy priest to break the seal of confession to apply liability on himself or Mother Church when it lies with the perpetrator of these alleged abuses.
C
cycleman
Guest
Looking at the decision, there is absolutely no order for the priest to do anything or say anything. It only says the girl can testify as to the contents of the confession.
The Diocese filed a motion to prevent the girl from testifying about the contents of the confession, in effect gagging her. Louisiana law, according to the Supreme Court decision, does recognize priest/penitent privilege, but it is the penitent’s privilege only. Since she agreed to waive the privilege, she is free to testify. All that was done was to remove the gag order against the girl that the diocese had been granted by the lower court,
From the decision
*It follows, if the penitent waives the privilege, the priest cannot then raise it to protect himself as he can only “claim the privilege on behalf of the person,” not in his own right. La. Code Evid. art. 511(C). Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in granting the Church’s motion in limine, excluding all evidence of the confession in its entirety as the child/penitent is free to testify and introduce evidence as to her own confession.]
*
There is no statement whatsoever ordering the priest to do anything.
The Diocese filed a motion to prevent the girl from testifying about the contents of the confession, in effect gagging her. Louisiana law, according to the Supreme Court decision, does recognize priest/penitent privilege, but it is the penitent’s privilege only. Since she agreed to waive the privilege, she is free to testify. All that was done was to remove the gag order against the girl that the diocese had been granted by the lower court,
From the decision
*It follows, if the penitent waives the privilege, the priest cannot then raise it to protect himself as he can only “claim the privilege on behalf of the person,” not in his own right. La. Code Evid. art. 511(C). Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in granting the Church’s motion in limine, excluding all evidence of the confession in its entirety as the child/penitent is free to testify and introduce evidence as to her own confession.]
*
There is no statement whatsoever ordering the priest to do anything.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Thank you cyclemen for putting the actual wording. As I said the wording if the news seemed wrong. I was able to see that the court did not order the priest to do anything but this is much clearer. Again the media is misrepresenting things.
C
cycleman
Guest
Unfortunately, it is not just the media. They are just repeating what the diocese themselves said. From the diocese’s press release…
The issue as it relates to the “Church defendants” (Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge) attacks the seal of confession and the attempt by the plaintiffs to have the court compel testimony from the priest, Fr. Bayhi, as to whether or not there were confessions and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were.
As I said previously, I see nothing in the decision compelling the priest to do anything. The diocese has also misrepresented the decision.
L
Lapey
Guest
So you are the authority of the case and not the diocese? Nice. I think I’ll stick with the information and the reaction of the diocese of Baton Rouge. But thanks anyway.
C
Cider
Guest
Why are people here blaming the priest? This family is Catholic, the girl in question is above the age of reason otherwise she wouldn’t be going to confession. Surely she was taught about the seal of confession, which means that she’d know that anything said there stays there. There are many other people she could ( and obviously did and has) told about what happened to her where the seal of confession doesn’t apply and the person could be a mandatory reporter, like a school counselor.
The priest didn’t really know anything anyway. This is not a case where the accused abuser confessed. I used to live in that diocese although I never went to that specific parish. I find it very hard to believe that any priests in our diocese would not have counseled her to tell her parents, or another adult.
I am curious if the reason for the lawsuit is that the accused is dead. So they are seeking whatever “remedy” they can.
The family lawyer claims this is all to protect the now 20 year old girl but the accused has been dead for years. She’s at no risk. Honestly, my personal opinion is it’s a money grab and an attempt to attack the church. If she was mature enough at 14 to tell the priest in confession she was mature enough to tell another adult in authority like her parents, her school counselor or the police.
The priest didn’t really know anything anyway. This is not a case where the accused abuser confessed. I used to live in that diocese although I never went to that specific parish. I find it very hard to believe that any priests in our diocese would not have counseled her to tell her parents, or another adult.
I am curious if the reason for the lawsuit is that the accused is dead. So they are seeking whatever “remedy” they can.
The family lawyer claims this is all to protect the now 20 year old girl but the accused has been dead for years. She’s at no risk. Honestly, my personal opinion is it’s a money grab and an attempt to attack the church. If she was mature enough at 14 to tell the priest in confession she was mature enough to tell another adult in authority like her parents, her school counselor or the police.
C
cycleman
Guest
The decision is public record on the Internet. The statement I quoted is a cut and paste from the document. If you think I’m wrong, read the decision (it isn’t very long) and tell me where I’m wrong.So you are the authority of the case and not the diocese? Nice. I think I’ll stick with the information and the reaction of the diocese of Baton Rouge. But thanks anyway.
Or, do you just accept what the diocese says without question?
C
cycleman
Guest
Here is a link (I hope the link works) to the decision. It’s only seven pages, Can you please review and tell me where it orders the priest or diocese to do anything?So you are the authority of the case and not the diocese? Nice. I think I’ll stick with the information and the reaction of the diocese of Baton Rouge. But thanks anyway.
I am quite willing to be proved wrong if I am in error.
www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf
- Status