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

[styrgwillidar]

“Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the appellate court’s judgment in its entirety, we hereby render judgment reinstating the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The issue being that the trial court had determined that the priest was a mandatory reporter, and could be compelled to testify. But, to check on that you’d need to find the trial court decision, I have only reviewed the LA Supreme Court and the Appeals Court decisions.

The appeals court had disagreed, deciding the priest was not a mandatory reporter given the seal/confidentiality of the confessional, and decided there could be no testimony regarding the confession(s).

"http://www.la-fcca.org/opiniongrid/opinionpdf/2013 CW 0316 Decision Writ.pdf
’

 

[manualman]

This isn’t a criminal matter and the lawsuit isn’t ONLY against the abuser, but against the priest and the diocese too. The problem here is that the decision creates an intolerable and unjust legal system for catholic priests going forward from here. It’s effectively open season on the catholic church in LA.

If you are catholic and have any sort of plausible record of having gone to confession AND you were sexually abused by ANYBODY, you can now loot and plunder the catholic church as well as the abuser. All you have to do is testify that you told your priest about it in confession and he did nothing or told you to just do nothing.

Anybody else but a priest, of course, can respond by saying “Liar! I said no such thing and never would.” And legal status quo for “he said / she said” situations is that the tie goes to the defendant.

But since the priest and the diocese are being sued and the subject is confession, the priest CANNOT say ANYTHING about the confession, even to defend himself. That’s the trick that seems to be going on here. They’ve found a way to make a mere accusation enough to win in civil lawsuits.

So you are TECHNICALLY correct that this doesn’t compel the priest to break his oath and testify. He’s free to simply refuse to respond at all to the accusations, which functionally means he will lose the lawsuit and be looted by the lawyer and his client. Or he can betray his vocation and excommunicate himself. Yeah, no injustice there…

 

[Lapey]

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.

Or, do you just accept what the diocese says without question?

Yes, because I know how many officials and layers it takes to make decisions about releasing statements. They don’t normally make statements at all and in this case they were very straight forward. I trust them before you as far as interpretations go.

 

[cycleman]

Yes, because I know how many officials and layers it takes to make decisions about releasing statements. They don’t normally make statements at all and in this case they were very straight forward. I trust them before you as far as interpretations go.

Any credible discussion and debate requires consideration of both sides.

 

[Lapey]

Any credible discussion and debate requires consideration of both sides.

I understand that, but I know how the inner workings of a diocese goes; statements like this don’t go out without sure reason. I’ll lean their way.

Furthermore, every media outlet is stating the opposite that you are in your interpretation of the entirety of the case. Again, I’ll lean to the diocese. Sorry, but your opinion holds absolutely no water with me, I know this priest and and this diocese well. I trust they are following good legal and spiritual advice.

 

[Hopey]

Does anyone know why the Diocese objected in the first place of the young lady stating what was said in confession?
From what I have read, non-media, this is how it all started.
As we should know, a person can speak about their confession.
I am not understanding why they objected in the first place.

 

[manualman]

Does anyone know why the Diocese objected in the first place of the young lady stating what was said in confession?

It’s not hard to figure out. The girl’s folks named the priest and the diocese in the lawsuit. The girl is claiming that she sought aid in the confessional and wants to make that accusation in court. The diocese objects that the priest is forbidden even to defend himself in regards to what was said in confession, so allowing her testimony alone is unjust. It places the priest in a situation where he can either defend himself (thereby excommunicating himself) or be unable to refute her charges due to his vows.

 

[Hopey]

It’s not hard to figure out. The girl’s folks named the priest and the diocese in the lawsuit. The girl is claiming that she sought aid in the confessional and wants to make that accusation in court. The diocese objects that the priest is forbidden even to defend himself in regards to what was said in confession, so allowing her testimony alone is unjust. It places the priest in a situation where he can either defend himself (thereby excommunicating himself) or be unable to refute her charges due to his vows.

I guess I don’t see it as putting him in danger of breaking the seal with HER wanting to state what was said in the confessional.
As long as they observe the laws in regards to the priest, let her speak all day long. It will be her word alone tho. That is how I see it. That is also why I don’t understand still.
Let her talk.

 

[manualman]

I guess I don’t see it as putting him in danger of breaking the seal with HER wanting to state what was said in the confessional.
As long as they observe the laws in regards to the priest, let her speak all day long. It will be her word alone tho. That is how I see it. That is also why I don’t understand still.
Let her talk.

You don’t see the issue? She’s accusing him of negligence and trying to get the court to award her vast sums of money donated by catholics intended for church use. Even if she’s lying through her teeth, the priest MAY NOT refute her false testimony about what was said in confession. He’s barred from discussing it.

They’ve created a legal standard in which the defendant’s life is destroyed regardless of guilt or innocence and regardless of which choice he makes in regards to the accusations.

 

[Hopey]

You don’t see the issue? She’s accusing him of negligence and trying to get the court to award her vast sums of money donated by catholics intended for church use. Even if she’s lying through her teeth, the priest MAY NOT refute her false testimony about what was said in confession. He’s barred from discussing it.

They’ve created a legal standard in which the defendant’s life is destroyed regardless of guilt or innocence and regardless of which choice he makes in regards to the accusations.

A person can speak about their own confession, tho.

If she is lying, may God have mercy on her soul.

They can not compel him to break the seal.

There are just some things that come with this territory. Even within our Church, someone could claim something happened in confession and the the priest could not break the seal to defend himself. That happens within the Church.

On one point, I do agree with the Supreme Court.

 

[manualman]

This fundamentally changes the legal status quo. That’s my objection.

If you and I have a private conversation and you later testify about it against me, I can refute your testimony myself. If there is no other evidence, the current legal status is that “he said / she said” ties go to the defendant.

This ruling utterly changes that in that she can make and accusation that he cannot respond to either way. I’m not a legal expert, but I suspect that if he won’t refute her testimony in court it will result in a finding in her favor.

Thus, the new standard of law is that merely accusing a catholic priest of something said in the confessional that creates a legal liability is enough to destroy him forever regardless of his guilt or innocence.

You really have no problem with that? With having ZERO protection against lies and false accusations for priests? What if you’re next somehow? What happened to due process? Why doesn’t the person bringing the accusation have to produce some sort of evidence?

 

[Orogeny]

This fundamentally changes the legal status quo. That’s my objection.

If you and I have a private conversation and you later testify about it against me, I can refute your testimony myself. If there is no other evidence, the current legal status is that “he said / she said” ties go to the defendant.

This ruling utterly changes that in that she can make and accusation that he cannot respond to either way. I’m not a legal expert, but I suspect that if he won’t refute her testimony in court it will result in a finding in her favor.

Thus, the new standard of law is that merely accusing a catholic priest of something said in the confessional that creates a legal liability is enough to destroy him forever regardless of his guilt or innocence.

You really have no problem with that? With having ZERO protection against lies and false accusations for priests? What if you’re next somehow? What happened to due process? Why doesn’t the person bringing the accusation have to produce some sort of evidence?

Yeah, it seems that people are either missing that point or are ok with it. The priest and the diocese just lost their case because of this ruling and will now have to pay a judgement. Even if the girl is lying (and I’m not saying that she is). I can’t believe that ANYONE actually believes that a system like that is just.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

How could it destroy him forever? The only thing, if any, he is guilty of is giving horrible spiritual advice in the confessional. That she didn’t understand the seal of the confessional, that he couldn’t go out and speak/seek the alleged perp, talk to her parents of something learned in the confessional is unfortunate.

IF she thought he could speak of this outside, it is very sad or that HE could do something with something confessed. Very sad if she thought that.

It comes with the territory, though. Those priests who step in the confessional know they can not, under any circumstances, speak about what was confessed. Charges brought inside the Church against priests are in similar situations. They can not defend themselves.

So, the way I see it, she gets to talk, and then maybe some Catechism 101 takes place?

 

[Orogeny]

How could it destroy him forever?

This is a civil case, but it now sets precedent that can be used in future criminal trials. A priest could be sent to prison among other things (being forced to register as a sex offender, for example) based on testimony that he cannot refute because of the seal of confession.

The only thing, if any, he is guilty of is giving horrible spiritual advice in the confessional. That she didn’t understand the seal of the confessional, that he couldn’t go out and speak/seek the alleged perp, talk to her parents of something learned in the confessional is unfortunate.

IF she thought he could speak of this outside, it is very sad or that HE could do something with something confessed. Very sad if she thought that.

It comes with the territory, though. Those priests who step in the confessional know they can not, under any circumstances, speak about what was confessed. Charges brought inside the Church against priests are in similar situations. They can not defend themselves.

So, the way I see it, she gets to talk, and then maybe some Catechism 101 takes place?

There is a difference between talking about what you discussed in the confessional and having that being admissible in court. Because she can tell her story as evidence against the priest and the diocese and neither can refute or even comment on it, she will win the case by default.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

In my brain, the church needs to be consistent. If they want it to apply to civil, then they need to start within the Church and change it - no one can bring charges against a priest or things done in the confessional.

When they say we can not talk about our confessions, then I will see the point.
When they do it within the Church first, I will change my position.

I don’t see it over, necessarily.
I am not sure I would have gone to court, but settled anyway, outside, especially the circumstances so the victim, priest didn’t have to go through it. That’s just me.

 

[Memaw]

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…

We take the word of the Priest. How would the lawyer know if it was or wasn’t a confession? I know lawyers think they know everything but they really don’t! God Bless, Memaw

 

[manualman]

In my brain, the church needs to be consistent. If they want it to apply to civil, then they need to start within the Church and change it - no one can bring charges against a priest or things done in the confessional.

When they say we can not talk about our confessions, then I will see the point.
When they do it within the Church first, I will change my position.

I don’t see it over, necessarily.
I am not sure I would have gone to court, but settled anyway, outside, especially the circumstances so the victim, priest didn’t have to go through it. That’s just me.

I’m not following you. What are you saying the church should do here? I’m just horrified that you are fine with a legal finding that anybody who wants to make up a lie can sue the church for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is nothing the priest or diocese can do to defend themselves. And you’re OK with it.

Maybe she’s telling the truth. But maybe she’s not. Uncorroborated and disputed testimony has NEVER been enough in the past to find for a plaintiff. Now it is, but only against catholic priests. And you find this to be just?

Maybe one of us isn’t getting this case. Here’s how I understand it in a nutshell:

Plaintiff: I’m suing you because you were told of the abuse in confession and should have done something. You’re liable for my pain because you did nothing.

Defendant: I can’t discuss what was or was not said in the confessional at all.

Judge: So you don’t dispute the testimony?

Defendant: I simply cannot comment at all on what was said in any confession.

Judge: Defendant has not refuted the plaintiffs complaint. I find for the plaintiff. Award full requested amount of $XXX,000. Next case.

Really? You see that as justice? If I understand it correctly, this precedent could be quite simply the end of organized Catholicism in America. Every deadbeat grifter kid in the country will head for the confessional, make up a story and run the church into bankruptcy.

 

[Hopey]

I’m not following you. What are you saying the church should do here? I’m just horrified that you are fine with a legal finding that anybody who wants to make up a lie can sue the church for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is nothing the priest or diocese can do to defend themselves. And you’re OK with it.

Maybe she’s telling the truth. But maybe she’s not. Uncorroborated and disputed testimony has NEVER been enough in the past to find for a plaintiff. Now it is, but only against catholic priests. And you find this to be just?

I’m never ok with lying. She is responsible for herself. I pray she isn’t but you have to understand, WE can speak of our confessions (not confessor) AND charges within the Church can be brought against a priest for things done/said in the confessional without him being able to defend himself. Those are our internal rules.
If we want it to be differently, we need to change them internally first. They won’t because there have been, hopefully not still, priest who solicit things in the confessional which are a grave crime within the Church.

I am comparing it to how we already operate and understand these things. Not all things will be fair. Pick your battles. I just understand why the Supreme Court ruled like that.

I don’t think he is destroyed forever.

If they proceed, which I hope they don’t, I would maybe take the angle of the classes taught yearly in parishes about sex abuse and how/where to report them. I hope they don’t go down that road.

 

[Hopey]

At the end of the day, we want victims and alleged victims to come first. We want everything done for their care, healing.

We want the priest to be protected, not put in this situation to begin with - that may mean settle out of court.

We could never know the whole truth but we should be able to still help her and the priest.

That is how I would like to think the Diocese would respond especially when the priest could never testify.

 

[manualman]

Justice never comes from unjust laws. Your concern for victims is admirable, but you are thinking with feelings instead of reason. Once law creates reliable opportunity for exploitation via the legal system, exploiters WILL come and take advantage. It’s fallen human nature.

You can bet that SNAP and their ilk are absolutely drooling over this one with enormous neon dollar signs flashing in their heads.