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

[Hopey]

If the priest or bishop says there was a confession, the seal is broken. If discussions took place in and outside of the confessional, he can speak of neither; less the seal be broken. He is defenseless.

You were wrong before and you are still wrong now.
A penitent, parishoner can speak to a priest outside of the confessional and, if it is regarding abuse, that is where the mandatory reporter would kick in.

If the Bishop is (mis)understanding about confessions and how to say there was one or not, then y’all are all in trouble. Just saying. I think sometimes people deserve a good beating (in court, not physical) so they can get with it. I never want it to be so, but I do pray the Bishop is on the ball more than you.

 

[Lapey]

The Bishop didn’t throw anyone under the bus. But, go to the one under sacraments and look for the link of the Bishop declaring the priest broke the seal. In order for him to judge that he broke the seal, there must first be a confession.

Yes,** a confession can be valid or not, such as the way it starts and ends, absolution.**
Go and look at how Dr. Peter took line by line what a minister, priest, wrote in an article and see how there was enough evidence that the Diocese, officials, needed to look in to it.

If they can’t look at these things, then there would be no determining these others.

Thanks so much for educating me as to the fact that a confession, and therefore absolution, can be valid or invalid.

I’ve debated Dr. Peters before and he has been corrected by the Vatican in past arguments. He is not the magisterium.

 

[Hopey]

Thanks so much for educating me as to the fact that a confession, and therefore absolution, can be valid or invalid.

I’ve debated Dr. Peters before and he has been corrected by the Vatican in past arguments. He is not the magisterium.

I see.
You corrected Dr. Peters on the matter of confession, what would make it valid or not? Or that he was not qualified to give opinions on the matter?

As to the other Bishop, who did declare a priest had broken the seal, I guess he is just wrong?

I will tell you why you don’t hear much about it is because it is usually done in privacy, confidential way.

 

[Lapey]

You were wrong before and you are still wrong now.
A penitent, parishoner can speak to a priest outside of the confessional and, if it is regarding abuse, that is where the mandatory reporter would kick in.

If the Bishop is (mis)understanding about confessions and how to say there was one or not, then y’all are all in trouble. Just saying. I think sometimes people deserve a good beating (in court, not physical) so they can get with it. ** I never want it to be so, but I do pray the Bishop is on the ball more than you**.

You are way too smart for me. I think I’m done, there is nothing left to discuss. Private message me if you care to continue.

Is your old screen name “Michael Saint” by any chance?

 

[Lapey]

I see.
You corrected Dr. Peters on the matter of confession, what would make it valid or not? Or that he was not qualified to give opinions on the matter?

As to the other Bishop, who did declare a priest had broken the seal, I guess he is just wrong?

I will tell you why you don’t hear much about it is because it is usually done in privacy, confidential way.

I said nothing of the topic in which Dr. Peters and I debated, nor the topic in which he was corrected by the Vatican, that is your assertion.

And I never said Bishops haven’t declared that priests have broken the seal. I post and you change the meaning. You have an agenda; it is evident by the way in which you twist words to mean what you think they mean. That my friend is dishonest.

 

[Hopey]

I said nothing of the topic in which Dr. Peters and I debated, nor the topic in which he was corrected by the Vatican, that is your assertion.

And I never said Bishops haven’t declared that priests have broken the seal. I post and you change the meaning. You have an agenda; it is evident by the way in which you twist words to mean what you think they mean. That my friend is dishonest.

What?
I have no idea why you claim a question is an assertion. If you don’t want to share, then so be it.
I am not dishonest. But since I know what your goal is, and you remain in error, I am finished. Peace.

 

[Lapey]

What?
I have no idea why you claim a question is an assertion. If you don’t want to share, then so be it.
I am not dishonest. But since I know what your goal is, and you remain in error, I am finished. Peace.

The topic was not confession, you assumed it was by the wording of your question. Does it matter what it was about? Just for the record it was about married clergy and perfect and perpetual continence. That subject has nothing to do with this situation, I simply stated I do not hold Dr. Peters as “the authority” of the Church. He is a member of CAF. Seek him out to join the conversation.

PS. I am in error by your understanding of what I have posted. Maybe that is where the error is found.

 

[Hopey]

The topic was not confession, you assumed it was by the wording of your question. Does it matter what it was about? Just for the record it was about married clergy and perfect and perpetual continence. That subject has nothing to do with this situation, I simply stated I do not hold Dr. Peters as “the authority” of the Church. He is a member of CAF. Seek him out to join the conversation.

PS. I am in error by your understanding of what I have posted. Maybe that is where the error is found.

Your error is that you have stated emphatically that a priest can not speak of a TOPIC of something confessed to them outside the confessional. You said they could not do that. You are in error.
You also stated that a Bishop could not say one thing about a girl whose confession is now testimony, whether it was a confession or not.

Oh, about perpetual continence, that is interesting how our history, tradition understands it. It is also terribly unfair to impose it on someone who did not know about it. I can’t see where the Vatican would have corrected him because he is an expert and gives his opinions.

I have no dog in that race other than, things need to be figured out one way or another BEFORE someone is ordained a deacon, not after. Unfair to all.

 

[zab]

Your error is that you have stated emphatically that a priest can not speak of a TOPIC of something confessed to them outside the confessional. You said they could not do that. You are in error.
You also stated that a Bishop could not say one thing about a girl whose confession is now testimony, whether it was a confession or not.

Oh, about perpetual continence, that is interesting how our history, tradition understands it. It is also terribly unfair to impose it on someone who did not know about it. I can’t see where the Vatican would have corrected him because he is an expert and gives his opinions.

I have no dog in that race other than, things need to be figured out one way or another BEFORE someone is ordained a deacon, not after. Unfair to all.

That’s one mean dog you have.

 

[Lapey]

Your error is that you have stated emphatically that a priest can not speak of a TOPIC of something confessed to them outside the confessional. You said they could not do that. You are in error.
You also stated that a Bishop could not say one thing about a girl whose confession is now testimony, whether it was a confession or not.

Oh, about perpetual continence, that is interesting how our history, tradition understands it. It is also terribly unfair to impose it on someone who did not know about it. I can’t see where the Vatican would have corrected him because he is an expert and gives his opinions.

I have no dog in that race other than, things need to be figured out one way or another BEFORE someone is ordained a deacon, not after. Unfair to all.

Well, and I’ll call you Wade just for old times sake, I do know and was taught well. Cardinal Dolan requested the Vatican adress Dr. Peters’claims of this being required. This iz why the Vatican addressed his interpretation specifically. He was corrected quite directly.

Btw. Your dog has a broken leg.

 

[Hopey]

Well, and I’ll call you Wade just for old times sake, I do know and was taught well. Cardinal Dolan requested the Vatican adress Dr. Peters’claims of this being required. This iz why the Vatican addressed his interpretation specifically. He was corrected quite directly.

Btw. Your dog has a broken leg.

Oh, my catahoula hound is in great shape, thank you for asking.
BTW, tell me this regarding deacons, did they say Dr. Peters opinion on the law was in error or that Deacons, married, did not have to observe perpetual continence?
There is a difference in that.
As far as I know, they haven’t changed the law. They should not have bound married deacons, in my opinion, to something they did know about which is exactly what they did.

 

[Hopey]

I don’t remember what my first screen name was. I have slept too many times, and after getting mad over having to start a new one, that file was destroyed in my head.
I usually stick with the Hopey or variation (MrsHopey?) IDK.

 

[MarcoPolo]

allowing a child to be raped

You don’t know this but as others have pointed out our legal system affords for such things as attorney-client privileges or patient doctor confidentiality. So I would recommend you rail against that since this situation is far more common in secular arrangements.

 

[Lapey]

Oh, my catahoula hound is in great shape, thank you for asking.
BTW, tell me this regarding deacons, did they say Dr. Peters opinion on the law was in error or that Deacons, married, did not have to observe perpetual continence?
There is a difference in that.
As far as I know, they haven’t changed the law. They should not have bound married deacons, in my opinion, to something they did know about which is exactly what they did.

The current code of canon law excludes married clergy from the requirement of celibacy and therefore ppc. Theres no big misconception. No huge injustice. Just large misunderstandings of canon law.

So in short, Dr. Peters was and is wrong and married clergy are not bound by ppc as those who are celibate.

 

[Phemie]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that the Bishop at this point can no more say whether this was a confession or not than I can and that for the same reason: the penitent is known therefore the priest can not ask the bishop for advice on this or discuss it with him.

 

[Lapey]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that the Bishop at this point can no more say whether this was a confession or not than I can and that for the same reason: the penitent is known therefore the priest can not ask the bishop for advice on this or discuss it with him.

You’ve got it!

 

[Hopey]

Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that the Bishop at this point can no more say whether this was a confession or not than I can and that for the same reason: the penitent is known therefore the priest can not ask the bishop for advice on this or discuss it with him.

The Bishop can determine if something was a confession or not. If he could not, then there would be no stating that a seal had been broken (example) because you put him in an impossible situation. Although the priest can not break the seal, the Bishop investigating these things are not breaking the seal esp if the penitent, who can freely speak of their confession, reveals to the Bishop what they believe to be a break, or whatever the case may be.

Asking the Bishop for advice is another thing. The priest is supposed to be supplied with someone to help them, canon lawyer, etc. So that lawyer should remind him and let him know what he can and can not do regarding the confession. He would not have to speak to the Bishop. Sometimes the Bishop puts the VG in charge anyway.

 

[Hopey]

I personally would not be surprised if, internally, this went to Rome to decide on some things regarding the priest because you have a child, and horrible advice and we know the abuse escalated.

We don’t usually know of those because they are kept confidential. But, it could be decided that his faculties to hear confession be taken away. Or, he could be assigned X amount of penance plus classes.

Occasionally, for whatever reason, they will publish what was determined (I know of one regarding the break of the seal). That is the Bishops call though.

 

[Lapey]

I personally would not be surprised if, internally, this went to Rome to decide on some things regarding the priest because you have a child, and horrible advice and we know the abuse escalated.

We don’t usually know of those because they are kept confidential. But, it could be decided that his faculties to hear confession be taken away. Or, he could be assigned X amount of penance plus classes.

Occasionally, for whatever reason, they will publish what was determined (I know of one regarding the break of the seal). That is the Bishops call though.

You’ve got Fr. Bayhi guilty already and are ready to punish him. I’m glad you are not a judge.

 

[Hopey]

You’ve got Fr. Bayhi guilty already and are ready to punish him. I’m glad you are not a judge.

Or, they could come back and say they find no evidence of wrong doing, and that is that.