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

[Hopey]

Just from my point of view, and having thought about this too much already, it would seem to be in the best interest of priests when they need to give counsel, to ask the person to see them outside the confessional.

That way, when the penitent comes back, and brings it up on their own, the priest is in a situation that is confidential, but not the same as the seal, so he could defend himself.

He could also report abuse if he did the above.

BUT, if priests are being told, or lead to believe, they can hear nothing of the TOPIC of something said in the confessional, outside, even if the penitent brings it up, then I could see why this is happening.

I don’t think making penitents go behind a screen/grill would work completely because the penitent would still know who the priest was and priests usually can identify some penitents in the confessional (although they are not supposed to if using the screen grill).

 

[Lapey]

Just from my point of view, and having thought about this too much already, it would seem to be in the best interest of priests when they need to give counsel, to ask the person to see them outside the confessional.

That way, when the penitent comes back, and brings it up on their own, the priest is in a situation that is confidential, but not the same as the seal, so he could defend himself.

He could also report abuse if he did the above.

BUT, if priests are being told, or lead to believe, they can hear nothing of the TOPIC of something said in the confessional, outside, even if the penitent brings it up, then I could see why this is happening.

I don’t think making penitents go behind a screen/grill would work completely because the penitent would still know who the priest was and priests usually can identify some penitents in the confessional (although they are not supposed to if using the screen grill).

I’ll let Rome know you have spoken.

 

[Lapey]

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

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Hopey]

I’ll let Rome know you have spoken.

COOL!
That above, by the way, is how some diocese are already operating and teaching their priests. The one I am thinking of is way ahead in helping victims and priests btw. They are ahead of the curve in how they deal with things.

 

[Hopey]

IOW, it won’t be news to Rome.

 

[Lapey]

IOW, it won’t be news to Rome.

I’m sure they are awaiting your word.

 

[Lapey]

COOL!
That above, by the way, is how some diocese are already operating and teaching their priests. The one I am thinking of is way ahead in helping victims and priests btw. They are ahead of the curve in how they deal with things.

By what authority and knowledge of the inner workings of dioceses can you make statements like this and the one in which my comment was aimed? Is it a self-imposed authority? What right do you have to make the statements you have made implicating Fr. Bayhi of wrongdoing? What knowledge do you have of anything other than what is available in the media?

You are speaking out of ignorance of these issues with skewed opinions of “how things should work” when you have no idea how things actually work. The reason I respond so harshly is because with almost every post you impugn the reputation of a good man and a holy and good priest and this is not your right to do so and not fair to him, his bishop, his diocese, and the Church as a whole.

Again I mention this, you appear to be driven by an agenda. An agenda to take everything said about a priest as gospel even though he cannot defend himself. That my friend is wrong.

 

[Hopey]

Lapey, I don’t think I can continue this.
The whole point of my post was that there were differing opinions regarding if it met a Religious Liberty issue yet and that a person could be a good Catholic (use of good loosely) and disagree!
I know how one Diocese operates and they are making strides in helping abuse victims and young people in abusive situations. You may be hearing of them soon. I know they operate within the law, meaning no one is breaking seals or avoiding mandatory reporting law. They do it. The proof is in the pudding.
As to how I would like things, if it is working well somewhere, what would be wrong for others doing it also?
But, because I say I don’t think the fact that a priest can not speak of a confession to defend himself as neutral, you get upset. I must be against Fr. Bayhi.
If I say a Bishop can look at a confession, with the penitents statement, and decide if a confession was made (valid) and whether or not a seal from that was broken. And I can honestly say, a Bishop could do the same to the girl’s, from deduction because they do it in other cases, well, I am wrong.
I post questions to apologists. They give answers contrary to what you said, a priest can not ever speak of a topic outside of the confession, and you seem to get angrier.
I don’t want to go on with this discussion.
I hope justice prevails. I would never want any priest to ever be found doing something wrong. But, if I type something that doesn’t seem, however you judge it, to support the priest or maybe the diocese, I am attacked.
I wish you peace. May God Bless You.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

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.

What horrible advice are you talking about?

DGB

 

[Hopey]

What horrible advice are you talking about?

DGB

"According to the petition, and consistent with the minor child’s
subsequent deposition testimony, the priest allegedly responded she simply needed
to handle the situation herself, because otherwise, “too many people would be
hurt.” The minor child testified that, during one of those confessions, she told the
priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it.
According to her deposition testimony: “He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”
That is what I consider horrible advice.

 

[phil19034]

Just from my point of view, and having thought about this too much already, it would seem to be in the best interest of priests when they need to give counsel, to ask the person to see them outside the confessional.

That way, when the penitent comes back, and brings it up on their own, the priest is in a situation that is confidential, but not the same as the seal, so he could defend himself.

He could also report abuse if he did the above.

BUT, if priests are being told, or lead to believe, they can hear nothing of the TOPIC of something said in the confessional, outside, even if the penitent brings it up, then I could see why this is happening.

I don’t think making penitents go behind a screen/grill would work completely because the penitent would still know who the priest was and priests usually can identify some penitents in the confessional (although they are not supposed to if using the screen grill).

Hopey,
Maybe, just MAYBE the Priest DID ask her to talk to him outside the confessional, and MAYBE she refused. Ever think of that?

If that happened, he would still NOT be able to talk about it. So how about assuming that the Priest did everything right? Why assume that the plaintiffs are always just? There are a TON of sleezy plantiffs attorneys out there and money talks.

 

[phil19034]

"According to the petition, and consistent with the minor child’s
subsequent deposition testimony, the priest allegedly responded she simply needed
to handle the situation herself, because otherwise, “too many people would be
hurt.” The minor child testified that, during one of those confessions, she told the
priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it.
According to her deposition testimony: “He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”
That is what I consider horrible advice.

And the girl might not be lying or remembering the advice incorrectly? Sometimes people want a priest or athority figure to agree with them and when they don’t, they hear what they want to hear.

I think the girl is either lying or paraphrasing out of context.

Also let’s assume that the priest offered to talk to her outside the confessional and the girl refused and told the priest that she would not speak to anyone else. Well, if she refused to speak outside the confessional & to another person, then she would be on her own.

Anyway, some people do lie under oath.

 

[Hopey]

Hopey,
Maybe, just MAYBE the Priest DID ask her to talk to him outside the confessional, and MAYBE she refused. Ever think of that?

If that happened, he would still NOT be able to talk about it. So how about assuming that the Priest did everything right? Why assume that the plaintiffs are always just? There are a TON of sleezy plantiffs attorneys out there and money talks.

I do agree that the lawyers are the ones benefiting the most from this.

I do not automatically assume that the victim or the family is out for money nor money grabbing when they proceed down this avenue. It isn’t good to question the motives of the person.

I really hope in heaven, we hear the Fr. Bayhi did do everything that was right. I also know there are some things we will not know this side of heaven.

If I were reading the above in a fiction novel, it would still be horrible advice.

Outside of this, do we penitents, have the right to bring concerns over what advice is being given us either in spiritual direction (which isn’t under the seal unless in a confession) or in the confessional?
The buck stops with him (Bishop). He is the one that we HOPE looks into these things and makes a judgement concerning that.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

"According to the petition, and consistent with the minor child’s
subsequent deposition testimony, the priest allegedly responded she simply needed
to handle the situation herself, because otherwise, “too many people would be
hurt.” The minor child testified that, during one of those confessions, she told the
priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it.
According to her deposition testimony: “He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”
That is what I consider horrible advice.

It would be horrible advice if it were true. We do not know if it were true, and we will never know if it is true. What is true is that the child’s family has a vested interest (money) in making the priest look bad. I choose to believe that the priest did not give advice that was anywhere near what he is being accused of.

DGB

 

[Hopey]

It would be horrible advice if it were true. We do not know if it were true, and we will never know if it is true. What is true is that the child’s family has a vested interest (money) in making the priest look bad. I choose to believe that the priest did not give advice that was anywhere near what he is being accused of.

DGB

I totally agree we do not know everything about this case or will in this life.

What I strongly disagree is questioning the motives of the victim or the family. We cannot know that like we cannot know all of what was said in the confessional.

I think, on a public forum - catholic, when you read a deacon and others stating their motives had to be this (money) it potentially can kill the most precious thing in their life, faith.

We may think this or that, but we sure as heck shouldn’t write it out for a person to stumble upon who is the victim or the family. Or, you could have others who went down the same path, suing, read this and what they thought people were saying about them becomes real. On a catholic forum.

We shouldn’t question the motives of them. It helps no one. No one.

 

[phil19034]

I totally agree we do not know everything about this case or will in this life.

What I strongly disagree is questioning the motives of the victim or the family. We cannot know that like we cannot know all of what was said in the confessional.

I think, on a public forum - catholic, when you read a deacon and others stating their motives had to be this (money) it potentially can kill the most precious thing in their life, faith.

We may think this or that, but we sure as heck shouldn’t write it out for a person to stumble upon who is the victim or the family. Or, you could have others who went down the same path, suing, read this and what they thought people were saying about them becomes real. On a catholic forum.

We shouldn’t question the motives of them. It helps no one. No one.

But you realize that you ARE assuming the guilt of the Priest, don’t you?

It would be one thing if you were simply saying “everyone, we don’t know what really happened, so we should not jump to conclusions.” But, that’s not what you are saying. You are saying that you automatically don’t assume that the victim isn’t out for money. But saying this, you are placing a bias against the defendant. Perhaps you don’t see it, but you are operating from a postion which says plaintiffs and victims don’t lie and always remember the facts accurautly.

Victums often remember facts in a subjective manner, not objectively. That’s why our system of government is designed to protect the accused, not the victim. Protecting victims leads to false imprissonment, etc. It’s the opposite of Justice. Justice is about the Truth.

Yes, the priest could have said everything the girl claims he said. But this was years ago, she was 12, and she was a victim. She might be remembering a version of the truth that

 

[phil19034]

I totally agree we do not know everything about this case or will in this life.

What I strongly disagree is questioning the motives of the victim or the family. We cannot know that like we cannot know all of what was said in the confessional.

I think, on a public forum - catholic, when you read a deacon and others stating their motives had to be this (money) it potentially can kill the most precious thing in their life, faith.

We may think this or that, but we sure as heck shouldn’t write it out for a person to stumble upon who is the victim or the family. Or, you could have others who went down the same path, suing, read this and what they thought people were saying about them becomes real. On a catholic forum.

We shouldn’t question the motives of them. It helps no one. No one.

But you realize that you ARE assuming the guilt of the Priest, don’t you?

It would be one thing if you were simply saying “everyone, we don’t know what really happened, so we should not jump to conclusions.” But, that’s not what you are saying. You are saying that you automatically don’t assume that the victim isn’t out for money. But saying this, you are placing a bias against the defendant. Perhaps you don’t see it, but you are operating from a postion which says plaintiffs and victims don’t lie and always remember the facts accurautly.

Victums often remember facts in a subjective manner, not objectively. That’s why our system of government is designed to protect the accused, not the victim. Protecting victims leads to false imprissonment, etc. It’s the opposite of Justice. Justice is about the Truth.

Yes, the priest could have said everything the girl claims he said. But this was years ago, she was 12, and she was a victim. She might be remembering a version of the truth that constructed in her head to deal with this issue. She might even think it’s true. But just because someone thinks something is true, doesn’t mean it is the Truth.

And the worst thing is that this is an issue of privledge information. What if, priests were not under the seal of confession. And what if this little girl blocked out a large part of her memory regarding the abuse? And what if the priest’s testomony did more harm to the girl by bringing up the facts? There are reasons (non-religous ones too) why privledge information is priledged. We can’t allow our justice system to be altered by people who only care about the present.

 

[Hopey]

But you realize that you ARE assuming the guilt of the Priest, don’t you?

It would be one thing if you were simply saying “everyone, we don’t know what really happened, so we should not jump to conclusions.” But, that’s not what you are saying. You are saying that you automatically don’t assume that the victim isn’t out for money. But saying this, you are placing a bias against the defendant. Perhaps you don’t see it, but you are operating from a postion which says plaintiffs and victims don’t lie and always remember the facts accurautly.

Victums often remember facts in a subjective manner, not objectively. That’s why our system of government is designed to protect the accused, not the victim. Protecting victims leads to false imprissonment, etc. It’s the opposite of Justice. Justice is about the Truth.

Yes, the priest could have said everything the girl claims he said. But this was years ago, she was 12, and she was a victim. She might be remembering a version of the truth that

Do you know for a fact that the testimony they were using wasn’t taken back when they started the investigation? They filed this in 09.

The facts are what I am trying to stick to. We don’t know.
Not questioning their motives isn’t the same as taking automatic sides either.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

I totally agree we do not know everything about this case or will in this life.

What I strongly disagree is questioning the motives of the victim or the family. We cannot know that like we cannot know all of what was said in the confessional.

I think, on a public forum - catholic, when you read a deacon and others stating their motives had to be this (money) it potentially can kill the most precious thing in their life, faith.

We may think this or that, but we sure as heck shouldn’t write it out for a person to stumble upon who is the victim or the family. Or, you could have others who went down the same path, suing, read this and what they thought people were saying about them becomes real. On a catholic forum.

We shouldn’t question the motives of them. It helps no one. No one.

It helps no one to state on a public Catholic forum as if it is a verifiable fact that a priest told a child during confession to sweep abuse under the rug. No one.

DGB

 

[Hopey]

It helps no one to state on a public Catholic forum as if it is a verifiable fact that a priest told a child during confession to sweep abuse under the rug. No one.

DGB

That quote was from the ruling.