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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SKWill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopey said:
That quote was from the ruling.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t make it a fact. There is no verifiable evidence of what was said in the confessional. What is a fact is that the family is seeking financial compensation.

DGB
 
DoGodsBidding said:
It’s an accusation, not a fact.

DGB
Click to expand...
Isn’t it more than an accusation? This has been admitted to evidence, allowed to go forward, remain, not struck down (that we know of).
Just as what the SP ruled that a fact finder would have to determine if a confession took place and if the priest heard any of this outside the confession. When referring to that, it would be consider a fact, or that is how I have used it in the past. It also keeps you on the subject and not delving into personal attacks.
 
Hopey said:
Isn’t it more than an accusation? This has been admitted to evidence, allowed to go forward, remain, not struck down (that we know of).
Just as what the SP ruled that a fact finder would have to determine if a confession took place and if the priest heard any of this outside the confession. When referring to that, it would be consider a fact, or that is how I have used it in the past. It also keeps you on the subject and not delving into personal attacks.
Click to expand...
If it was a fact then it wouldn’t need a fact finder to determine if it took place.

DGB
 
DoGodsBidding said:
If it was a fact then it wouldn’t need a fact finder to determine if it took place.

DGB
Click to expand...
Well, maybe you could help them out and tell them only to admit what is fact to a trial? No further need for fact finder? I am not sure the Diocese would like that. It would seem that could potentially kill their defense.
 
Hopey said:
Isn’t it more than an accusation? This has been admitted to evidence, allowed to go forward, remain, not struck down (that we know of).
Just as what the SP ruled that a fact finder would have to determine if a confession took place and if the priest heard any of this outside the confession. When referring to that, it w****ould be consider a fact, or that is how I have used it in the past. It also keeps you on the subject and not delving into personal attacks.
Click to expand...
The girl’s TESTIMONY was admitted. That doesn’t make it FACT.

I can go to court and testify that my natural hair colour is dark brown. That doesn’t mean it is. It’s just my testimony. The truth may well be that my natural hair colour is light brown, blond, salt & pepper or completely grey. The jury, or the judge weighs the evidence and decides what they want to believe.
 
Phemie said:
The girl’s TESTIMONY was admitted. That doesn’t make it FACT.

I can go to court and testify that my natural hair colour is dark brown. That doesn’t mean it is. It’s just my testimony. The truth may well be that my natural hair colour is light brown, blond, salt & pepper or completely grey. The jury, or the judge weighs the evidence and decides what they want to believe.
Click to expand...
When** I** was speaking of facts, it was regarding what was submitted in the case, not that something had been determined factual.

When I say I am sticking to the facts in this one (so not to delve in personal attacks), I am including what the SP ruled, information from the ruling (girl’s partial testimony), etc. Such as, I would not assume the motives of the priest or the girls. I would stick with what was admitted or not.

There are some things that cannot, in the real sense, ever be factual, but they can be admitted, or have been in this case.

That is what I mean when I said, sticking to the facts.
 
Hopey said:
When** I** was speaking of facts, it was regarding what was submitted in the case, not that something had been determined factual.

When I say I am sticking to the facts in this one (so not to delve in personal attacks), I am including what the SP ruled, information from the ruling (girl’s partial testimony), etc. Such as, I would not assume the motives of the priest or the girls. I would stick with what was admitted or not.

There are some things that cannot, in the real sense, ever be factual, but they can be admitted, or have been in this case.

That is what I mean when I said, sticking to the facts.
Click to expand...
By that I mean, since the priest can never break the seal, some will just be her testimony.

Keeping that in mind, hoping as other cases, the judge can weigh the evidence and say how the jury is to use her testimony of the confession, or throw it out.

I see hope. Or want to.
 
Phemie said:
The girl’s TESTIMONY was admitted. That doesn’t make it FACT.

I can go to court and testify that my natural hair colour is dark brown. That doesn’t mean it is. It’s just my testimony. The truth may well be that my natural hair colour is light brown, blond, salt & pepper or completely grey. The jury, or the judge weighs the evidence and decides what they want to believe.
Click to expand...
How I could write about yours, reference to to it:
The fact was Phemie testified, under oath, her natural haircolor was dark brown.

You did testify to that. That is part of your case. That is how I would use fact in that.

IF forensic science showed her natural haircolor to be blond, and that expert testified, then that also would be a fact, part of your case.

IF it was found you were lying, that would be serious - perjury, in addition to fines/jail time, etc, I could still state it was a fact that you stated your natural haircolor was dark brown BUT it was determined you were lying and the penalties were, whatever.

That is how I would use it in your case. That also keep me from saying, personal attacks, Phemie was just jealous of people with dark hair! She hates blondes! Her agenda is to secretly wipe out all blondes!
 
Hopey said:
That is how I would use it in your case. That also keep me from saying, personal attacks, Phemie was just jealous of people with dark hair! She hates blondes! Her agenda is to secretly wipe out all blondes!
Click to expand...
Nah, just redheads. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top