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

[zab]

The diocese said the high court did not have the jurisdiction “to adjudicate claims that turn upon such purely religious questions.”
“The Supreme Court of Louisiana cannot order the district court to do that which no civil court possibly can — determine what constitutes the sacrament of reconciliation in the Catholic Church,” it said.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/louisiana-supreme-court-raises-seal-of-confession-worries/#ixzz37jddqAeZ

 

[Hopey]

Yes.
And: "But the high court said the trial court needed to determine “whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/louisiana-supreme-court-raises-seal-of-confession-worries/#ixzz37jfoAGcm

We won’t know how that is determined but that is what is ruled.

 

[Hopey]

I asked the moderator, btw, if he would change the title of the thread.

 

[manualman]

The assertion that the priest won’t be compelled to testify is an attempt to hide the truth behind a fig leaf. When somebody makes a direct accusation against you and there are no other witnesses or evidence, you will always win in court if you deny it. But the priest being accused can’t deny the accusation directly.

To say that that is NOT forcing him to testify is intellectually dishonest. If he doesn’t deny it, the court record will show that he made no denial. That’s bad.

The church needs to start working on this sort of thing immediately before the lawsuit lawyers swarm us. I wonder if it would be permissible for a priest to testify something like this: “I cannot comment on anything that was said in any confession or even confirm if any individual came to me for confession. What I can say is that my own moral character is such that, hypothetically, if a minor ever did reveal to me that she had been sexually abused I would never counsel that person to cover it up. I would attempt to comfort her, assure her of her own innocence in the matter and notify her that I cannot discuss ANYTHING said to me in confession and that if she wanted help, she needs to tell me again outside of confession or to ask her parents for help in getting the police involved.”

I wonder if a statement like that would violate the seal? Where’s a Jesuit when you need one?

 

[Hopey]

I agree with Kniffin that it isn’t forcing the priest to do anything yet.

Regarding priests and confessions, part of it is they can never break the seal. The same would occur if someone accused him of something done/said in the confessional and the Church investigated. He could never defend himself either but they still investigate it.

 

[Orogeny]

I agree with Kniffin that it isn’t forcing the priest to do anything yet.

Regarding priests and confessions, part of it is they can never break the seal. The same would occur if someone accused him of something done/said in the confessional and the Church investigated. He could never defend himself either but they still investigate it.

So? In this case, the plaintiffs attorney has a vested interest in the priest not testifying. He will get his percentage out of the default judgement against the diocese.

“Brian Abels, who is representing the girl and her parents, told a local news station he had no intentions of forcing Father Bayhi to testify. He said he only wanted the girl to be able to relate to the court her description of the confessions, where Father Bayhi’s alleged advice was to “sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”

Of course. That way, the girl can claim anything she wants and the priest cannot refute it.

“Her testimony has been it [the confession] was more of a plea for help, counseling, and that plea, according to her, went unheeded,” Abels said."

And, therefore, we want money.

I have said before in one of the other threads, this is a money grab. Pure and simple. And the attorney and family knows it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

So? In this case, the plaintiffs attorney has a vested interest in the priest not testifying. He will get his percentage out of the default judgement against the diocese.

Of course. That way, the girl can claim anything she wants and the priest cannot refute it.And, therefore, we want money.

I have said before in one of the other threads, this is a money grab. Pure and simple. And the attorney and family knows it.

Peace

Tim

(It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.)

It isn’t charitable to assume it is money grab as seeking justice is going to have the form of monetary or not settlement.

We do not know if they will allow hers, or how it will be considered in the evidence, when deciding this.

 

[Hopey]

I think this video, acting out People vs Philips the first case regarding confession/seal, appropriate.

youtube.com/watch?v=V2yHIATVcZQ

That is the 5th of 6 videos.

 

[Orogeny]

(It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.)

It isn’t charitable to assume it is money grab as seeking justice is going to have the form of monetary or not settlement.

We do not know if they will allow hers, or how it will be considered in the evidence, when deciding this.

Will this lawsuit undo the abuse? No.

Are they asking for a monetary settlement? If so, it is a money grab.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

According to you, any sort of settlement is a money grab instead of justice? Or is that how you view her and this case?

That is usually how these cases are settled, monetary settlement.

 

[Orogeny]

According to you, any sort of settlement is a money grab instead of justice? Or is that how you view her and this case?

That is usually how these cases are settled, monetary settlement.

In this case, the plaintiff can claim anything she wants because she has an **automatic **judgement on her side - if she is allowed to testify as to what she says was said in the confessional. They know that.

If this was really about justice, they would be calling for the priest to be removed from the ministry. Or they would pledge any monetary award to a charity.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that either of those is the case.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

In this case, the plaintiff can claim anything she wants because she has an **automatic **judgement on her side - if she is allowed to testify as to what she says was said in the confessional. They know that.

If this was really about justice, they would be calling for the priest to be removed from the ministry. Or they would pledge any monetary award to a charity.

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that either of those is the case.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

We do not know if her testimony will be admitted as evidence nor how the judge will tell the jury to consider it.

They, the state, don’t have the power to remove the priest. A person who has been abused has a right to monetary settlement in order to undo/cope with the condition they are in. They do not have to donate to a charity. The Church doesn’t even agree with you on this one because even those cases that could not be settled due to time limit, there is usually an offer of counseling for the victim.

 

[Orogeny]

We do not know if her testimony will be admitted as evidence nor how the judge will tell the jury to consider it.

I understand.

They, the state, don’t have the power to remove the priest. A person who has been abused has a right to monetary settlement in order to undo/cope with the condition they are in.

Who abused her? Not the priest. Not the diocese. The abuser is dead.

They do not have to donate to a charity.

Of course they don’t. And they won’t because money is what they are after.

The Church doesn’t even agree with you on this one because even those cases that could not be settled due to time limit, there is usually an offer of counseling for the victim.

In those cases, a member of the clergy was the abuser. In this case, neither the Church nor the priest molested this girl.

We don’t even know if what this girl claims to have been said actually was said. And we will never know. It is her word. Period. No defense will be possible from the priest. You are supporting a monetary award for damages that may not have ever existed.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

I understand.Who abused her? Not the priest. Not the diocese. The abuser is dead.Of course they don’t. And they won’t because money is what they are after.In those cases, a member of the clergy was the abuser. In this case, neither the Church nor the priest molested this girl.

We don’t even know if what this girl claims to have been said actually was said. And we will never know. It is her word. Period. No defense will be possible from the priest. You are supporting a monetary award for damages that may not have ever existed.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

Although the abuser is dead, it still has to be determined if the priest learned of this outside the confession. If he did, then he is a mandatory reporter and thus, they are responsible.

Although the priest will not be able to say anything about the confession, as anywhere for that matter, if he did see something/was said something that isn’t a confession, he could be found guilty.

That is what the court must determine.

 

[Orogeny]

Although the abuser is dead, it still has to be determined if the priest learned of this outside the confession. If he did, then he is a mandatory reporter and thus, they are responsible.

The priest and the diocese say that it was a confession. The court doesn’t get to decide that for the Church. I understand that the court has been directed to do just that, but that won’t change the obligation that the priest is under. Therefore, if the court finds that the conversations were not in confession and the girl is allowed to make her statement in court, the plaintiffs will win a default judgement.

Although the priest will not be able to say anything about the confession, as anywhere for that matter, if he did see something/was said something that isn’t a confession, he could be found guilty.

Guilty of what, Hopey? First, this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit. Second, why do you automatically believe that the girl is telling the truth?

Regardless of what the court finds, the priest cannot defend himself. The trial cannot determine if the girl is telling the truth. Therefore, any judgement against the priest and the diocese is wrong.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

The priest and the diocese say that it was a confession. The court doesn’t get to decide that for the Church. I understand that the court has been directed to do just that, but that won’t change the obligation that the priest is under. Therefore, if the court finds that the conversations were not in confession and the girl is allowed to make her statement in court, the plaintiffs will win a default judgement.Guilty of what, Hopey? First, this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit. Second, why do you automatically believe that the girl is telling the truth?

Regardless of what the court finds, the priest cannot defend himself. The trial cannot determine if the girl is telling the truth. Therefore, any judgement against the priest and the diocese is wrong.

Peace

Tim

I do not assume that anyone is lying automatically.
As I understand, he (priest) couldn’t comment one way or another, if it was a confession.

The article I linked to had experts commenting on the case. It was said that a judge wouldn’t allow part of a sentence to be allowed as a confession, then the other not, parsing. That is doubtful.

"Kniffin believes that the plaintiff’s argument that part of the girl’s confessions falls outside the priest-penitent privilege is a dead-end strategy.

“No court is going to parse a confession, and find that the second half of that sentence was just a description of a situation, so wasn’t really a confession of sin. No way.”

The real focus for the court, he said, will be whether the priest had knowledge of the abuse outside of the sacrament.

“If she told him elsewhere or if [the priest] was in another situation in which he saw something suspicious, then he has to report that under the law,” he said."

If it is found something outside, then yes, he would be guilty.

 

[Orogeny]

I do not assume that anyone is lying automatically.
As I understand, he (priest) couldn’t comment one way or another, if it was a confession.

So, if it was a confession, as the PLAINTIFFS claim, and the priest doesn’t testify, does that mean that the girl is telling the truth?

If it is found something outside, then yes, he would be guilty.

Guilty of what? Again, this is a civil trial, not a criminal trial. He, interestingly, is not being charged with failure to report as a mandatory reporter.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

I assume people are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Unfortunately in the case, the way she didn’t tell her parents, report it to begin with, supports what she is saying.

A priest is a mandatory reporter. He could be found guilty of that IF he learned outside the confessional.

I know they are saying it was said in her confession. That is what we may never know, if the judge threw it out OR if he told the jury to consider it as evidence but not as strong as other. The way they, parents, understand confessions is sad, but wrong.

That is what he would be guilty of, not reporting.
Because this is a sealed case, and because we only know of what was listed in the SP ruling, what the Diocese objected to (girl’s testimony of confession), we do not know what else was submitted.

 

[Orogeny]

Unfortunately in the case, the way she didn’t tell her parents, report it to begin with, supports what she is saying.

I don’t understand what you are saying. I think that you are saying that the fact that she didn’t tell her parents initially is because the priest told her to sweep it under the floor. Is that correct? If so, why is it that many, if not most, victims of child sex abuse don’t tell their parents right away?

A priest is a mandatory reporter. He could be found guilty of that IF he learned outside the confessional.

He isn’t charged with failure to report. He isn’t charged with anything as far as I know. He is a defendant in a civil trial where he cannot, if the court finds that the confession wasn’t really a confession, defend himself.

I know they are saying it was said in her confession. That is what we may never know, if the judge threw it out OR if he told the jury to consider it as evidence but not as strong as other. The way they, parents, understand confessions is sad, but wrong.

Ok, so I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the priest, the diocese, the girl AND the parents believe that the girl spoke to the priest in confession, but they don’t really understand what constitutes confession. ONLY the court can actually know what confession is and what it isn’t. Gotcha.

That is what he would be guilty of, not reporting.

Once again, he isn’t charged with not reporting or anything else.

Because this is a sealed case, and because we only know of what was listed in the SP ruling, what the Diocese objected to (girl’s testimony of confession), we do not know what else was submitted.

What else do we need to know about this case? The La supreme court ruled that her confession can be admitted and that the lower court must determine if the conversations took place in confession. That IS the case. If the court finds that the conversations took place anywhere else, the priest and the diocese lose because then the trial moves forward, the girl makes her accusations and the priest can’t defend himself. Summary judgement.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

I don’t understand what you are saying. I think that you are saying that the fact that she didn’t tell her parents initially is because the priest told her to sweep it under the floor. Is that correct? If so, why is it that many, if not most, victims of child sex abuse don’t tell their parents right away?He isn’t charged with failure to report. He isn’t charged with anything as far as I know. He is a defendant in a civil trial where he cannot, if the court finds that the confession wasn’t really a confession, defend himself.Ok, so I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the priest, the diocese, the girl AND the parents believe that the girl spoke to the priest in confession, but they don’t really understand what constitutes confession. ONLY the court can actually know what confession is and what it isn’t. Gotcha.Once again, he isn’t charged with not reporting or anything else.What else do we need to know about this case? The La supreme court ruled that her confession can be admitted and that the lower court must determine if the conversations took place in confession. That IS the case. If the court finds that the conversations took place anywhere else, the priest and the diocese lose because then the trial moves forward, the girl makes her accusations and the priest can’t defend himself. Summary judgement.

Money grab.

Peace

Tim

What else is there to know? like 90% of the rest of it as the priest and the diocese are not the only ones listed. The dead perp and the funeral home are listed. So, like the whole case. All we know is that one fraction of it.

I am pretty sure if it is determined that if he failed to report on a matter that he was required to, that something else will happen if not just monetary settlement.

They stopped the investigation because the perp died. Not sure if they got to the priest at that time or not.

As to kids not saying anything to parents, there are small changes being made where you are finding people being supportive, doing the right thing (advising) and these being prosecuted earlier. Small, but there are some.