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

[catholictiger]

Interesting twist in the seal of confession, complicated by a confusing web of Louisiana statutes.

In this case the sinner was not the penitent. The victim was the penitent. The priest was asked to grant absolution to the victim, who was confessing because she probably thought she was at fault. But the sinner did NOT ask for confession.

What is a priest’s responsibility when he is informed of a crime, or an anticipated crime, by a third party, when the informant is a penitent? As in, “Father forgive me. I told my brother a horrible family secret and now he is planning to kill our mom, and he said he’ll kill me too if I go to the police.” Or, “Father forgive me. I gave the bank’s safe combination to my friend and now he’s planning to rob the bank, and he said he’ll kill me if I go to the police.”

Is the priest obligated to keep his mouth shut, let the crime go on, and let innocent people get hurt or killed? That seems contrary to God’s justice and mercy.

yes a priest must keep anything said in the confessional in the confessional. He can’t even say if she went to confession with her.

 

[catholictiger]

The family should have known and should have taken action.

The testimony of a priest wouldn’t even be evidence against the person who abused her. It is the word of a priest and not evidence.

This is yet another attack on the Church.

Good luck trying to change a sacrament that has been active for 2000 years.

It is Jesus Christ that is there forgiving our sins. He won’t let this case get in the way of forgiving sins of his children.

The Church said that it was prepared to take this to the Supreme court if it needed.

I fully believe this will make it all the way to the supreme court and could be a very important case as far as religious freedom goes in this country. If the Supreme court rules in favor of the family than priests are at risk of being thrown in jail in order to protect souls.

 

[seakelp]

I fully believe this will make it all the way to the supreme court and could be a very important case as far as religious freedom goes in this country. If the Supreme court rules in favor of the family than priests are at risk of being thrown in jail in order to protect souls.

It won’t go to SCOTUS, most likely, but it’s an interesting issue.

I suppose the Church would have to argue under the First Amendment (RFRA does not apply to state conduct). The First Amendment standard is much lower than it used to be, after Smith, so the Church will have a tougher time of it.

 

[catholictiger]

It won’t go to SCOTUS, most likely, but it’s an interesting issue.

I suppose the Church would have to argue under the First Amendment (RFRA does not apply to state conduct). The First Amendment standard is much lower than it used to be, after Smith, so the Church will have a tougher time of it.

maybe it won’t I really don’t know. But freedom of religion is now just freedom of worship for most americans. So a priest is no longer protected by the first amendment if a crime is confessed to him. In the not to distant future I fear, priests could be charged with covering up a crime, with not being a mediatory reporter, because they kept secrete what was confessed.

 

[estesbob]

It won’t go to SCOTUS, most likely, but it’s an interesting issue.

I suppose the Church would have to argue under the First Amendment (RFRA does not apply to state conduct). The First Amendment standard is much lower than it used to be, after Smith, so the Church will have a tougher time of it.

If the Supreme Court upheld it I am sure it would be Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray leading the way to pass a law making Priests libel.

 

[ltwin]

Actually it has to do with someone who apparently goes to that parish. A parishioner.

That’s what I said. It was a well known and active member of the parish who allegedly began an inappropriate relationship with a minor, who also went to that parish.

So the case boils down to why didn’t the family reported the case to the authorities in the first place?

The parents did take action when they found out about the inappropriate relationship. Once they discovered it, they told the parishioner not to have contact with their daughter and went to the police.

The point is that the minor did not go to her parents at first. She first turned to the priest, who falls into the category of a mandatory reporter of potential child abuse according to state law. According to her, the priest offered her no help and, as stated in the court record:

“According to her deposition testimony: ‘He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.’”

(Supreme Court of Louisiana ruling, page 2)

Why force now a priest to violate the seal of confession?

I recognize that this priest is in a precarious ethical predicament. Nevertheless, it is a valid legal question if this priest acted improperly in not reporting his knowledge of this relationship when he learned of it. Therefore, what he knew, when he knew it, and under what circumstances he learned about it becomes entirely relevant to a court of law.

I agree that the priest is in a precarious ethical situation, but I don’t think the courts are being unreasonable in their application of the law.

 

[seakelp]

maybe it won’t I really don’t know. But freedom of religion is now just freedom of worship for most americans. So a priest is no longer protected by the first amendment if a crime is confessed to him. In the not to distant future I fear, priests could be charged with covering up a crime, with not being a mediatory reporter, because they kept secrete what was confessed.

You’re not wrong, it is possible. It has happened in the past, in fact. Most states do recognize the priest-penitent privilege. A “privilege” in this sense is a legal term, meaning that a person who has a privilege does not have to tell anyone any information that was told between that person and the other person who has a privilege.

For instance, there is a “spousal privilege,” which says that a husband and wife do not have to tell anyone (including the police, a judge, etc.) what is said between the husband and wife.

The other privilege you may have heard of is the “attorney-client privilege,” which says that anything you tell your lawyer cannot be told to anyone else.

And probably one of the more famous is called “doctor-patient confidentiality.” You’ve probably experienced that in your own lifetime.

These privileges do have limitations. Imagine you go to a doctor, and he misdiagnoses your illness and you end up getting even sicker. You want to sue him. Obviously, a big part of the case will involve what the doctor told you when he diagnosed you. But then, the doctor-patient privilege might apply, and the evidence of the conversation would never make it into court.

So, it’s often the case that the privilege, in certain circumstances, can be waived (given up) or destroyed when you are in litigation with another person with whom you have a privilege.

That’s more or less what happened here, it looks like. The priest took a confession from the plaintiff, and now the plaintiff wants to use that privileged conversation to sue the priest. It’s certainly not morally right, but it’s not legally off-the-walls for the LA Supreme Court to do what it did.

That having been said, obviously the priest-penitent privilege has a different flavor because of the First Amendment. I wonder if the LA Sup. Ct. addressed that at all in its opinion.

 

[seakelp]

If the Supreme Court upheld it I am sure it would be Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray leading the way to pass a law making Priests libel.

Haha, well, maybe. I mean, I don’t know. With all the big hubbub about Hobby Lobby, it’s not entirely ridiculous to think that this case could become another battlefield in the culture war. I pray it doesn’t come to that.

 

[Atisor207]

That’s what I said. It was a well known and active member of the parish who allegedly began an inappropriate relationship with a minor, who also went to that parish.

The parents did take action when they found out about the inappropriate relationship. Once they discovered it, they told the parishioner not to have contact with their daughter and went to the police.

The point is that the minor did not go to her parents at first. She first turned to the priest, who falls into the category of a mandatory reporter of potential child abuse according to state law. According to her, the priest offered her no help and, as stated in the court record:

“According to her deposition testimony: ‘He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.’”

(Supreme Court of Louisiana ruling, page 2)

I recognize that this priest is in a precarious ethical predicament. Nevertheless, it is a valid legal question if this priest acted improperly in not reporting his knowledge of this relationship when he learned of it. Therefore, what he knew, when he knew it, and under what circumstances he learned about it becomes entirely relevant to a court of law.

I agree that the priest is in a precarious ethical situation, but I don’t think the courts are being unreasonable in their application of the law.

They are being extremely unreasonable as the priest testimony is not evidence.

 

[ltwin]

They are being extremely unreasonable as the priest testimony is not evidence.

How do you know that? That would be for a court to decide. But, if the family is claiming the priest, and therefore the Diocese, were negligent, then I fail to see how the priest’s testimony would not be relevant.

 

[Corki]

Actually it has to do with someone who apparently goes to that parish. A parishioner. So the case boils down to why didn’t the family reported the case to the authorities in the first place? Why force now a priest to violate the seal of confession?

Based on the linked article, the family (or more likely their lawyer) only went after the priest when the actual (alleged) abuser died. I sympathize with the family’s need to see someone suffer for what happened to their daughter and feeling helpless that they can’t get justice against the perpetrator. But this is not the way to go about it.

 

[Atisor207]

How do you know that? That would be for a court to decide. But, if the family is claiming the priest, and therefore the Diocese, were negligent, then I fail to see how the priest’s testimony would not be relevant.

Because it would only testify what the same family knows.
The priest only listened to confession, he didn’t see anything.

 

[Atisor207]

Based on the linked article, the family (or more likely their lawyer) only went after the priest when the actual (alleged) abuser died. I sympathize with the family’s need to see someone suffer for what happened to their daughter and feeling helpless that they can’t get justice against the perpetrator. But this is not the way to go about it.

Yes I feel really bad for the family but the priest’s testimony is not evidence.
The same family can say the same thing the priest. I’m sure the daughter told them as well.

 

[seakelp]

Yes I feel really bad for the family but the priest’s testimony is not evidence.
The same family can say the same thing the priest. I’m sure the daughter told them as well.

It could come in as a party admission.

 

[ltwin]

Because it would only testify what the same family knows.
The priest only listened to confession, he didn’t see anything.

That doesn’t matter when a priest is identified by the state as a mandatory reporter of child abuse. It doesn’t matter if he saw anything. All that matters is that he knew and he was supposed to report what he knew.

Obviously, the family is thinking that if the priest had reported early on, then the inappropriate contact would have stopped earlier. By not doing so, the family can argue, the priest was negligent. Because the priest is an agent of the diocese, the family can further argue that the diocese was negligent.

It’s important to clarify that both the priest and the diocese are defendants in this case along with the deceased alleged perpetrator of the abuse. The family of the minor petitioned for damages, which I assume means they want money.

 

[Atisor207]

That doesn’t matter when a priest is identified by the state as a mandatory reporter of child abuse. It doesn’t matter if he saw anything. All that matters is that he knew and he was supposed to report what he knew.

Obviously, the family is thinking that if the priest had reported early on, then the inappropriate contact would have stopped earlier. By not doing so, the family can argue, the priest was negligent. Because the priest is an agent of the diocese, the family can further argue that the diocese was negligent.

The priest was not negligent. He can’t. It is a sacramental doctrine that is as old as 2000 years.

And reporting a crime is not evidence.

 

[ltwin]

The priest was not negligent. He can’t. It is a sacramental doctrine that is as old as 2000 years.

And reporting a crime is not evidence.

But evidence of failure to report a crime is evidence of negligence, which is what the priest and diocese are being accused of in this case.

 

[catholictiger]

But evidence of failure to report a crime is evidence of negligence, which is what the priest and diocese are being accused of in this case.

The Church didn’t violate any laws. There are exceptions written into the law that says any member of the clergy who as the tenants of their faith make it to where nothing confidential can be released are not mandatory reporters.

 

[catholictiger]

(15) “Mandatory reporter” is any of the following individuals. . …:

---

(c) “Member of the clergy” is any priest, rabbi, duly ordained clerical deacon or minister, Christian Science practitioner, or other similarly situated functionary of a religious organization, except that he is not required to report a confidential communication, as defined in Code of Evidence article 511,** from a person to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of that church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hearing confidential communications, and under the discipline or tenents of the church, deneomination, or orginzation has the duty to keep such commuincations confidential. **In that instance, he shall encourage that person to report the allegations to the appropriate authorities in accordance with article 610.

the plaintiffs tried to argue that the confession didn’t take place meaning that this law wouldn’t apply.

la-fcca.org/opiniongrid/opinionpdf/2013%20CW%200316%20Decision%20Writ.pdf

 

[ltwin]

The Church didn’t violate any laws. There are exceptions written into the law that says any member of the clergy who as the tenants of their faith make it to where nothing confidential can be released are not mandatory reporters.

The Louisiana Supreme Court did not decide that the priest was negligent. It only said that whether the priest was obligated to report needed to be determined through testimony and fact finding in a court of law. It was the diocese who was trying to silence the girl’s testimony about the confessions. The Supreme Court said they couldn’t do that.

This is what the Court wrote:

Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact concerning 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.

(The court’s decision, page 6-7)