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

[Orogeny]

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.

The funeral home can defend themselves. We are not discussing this case because the funeral home and a dead man are being sued. We are discussing this case because the court has determined that they, and only they, have the right to determine what a Catholic sacrament is or isn’t. We don’t need to know what the funeral home’s defense is because it is not an issue that has massive implications the Church.

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.

He hasn’t been charged to date, so you are only speculating. But, let’s assume that you are right. You would be happy if he is sent to prison for not violating the seal of confession?

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

The priest didn’t die. Why would they stop the investigation of his alleged failure to report?

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.

Again, I don’t understand what you are saying. What changes are you talking about? Who is being prosecuted?

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

The funeral home can defend themselves. We are not discussing this case because the funeral home and a dead man are being sued. We are discussing this case because the court has determined that they, and only they, have the right to determine what a Catholic sacrament is or isn’t. We don’t need to know what the funeral home’s defense is because it is not an issue that has massive implications the Church.He hasn’t been charged to date, so you are only speculating. But, let’s assume that you are right. You would be happy if he is sent to prison for not violating the seal of confession?The priest didn’t die. Why would they stop the investigation of his alleged failure to report?Again, I don’t understand what you are saying. What changes are you talking about? Who is being prosecuted?

Peace

Tim

This is what you said:
If so, why is it that many, if not most, victims of child sex abuse don’t tell their parents right away?
This is how I responded:
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.

The priest is not the perpetrator. I thought it was relevant, mentioning the others, because it isn’t just the priest nor just the diocese. Nor do we know everything submitted. What we do know is the motion the Diocese filed, regarding her confession, and how the SP responded. That is all the evidence we know.

If it is found that he did not report when he was supposed to (outside the confession) it would be surprising if something else wasn’t done.

 

[Orogeny]

This is what you said:
If so, why is it that many, if not most, victims of child sex abuse don’t tell their parents right away?
This is how I responded:
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.

The priest is not the perpetrator. I thought it was relevant, mentioning the others, because it isn’t just the priest nor just the diocese. Nor do we know everything submitted. What we do know is the motion the Diocese filed, regarding her confession, and how the SP responded. That is all the evidence we know.

I still don’t understand what you are saying. Victims often don’t tell their parents, and there can be many reasons for that. The fact that she didn’t tell her parents right away says nothing about the priest.

Assumptions shouldn’t count in a court of law. If she testifies in court that the priest told her to sweep the actions of the molester under the floor, the priest can’t refute that. The assumption will be that, because he didn’t refute her, she is telling the truth. HOWEVER, that assumption is just that, an assumption, and has no basis in fact. That is why the diocese argued against allowing her to testify in court as to what her confession (there is that obvious ignorance on her part - who is she to determine that she was in confession) was and what the priest said to her in the confessional (again, silly girl).

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

I still don’t understand what you are saying. Victims often don’t tell their parents, and there can be many reasons for that. The fact that she didn’t tell her parents right away says nothing about the priest.

Assumptions shouldn’t count in a court of law. If she testifies in court that the priest told her to sweep the actions of the molester under the floor, the priest can’t refute that. The assumption will be that, because he didn’t refute her, she is telling the truth. HOWEVER, that assumption is just that, an assumption, and has no basis in fact. That is why the diocese argued against allowing her to testify in court as to what her confession (there is that obvious ignorance on her part - who is she to determine that she was in confession) was and what the priest said to her in the confessional (again, silly girl).

Peace

Tim

Can you quote why the Diocese filed the motion? Because it was not surprising how the SP ruled because we can speak of our confession. I don’t know why the Diocese went that route.

I added that we are seeing small improvements in children who are abused coming forward. Not big ones, but small ones. Esp in the Church. They are seeing fruits of some of their efforts.

 

[zab]

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

.

Why would the priest be found guilty if he learned anything outside the confessional? Is a priest responsible for reporting hearsay regarding all of his parishioners? The alleged abuser was not on the parish staff.

 

[Orogeny]

Can you quote why the Diocese filed the motion? Because it was not surprising how the SP ruled because we can speak of our confession. I don’t know why the Diocese went that route.

I can’t quote directly because the case is under seal, but from the appeals court ruling:

Thus the trial court found the testimony of the minor child regarding the confessions was relevant and, certainly, as the holder of the privilege, she was entitled to waive it and testify. When pressed by the defendants counsel as to whether that meant that the trial court was holding that the priest also had a duty to report, the trial court stated “Yes at this point there may be some duty based on Art. 609”. The trial court also noted that its earlier ruling also permitted questioning of the priest concerning any other information acquired by him about the abuse outside of the confessional. The trial court, although denying the motion, also commented that "I certainly recognize the conundrum with which [the priest] is presented, and I know his solution to that is going to be is that he is not going to say anything about any confession.

(bolding added by me)

It appears that the court understood why the diocese tried to block the girl’s testimony. They just rejected the argument.

I added that we are seeing small improvements in children who are abused coming forward. Not big ones, but small ones. Esp in the Church. They are seeing fruits of some of their efforts.

That doesn’t answer my question, even if it is true (which I hope it is). Did you know that the molester was a very close friend of the girl’s parents? In fact, the victim often called him grandpa? Maybe that is why she didn’t tell her parents right away rather than what she claims that the priest told her in confession.

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

Why would the priest be found guilty if he learned anything outside the confessional? Is a priest responsible for reporting hearsay regarding all of his parishioners? The alleged abuser was not on the parish staff.

Priest are mandatory reporters if learned outside the confessional. That is just the law. If he heard of it outside the confessional, the obligation was there.

 

[Hopey]

I can’t quote directly because the case is under seal, but from the appeals court ruling:

(bolding added by me)

It appears that the court understood why the diocese tried to block the girl’s testimony. They just rejected the argument.That doesn’t answer my question, even if it is true (which I hope it is). Did you know that the molester was a very close friend of the girl’s parents? In fact, the victim often called him grandpa? Maybe that is why she didn’t tell her parents right away rather than what she claims that the priest told her in confession.

Peace

Tim

What you bolded was not a reason, given by the Diocese, why they filed the motion.

She gets to say why she acted the way she did and not say something to parents when she did.

On the side, the Church, through the classes for children, and teaching priests and volunteers, are seeing a small but good increase of children feeling safe enough to report (edit - not children report, but tell so others can help and do the reporting).

 

[Orogeny]

What you bolded was not a reason, given by the Diocese, why they filed the motion.

Based on the words of the court, it seems as though that was the argument by the diocese. Otherwise, why would the judge even mention that?

She gets to say why she acted the way she did and not say something to parents when she did.

Isn’t that the entire point of contention? She tells her story and the only person in the entire world that can refute her can’t do so. And that person happens to be the one she and her family are suing for MONEY. Even the trial judge recognized that problem.

On the side, the Church, through the classes for children, and teaching priests and volunteers, are seeing a small but good increase of children feeling safe enough to report (edit - not children report, but tell so others can help and do the reporting).

Where do you get that information?

Peace

Tim

 

[Hopey]

Based on the words of the court, it seems as though that was the argument by the diocese. Otherwise, why would the judge even mention that?Isn’t that the entire point of contention? She tells her story and the only person in the entire world that can refute her can’t do so. And that person happens to be the one she and her family are suing for MONEY. Even the trial judge recognized that problem.Where do you get that information?

Peace

Tim

Where I get my information is personal for now.

The judge noted that he wasn’t going to say anything is how I read it. I didn’t read it as that was why the Diocese went that direction. It seems if they were going in the direction you indicate, it would be that the priest wouldn’t have to say anything due to them saying it was a confession. Since those are already laws on the books, they don’t have to, then it would be pointless to go that direction. Or it seems so to me.

 

[John_Matrix]

Could you remember who you saw enter a confessional 5 years ago? I couldn’t remember who went to confession last Easter.

You don’t keep a running list?

 

[zab]

Priest are mandatory reporters if learned outside the confessional. That is just the law. If he heard of it outside the confessional, the obligation was there.

The First Court of Appeal ruled that the priest was not a mandatory-reporter since what was told to him was when the girl went to confession. But now they are questioning whether the conversations between the priest and the girl were “confession per se” and if he learned anything outside the confessional. Seems like the court is trying to make up the rules on what can and cannot be sealed in the confessional. lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

 

[Hopey]

The First Court of Appeal ruled that the priest was not a mandatory-reporter since what was told to him was when the girl went to confession. But now they are questioning whether the conversations between the priest and the girl were “confession per se” and if he learned anything outside the confessional. Seems like the court is trying to make up the rules on what can and cannot be sealed in the confessional. lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

Because the plaintiffs question the confession, whether it was counseling or confession, is why they have to do that. I don’t see it as making up rules.

 

[zab]

Because the plaintiffs question the confession, whether it was counseling or confession, is why they have to do that. I don’t see it as making up rules.

So how did the trial court and the First Court of appeal know that the girl told the priest these things “during Confession”?

 

[Hopey]

So how did the trial court and the First Court of appeal know that the girl told the priest these things “during Confession”?

Yes, it is confusing. As I understand it, they have said it was during her confession but was more of a plea for help. That is why the court had to determine if it was a confession in the sense that the Catholic Church understands it.

It was interesting that the article noted, that it was doubtful that a judge would allow parsing, meaning part of the sentence WAS a confession, but the other part wasn’t.
That was reassuring.

 

[phil19034]

Because the plaintiffs question the confession, whether it was counseling or confession, is why they have to do that. I don’t see it as making up rules.

I went to confession the other day. The priest gave me counseling. But it’s still confession.

Here’s the point. There are a few different privilege statuses in the court system:

1. doctor patient confidently
2. spousal privilege
3. attorney-client privilege
4. attorney work product
5. clergy-pennant privilege
   etc.

Not to mention the 5 amendment which protects you from incriminating yourself.

The clergy-pennant privilege is protected not just by the judicial system, but also the 1st Amendment.

If a child molester ACCIDENTALLY reveled to his attorney that he was guilty, the attorney CANNOT testify against him, ever. The attorney cannot tell anyone outside his/her case team. If so, the attorney will get disbarred and go to jail. Ever watch the movie The Firm with Tom Cruise? In that movie, the FBI tried to get Tom’s Cruise’s character to testify against the mob, the law firm defended the mob. Tom couldn’t do it and the FBI threatened him.

This situation is very similar to that movie. Except it’s a matter of clergy-pennant privilege vis attorney-client privilege.

If the Court is allowed to determine what classifies as clergy-pennant privileged, then people will not confess. We already have a serious issue with people not confessing, it would be worse. For example, let’s say a husband got drunk and cheated on his wife just one night. He felt horrible, repented and went to confession. A year later, the husband is under morphine after a surgery and tells his wife about the one-night stand and the confession. Two days later, when the husband isn’t under the affects of the drug, his wife serves him with divorce papers. The husband has no memory of what he told his wife, but says he’s sorry. Then, the wife’s attorney issues a subpoena to the priest to testify regarding the confession; under the argument that since the husband already admitted his sorrow the clergy-pennant privilege is waived. This would cause a HUGE issue for not just the Catholic Church, but would also open arguments for attorney-client privilege, etc.

This would undermine both Confession and judicial system.

The Diocese must win this.

God Bless.

 

[Hopey]

I went to confession the other day. The priest gave me counseling. But it’s still confession.

Here’s the point. There are a few different privilege statuses in the court system:

1. doctor patient confidently
2. spousal privilege
3. attorney-client privilege
4. attorney work product
5. clergy-pennant privilege
   etc.

Not to mention the 5 amendment which protects you from incriminating yourself.

The clergy-pennant privilege is protected not just by the judicial system, but also the 1st Amendment.

If a child molester ACCIDENTALLY reveled to his attorney that he was guilty, the attorney CANNOT testify against him, ever. The attorney cannot tell anyone outside his/her case team. If so, the attorney will get disbarred and go to jail. Ever watch the movie The Firm with Tom Cruise? In that movie, the FBI tried to get Tom’s Cruise’s character to testify against the mob, the law firm defended the mob. Tom couldn’t do it and the FBI threatened him.

This situation is very similar to that movie. Except it’s a matter of clergy-pennant privilege vis attorney-client privilege.

If the Court is allowed to determine what classifies as clergy-pennant privileged, then people will not confess. We already have a serious issue with people not confessing, it would be worse. For example, let’s say a husband got drunk and cheated on his wife just one night. He felt horrible, repented and went to confession. A year later, the husband is under morphine after a surgery and tells his wife about the one-night stand and the confession. Two days later, when the husband isn’t under the affects of the drug, his wife serves him with divorce papers. The husband has no memory of what he told his wife, but says he’s sorry. Then, the wife’s attorney issues a subpoena to the priest to testify regarding the confession; under the argument that since the husband already admitted his sorrow the clergy-pennant privilege is waived. This would cause a HUGE issue for not just the Catholic Church, but would also open arguments for attorney-client privilege, etc.

This would undermine both Confession and judicial system.

The Diocese must win this.

God Bless.

I agree to a point but I also see where the court has to determine some things. I could also see something happening and someone feigning ignorance because it was a confession, etc. I don’t see how it could be determined a confession or not without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Church or expert at least…

It may not be an issue anymore as, although she is allowed to speak of her confession, the judge may have thrown it out OR admitted it as evidence but not strong evidence when determining the ruling.

That is why although worrisome, it may not be to the point of a religious liberty issue.

 

[phil19034]

Because the plaintiffs question the confession, whether it was counseling or confession, is why they have to do that. I don’t see it as making up rules.

Here is a thought experiment.

1. If a girl was being abused by a lay person who was not employed by the Church, what motivation would a priest have to tell the girl to “sweep it under the rug”?
2. if it was a counseling session and not a confession, why wouldn’t the priest call the police or the girl’s parents?
3. If it’s not a confession, what is the priest trying to hide? What motivation would he have had for protecting a dead person?

It doesn’t make sense. Finally, confession does NOT have to take place in a confessional. A priest can come to my house and take my confessional. The state cannot be allowed to define boundaries and limitations around a confession. Just like the state cannot define boundaries and limitation to attorney-client privilege. If the Church Claims it’s a confession, then it’s a confession.

This attorney is using anti-Catholic and secular sentiments against the priest in an attempt to win money. Why… because that’s how attorneys get paid. They need to win. Plaintiff attorneys typically don’t take plaintiff cases with the intent to lose. Plaintiff attorneys will also use issues like this as a way to force a settlement when they know they have not case. They do it with electronic documents all the time. Will argue, "it doesn’t matter that Sally sent John an email on January 1st because opposing council failed to collect the email in a way which properly maintains the chain of custody. Therefore, the court must ignore this email. They will argue the chain of custody issue as long as they can with the hopes that the opposing side will settle so they can stop paying their defense attorneys. However, sometimes, the defense decides we are willing to pay whatever it takes to win this.

I’m sure that’s what’s happening here. The plaintiff attorney feels they only had a case against the dead guy. So they are barking up this tree in order to force the Diocese to say “this is costing us too much money, we must settle because we can’t afford this case to continue.” Since I work in the legal industry, I’m sure this is playing a major role in this. "Let’s make the defense spend a ton of money defending the definition of ‘clergy-pennant privilege’ so they blow their legal budget and are forced to pay a $500,000 or million dollar settlement.

I hope rich people will donate to the Diocese to help with their legal fees.

God Bless.

 

[Hopey]

Here is a thought experiment.

1. If a girl was being abused by a lay person who was not employed by the Church, what motivation would a priest have to tell the girl to “sweep it under the rug”?
2. if it was a counseling session and not a confession, why wouldn’t the priest call the police or the girl’s parents?
3. If it’s not a confession, what is the priest trying to hide? What motivation would he have had for protecting a dead person?

It doesn’t make sense. Finally, confession does NOT have to take place in a confessional. A priest can come to my house and take my confessional. The state cannot be allowed to define boundaries and limitations around a confession. Just like the state cannot define boundaries and limitation to attorney-client privilege. If the Church Claims it’s a confession, then it’s a confession.

This attorney is using anti-Catholic and secular sentiments against the priest in an attempt to win money. Why… because that’s how attorneys get paid. They need to win. Plaintiff attorneys typically don’t take plaintiff cases with the intent to lose. Plaintiff attorneys will also use issues like this as a way to force a settlement when they know they have not case. They do it with electronic documents all the time. Will argue, "it doesn’t matter that Sally sent John an email on January 1st because opposing council failed to collect the email in a way which properly maintains the chain of custody. Therefore, the court must ignore this email. They will argue the chain of custody issue as long as they can with the hopes that the opposing side will settle so they can stop paying their defense attorneys. However, sometimes, the defense decides we are willing to pay whatever it takes to win this.

I’m sure that’s what’s happening here. The plaintiff attorney feels they only had a case against the dead guy. So they are barking up this tree in order to force the Diocese to say “this is costing us too much money, we must settle because we can’t afford this case to continue.” Since I work in the legal industry, I’m sure this is playing a major role in this. "Let’s make the defense spend a ton of money defending the definition of ‘clergy-pennant privilege’ so they blow their legal budget and are forced to pay a $500,000 or million dollar settlement.

I hope rich people will donate to the Diocese to help with their legal fees.

God Bless.

The person wasn’t dead at that time and I thought it mentioned something about her saying the priest said it would tear up the family or something.

When the alleged perp died, the investigation stopped. That is when the parents filed this, in '09, including the alleged perp, funeral home (where alleged perp was president and one assault took place) diocese and priest.
I’m pretty sure they can have restitution against an estate, dead alleged perp, and funeral home as he was president and committing criminal acts there.

I don’t like to look at these involving victims of abuse as looking for money. They may or may not receive any money which is part of justice. They get to have their day in court. It is hard. Lots of money is spent on therapy, drugs, moving, etc. No amount of money could ever return her to her previous state of innocence and not abuse victim anymore.
But, God can and does draw good from evil.
The reason I speak about this so passionately is that some leave the Church forever because of what some might say about the victim. I think her motives are her own, like confession.
I think as a Church, and Catholic Forum, we need to stop questioning them as to why they are seeking justice. It can do harm.

 

[zab]

The person wasn’t dead at that time and I thought it mentioned something about her saying the priest said it would tear up the family or something.

When the alleged perp died, the investigation stopped. That is when the parents filed this, in '09, including the alleged perp, funeral home (where alleged perp was president and one assault took place) diocese and priest.
I’m pretty sure they can have restitution against an estate, dead alleged perp, and funeral home as he was president and committing criminal acts there.

I don’t like to look at these involving victims of abuse as looking for money. They may or may not receive any money which is part of justice. They get to have their day in court. It is hard. Lots of money is spent on therapy, drugs, moving, etc. No amount of money could ever return her to her previous state of innocence and not abuse victim anymore.
But, God can and does draw good from evil.
The reason I speak about this so passionately is that some leave the Church forever because of what some might say about the victim. I think her motives are her own, like confession.
I think as a Church, and Catholic Forum, we need to stop questioning them as to why they are seeking justice. It can do harm.

And no amount of money or winning of court cases is going to make a victim happy or at peace with themselves unless they admit their own failings no matter how minor, no matter if their failings or sins were a direct result of the confusion of being taken advantage of in the first place. In this case, court papers mention that parishioners were noticing “the closeness of the two” it didn’t just point out the behavior of the alleged abuser. It also mentioned the exchange of emails and phone calls. It didn’t say that the older man was doing all of the emailing an calling. So why should it be alarming for the priest to tell the penitent. “This is your problem. You need to take care of it.” because he obviously couldn’t break the seal of confession. Could he have meant “Stop seeing him. Don’t reply to his emails and phone calls. Then don’t worry about how you may have failed. God knows the whole of it and He is a merciful God. Sweep it under the floor and forget about it ,or else if you don’t take care of this now, so many people may get hurt.” Could that have been what he meant? If we are not truthful and persist in blaming others for our own faults and failings, we will just grow more and more bitter and could even become more terrible than those we accuse.