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

[Hopey]

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.

She is not to blame for this, any part of the abuse. When you have a situation where the other is an adult, the other is a minor, child, there is no sin on their part as that adult is not supposed to take advantage of that natural situation (adult being over a child - child trusting adult).
Although no amount of money could undo what was done to her, it can help offset what they have to pay to help her and the family deal with this and heal. It is also part of justice as a crime did happen.
Those in the parish who saw a closeness could have gone to the priest or parents because there are usually flags, warnings, before it gets to the point it did. Our programs are supposed to help us identify these. Of course, if he was grooming the family also, they may not have noticed because he was a close friend to them.
As to the priest and his advice in the confession, there is so much more he could have done, saying nothing would have been better than what she said was advised her. The minimum could have been, please talk with me after confession, privately. I want to help you. If he had spoken with her privately, taken notes, he could have reported it and it would not have gotten as bad as it was. If he had groomed the family, he was friend of parents, then it makes even more reason why she told in a confession.

A few reasons why they confess to abuse, which isn’t their fault, in confession. They may feel dirty, bad, guilty even though no guilt may apply to them. They may also be testing and searching for a safe person to speak with, and if they find one, then usually a meeting outside of the confession occurs and it does get reported.

That is how it is supposed to happen. Those are the areas the Church HAS been doing a great job in helping victims and reporting.

 

[zab]

She is not to blame for this, any part of the abuse. When you have a situation where the other is an adult, the other is a minor, child, there is no sin on their part as that adult is not supposed to take advantage of that natural situation (adult being over a child - child trusting adult).
Yes, I agree.
Although no amount of money could undo what was done to her, it can help offset what they have to pay to help her and the family deal with this and heal. It is also part of justice as a crime did happen.
Yes, I agree. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that there can be retaliation by some as well as greedy lawyers. I’m not saying that is the case here. I didn’t bring up this topic.
Those in the parish who saw a closeness could have gone to the priest or parents because there are usually flags, warnings, before it gets to the point it did. Our programs are supposed to help us identify these. Of course, if he was grooming the family also, they may not have noticed because he was a close friend to them.
I don’t care how close he was with the family. If some older adult friend of my family was emailing and phoning and being close with my son or daughter, I think I would have noticed. But sometimes we just don’t want to falsely accuse others. However, I think I would have been keeping an eye on it and questioned my daughter about it before others were getting suspicious. And yet I don’t want to blame the parents either.
As to the priest and his advice in the confession, there is so much more he could have done, saying nothing would have been better than what she said was advised her. The minimum could have been, please talk with me after confession, privately. I want to help you. If he had spoken with her privately, taken notes, he could have reported it and it would not have gotten as bad as it was. If he had groomed the family, he was friend of parents, then it makes even more reason why she told in a confession.
We don’t know exactly what the priest said and in what context or what all the girl said to him. After six years things can get forgotten or distorted. How many of us can remember everything the priest says as soon as we get out of the confessional? She chose to speak to him during Confession and that is protected under the seal. He cannot then, say- tell me again outside the confessional- because that matter is already under the seal. I don’t think that we should be speaking of the priest as if we are convinced that we he was criminally negligent. It is interesting that some do not want to put the slightest blame of negligence on anyone here but the priest, and then criminally negligent at that.
A few reasons why they confess to abuse, which isn’t their fault, in confession. They may feel dirty, bad, guilty even though no guilt may apply to them. They may also be testing and searching for a safe person to speak with, and if they find one, then usually a meeting outside of the confession occurs and it does get reported.
Victims are weak human beings, too, and have faults and failings like anyone else. It is not a civil court of law that determines the lesser sins, faults and failings of the victim. Sometimes it seems so unfair-“this was not supposed to happen to me” “I wouldn’t be like this if such and such did not happen to me”. I understand that very well. If a victim chooses the seal of confession to share private things, shouldn’t that decision be respected? One cannot then expect the priest to break the seal that he is bound by because the person decides to waive their own right to secrecy.

That is how it is supposed to happen. Those are the areas the Church HAS been doing a great job in helping victims and reporting.

 

[Arandur]

I don’t think that we should be speaking of the priest as if we are convinced that we he was criminally negligent. It is interesting that some do not want to put the slightest blame of negligence on anyone here but the priest, and then criminally negligent at that.

This is important, too. Some presume that the accuser’s claims are honest and accurate, while some also presume and impute improper motives to the accuser while presuming the innocence of the accused.

Our justice system, I think, takes the more proper route (better for a variety of reasons): presume the innocence of the accused first. Therefore, by this standard, we should be erring in favor of the priest.

We can assess the evidence available, even to speculate on possible motives. Therefore I think that it is valid to consider the possible motives of the accusers, deriving them from the facts of the case and what possibilities of remedy there are (or are not). This can be done charitably or uncharitably.

In summary, I think it is more proper to presume the innocence of the accused rather than the accusers, but we must certainly be sympathetic to the accusers and the possibility that they were victims. I just don’t think it is proper in any way to just go and believe everything the accusers say and not give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

More likely, there is a misunderstanding here. I think it extremely likely that the girl, if abused, in her vulnerable state misunderstood the priest’s advice (if he even used words similar to what she claims). And the family and the courts misunderstand the nature of confession.

Much heartbreak is routinely caused by simple (non-criminal) misunderstandings. Such is the human condition.

 

[Hopey]

“She chose to speak to him during Confession and that is protected under the seal. He cannot then, say- tell me again outside the confessional- because that matter is already under the seal. I don’t think that we should be speaking of the priest as if we are convinced that we he was criminally negligent. It is interesting that some do not want to put the slightest blame of negligence on anyone here but the priest, and then criminally negligent at that.”

The protocol for something like this is after hearing the confession, and before absolution, to ask them to speak with him outside the confessional. Something like, it is serious, they want to help, etc. That is how it is supposed to be done.(edit -that is how I have heard it done ) That would not break the seal and also help the victim as you could then take it all down and report it.

I am also not sure when they took her statement regarding the confession. If it was 6 years ago, then it would be fresh. They may use that in court.

I don’t want anyone to be found negligent.

But, a priest can act in the above manner and still keep the seal and help the girl.
Was he taught that is a good question.

 

[zab]

"

I don’t want anyone to be found negligent.

I don’t want anyone, including the priest and the church to be wrongfully accused of being negligent. Being a victim or being closely related to a victim, there could be a tendency to look elsewhere to place blame in order to get some sort of satisfaction. That is a possibility. And the realization of this is not to be unsympathetic towards the victim. To blame the priest for being criminally negligent could be like trying to find a scapegoat. So it seems to me that there would need to be sufficient reason to suspect the priest of knowing anything about this outside the confessional. What if the same accusation was made against the parents? Without sufficient reason to suspect that they were negligent, should the law go and dig around to find out what they knew and when they knew so they could protect their daughter before things went too far? Anyway this is all I have to say about it.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

I think this portion of the article linked in the OP is worth pointing out:

The case stems from a claim by parents of a minor that their daughter confessed to Bayhi during the sacrament of reconciliation that she engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with grown man who also attended their church.

Assuming this statement accurately reflects what is contained in the court documents, then I would find the claims by the girl and her attorney in later linked articles that she was simply seeking advice and did not go to confess any sins to be disingenuous. Regardless of whether it actually was a sin (which I presume it would not be in this case), she still went to confess it.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Like has been stated many times, if what was heard in confession is the material being talked about outside of the confessional, the priest is forbidden from speaking to it. The seal is in tact between the penitent and priest as far as the subject matter. If the abuse is the subject matter it cannot be discussed and the priest cannot be made to report what is sealed.

This may not be settled case law because mandatory reporting laws are fairly new, but this is a religious freedom issue and I think the courts will follow the traditional interpretation. However, if the courts go against this, priests will be arrested and jailed for this because they cannot break the seal. It’s that simple, civil law does not supersede Church Law.

 

[Hopey]

Like has been stated many times, if what was heard in confession is the material being talked about outside of the confessional, the priest is forbidden from speaking to it. The seal is in tact between the penitent and priest as far as the subject matter. If the abuse is the subject matter it cannot be discussed and the priest cannot be made to report what is sealed.

This may not be settled case law because mandatory reporting laws are fairly new, but this is a religious freedom issue and I think the courts will follow the traditional interpretation. However, if the courts go against this, priests will be arrested and jailed for this because they cannot break the seal. It’s that simple, civil law does not supersede Church Law.

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but priests can and do ask penitents to speak with them outside of confession. If they do come there to speak with them, counseling, that is not under the seal, no matter the subject. It is separate case, brand new.

I even asked the apologist re Spiritual Direction:
Spiritual direction is confidential but not to the degree that the sacrament of confession is. In the seal of the sacrament of confession the priest can never reveal a person’s sins no matter what. Spiritual direction, while confidential, is subject to all civil mandatory reporting laws.
If someone were to discuss a subject or situation in spiritual direction that the civil law requires the hearer to report to the authorities the the spiritual director must do so. According to the organization Spiritual Directors Intentional “all information shared in a spiritual direction relationship is subject to subpoena in the United States.”

---

Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin

Also, the canon lawyer who explained this to me would not risk doing something wrong, breaking the seal. That is how they can operate.

It doesn’t mean the penitent will come back to them. They may also go to someone else.

If the priest heard anything about the abuse outside the confessional, it is mandated that he report it regardless of what he heard in the confessional.

What was stated earlier had to have been wrong also.

 

[Lapey]

I am not sure where you are getting your information, but priests can and do ask penitents to speak with them outside of confession. If they do come there to speak with them, counseling, that is not under the seal, no matter the subject. It is separate case, brand new.

I even asked the apologist re Spiritual Direction:
Spiritual direction is confidential but not to the degree that the sacrament of confession is. In the seal of the sacrament of confession the priest can never reveal a person’s sins no matter what. Spiritual direction, while confidential, is subject to all civil mandatory reporting laws.
If someone were to discuss a subject or situation in spiritual direction that the civil law requires the hearer to report to the authorities the the spiritual director must do so. According to the organization Spiritual Directors Intentional “all information shared in a spiritual direction relationship is subject to subpoena in the United States.”

---

Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin

Also, the canon lawyer who explained this to me would not risk doing something wrong, breaking the seal. That is how they can operate.

It doesn’t mean the penitent will come back to them. They may also go to someone else.

If the priest heard anything about the abuse outside the confessional, it is mandated that he report it regardless of what he heard in the confessional.

What was stated earlier had to have been wrong also.

I don’t know where you get your information nor your drive to continue your pursuit of this topic in a way that paints Fr. Bayhi in a negative and negligent light.

Until you’re ready to say why you have such an ax to grind why should anything be taken seriously from you.

Furthermore, your question to the apologist was general and not complete. I know and work with many many diocesan priest and several bishops, they disagree with you.

I’ll help your ignorance one more time then I quit. When a suject is brought to the confessional it is off limits even if it is talked about in a situation outside of sacramental confession.

Again I mention one’s confessor and spiritual director, if they are one and the same, are subject to the same seal on the topics brought to confession. I’m not asking your opinion I’m telling you what the fact is.

This case is exactly about this situation.

 

[Hopey]

I don’t know where you get your information nor your drive to continue your pursuit of this topic in a way that paints Fr. Bayhi in a negative and negligent light.

Until you’re ready to say why you have such an ax to grind why should anything be taken seriously from you.

Furthermore, your question to the apologist was general and not complete. I know and work with many many diocesan priest and several bishops, they disagree with you.

I’ll help your ignorance one more time then I quit. When a suject is brought to the confessional it is off limits even if it is talked about in a situation outside of sacramental confession.

Again I mention one’s confessor and spiritual director, if they are one and the same, are subject to the same seal on the topics brought to confession. I’m not asking your opinion I’m telling you what the fact is.

This case is exactly about this situation.

It was not specific, the question to the apologist, because I don’t have an axe to grind with anyone.
If it were wrong for him, outside the confessional, to listen to anything heard that had been confessed, and treat it under the same seal, would not the Diocese have taken that approach?
But, because there are times I can be wrong, I will submit it to the apologist and post it back here for clarifications.
This will be the question:
In the case where a confessor is someone’s spiritual director, can the penitent speak with the priest outside of the confession(al) regarding matters they need further help with? Is the priest under the seal regarding a topic confessed, even outside the confessional, if the penitent brings it up? Or is just the priest forbidden to start the topic because of the seal?

 

[Lapey]

It was not specific, the question to the apologist, because I don’t have an axe to grind with anyone.
If it were wrong for him, outside the confessional, to listen to anything heard that had been confessed, and treat it under the same seal, would not the Diocese have taken that approach?
But, because there are times I can be wrong, I will submit it to the apologist and post it back here for clarifications.
This will be the question:
In the case where a confessor is someone’s spiritual director, can the penitent speak with the priest outside of the confession(al) regarding matters they need further help with? Is the priest under the seal regarding a topic confessed, even outside the confessional, if the penitent brings it up? Or is just the priest forbidden to start the topic because of the seal?

It makes no difference to me what the staff apologist answers. I have enough experience and knowledge of the subject by my priest friends and colleagues to know what the answer is.

What is your obsession with this case? You have acted like a “posting ninja” on this subject. You respond to each and every post with almost a bullying tone, “I’m right and you are wrong”. You have been a member since 2011 and I would bet your daily post average has gone up tremendously since this story broke. You have taken over on each of the threads in which this topic is or was being discussed, and dismissed every poster as wrong no matter what was stated.

What is your motive if it is not to discredit Fr. Bayhi and/or the Diocese of Baton Rouge? You will not accept the fact that it is possible this young girl is being used by parents and attorneys for money. You don’t accept the fact that this is exactly about money and not justice; there can be no justice, the one person responsible is dead. Get over it and move on, Fr. Bayhi should not be on trial here; but because of the litigious society we live in he is. Sad, just sad.

I’ll share with you just a snap shot of what working with youth is about. I was on retreat last week, from Tuesday to Sunday evening, with about 60 teens from 15 to 19 years old. Would you have any idea what percentage of these kids have experienced abuse, sexual or physical? Do you have any idea how much mandatory reporting laws have affected being able to minister to kids fully?

The kids know that if they say anything that leads a minister to believe there is abuse it must be reported to authorities. Do you know what happens now since these laws have been in effect and is well known now? SILENCE. These feel good laws have driven these kids who need the help of good people to silence.

We have members of our team who are professional and licensed counselors and social workers, clergy and school teachers; all of which are mandatory reporters. These laws do not protect anyone, much less the children they were designed to help. They hurt the kids by driving them to silence. This is precisely why it matters not what the staff apologist says about your latest attempt to place an absolute answer on a situation that is anything but precise and absolute. Furthermore, you have no idea of whether the priest said anything to the girl about reporting anything to anyone, neither do you have any evidence, outside of a statement by a child advised by lawyers, that he advised to “handle it yourself”. Yet you continue to take that as truth. You give no credence to the fact that the priest cannot and will not say otherwise. You do not even acknowledge that he cannot affirm or deny that this was discussed inside or outside of confession. All you do is speculate in ignorance while patrolling these threads for ways to throw everything back on the priest and the diocese. Are you sure you have no ax to grind? How does the quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson go? “Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what you say”.

 

[Hopey]

It makes no difference to me what the staff apologist answers. I have enough experience and knowledge of the subject by my priest friends and colleagues to know what the answer is.

What is your obsession with this case? You have acted like a “posting ninja” on this subject. You respond to each and every post with almost a bullying tone, “I’m right and you are wrong”. You have been a member since 2011 and I would bet your daily post average has gone up tremendously since this story broke. You have taken over on each of the threads in which this topic is or was being discussed, and dismissed every poster as wrong no matter what was stated.

What is your motive if it is not to discredit Fr. Bayhi and/or the Diocese of Baton Rouge? You will not accept the fact that it is possible this young girl is being used by parents and attorneys for money. You don’t accept the fact that this is exactly about money and not justice; there can be no justice, the one person responsible is dead. Get over it and move on, Fr. Bayhi should not be on trial here; but because of the litigious society we live in he is. Sad, just sad.

I’ll share with you just a snap shot of what working with youth is about. I was on retreat last week, from Tuesday to Sunday evening, with about 60 teens from 15 to 19 years old. Would you have any idea what percentage of these kids have experienced abuse, sexual or physical? Do you have any idea how much mandatory reporting laws have affected being able to minister to kids fully?

The kids know that if they say anything that leads a minister to believe there is abuse it must be reported to authorities. Do you know what happens now since these laws have been in effect and is well known now? SILENCE. These feel good laws have driven these kids who need the help of good people to silence.

We have members of our team who are professional and licensed counselors and social workers, clergy and school teachers; all of which are mandatory reporters. These laws do not protect anyone, much less the children they were designed to help. They hurt the kids by driving them to silence. This is precisely why it matters not what the staff apologist says about your latest attempt to place an absolute answer on a situation that is anything but precise and absolute. Furthermore, you have no idea of whether the priest said anything to the girl about reporting anything to anyone, neither do you have any evidence, outside of a statement by a child advised by lawyers, that he advised to “handle it yourself”. Yet you continue to take that as truth. You give no credence to the fact that the priest cannot and will not say otherwise. You do not even acknowledge that he cannot affirm or deny that this was discussed inside or outside of confession. All you do is speculate in ignorance while patrolling these threads for ways to throw everything back on the priest and the diocese. Are you sure you have no ax to grind? How does the quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson go? “Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what you say”.

For what it is worth, I started commenting under another thread because someone posted that those who agree with the SP decision must be not a good catholic or go to confession.
I stated why I agreed with the SP decision, we can speak of our confessions - no surprise there.
I have stated that I do not consider the priest who can speak of nothing confessed to him, defend himself, as fair or not. That is because the same happens in the Church. Some things come with the territory of being a priest.
I posted an article, under Catholic News, from the National Catholic Register which was merged with this one. If you will notice when you see my response, it is titled “Worrisome but not religious liberty issue yet.”.
That is unfortunate you believe that people, kids esp, can’t be helped by the mandatory reporting law. I would think those who the priest reported the abuse were thankful to them because action was taken. But, there may be some who let fear guide them.

I will post the answer here, not for you, but for others who may want to know and need clarification.

 

[Hopey]

Lapey,
BTW, I was a member before you. I think I was a member shortly after they started this forum. Because I forgot my password, and CA support did all they could, and I had changed email addresses, I had to start a new account. Not that it is your business anyway.

I did keep commenting, if I remember correctly, at a backfence thread, to make it to the hurdle of “regular”. That is the only time I have purposefully commented to up my post number. I knew I wasn’t a new member. But that is just how it happened.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey,
BTW, I was a member before you. I think I was a member shortly after they started this forum. Because I forgot my password, and CA support did all they could, and I had changed email addresses, I had to start a new account. Not that it is your business anyway.

I did keep commenting, if I remember correctly, at a backfence thread, to make it to the hurdle of “regular”. That is the only time I have purposefully commented to up my post number. I knew I wasn’t a new member. But that is just how it happened.

A little sensitive, aren’t we? I mentioned your “join date” to make a point about how much you have posted on this topic; that is all. I could not care less when you joined.

 

[Lapey]

For what it is worth, I started commenting under another thread because someone posted that those who agree with the SP decision must be not a good catholic or go to confession.
I stated why I agreed with the SP decision, we can speak of our confessions - no surprise there.
I have stated that I do not consider the priest who can speak of nothing confessed to him, defend himself, as fair or not. That is because the same happens in the Church. Some things come with the territory of being a priest.
I posted an article, under Catholic News, from the National Catholic Register which was merged with this one. If you will notice when you see my response, it is titled “Worrisome but not religious liberty issue yet.”.
That is unfortunate you believe that people, kids esp, can’t be helped by the mandatory reporting law. I would think those who the priest reported the abuse were thankful to them because action was taken. But, there may be some who let fear guide them.

I will post the answer here, not for you, but for others who may want to know and need clarification.

I did not say kids cannot be helped by the law, that we can agree upon. Can you accept that many more are hurt by it? I know this by experience in youth ministry before and after these laws. What training and experience do you have in this field?

 

[Hopey]

I did not say kids cannot be helped by the law, that we can agree upon. Can you accept that many more are hurt by it? I know this by experience in youth ministry before and after these laws. What training and experience do you have in this field?

A survivor first and also part of a group that helps victims (any kind).
Knowing that although I may not have wanted anything done, usually the best thing is for that person to report so something can be done.
Seeing people who have mentioned it to others get to the point of wanting something done only to have the time expired on reporting/doing something. That happens within the Church, our rules also.
I appreciate you helping the youth and creating a climate that is safe for them. But crimes, not just kids being sexually active, need to be reported. I firmly agree with that law even though I may not have liked it when I was younger. There are reasons to do it, and do it as quickly as possible.

 

[Lapey]

A survivor first and also part of a group that helps victims (any kind).
Knowing that although I may not have wanted anything done, usually the best thing is for that person to report so something can be done.
Seeing people who have mentioned it to others get to the point of wanting something done only to have the time expired on reporting/doing something. That happens within the Church, our rules also.
I appreciate you helping the youth and creating a climate that is safe for them. But crimes, not just kids being sexually active, need to be reported. I firmly agree with that law even though I may not have liked it when I was younger. There are reasons to do it, and do it as quickly as possible.

So you are a victim of child sexual abuse? Then we do have something in common; I was about 6-7 years old.

Crimes are being reported, not because of mandatory reporting laws though. They are being reported because it is the right thing to do. The problem is when people do not speak up because of the ramifications that will follow because of the laws. This happens much more than you care to admit. I believe, from my experience, more kids were talking to ministers like me and getting help before the laws than are now.

What is worse, if a child says it, it must be reported, even though in the next breath the child recants the statement and attributes it to anything but truth, it is mandated that it be reported. Let me ask you, if an untrue incident is reported about a priest, and it comes out beyond a shadow of a doubt after being reported that it is untrue, what do you think happens to the priest? His ministry and career is done; I have witnessed this several times happen to some very good and holy men, one of which was spiritual director who is now living basically as a hermit because of false accusations.

There is always more than one side to every story, but in today’s world there is but only one truth, the smutty dirty story is what people believe. SNAP, and groups like it, help perpetuate this. In the name of the “abused child” they go all out to remove the priest from service, whether there are any charges ever made by law enforcement much less a conviction.

I saw you made a request to change the rules concerning what can be said about the victims, well, being a victim of a past sexual abuse, I would never consider and I have never even thought about suing for money. The bible says we should not sue. What can this family gain by the suit except money? There is no justice to get; the perpetrator of the alleged abuse is deceased. The only thing the family can gain is money. Am I wrong?

 

[Hopey]

So you are a victim of child sexual abuse? Then we do have something in common; I was about 6-7 years old.

Crimes are being reported, not because of mandatory reporting laws though. They are being reported because it is the right thing to do. The problem is when people do not speak up because of the ramifications that will follow because of the laws. This happens much more than you care to admit. I believe, from my experience, more kids were talking to ministers like me and getting help before the laws than are now.

What is worse, if a child says it, it must be reported, even though in the next breath the child recants the statement and attributes it to anything but truth, it is mandated that it be reported. Let me ask you, if an untrue incident is reported about a priest, and it comes out beyond a shadow of a doubt after being reported that it is untrue, what do you think happens to the priest? His ministry and career is done; I have witnessed this several times happen to some very good and holy men, one of which was spiritual director who is now living basically as a hermit because of false accusations.

There is always more than one side to every story, but in today’s world there is but only one truth, the smutty dirty story is what people believe. SNAP, and groups like it, help perpetuate this. In the name of the “abused child” they go all out to remove the priest from service, whether there are any charges ever made by law enforcement much less a conviction.

I saw you made a request to change the rules concerning what can be said about the victims, well, being a victim of a past sexual abuse, I would never consider and I have never even thought about suing for money. The bible says we should not sue. What can this family gain by the suit except money? There is no justice to get; the perpetrator of the alleged abuse is deceased. The only thing the family can gain is money. Am I wrong?

Money can be used for several things. Counseling, medicine, and more importantly, moving so they can reestablish their life in a new place to promote healing.

I used to have similar views as you regarding reporting, and also regarding suing. I think the lawyers benefit more than anybody else sometimes.

If I had been able to settle mine at the time, it would have been to move. Mine was not just as a child, like you, but continued which is all too common.

I look at SNAP as a necessary penance because some people did not do what they were supposed to do. They remind me of that. I have no ties with them other than it is sad part of history and I aim to help anyone. I know the victims will not receive the healing they need from them alone, nor from money, but it can and does help them. Healing only comes through forgiveness. Thank goodness we have groups that focus just on that.

As to priest falsely accused, it is a shame but I am sure it does happen.
Not given all the details, we can never know about some, till the next life. Abusers are known liars anyway.

Yes, I did make a suggestion. I though it was good at the time to make a climate more inviting. As we have rules against speaking of clergy, and loosely anyone, I thought it might make it more inviting to victims if they were listed specifically. Suggestions are just that, though.

 

[Hopey]

Money can be used for several things. Counseling, medicine, and more importantly, moving so they can reestablish their life in a new place to promote healing.

I used to have similar views as you regarding reporting, and also regarding suing. I think the lawyers benefit more than anybody else sometimes.

If I had been able to settle mine at the time, it would have been to move. Mine was not just as a child, like you, but continued which is all too common.

I look at SNAP as a necessary penance because some people did not do what they were supposed to do. They remind me of that. I have no ties with them other than it is sad part of history and I aim to help anyone. I know the victims will not receive the healing they need from them alone, nor from money, but it can and does help them. Healing only comes through forgiveness. Thank goodness we have groups that focus just on that.

As to priest falsely accused, it is a shame but I am sure it does happen.
Not given all the details, we can never know about some, till the next life. Abusers are known liars anyway.

Yes, I did make a suggestion. I though it was good at the time to make a climate more inviting. As we have rules against speaking of clergy, and loosely anyone, I thought it might make it more inviting to victims if they were listed specifically. Suggestions are just that, though.

I also agree that a person should not have to sue the Church. But I also know the Church is required to make restitution. Sometimes they do not do that or, unfortunately, the victim was re-victimized and the only recourse they have is through the court. It is usually not just the sin of one person. Usually someone along the way handled it horribly.

 

[Hopey]

From Fr. Grondin in case anyone wanted to know, clarification:

Re: When a confessor and spiritual director are the same, is a penitent allowed to bring up topics from confession with him?
The priest can never talk about what was said during confession. If the penitent raises the issue in spiritual direction then the priest must act as if it is the first time he is hearing the information. It can be talked about only if the penitent restates everything about the topic during spiritual direction.

The priest can never talk about what took place during the confession, he can only discuss things that are talked about outside of the sacrament. So if I confessed robbing a bank, the priest cannot broach that topic in spiritual direction. But if I say in spiritual direction that I robbed a bank, the priest can not use information gained in the confessional during the conversation. He has to act as if I am telling him for the first time. Anything said in spiritual direction can be further discussed.

Because this can get messy and confusing as to when and where certain things were brought up in the past, it is not recommended that someone’s confessor and spiritual director be the same priest.

---

Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin

Thank you Fr. Grondin.