Louisiana Priest-Forced To Testify

  • Thread starter Thread starter teeboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teeboy

Guest
Does anyone have a link to the public record(s) associated with this ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court or how about to obtain the record(s) without traveling to New Orleans? Does anyone know in what civil parish the original lawsuit was filed?

This ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court is an embarrassment to the state.
 
The Court ruled that according to Louisiana law the privilege belongs to the penitent-communicant and that if the penitent waves it, the priest cannot raise it (page 5).

According to Canon Law the penitent cannot wave the privilege. The priest is obliged under automatic penalty of excommunication not to divulge the contents of the confession under any circumstances.

The young lady who claims to have been harmed was obliged under Canon Law not to reveal the confession. Since she is a minor the obligation would appear to have passed to her parents, whose attempt to force the priest to testify subjects them to the penalty that would otherwise be levied on her.

Given the heated nature of this matter I doubt that the Diocese will point that out, but it’s worth noting that the seal binds the priest, but an obligation to secrecy binds the penitent and any translators or others who may be privy to the confession.

.
 
Does anyone know that if forced to testify that he could take the 5th due to the possible legal repercussions on him?

I know this is a different topic per se from the canon law, but I was just curious.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
Does anyone know that if forced to testify that he could take the 5th due to the possible legal repercussions on him?

I know this is a different topic per se from the canon law, but I was just curious.
Click to expand...
Insofar as he is liable to prosecution for not reporting the alleged abuse, he may exercise his right to not incriminate himself.

.
 
Two separate issues here: the seal of Confession and the obligation to secrecy under Canon Law, the right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate one’s self.

The opinion says that if he obtained the information in a confession, the privilege not to reveal belongs to the penitent, not the priest.

Since the minor penitent has relinquished the right to privilege, the priest cannot cite any privilege insofar as the seal of confession in secular law according to the Court.

Of course the penitent cannot waive his right to not incriminate himself.

This is not the first time this issue has arisen. A number of states have entertained laws which would specifically repeal any state recognition of the seal of confession insofar as reporting child abuse. Fortunately to this point none have actually been passed.

.
 
With all due respect to Father Zuhlsdorf, this simply confuses the issues.

Under the prior Code of Canon law everyone - the priest, the penitent, translators, people sitting near the confessional - were bound by the seal of confession.

Under the current Code of Canon law only the priest is bound by the seal of confession, but everyone else is bound by a specific obligation to secrecy.

If you’re interested in the distinction, find a copy of the Code of Canon Law Annotated published by Wilson & Lafleur in 1993, which is a Latin-English edition of the Code with a translation of the 5th Spanish language edition of the commentary prepared by the Instituto Martin de Azpilcueta.

The change makes it clear that the seal adheres to the minister in his role as minister of the Sacrament, which preexists Canon Law, while others are bound by a duty imposed by the Church to protect the dignity of the Sacrament.

In addition the non-confessors suffer lesser penalties than the confessor.

.
 
Not it is not and a cited the page in which the Court laid out its reasoning.

.
 
It sounds to me like a “he said, she said”. Even if the plaintiffs alleged privileged communication to the priest is allowed in court, the priest will likely not testify under the first and fifth ammendments. And if the priest did testify, damages would accrue to him; the court will recognize this. It is preponderance of the evidence in a civil action, and the plaintiffs don’t have the preponderance on their side.

What is the minor child parents’ motive and what lawyer in right mind would advise the client to take this to the Louisiana Supreme Court? This is a waste of plaintiff’s money.
 
That is dead wrong.

Sorry.

If you don’t have the time or access to go look it up, I will endeavor to do so when I have a bit more time.

Every person, including the penitent, is obliged to secrecy. This case illustrates the wisdom of that Canon.

.
 
teeboy said:
It sounds to me like a “he said, she said”. Even if the plaintiffs alleged privileged communication to the priest is allowed in court, the priest will likely not testify under the first and fifth ammendments. And if the priest did testify, damages would accrue to him; the court will recognize this. It is preponderance of the evidence in a civil action, and the plaintiffs don’t have the preponderance on their side.

What is the minor child parents’ motive and what lawyer in right mind would advise the client to take this to the Louisiana Supreme Court? This is a waste of plaintiff’s money.
Click to expand...
Here, IMHO, is what this case is about.

An allegation has been made that a child was in some way injured by a prominent member of a Catholic parish who had the discourtesy to die suddenly before he could be indicted for a crime and/or sued for money.

The parents of the child, who is now 20 or so, looked around with their counsel to see how they could get out of a “he said, she said” situation and reap financial benefits.

Besides the child, only the parish priest was privy to any information directly from the alleged perpetrator. Involving the priest would bolster the allegation AND provide yet another potential deep pocket - the Diocese - from which to extract money.

Knowing that the priest is bound by the seal of confession, but believing that the child’s “release” could be used to torpedo his citing of the seal, the parents through counsel released the priest from confidentiality.

I think that makes it clear that the parents’ religious sensibilities are nil and that this about getting money out of somebody, anybody.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has opened the door since the priest can no longer cite the seal in defense of not testifying. He can cite the fifth amendment under civil law, and that can be overcome by granting him immunity. I would assume that if the parents and their counsel believe that would open the door to getting money out of the Diocese, that’s the approach they would take.

In any event, at the moment this matter is all about getting money from someone, not justice.

.
 
It is not vehement.

I am quite sorry you appear to be upset.

Father Zuhlsdorf, who I have known on-line for many years, is not a Canon Lawyer.

Nor apparently are you.

The Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, are.

Canon 983 states:

Can. 983 ß1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.

ß2 An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.

The phrase translated as “all others who in any way” is “necnon omnes alii ad quos ex confessione notitia peccatorum quoquo modo pervenerit”, or “as well as all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from a confession”.

“All”, in this context, mean all, not some, not just the interpreter.

The commentary on the Canon notes “The only difference with regard to Canon 889 of the 1917 Code is of a technical nature. According to the new precept the sacramental seal, as such, affects only the confessor, while the interpreter (Canon 990) and other persons who have to come to the knowledge of sins declared in confession are bound more to the obligation of secrecy. For the concepts of direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal, one may read the commentary on Canon 1388 in which the different types of offenders are listed and the corresponding penalties established.”

Now, the obligation of secrecy accrues to the penitent differently than to the interpreter and others, since the penitent is aware of the sins declared and may independently without reference to the confession reveal them.

The penitent, however, is not free to discuss the confession itself. Were you to kill your mother because she disagreed with you on a topic about which you have strong feelings in an on-line forum like this one, and confessed it to a priest who advised you to not give it further thought since it was justifiable homicide, nothing would prevent you from turning yourself in to the police, but relating the priest’s advice with a view towards enticing him into revealing the substance of the confession and his advice violates Canon 983 ß2.

There are additional canons applicable to the parents of the young lady which would seem to preclude them from these legal maneuvers designed to penetrate the seal of confession and to bring the Diocese and the priest into disrepute, but given this is 2014 and not 1950, and the political nature of accusations against the Church in the United States, I do not imagine they will be facing excommunication.

.
 
Marty_E said:
That is dead wrong.

Sorry.

If you don’t have the time or access to go look it up, I will endeavor to do so when I have a bit more time.

Every person, including the penitent, is obliged to secrecy. This case illustrates the wisdom of that Canon.

.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. I’m a confirmed Catholic.
 
:yup:they smell money .
Marty_E said:
Here, IMHO, is what this case is about.

An allegation has been made that a child was in some way injured by a prominent member of a Catholic parish who had the discourtesy to die suddenly before he could be indicted for a crime and/or sued for money.

The parents of the child, who is now 20 or so, looked around with their counsel to see how they could get out of a “he said, she said” situation and reap financial benefits.

Besides the child, only the parish priest was privy to any information directly from the alleged perpetrator. Involving the priest would bolster the allegation AND provide yet another potential deep pocket - the Diocese - from which to extract money.

Knowing that the priest is bound by the seal of confession, but believing that the child’s “release” could be used to torpedo his citing of the seal, the parents through counsel released the priest from confidentiality.

I think that makes it clear that the parents’ religious sensibilities are nil and that this about getting money out of somebody, anybody.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has opened the door since the priest can no longer cite the seal in defense of not testifying. He can cite the fifth amendment under civil law, and that can be overcome by granting him immunity. I would assume that if the parents and their counsel believe that would open the door to getting money out of the Diocese, that’s the approach they would take.

In any event, at the moment this matter is all about getting money from someone, not justice.

.
Click to expand...
 
Marty_E said:
Father Zuhlsdorf, who I have known on-line for many years, is not a Canon Lawyer.

Nor apparently are you.

The Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Navarra in Pamplona, Spain, are.
Click to expand...
Are you a canon lawyer?
 
Marty_E said:
I do not share personal information on-line.
Click to expand...
You wish us to trust your opinion and disregard those of others that are not canon lawyers.

If you really wish us to take the opinion seriously I would think that particular piece of information to now be pertinent.

Why should we trust your opinion over 3 different sources that appear to all say the same thing?
Do you hold some type of credential that qualifies your opinion as holding more weight then others that seem to be authorities on the subject?
 
vz71 said:
You wish us to trust your opinion and disregard those of others that are not canon lawyers.
Click to expand...
Indeed not.

I believe that the best course of action for anyone trying to make sense of the issues involved is to develop a thorough understanding of the issues and the laws applicable to them, to listen to the arguments for various positions, and to make up their own minds.

I only point out that some of the cited “authorities” are not authorities so that folks understand that going beyond personal opinions and developing a thorough understanding of the issues and the laws applicable to them is the best approach to reaching sound conclusions.
If you really wish us to take the opinion seriously I would think that particular piece of information to now be pertinent.
Click to expand...
Nothing along those lines is going to result in my sharing personal information on-line.

I am happy to share my opinions, and to support them with sufficient facts to establish the reasons why I hold them, and - as in the case of the faculty at the University of Navarra - where appropriate cite the credentials of the source to establish their bona fides, but you’re entitled to form an opinion based on anything it pleases you to consider.
Why should we trust your opinion over 3 different sources that appear to all say the same thing?
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t, nor should you trust three different unqualified sources simply because they all say the same thing. If they all told you to jump off a bridge, would you?
Do you hold some type of credential that qualifies your opinion as holding more weight then others that seem to be authorities on the subject?
Click to expand...
Again, nothing - not anything - will cause me to share personal information with you on-line.

.
 
And all this took place in a town that has Masonic signs mounted on the speed limit sign posts as you enter and exit the town.
 
teeboy said:
And all this took place in a town that has Masonic signs mounted on the speed limit sign posts as you enter and exit the town.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Feliciana_Parish,_Louisiana

It was previously known as the home of the Louisiana State Insane Asylum founded in 1847 and now named the East Louisiana State Hospital, and the Margaret Dixon Correctional Institute.

It’s a economically distressed area

thearda.com/rcms2010/r/c/22/rcms2010_22037_county_name_2010.asp

with only 275 Catholics amongst over 8.800 Protestants in an area with a total population of 20,000.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top