US Supreme Court declines to hear appeal of Louisiana case challenging confessional seal [CWN]

[CWN_News]

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a Louisiana ruling that would force a Catholic priest to disclosed what he heard in a sacramental confession or face …

More…

 

[cycleman]

***The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a Louisiana ruling that would force a Catholic priest to disclose what he heard in a sacramental confession or face imprisonment. ***

Where do the reporters get this? That statement is patently false! The priest has not been ordered to testify at all (although it may be detrimental to his self interest if he doesn’t) and he certainly does not face imprisonment. This is a civil lawsuit!

There is already a thread over in World News (different article) on this.

 

[China123]

I blame the fact that people generally get their news from memes and headlines. Headlines seem to never mirror the article and people’s attention spans are geared in seconds now instead of minutes.

It is ridiculous what the age of information has brought us. We seek to know what is going on by a FB meme.

Or maybe we are just weary from all the tear down in the media of the Church.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Or maybe we are just weary from all the tear down in the media of the Church.

The Church only has itself to blame for that. The victims had to go to the media because nothing was being done. For example, complaints were lodged with and unanswered by the Vatican against Marcial Maciel for over 20 years before the victims went to the media. They had no other recourse and perhaps publicly addressing these things should be viewed as a form of penance for the Church. It is just sad that it continues to require a secular authority to produce some recompense.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Why does what the girl said in confession matter?

Cant she just say the same thing in open-court?

 

[Lion_IRC]

The Church only has itself to blame for that.

To blame for WHAT?
The church can’t and doesnt stop the State and its judiciary from acting independently.

… The victims had to go to the media because nothing was being done.

Why do victims go to the media or to the vatican - they should go to the police!

…For example, complaints were lodged with and unanswered by the Vatican against Marcial Maciel for over 20 years before the victims went to the media.

Complaints and whinging to the vatican (or talkback radio) are NOT a viable alternative to making sworn statements before a police officer or in a court of law.

…They had no other recourse and perhaps publicly addressing these things should be viewed as a form of penance for the Church.

I am part of The Church. And I am not doing one single ounce of penance for the sins of someone who - for all I know - was nothing more than a liar and a pedophile and a closet atheist.
Neither am I going to take the blame for crimes of opportunity committed against children whose parents in many many cases NEGLECTED their parental duty of care and who did NOT GO STRAIGHT TO THE POLICE.

…It is just sad that it continues to require a secular authority to produce some recompense.

…10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS LATER???

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Complaints and whinging to the vatican (or talkback radio) are NOT a viable alternative to making sworn statements before a police officer or in a court of law.

The expectation that the Church would handle this matter internally was and is not an unreasonable one. An extremely errant leader of one of the largest and wealthiest religious orders should have been a priority.

…10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS LATER???

You are expected to confess and do penance for your sins in order to receive absolution whether they were committed 5 minutes or 50 years ago. It would be tragic indeed if your anger were directed at the fact that the Church must do penance now for these crimes and its disregard for them rather the fact the it did engage in a pattern of behavior spanning decades which requires penance.

 

[Lion_IRC]

WUT?
I do not need to apologize (let alone go to confession) for someone else’s sins.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering, please stay on the topic of the original post

 

[Lion_IRC]

Sorry. I’m trying to see how/where the derail happened.

Courts try to force priest to break the seal of confession…
Why…?
Because priest allegedly may have heard victim talk about a case…
How did the court even find out about an individual, specific confession…?
Hearsay evidence, is that even relevant…?
Why can’t victim give that same evidence directly in court…?
When/why did the judiciary suddenly decide to start attacking the age-old seal of confession…?
What if the court is dissatisfied with priests potential lack of full disclosure…?
This all seems a bit political and anti-church…
Yeah, well the church deserves it and had it coming…
Those poor victims who had “no choice” but to go to the media and the Vatican (instead of the police)…
The church must do penance now for these crimes…
How do I go to confession for someone else’s crimes…?


Anyway, I think the priest is entitled to ask the court by what warrant it thinks it can intrude into the privilege and private communication of a religious sacrament. It would be like demanding that a witness give evidence in court about the content of their religious prayers.

Let’s see what the secularism fanatics (mostly atheists) think of this erosion of
Church/State separation.

 

[otjm]

***The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a Louisiana ruling that would force a Catholic priest to disclose what he heard in a sacramental confession or face imprisonment. ***

Where do the reporters get this? That statement is patently false! The priest has not been ordered to testify at all (although it may be detrimental to his self interest if he doesn’t) and he certainly does not face imprisonment. This is a civil lawsuit!

There is already a thread over in World News (different article) on this.

Imprisonment is not only for crimes; it is also used by courts where there is evidence, and the one holding the evidence will not testify.

The most common standoff between a court and a witness who will not testify occurs with reporters, who have been told certain facts; and often the struggle is over whether or not the reporter will “out” the individual from whom they received the information.

The issue is resolved by a contempt of court hearing; and if the individual whom the court wants to testify will not do so, the court can put them in jail until such time as the food, or the neighbors in adjacent cells convince the reluctant and recalcitrant witness. Normally, they cannot be held beyond the conclusion of the court case.

Normally there are some recognized privileges from being coerced to testify. Either Louisiana does not recognize priest/penitent privilege, or there are circumstances in this specific case which the court determines have caused a waiver of the privilege.

So yes, it is entirely possible the priest could be cooling his heels for a period of time.

I have not followed the case closely, and I do not recall why the priest is being brought in on this. However, I suspect that he will have been advised by one or more Canon lawyers as to what he can or cannot say regarding the confession; and depending on that and what happens subsequently, one of the possibilities is that he could be jailed for contempt of court. It is also possible that he could be sued personally over the matter, and in not testifying, lose; presumably the diocese would be dragged into that swamp also.

Pardon me - bayou.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I just don’t understand what new evidence the priest would have that couldn’t be obtained first-hand direct from the person who was in that very same confessional at the time.

Even if a priest said…“yes, during the confession I heard the penitent say xyz” all that would amount to is a repetition of testimony the witness could say first-hand under oath.
And that same witness could freely divulge everything the priest said as well.

So why the need to compel the priest?

It does seem like a gratuitous exercise of power by the court. Punitive and vindictive.

 

[estesbob]

Another assault on the Church.

 

[mdgspencer]

The only effect of a determined effort on the part of courts to require priests to tell what they heard in confession, would be priests in jail. If a priest tells what he heard in confession, he is automatically excommunicated. If the courts succeeded in forcing priests to break the seal of confession (which the priests won’t do) it would to a great extent destroy the sacrament of confession in the country involved. One possible development then–those seeking divorce could require priests to tell the divorce court what was said in confession by the party being divorced.

The priest involved in this case can’t even say if there was a confession at all, let alone what was said in confession.
I am waiting for the dramatic moment when this priest is put on the witness stand and is told by the judge to say what was told him during confession.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I just don’t understand what new evidence the priest would have that couldn’t be obtained first-hand direct from the person who was in that very same confessional at the time.

Even if a priest said…“yes, during the confession I heard the penitent say xyz” all that would amount to is a repetition of testimony the witness could say first-hand under oath.
And that same witness could freely divulge everything the priest said as well.

So why the need to compel the priest?

It does seem like a gratuitous exercise of power by the court. Punitive and vindictive.

There is a lot of misinformation going around about this case. This isn’t about the priest being compelled to testify. This is about the Diocese trying to silence the victim by filing motions and appeals to prevent her from testifying and have the case dismissed.

 

[estesbob]

There is a lot of misinformation going around about this case. This isn’t about the priest being compelled to testify. This is about the Diocese trying to silence the victim by filing motions and appeals to prevent her from testifying and have the case dismissed.

They are suing the diocese because the Priest didn’t report the abuse.The Priest can’t defend himself because whatever was said to him was told to him in confession. They can’t silence the victim.Her story is public record.

 

[DrTaffy]

They are suing the diocese because the Priest didn’t report the abuse.The Priest can’t defend himself because whatever was said to him was told to him in confession. They can’t silence the victim.Her story is public record.

But they tried repeatedly to silence the girl, and this decision is in fact about them being told again that they cannot do so.

So the press reports claiming that this girl is trying to force the priest to break the seal of the confessional are false and arguably very offensive.

Note that according to the Court opinion linked to by Napoleon, there was at least one meeting outside the confessional about this affair where the priest was present. So even if the court accepted that the priest was immune to any legal penalty for anything that happens in the confessional, there would still be a case to hear.

There is also the question of whether refusing to defend yourself on religious grounds should mean that you are immune to prosecution, or that you have to take the consequences for your faith.

Finally, the priest is not just accused of not reporting it, but of actually telling the child to keep it quiet. Quite an important distinction.

 

[estesbob]

But they tried repeatedly to silence the girl, and this decision is in fact about them being told again that they cannot do so.

So the press reports claiming that this girl is trying to force the priest to break the seal of the confessional are false and arguably very offensive.

Note that according to the Court opinion linked to by Napoleon, there was at least one meeting outside the confessional about this affair where the priest was present. So even if the court accepted that the priest was immune to any legal penalty for anything that happens in the confessional, there would still be a case to hear.

There is also the question of whether refusing to defend yourself on religious grounds should mean that you are immune to prosecution, or that you have to take the consequences for your faith.

Finally, the priest is not just accused of not reporting it, but of actually telling the child to keep it quiet. Quite an important distinction.

They are making claims the Priest can not defend himself against. Even dictatorships respected the confidentiality of confession. It is sad to see people support still another attack on our Faith.

 

[DrTaffy]

They are making claims the Priest can not defend himself against. Even dictatorships respected the confidentiality of confession. It is sad to see people support still another attack on our Faith.

Even if the priest could not defend himself, that would not justify trying to silence the witness, nor misrepresenting her lawsuit in the press.

But the priest can defend himself, even if only by the defense that his faith prevents him from giving any other defense. I’m not quite sure why he couldn’t give a defense without confirming any of the alleged details - e.g. Saying “even if the plaintiff’s testimony were true, which I neither confirm nor deny, I would still not be liable because…”

Since the diocese has presented such arguments in the press, how can they argue that the seal prevents them from doing so in court?

You didn’t address the question of whether this means that he should be immune to prosecution for anything that happens in the confessional. If a priest actually rapes a child himself in confession, does he still get Immunity from prosecution? :ehh:

And you ignore the point that not all of the incidents took place in confession. If he can discuss this with the parents, why could he not report it at the time or discuss it in court?

After all the past cases of misbehaving priests, it is sad to see people still having a knee-jerk reaction of attacking the victim to defend the priest without even reading what the court actually said.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Even if the priest could not defend himself, that would not justify trying to silence the witness, nor misrepresenting her lawsuit in the press.

They are not trying to silence the witness. Anyone is free to prosecute their complaints entirely through the secular channels completely free of any involvement with the church hierarchy.

It is quite disingenuous to VOLUNTARILY approach the church hierarchy (instead of the police) about a given matter and then complain that you are being ‘silenced’ by whatever dispute resolution mechanism the church offers in RESPONSE to the voluntary approach made by a person.

Go to the police! And stop complaining that you are dissatisfied with the response of people who are NOT impartial.

…But the priest can defend himself, even if only by the defense that his faith prevents him from giving any other defense. I’m not quite sure why he couldn’t give a defense without confirming any of the alleged details…"

Yes, the priest can defend himself - if he is accused of a crime.
But hearing someone’s confession is not a crime.
And if the court wants to know what was said by the victim in the confessional they can ask the girl herself.

…Since the diocese has presented such arguments in the press, how can they argue that the seal prevents them from doing so in court?

They don’t argue that. The seal of the confessional only limits the priest and only covers what was said during confession. This case is a ‘fishing expedition’ to see if more information can be gleaned by asking the priest to break confidentiality. Public information in the press doesn’t need corroboration by the priest.

…You didn’t address the question of whether this means that he should be immune to prosecution for anything that happens in the confessional. If a priest actually rapes a child himself in confession, does he still get Immunity from prosecution? :ehh:

Hang on pal! Immunity from prosecution for priests? That’s ridiculous.
If he was being accused of rape, the location wouldn’t prevent a conviction.
The only thing the confessional provides is confidentiality for the penitent. If the penitent wants to break that confidentiality they can do so publicly anytime they want.

…And you ignore the point that not all of the incidents took place in confession. If he can discuss this with the parents, why could he not report it at the time or discuss it in court?

He CAN!!!
He can freely discuss those (non-confessional) incidents with the parents and the police and anyone else he sees fit.
And SO CAN the victim and the parents and any other witness.
But what exactly is the priest going to say to the police?

Priest : "hey I heard the parents of this girl allege “x” about person “y”
Police : “did you see it happen?”
Priest : “no, I’m just telling you what I heard”
Police : “why aren’t they here instead of you?”
Priest : “good question!”
Police : “you do realize we need actual hard evidence in order to investigate/prosecute”
Priest : “can’t you just go and arrest person “y” and lock them up? I am a priest you know!”

…After all the past cases of misbehaving priests, it is sad to see people still having a knee-jerk reaction of attacking the victim to defend the priest without even reading what the court actually said.

Nobody is attacking the victim.
I’m attacking the parents who waited 5, 10, 15, 20 years to decide that the rape off their child should be reported to the police. I wouldn’t even wait FIVE MINUTES!!!
And I’m attacking the disgusting slander of innocent priests by the godless liberal media which thrives on innuendo and gossip.
And I’m attacking people who think I need to apologize for the sins of pedophiles hiding in the clergy who, for all I know, are closet atheists.