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

[EmperorNapoleon]

Here’s how I understand it.

First, the LA Supreme Court said that only the communicant can claim privilege. From the decision EN posted:
It follows, if the penitent waives the privilege, the priest cannot then raise it to protect himself as he can only “claim the privilege on behalf of the person,” not in his own right.

Second, the law ( La. Child. Code art. 609) says (again, from the decision EN posted):
Notwithstanding any claim of privileged communication, any mandatory reporter who has cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or welfare is endangered as a result of abuse or neglect or that abuse or neglect was a contributing factor in a child’s death shall report in accordance with Article 610.

Finally, if only the communicant can claim privilege, and the communicant waives that privilege, then article 609 makes the priest a mandated reporter (i.e. “Notwithstanding any claim of privileged communication…”).

Thus, this case really isn’t about whether the girl can testify. It is whether or not her testimony amounts to a waiver of privilege making the priest a mandated reporter.

I think there is also a question of canon law here. Does the seal even apply if there was no confession of sin?

 

[Suudy]

I think there is also a question of canon law here. Does the seal even apply if there was no confession of sin?

Who knows except the penitent and the priest? And how do you find out? In this case, it seems there was since the priest is claiming privilege.

And I’ve always understood anything between the in nomine patri to the words of absolution are privileged, regardless of the content.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Who knows except the penitent and the priest? And how do you find out? In this case, it seems there was since the priest is claiming privilege.

And I’ve always understood anything between the in nomine patri to the words of absolution are privileged, regardless of the content.

There are a few problems I have with the claim that the seal of confession applies. The main one is that the court documents seem to state that the girl went to the confessional on three separate occasions specifically to discuss the abuse. If that is all that was discussed then how can the seal of confession apply? She didn’t confess to sin, but told the priest that she was the victim of sin committed by a third party.

 

[Lion_IRC]

A priest cannot know in advance what a person may or may not say in the privacy of the confessional.
Neither would it matter if the girl mistakenly thought she needed to go to confession for something which may not have even been a sin needing penance.

Catholic Education Resource Centre wrote:

*"…[A priest] cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another,
to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity…

…legislatures may promulgate laws which require the breaking of the sacramental seal of confession and judges may imprison priests who disobey such laws;
nevertheless, God’ s law supersedes civil law, and in this case the priest must be civilly disobedient because he cannot break the sacramental seal."*