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

[DrTaffy]

They are not trying to silence the witness.

Yes, they are. Explicitly. They brought a petition to court to prevent the plaintiff from being able to testify.

It would help if you read at least the link cited in the OP which reads “The petition seeks to block a woman from testifying in a civil suit against the church and priest about what she said in confession as a child regarding allegations that a fellow parishioner sexually assaulted her.” (emphasis added)

Or even better read the actual court opinion cited by EmperorNapoleon which gives the whole story.

The press reports, especially the catholic press, are horribly misrepresenting the case. That is my main point.

Anyone is free to prosecute their complaints entirely through the secular channels completely free of any involvement with the church hierarchy.

That is what they are doing. Please read the actual evidence.

Go to the police!

The parents did as soon as they knew what was going on. The child did not because the priest (allegedly) told her not to!

Yes, the priest can defend himself - if he is accused of a crime.

Great. We agree. It would help if you read the thread (only two pages) and saw that I am arguing that he can and that others are arguing that he cannot.

But hearing someone’s confession is not a crime.

Noone has said it is.

And if the court wants to know what was said by the victim in the confessional they can ask the girl herself.

Not if the diocese gets their way.

Seriously read the articles and the evidence and get a solid grip on what this case is actually about. It is not what the headlines suggest.

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

Oh, they do. Read their press releases.

The seal of the confessional only limits the priest and only covers what was said during confession.

Great we agree.

This case is a ‘fishing expedition’ to see if more information can be gleaned by asking the priest to break confidentiality.

How is that not an attack on the victim?

Hang on pal! Immunity from prosecution for priests? That’s ridiculous.

I agree. But it follows immediately from the assertion that the priest cannot be sued for anything if his defense would require referring to what happened in confession.

If the penitent wants to break that confidentiality they can do so publicly anytime they want.

Great, we agree. Please read who has said what.

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.

Great, we agree. Please read who has said what.

But what exactly is the priest going to say to the police?

“I have heard the following testimony that suggests a child might be being sexually harassed”

That is his duty as a mandatory reporter (if he is). Not as regards what was said in confession, but everything else.

Nobody is attacking the victim.

The diocese, the catholic press and you are, everytime you insist that this girl is attacking an ‘innocent priest’ to force him to break the seal of the confessional.

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.

Evidence that they did so? How is this not an attack on the victims?

And I’m attacking the disgusting slander of innocent priests by the godless liberal media which thrives on innuendo and gossip.

That’s the kind of knee-jerk reaction I was referring to in post #19

 

[DrTaffy]

Here are a related couple of questions:

• What should a priest do when a child ‘confesses’ to being abused? Can he ask her to repeat the information to him outside of confession so he can act on it?
• What should the diocese do if it is alleged that a child did ‘confess’ to being abused, and the priest told her to keep quiet?

 

[Lion_IRC]

DrTaffy,

I have read the .pdf file cited by EmperorNapoleon very closely.

Those who haven’t may not realize;

a) The priest in this case is NOT the accused pedophile and has NOT been charged with any crimes.
b) The accused pedophile in this case is/was NOT even a member of the clergy.
c) This case is not a criminal prosecution, it’s a speedy civil lawsuit in which the speedy parents
are suing for financial damages.
d) The parents had not yet reported the alleged offence to the police at the time of the confession in question, and did not do so until AFTER numerous/various meetings between themselves and the priest and the alleged perpetrator. (So much for ‘mandatory reporting’. …they want the priest to report something they themselves had not yet even reported to the police!)

That having been said, what remains is your claim that the church was trying to silence the victim which, on my reading of the court document, is not the case - unless you regard admissibility/inadmissibility of evidence as tantamount to ‘silencing’ a witness.

OF COURSE the church, on behalf of the priest, is seeking to have privileged communications ruled inadmissible. But there is nothing in that document which suggests the church wants, or is even able to prevent the victim from giving first-hand testimony as to the direct facts of the case.

And the appellate court obviously accepted this, in ruling that such evidence from the confessional was inadmissible. It’s privileged. It’s hearsay. It’s unnecessary.

But, as I said, the lawyers for the parents are obviously keen to launch a concerted (anti-church) attack on the seal of the confessional and the result will be a high profile, publicity-generating, case against the church to test the priest’s resolve.

Interesting that the judge admitted… "I know his [the priest’s] solution to that is going to be that he is not going to say anything about any confession.”

ETA : and the priest has a well-founded belief that people coming into the confessional expect that everything they anonymously say will be held in strict confidence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Funny how;

…we are offering a confidential compensation settlement agreement to someone who came to us instead of the police.

is called trying to ‘silence the witness’

But;

…give me money or else I will go to the police.

is never called blackmail.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy,

I have read the .pdf file cited by EmperorNapoleon very closely.

So you clearly know that a lot of what you now claim is pure tabloid.

Those who haven’t may not realize;

…a number of things that noone has asserted.

For that matter, if these ‘those who’ you refer to have not bothered to read any of the articles or court documents, what makes you think they will read your post?

d) The parents had not yet reported the alleged offence to the police at the time of the confession in question, and did not do so until AFTER numerous/various meetings between themselves and the priest and the alleged perpetrator. (So much for ‘mandatory reporting’. …they want the priest to report something they themselves had not yet even reported to the police!)

They did not know! Allegedly, at least, in part because the priest told the child to keep quiet about the abuse.

Again, how is this not you attacking the victims (the family) based on absolutely zero evidence? :nope:

From the document you claim to have ‘very closely’ read:

According to the allegations in the petition and the deposition testimony in the record, subsequent “meetings” were had—one between the priest and Mr. and Mrs. Charlet, and another between the Charlets and the minor child’s parents (the plaintiffs)—concerning the “obsessive number of emails and phone calls” between Mr. Charlet and the minor child and the seemingly inappropriate closeness between the two that had been observed by various parishioners.

Shortly thereafter, the parents confronted their minor daughter about the emails and phone calls, at which time, she confessed to the true nature of the relationship with Mr. Charlet, including details of the inappropriate sexual contacts. The plaintiffs immediately contacted Mr. Charlet, ordering him to cease contact with their daughter, and filed a formal complaint against Mr. Charlet with the East Feliciana Parish Sheriffs Department.

(emphasis added)

You have read this “very closely” yet still make the claims above? How is this honest or respectful towards the victims?

That having been said, what remains is your claim that the church was trying to silence the victim which, on my reading of the court document, is not the case - unless you regard admissibility/inadmissibility of evidence as tantamount to ‘silencing’ a witness.

I regard a petition to prevent the victim from speaking in court about what happened in confession as ‘trying to silence the victim’. How on earth do you argue that it is not, or that it is justified?

OF COURSE the church, on behalf of the priest, is seeking to have privileged communications ruled inadmissible.

Yet you agreed above that the child has every right to speak about what happened in confession.

And the appellate court obviously accepted this, in ruling that such evidence from the confessional was inadmissible. It’s privileged. It’s hearsay. It’s unnecessary.

Again, you agreed that this is not privileged speech. And two courts have agreed, even if you don’t count SCOTUS refusing to hear the case.

But, as I said, the lawyers for the parents are obviously keen to launch a concerted (anti-church) attack on the seal of the confessional and the result will be a high profile, publicity-generating, case against the church to test the priest’s resolve.

Yet more knee-jerk attack on the victim. Can you cite one comment from the victim demanding that the priest break the seal of the confessional?

Would you agree that alleging, without evidence, that a fellow Catholic is attacking the seal of the confessional is slanderous?

Would you agree that the diocese has alleged this? And, for that matter, that you have done so?

Can you point to concrete evidence of this girl demanding that the priest break the seal?

Interesting that the judge admitted… "I know his [the priest’s] solution to that is going to be that he is not going to say anything about any confession.”

Sure, he has that right. In other words, he has not been forced to break the seal of the confessional, nor is there any reason to believe that he would be.

 

[DrTaffy]

Funny how;

…we are offering a confidential compensation settlement agreement to someone who came to us instead of the police.

is called trying to ‘silence the witness’

No, I would call that “something that noone in this case has said.”

Since you claim to have read the court opinion “very closely” you are obviously aware that the parents did not file a civil suit until after the police were involved, which they did very promptly once they realised what was going on, albeit after an attempt to settle this out of court. And could you demonstrate when and where a “confidential compensation settlement agreement” was offered to the family?

But;

…give me money or else I will go to the police.

is never called blackmail.

Again, could you show when and where the family said this? Otherwise this looks a lot like a slanderous and unjustifiable attack on the victim. Again.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If you remove the anonymity and privilege of confession, fewer people will feel safe
going to confession. How does that help cases like this? It would make victims even less comfortable talking about their situation.

Imagine telling people who wish to talk to their priest about something in privacy and strict confidentiality, that anything they say may be recorded and used as evidence in court.


One very important aspect of the Australian Royal Commission into child sex abuse is that witnesses are given the opportunity to give anonymous testimony in strict confidence and privacy.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If you remove the anonymity and privilege of confession, fewer people will feel safe
going to confession. How does that help cases like this? It would make victims even less comfortable talking about their situation.

Imagine telling people who wish to talk to their priest about something in privacy and strict confidentiality, that anything they say may be recorded and used as evidence in court.

I don’t know why you are still saying things like that after it has been explained and proven to you many times that it isn’t what this case is about. Furthermore, the anonymity of confession is intended to protect the penitent not the person sexually abusing the penitent or to conceal such crimes when brought to light by the victim. The penitent is the victim here and she wants to testify. What right does the Diocese have to stop her?

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t know why you are still saying things like that after it has been explained and proven to you many times that it isn’t what this case is about.

Asserting stuff isn’t the same as “proving” stuff.

I dispute the claim that when a court rules certain evidence admissible/inadmissible, such action amounts to trying to SILENCE a witness.

…Furthermore, the anonymity of confession is intended to protect the penitent not the person sexually abusing the penitent or to conceal such crimes when brought to light by the victim.

Now you are displaying YOUR ignorance of “what this case is about”.

The priest in this case is neither charged with, nor suspected of, sexually abusing the girl. He isn’t standing in the way of this girl giving her own evidence direct to the court. How on earth can he be accused of concealing a crime when all we have is;

*…she says she thinks she may have told a priest during a confidential confession that some unreported event may have allegedly happened to her, committed by a person she may or may not have named.
*
Mandatory reporting? Of what?

Priest : What did this person do to you?
Anonymous : I don’t want to say.
Priest : Who did this to you?
Anonymous : I don’t want to say.
Priest : Why haven’t you gone to the police?
Anonymous : I don’t want my parents to find out.
Priest : Why are you telling me?
Anonymous : You’re the only one I can trust - confession is confidential right?
Priest : Yes but if you aren’t willing to go to the police or tell your parents maybe you should just try to forget about it and get on with your life

…The penitent is the victim here and she wants to testify. What right does the Diocese have to stop her?

She CAN testify. She can make sworn statements to the police.
The court isn’t trying to get her to testify.
They are trying to get the PRIEST to testify about what she said to him during confession (hearsay evidence) and anything he may have said to her.

Note that the first appellate court ruled that confidential, hearsay evidence from the confessional ought not be admissible in this case. That court wasn’t trying to “silence” the victim. And if the upper court had upheld the ruling it wouldn’t have been “silencing” the victim either.

Enough with the anti-RCC polemics already!

Lawyers for the diocese/priest are simply trying to defend a long-standing, status quo principle of libertarianism, by which religious people, as citizens of the State, can have religious sacraments in the privacy of their religious establishments which are separated from the State and its prying eyes.

If a priest and/or a parishioner want to exercise their religious freedom and have a confidential dialogue - privately, before no one other than God - it should not retrospectively become a CRIME for either party to refuse to divulge what they said or heard during that unique and privileged communication.

 

[DrTaffy]

If you remove the anonymity and privilege of confession, fewer people will feel safe going to confession.

Since noone is trying to do that, that is irrelevant is it not? Unless it is another attempt to falsely claim that this girl is attacking the seal of the confessional.

I dispute the claim that when a court rules certain evidence admissible/inadmissible, such action amounts to trying to SILENCE a witness.

So trying to get a court ruling that a witness may not speak in court about something is not trying to silence her on that count?

Now you are displaying YOUR ignorance of “what this case is about”.

Enough with the derogatory remarks already.

The priest in this case is neither charged with, nor suspected of, sexually abusing the girl.

You are the only one to have even suggested that he is.

He isn’t standing in the way of this girl giving her own evidence direct to the court.

Oh yes he is. He is very explicitly trying to get a court to bar her from giving a whole bunch of evidence.

As the court opinion cited by EmperorNapoleon puts it:

Shortly before trial was scheduled to commence in the present matter, the Church filed its motion in limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from “mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions that may or may not have taken place” between plaintiffs’ minor child and the priest, while the priest was acting in his official capacity as a Diocesan priest and hearing confession from his parishioner.

Which is bad enough IMO. But even worse is how the diocese press releases, the catholic press and you are trying to misrepresent this girl’s case as an attempt to force to priest to testify about what happened in confession. EmperorNapoleon has posted the judgement, kindly show where in that it says that the priest must do any such thing.

Mandatory reporting? Of what?

Of the fact that he has reason to suspect child abuse. Why else did he arrange a meeting with the alleged perpetrator to discuss this?

She CAN testify. She can make sworn statements to the police.

Not if the diocese had got its way.

They are trying to get the PRIEST to testify about what she said to him during confession (hearsay evidence) and anything he may have said to her.

False. And, from what I understand of how catholics feel about this issue, slanderous towards the girl and her family. As were your claims that the parents delayed before informing the police in order to try to blackmail the priest and/or diocese.

How can you not see that you owe her and her family a retraction and an apology?

Note that the first appellate court ruled that confidential, hearsay evidence from the confessional ought not be admissible in this case. That court wasn’t trying to “silence” the victim.

How is ruiling that the victim may not speak about something not silencing her on that issue?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12713498:

…The court isn’t trying

to get her to testify.
They are trying to get the PRIEST to testify about what she said to him during confession (hearsay evidence) and anything he may have said to her.

False….

The media reportage of this case is quite accurate and it overwhelmingly backs up my assertion that this case is about the attempt to force a priest to give evidence,
thus breaking the seal of confession.

Nothing thus far has prevented the girl or her parents from claiming, (as part of their lawsuit for financial damages,) anything they want about the events in question
or what the priest allegedly may have said during confession.

In fact they are, ironically, quite free to do so knowing that the priest will almost certainly not be able to divulge his side of the story.

So the girl (now 20 years old) and or her parents can be pretty sure that nobody will ever refute their claims

…certainly the now-deceased pedophile wont be saying much either.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yet more knee-jerk attack on the victim. Can you cite one comment from the victim demanding that the priest break the seal of the confessional?

It seems to me that the seal of the confessional would be broken.

If the argument is that the court is not asking the priest to divulge what the girl confessed, but rather what he advised her, he cannot logically do that without implicitly relating what the girl confessed. It would be impossible to merely explain what advice he gave to her without detailing what the advice pertained to. The advice with be without context and therefore meaningless. It would involve breaking the seal of the confessional, without doubt.

“I advised her not to tell anyone…”

“Not to tell anyone what, exactly?”

“The seal of the confessional does not allow me to say.”

“Oh, yeah. We forgot about that. Sorry, Father. you may go.”

 

[DrTaffy]

The media reportage of this case is quite accurate and it overwhelmingly backs up my assertion that this case is about the attempt to force a priest to give evidence, thus breaking the seal of confession.

You and the catholic press both claim the same thing, that is true, but you have yet to back that assertion up. From the article you cited:

Baton Rouge, La.

The diocese of Baton Rouge has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that a priest may be compelled to testify as to what he heard in the confessional in 2008 concerning an abuse case.

(emphasis added)

I have now asked you a number of times to show where exactly in the Court decision it says any such thing! All it says is that it is refusing the Diocese’s request to prevent the girl from testifying, nothing about forcing the priest to do anything.

It seems to me that the seal of the confessional would be broken.

Then same challenge to you. Can you show me anything in the decision that amounts to ordering the priest to testify about what went on in confessional?

Do you agree that this is a serious accusation that should not be bandied about for mere tactical or PR gains?

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is from the Louisiana Supreme Court doc you cited DrTaffy;

The minor child testified that, during one of those confessions, she told the priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it. According to her deposition testimony: “He just said, this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”

This is a public document. You and I and anyone who wishes, can read this. This girl has ALREADY testified that she said certain things during the confession and that the priest allegedly said certain things to her. We know what her claims are. She has not been silenced.

 

[Lion_IRC]

DrTaffy, do you claim that the priest will NOT be called to give evidence and that if he refuses to testify that he will NOT be held in contempt of court?

 

[DrTaffy]

This is from the Louisiana Supreme Court doc you cited DrTaffy;

This is a public document. You and I and anyone who wishes, can read this. This girl has ALREADY testified that she said certain things during the confession and that the priest allegedly said certain things to her. We know what her claims are. She has not been silenced.

This in no way makes trying to petition the court to prevent her from testifying or entering evidence about this anything other than trying to silence her. It just makes it an even more pointless and baffling act.

And it in no way justifies the attempts by the Catholic press and you to claim that this girl is trying to force the priest to testify about this confession. I am stil waiting for you to justify or withdraw and apologise for this arguably slanderous allegation.

Nor does it explain how or why you, after allegedly reading this document “very closely”, went on to make yet other arguably slanderous allegations about the victims delaying going to the police while they (according to you) tried to gain money from blackmail. Also still waiting for an explanation or a retraction and apology.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy, do you claim that the priest will NOT be called to give evidence and that if he refuses to testify that he will NOT be held in contempt of court?

You have presented no evidence that he will be forced to testify, and have indeed cited a quote by a judge saying that he is free to say nothing.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…the question of duty/risk should be resolved by the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report.

Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the appellate court’s judgment in its entirety, we hereby render judgment reinstating the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is the closing of the ruling and it very clearly shows that the matter of what was communicated between the girl and the priest, (material issues of fact,) CAN be tested in court, (resolved by the fact finder at trial,) and that the matter is remanded now for FURTHER proceedings.

“Further proceedings” does not mean*…ok everybody can go home now, game over, we have the girls testimony, nothing else needed…*

What’s scary about that judgment is the apparent new precedent whereby the court gets to decide what the sacrament of confession means - NOT the church and its parishioners.

What next? Asking priests to submit drafts of their Sunday sermons in advance for approval?

 

[Lion_IRC]

This in no way makes trying to petition the court to prevent her from testifying or entering evidence about this anything other than trying to silence her. It just makes it an even more pointless and baffling act.

They - the court - are arguing about admissibility and relevance.
It might be pointless and baffling to you, but believe me, the court thinks it matters a LOT.

…And it in no way justifies the attempts by the Catholic press and you to claim that this girl is trying to force the priest to testify about this confession.

Um, it wont be “the girl” trying to force the priest to testify. It will be the judge who finds him in contempt of court if he refuses to break the seal of confession.

…I am stil waiting for you to justify or withdraw and apologise for this arguably slanderous allegation.

Slanderous? Wut?
Who do you claim I am slandering and (using the quote function) what post was it that you deem slanderous.

…Nor does it explain how or why you, after allegedly reading this document “very closely”, went on to make yet other arguably slanderous allegations about the victims delaying going to the police while they (according to you) tried to gain money from blackmail.

I have never accused them of blackmail. You need to read peoples posts more closely.

…Also still waiting for an explanation or a retraction and apology.

No retraction. No apology. I choose my words very carefully.

 

[Suudy]

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.