Posted on 03/01/2016 6:39:54 PM PST by marshmallow
A Louisiana judge has ruled unconstitutional a new state law requiring priests to report sexual abuse that is mentioned in a sacramental confession.
Judge Mike Caldwell made his ruling in a long-running and complicated case in which Father Jeff Bayhi had been directed to testify about what a young woman reportedly told him in a confession. The young woman has said that she told Father Bayhi about being molested by a member of his parish. Father Bayhi had refused to testify, citing the inviolability of the confessional seal.
Judge Caldwell ruled that the state law making priests mandated reporters of sexual abuse was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to confessions, since it violated religious freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
Agree with this ruling.
I’m confused. How is it that the victim confessed? She’s not at fault for her abuse.
Did this law also require lawyers to turn in their clients who admitted breaking the law to them?
If not, why not?
>Judge Caldwell ruled that the state law making priests mandated reporters of sexual abuse was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to confessions, since it violated religious freedom.
Sick. If anyone is diddling kids, they need locked up. This has nothing to do with religion or faith unless your religion allows for diddling kids. If so, your religion needs eliminated.
Insanity period...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f73j2iafhyE&index=61&list=PL813690032BF2CE3C
I went to school with Jeff...a very fine man from a very devout family.
Because priests were deemed to be mandatory reporters. Teachers, police, EMS and other health professionals, etc., are all required to report instances of suspected abuse. The information received in confession from a victim would have prompted a report to initiate an investigation.
She didn't confess, strictly speaking. However in the confessional, it's not unusual for penitents to discuss with the priest their personal problems and other things that are bothering them. These days, the sacrament of Confession often takes the form of a wide-ranging chat with the priest rather than simply a sparse penitential rite where sins are recited, spiritual advice is given and absolution is granted.
This was likely one such instance of the former.
***Agree with this ruling.***
As do I.
It is about the relationship between a counselor or priest/pastor and the patient/church goer.
Agree criminals need to suffer consequences.
Disagree about killing the relationship of priest/confessor.
Presumably the religious counselor would advise the person to confess their sins and make it right.
But would any criminal ever seek counsel if they knew the priest or pastor is going to turn narc on them? Think about it.
I don’t concern myself of crimes without victims when it comes to confession. If you hurt someone that did not need hurting, then the crime is unforgivable and must be repented.
Rape, murder, assault and robbery must never be allowed to fester.
No, that’s wrong. If the previous ruling stood, there would be no way for the Catholic, Orthodox or those other faiths that believe in this particular form of religious practice to ever defend themselves from being civilly sued into oblivion. They can’t even confirm a particular confession occurred much less anything that was said in it, even if the person confessing wants them to do so.
I think the reason that this is so is that the Church is afraid the person might be induced against their actual will by the state or whoever to ask for the priest to tell what he knows about any alleged confession that was given. So they just shut it all down, so no one will even try to do something like that.
Freegards
Fair enough. I suspect that anyone who harms another innocent is not likely to confess their deed in the first place.
Sounds like it’s going to make another trip to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
So if a priest confesses of being a pedophile the church
doesn’t have to report it? So. Whats new? The church has
been covering for the perverts for decades.
If the harmers of innocence confess, or the victims, it’s always going to look the same as far as the priest is concerned. A dude with a collar saying ‘No comment.’ That’s why they could never defend themselves, no matter if it is legit or not.
Freegards
Which is something they have no business doing.
Okay fine. If someone is good with being abused or violated by evil, they should at least avoid seeking the trust of honest people.
Allowing evil to propagate is just shy of doing it yourself.
This article says it is a new law, but if I recall this particular mandatory reporter type law passed in 90s?
Freegards
She mentioned it in confession, or she might have used the confessional as a venue to report the abuse. But anything said during a confession is under the Seal. The priest cannot reveal anything whatsoever. He cannot even confirm that he heard a particular person’s confession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.