Posted on 07/08/2014 2:14:18 PM PDT by NYer
From NOLA.com:
The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has issued a statement decrying a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that could compel a local priest to testify in court about confessions he might have received. The alleged confessions, according to legal documents, were made to the priest by a minor girl regarding possible sexual abuse perpetrated by another church parishioner.
The statement, published Monday (July 7) on the diocese’s website, said forcing such testimony “attacks the seal of confession,” a sacrament that “cuts to the core of the Catholic faith.”
The statement refers to a lawsuit naming the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge as defendants and compels Bayhi to testify whether or not there were confessions “and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were.”
“A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable,” the statement says. ”The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment.”
The state high court’s decision, rendered in May of this year, demands that a hearing be held in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, where the suit originated, to determine whether or not a confession was made. It reverses an earlier decision by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the original lawsuit filed against Bayhi and the diocese.
The case stems from a claim by parents of a minor that their daughter confessed to Bayhi during the sacrament of reconciliation that she engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with grown man who also attended their church. Court documents indicate the child was 12 years old at the time of the alleged sexual abuse.
A criminal investigation by East Feliciana Sheriff’s Office into the alleged sexual abuse was ongoing when the accused church member died suddenly in February 2009 of a heart attack.
The civil lawsuit in question, filed five months later in July 2009, names the late sexual abuse suspect, as well as Bayhi and the Baton Rouge diocese, as defendants. The suit seeks damages suffered as a result of the sexual abuse, noting that abuse continued following the alleged confessions.
Ping!
Assume that the priest will say no, even if he is held in comtempt. He will not condemm himself.
Nothing in the bible says you need to go through a middle man. Just go straight to the head honcho. He’s listening.
Ok Jesus
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
One need not agree with any or all aspects of Roman Catholic theology, to recognize their right to exercise their religion free of interference by the State.
Priests have been martyred rather than break the seal of Confession. This aint’ no episode of SVU.
Certainly would solve the problem. A priest should never, ever keep a secret when it involves an innocent child. Nor anyone for that matter. Disturbing. More like harboring criminals, IMO.
Nobody is free to exercise his religion when the state can show a compelling interest. That’s the Federal case law concerning the First Amendment, and it has been for many years. Clearly LA believes there is a compelling interest to requiring this testimony, or else like many other states, they would have a shield law. They don’t, so the priest will have to accept whatever penalty goes with the exercise of his religion in the face of a compelling interest.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
-Benito Mussolini
Looks like that's where we're headed, with some "Christians" cheering the State every step of the way.
We don't let Mormons or Muslims practice polygamy in the US, even though it's very much accepted in their belief system; we don't let whack-jobs ritually kill animals or take drugs in the name of their "religion."
Refusing to give priests carte blanche to protect child molesters isn't creeping fascism or socialism. It's the rule of law and -- surprise, surprise -- it ALWAYS has been.
LOL
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That has been the law of this country since 1791. I suggest that the State must obey the law, and that Americans must insist that it obey the law even with respect to those with whom we disagree.
The alternative, ultimately, is tyranny.
I refer you again to Mussolini, whose ideology parallels yours.
The alternative, ultimately, is allowing any nutjob with a collar or a turban to claim that his religion exempts him from the law. It doesn't. It never has. Stop cutting and pasting from the Bill of Rights and learn what it actually means instead.
Really? According to my Bible, in the Book of John 20:22-23, it clearly states:
"And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained."
The text even makes clear how Confession is to be conducted. Christ's representative, the priest, must decide whether to forgive or retain. Therefore, the penitent must confess each and every serious sin, that is anything which separates him from Christ. If the priest judges he is truly sorry, He must absolve since Christ's Passion merited forgiveness for every repentant sinner. Only if the person shows no willingness to give up sin does the priest retain, that is withhold absolution, as we "do not give what is holy to dogs" (Mt 7:6).
In one form or another the Sacrament of Penance has been in continuous practice in the Church. Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity.
Which is not what is happening in this case anyway -- the confession in question is the confession of the victim, not the perp -- so you're way off base.
The sanctity of confession is understood and upheld for every Christian denomination. You may recall the OJ incident with Rosie Grier, who is an ordained minister.
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.