So now your position is: whatever the law is, it really doesn't matter. Priests have the right to give bad advice to penitents [advice which is contrary to both the law and their own morality] and damn whatever the law is, because your church has a Constitutional right to protect molesters.
Yes, the Church of Rome has always taken that position, and it is paying dearly for it.
“...the priest not only did not report the crime as required by LA law [which I accept, given the teaching of his church] he actively counseled the female victim not to report the crime.”
Shouldn’t that be ‘the priest allegedly heard this confession where the girl reported the abuse and then allegedly counseled the girl to not report the crime?’
I don’t get it, why hasn’t this happened before? I mean the teaching of the Church doesn’t allow a priest to even admit they heard a confession at all from a particular person, even if that person divulges that it allegedly happened and what was said. Seems like if this is the way the law is in LA and supposedly other states, then this would have happened before now. What changed? I mean if you hold the diocese responsible with the possibility of monetary compensation (I have no idea if that is the case here), then how are they supposed to defend themselves?
Freegards
What BlackElk said.
Moreover, "strict scrutiny" doesn't mean what you say it means, and "compelling interest" is not a fishing license for the State or for any civil litigator looking for a deep pocket (which appears to be the case here).
Going after the priest in this case is absurd in any event, because the victim is available to testify. But see deep pocket, supra.