Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: fatima
Just as religious FReepers are maintaining that the Seal of the Confessional is absolute, so is the standard of the law, which in civil litigation is based on the standard of the preponderance of evidence. If it is her word against his, and he chooses not to give evidence -- for whatever reason, good or bad -- the jurors must decide that she is telling the truth.

The Diocese can maintain the Seal, and then must pay the price.

23 posted on 09/06/2014 3:17:14 PM PDT by FredZarguna (His first name is 'Unarmed,' and his given middle name is 'Teenager.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: FredZarguna

Telling the truth about what? She never said the priest or anybody else in the Church molested her. And the clergy in the confessional are not mandatory reporters. Who knows what he told her? And who knows exactly what she told him?

Maybe if the girl turns out to be lying or manipulated (which I think is the case) the diocese should sue her.


26 posted on 09/06/2014 3:23:43 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: FredZarguna

A Priest takes an Oath for Confession.If you go to confession and walk out whatever you said is dead.Father will pray for you.Sounds like a threat Fred.


27 posted on 09/06/2014 3:30:56 PM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: FredZarguna

“If it is her word against his, and he chooses not to give evidence — for whatever reason, good or bad — the jurors must decide that she is telling the truth.”

If the jury must decide that way, how come the diocese hasn’t been sued into oblivion long before this? That’s the part I don’t get. I’m not saying this particular case doesn’t have merit, or even that they are suing for monetary damages, but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?

Freegards


29 posted on 09/06/2014 3:33:02 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: FredZarguna

The standard of law....whatever that is, does NOT BREAK THE SACREDNESS of the CONFESSIONAL.....PERIOD.


48 posted on 09/06/2014 5:16:41 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: FredZarguna
From a strictly legal standpoint, that is incorrect.

A jury may disbelieve all or part of a witness' testimony, even if that witness is unopposed.

As a practical matter, the jury will be asking why no opposition. If it came to that, I would put the priest on the stand and lead him through the canon law on confessions. "So she can say anything at all - that she came to confession even if she didn't - that she told you something she never told you - and you are bound not to answer - cannot answer even if it costs you your life - "

61 posted on 09/06/2014 7:06:53 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ecce Crucem Domini, fugite partes adversae. Vicit Leo de Tribu Iuda, Radix David, Alleluia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: FredZarguna

The priest himself must maintain the seal. If I was a priest in this situation, I would rather pay the price here on earth than the price this would cost me in the hereafter.


66 posted on 09/06/2014 7:24:00 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson