Posted on 01/24/2015 2:17:42 PM PST by NYer
– Angela Marie via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition from a Louisiana Catholic diocese that fears a civil lawsuit could force a priest to violate the seal of confession or go to jail.
The Diocese of Baton Rouge and diocesan priest Father Jeff Bayhi were disappointed by the decision, which the diocese said has “significant ramifications for religious freedom in Louisiana and beyond.”
“The diocese and Father Bayhi will continue their efforts to protect the guarantees of religious freedom set forth in our state and federal constitutions and are confident that those efforts will, in due course, be successful,” the diocese said in a Jan. 20 statement.
The diocese and the priest are considering “a number of options” for other constitutional challenges in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand the Louisiana Supreme Court’s May 2014 ruling that a court hearing is necessary to determine whether state law protects a priest’s conversation during confession with a minor about an alleged sexual abuser in the parish.
Catholic priests are bound to observe the seal of confession and cannot reveal to anyone the contents of a confession or whether a confession took place. Priests who violate the seal are automatically excommunicated.
At issue is a civil lawsuit involving a woman who said that, in 2008, when she was a minor, she told Father Bayhi that she was being abused by a parishioner. The alleged conversation with the priest took place during the sacrament of confession. The woman is now in her early 20s.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Ping!
He really wouldn’t have any choice. If it’s a “choice” between breaking the seal of confession and betraying his office as a priest in the worst possible way, or going to jail, then his only option as a Catholic priest is to go to jail.
Is a lawyer allowed to break client-lawyer privilege if his client admits to a felony or other crime?
Look thru local news feeds any day of the week and you'll find teachers, social workers, pastors, youth ministers, etc. who have been caught molesting children (children, not teenagers), but that doesn't get focused on because trying to solve the problem by putting appropriate measures in place isn't the goal. The goal is to undermine and destroy Christianity.
You win the Internet, no further discussion needed.
“Is a lawyer allowed to break client-lawyer privilege if his client admits to a felony or other crime?”
An interesting point. The lawyer represents the client in an adversarial system. If the client tells the lawyer, “hey, I did it,” and the lawyer says, “hey, he said he did it,” the lawyer can’t represent the client in the legal system we have. As I recall, lawyers are allowed to lie.
Originally, our legal system was under the church. It still has relics of its past. The twelve people on the jury each represent an apostle, for example. But our legal system was taken away from the church and made secular. The laws, for a long time now, have removed many of the traditional protections the church enjoyed. I believe that the relationship between confessor and priest has been legally changed in some states. I recall reading that now priests are required to report child abusers, for example.
My guess is the priest is toast. If it turns out that the girl lied about the confession in an attempt to extort the church, he’ll go to jail for no reason.
I am not Catholic.
Until recently I would have insisted strongly that the courts--that the government--have no business intruding into the practices of religion, but now--we can expect Muslims to invoke similar sanctions to hide terrorism and all sorts of evils and the courts to grant them.
Is a lawyer allowed to break client-lawyer privilege if his client admits to a felony or other crime?
I spoke with a priest a long time ago and he made it clear that he was bound with the same laws that bound therapists. If I told him that I’m going to hurt or kill someone else, kill myself, or that I have (or will) abuse a child, then he had to go to the police.
That was his opening spiel for everyone.
Them’s the rules.
Lawyers are not allowed to lie. Lying as a lawyer will get you disbarred, or at least in mucho trouble.
A lawyer can break the privilege if there is an immediate threat of harm made by the client and also to defend himself in a malpractice lawsuit by the client. Pretty limited circumstanes.
Since the so called victim has broken the silence and now wants revenge on the priest why can`t the priest stand on the fifth amendment?
“Lawyers are not allowed to lie. Lying as a lawyer will get you disbarred, or at least in mucho trouble.”
I was in a lawsuit and, in judge’s chambers, the other side’s attorney outright lied. It was so blatant the judge slowly repeated what the attorney had just said and asked him if it was so. The attorney gave him a wide-eyed innocent look and swore it was. The judge said, “Thank you. That’s amazing.”
When I asked my attorney about the lie he shrugged and said something like, “That’s the system we have.”
I hope he does go to jail. Not because I want to see him suffer, but because I applaud show-downs with the nanny state anywhere and everywhere.
It’s a civil case against the diocese. So if the priest pleaded the fifth the jury could still award whatever damages are being asked for from the diocese, right?
Not saying that this case isn’t legit as far as the particulars, but I don’t understand is why no one has ever tried this before. I don’t see any way that the Church can ever defend themselves in court over something that allegedly happened under the seal of confession. They can’t even confirm they heard a particular confession. Why haven’t they been sued into oblivion long ago?
Freegards
When this was discussed on EWTN, the Hitchcock film, “I Confess” - interesting.
ROTFLOL.
Sure, and pink Unicorns routinely graze in Central Park.
That is the way I understood it, too. The difference is in whether it is before or after the crime is committed. By law, they have to tell the police about any crime that is going to be committed before it happens. If they find out about it afterwards, the rules are different.
Under Canon law, he is required to maintain the seal of confession even in the face of torture and death.
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.