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 ...
The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity.
It would be a sin for a priest not to intervene to stop a murder from occurring. People don’t confess sins ahead of time unless they are asking for help.
The priest, in all probability, instructed the girl as how to handle the problem...told her to tell her mother, teacher, friend, anyone....even another priest outside the confessional. It certainly is a sad situation
Just so. Although if someone came in to confession and said that they were going to commit a crime, then the Priest would be obliged to say that there could be no confession and absolution unless he first agreed NOT to commit the crime.
You can’t confess a crime BEFORE you commit it, because that is hardly a sign of repentance.
nope them aren't
IT will be very hard to convict the priest of anythng....the girl did not see the person that she was confessing to.....that was usually the case until recent years when you sometimes sit face to face....(not me!!!!)
The privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer. If the client wants to assert it, he can. If he wants to waive it, he can.
It appears that the Louisiana courts are trying to apply the same rule to priests. Here, the client has waived the privilege, but the church is claiming that the privilege belongs to the confessor, not the penitent.
“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.”
Agreed.
Going to jail is better than losing his Sacrament of Holy Orders and/or going to hell.
Look what you said, “As I recall, lawyers are allowed to lie.”
Not legally.
Read what he said. And then you will or should understand. He said, “As I recall, lawyers are allowed to lie.”
Which is nonsense.
Ransomed to ravenwolf
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?
Fifth Amendment only applies to criminal liability. If the statute of limitations has run for a criminal prosecution, he can't assert it. And while it can be asserted in a civil matter if there is criminal risk, the remedy is to direct the trier of fact to presume that the person did the acts of which he is accused. So while asserting the 5th in a civil action may help you stay out of jail, you will likely end up with a judgment against you.
See my post 34.
See my post 34.
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.