Posted on 01/21/2015 6:26:33 AM PST by marshmallow
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a Louisiana ruling that would force a Catholic priest to disclose what he heard in a sacramental confession or face imprisonment.
Last May, the Supreme Court of Louisiana ruled that the confessional seal does not apply if the penitent waives the right to confidentiality. The Diocese of Baton Rouge appealed the decision, saying that violation of the confessional seal “cuts to the core of the Catholic faith.”
By declining to hear the appeal, the US Supreme Court let the Louisiana decision stand.
The case involves a lawsuit brought by the parents of a girl who was allegedly molested by an adult man. The parents charge that the girl mentioned the man’s actions during a confession, and the priest, Father Jeff Bayhi, advised her not to report the incident. Father Bayhi, bound by the seal of confession, cannot respond to that charge.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
“if the penitent waives the right to confidentiality”
Has NOTHING to do with the Priest’s solemn responsibility to maintain silence.
The Priest may face charges by telling the girl not to reveal the abuse. That is the probable reason the Church was fighting the order
Why would communication between a felon and a priest be treated any different than communication to a neighbor or a family member?
Before you jump all over me, hear me out.
Courts are very particular about evidence. In fact there is a legal rule about hearsay evidence. In short, one person can not say what another person said.
hearsay rule
n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party’s lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her.
Forcing a priest to break the seal of confession automatically creates a hearsay condition - AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE.
Supposedly the priest can’t even confirm he even heard her confession, much less what he allegedly told her. I don’t see a way to ever defend from accusations that might lead to civil damages against the Church. And I am not saying that this case isn’t legit, just how can you ever prove it?
What I don’t understand is why this is only coming up in 2014? I mean if there is no defense why hasn’t the Catholic Church been civilly sued into oblivion before this?
Freegards
The Seal of the Confessional is absolute, has been for centuries, that is why they are fighting this intrusion into religion. The State cannot dictate what the Church does. Learn about this case, the girl and her parents could easily have gone to the police at any time.
As is usual you don’t get the full story. Sounds like the little girl consented that the priest name the man. The priest refused.
Why wouldn’t it be hearsay even if the seal of confession didn’t exist? Isn’t it always going to just be two people talking to each other in private? Is there a difference between hearsay in civil cases and criminal cases?
FReegards
The priest will go to prison before he breaks his confessional seal.
I guess that is my point. When have we ever heard a prosecutor demand hearsay testimony from some 3rd party? This does not make sense to me.
This is a very emotional case with a child being molested. This would be a good case to break the confessional seal. And that may be what is really the target.
If I recall, and this is the same case, the actual abuser has been dead for years. To my understanding this is a civil case against the Church/priest for allegedly telling the girl not to tell her parents about it in a confession.
Freegards
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. In particular, in a criminal case, the hearsay rule does not bar any witness called by the prosecution from repeating what the defendant said outside of court (otherwise, a confession to the police would never be admitted). Google "statement of a party opponent."
By definition, it cannot be “hearsay” evidence if all parties to the conversation are available to be called as witnesses in the trial, since both the the speaker and his/her audience can be cross examined and can be asked to verify or deny under oath, in the presence of the jury, the claims regarding who said what to whom.
I fully support this priest packing his bags and spending time in jail, as does the church, in that he is doing the right thing. Hopefully he will be comfortable and well taken care of.
It will hopefully enrage Louisiana Catholics so much that they will demolish those responsible in the next election.
Yeh start throwing priests in jail for not breaking the confidentiality of the confessional. That will really go over big.
Unwarranted government interference in religion. This regime particularly hates religious people.
Good news.
I don’t quite understand this. A minor goes into a confessional and tells the priest she was raped. She tells the priest that it’s okay for him to disclose this? He tells her NOT to tell anyone. She goes to the family and tells the family what happened.
I suspect that the family is suing the church because the priest told her not to disclose. He’s hiding behind the confessinal seal defense.
Okay, going beyond that, it’s she said he said. Why would a priest tell the girl NOT to disclose this to the family or police etc?
I think someone is after the church and the priest, and he best keep his mouth shut about it, or in the end deny that he told the girl not to tell anyone, if indeed he didn’t tell her that.
Can you imagine the outrage if something like this happened to a Muslim leader?
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.