After receiving three responses which basically said she mentioned her abuse in the confessional, then I don’t understand why anyone thinks the priests involvement is necessary. The young lady can go tell the police and the judge what happened herself. What insight is there to be gained from the priest? Did he hear the confession from the abuser? I’m not sure why the authorities have gone to court to compel his testimony. Does anyone else understand why? I’m sure I’m missing something that the article simply isn’t mentioning.
She is civilly suing the diocese for damages for what he allegedly told her, to my understanding. Which is something like, ‘you shouldn’t tell anyone, too many people will be hurt’ according to her. The actual abuser has since died, the abuse happened years ago.
I’ve heard several things about this case going back one or two years now, and there are still points I don’t get. One is if it was an actual confession where he told her the actionable advice. Two, is if the Church is trying to not let HER testify because they know the priest can’t defend himself no matter if he is innocent or not. Three, why hasn’t this been hashed out before now if the law was changed in the 90s?
Freegards
What reason to go after the priest?
To expand government power. To attack the Church.
IIRC, two gay ex-Catholic legislators in Connecticut kept coming back again and again with a bill to destroy the Seal of Confession, using the abuse scandal as their wedge.