Posted on 07/08/2014 2:14:18 PM PDT by NYer
Instead of dismantling Catholic Sacraments, why don't they get busy and prove their case against the perp? They haven't had to coerce priests into violating religious sacramental vows in the last 223 years to get evidence: why would they have to do it now?
They know if they ask him to either verify or deny something that was-or-wasn't told him in Confession, he can't even give a hint.
Prosecutor: Did this girl, Mary Jane Smith, go to confession to you?
Priest: "Penitents don't identify themselves to me in the confessional by name."
Prosecutor: "You're saying you don't know this girl?"
Priest: "I can't say whether she ever went to Confession to me."
Prosecutor: "You're saying she never went to Confession to you?"
Priest: "I repeat, I can't say."
If they want to jail this hypothetical priest for life on contempt of court, that's the way it's going to have to be.
I actually know of a case like this: it involed Fr. Mark Gruber, OSB, from Latrobe PA. He would not and could not budge, even if it meant his own conviction and imprisonment for a serious crime he did not commit.
He finally escaped from the nets of the law when the actual perp went to the police and admitted his guilt.
By treating this girl's confession with exactly the same confidentiality he treated everyone else's confession?
It doesn't matter. This is a non-negotiable for us. You can put every priest in the US in prison for life if you wish, "compelling state interest" be d-mned.
“Instead of dismantling Catholic Sacraments, why don’t they get busy and prove their case against the perp?”
Because they are accusing the diocese of some sort of malfeasance. The perp has been dead for five years.
“They haven’t had to coerce priests into violating religious sacramental vows in the last 223 years to get evidence: why would they have to do it now?”
That’s my question. If LA and these other states have this thing about ending confidentiality for all if the one party voluntarily ends it, why hasn’t this come up before now in the case of confession?
Everyone knows that priests never give in on this. It seems to me like why wouldn’t a % of people just be doing this all the time? Saying that something was said in confession and the subsequent non-disclosure led to something actionable against the diocese. I mean, how do you defend against that in court when the accused party (the priest) can’t even deny it much less confirm it? I mean, I find it hard to believe that this is the first time it would have ever come up.
Freegards
A compelling interest is any excuse however flimsy (I don't give bad judges on this stuff much slack after Roe vs. Wade and its evil progeny (you should pardon the expression) that judges concoct to amend, in effect, the constitution to align with their unconstitutional agendas.
You are suggesting in your posts that you have some expertise, unmentioned as to trial law and/or constitutional law and/or the law of evidence. If you claim such knowledge:
1. Do you concede that this case is about a 12-year-old girl (Let's call her Jane) who went to a local Catholic parish Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge to receive the sacrament of Penance (for traditionalists) or of "reconciliation" for more modern folk but in terms so plain that even the Church's secularist or other enemies can understand (whether they are willing or not): Janie went to Church to confess her sins to a priest and to receive a penance and absolution and forgiveness of her sins?
2. Are you willing to concede that the appropriate authority of each religion protected by the First Amendment (and not some bunch of politicians/judges) makes or interprets or applies, as you may prefer, its own internal rules which, in this case, involve the absolute obligation of Fr. Bayhi to REFUSE to testify in any way as to ANY confession to him as a priest? If Fr. Bayhi violates that obligation and that seal, he is automatically excommunicated and, IIRC, only the pope himself has the authority to lift that excommunication, which seems unlikely in this or any similar case.
3. If Mr. Child Molester himself were to confess each and every such sin that he has ever committed to Father Bayhi, do you concede that, "Mandatory Reporter" law or none, the priest CANNOT be required by any judge sworn to uphold the Constitution to testify as to even the fact that Mr. Molester has confessed his sins, much less as to the detailed list of sins? If not, constitutional language modifying the First Amendment to that effect, please.
4. Assuming that you have some familiarity with actual law, what do you think the rule against the admission of HEARSAY evidence is and how it would apply to testifying as to Mr. Molester's confession, if any? Leaving aside altogether the vital and protected First Amendment protections that protect the priest, the Church and the penitent, the only way to get such testimony would be the "statement against interest" exception to the HEARSAY rule, yes? 5. Next, take the HEARSAY rule analysis to the next level. It is NOT Mr. Molestor who confessed, it was 12-year-old Jane and she is NOT the victim of the crimes, if any. Her words, claims, imaginings, nightmares or whatever must, at best, be HEARSAY gathered from, at best, the actual victims, if any, as the Germans might say: nicht wahr (is it not true?)? What exception(s) to the HEARSAY rule would you apply to sanitize the HEARSAY stink all over such testimony by the priest as to what 12-year-old Jane MAY have confessed as to the bad behavior of Mr. Molester which was not perpetrated on Jane or in her presence?
6. But it gets worse for you. Unless someone claims that Jane WITNESSED the bad behavior alleged against Mr. Molestor, then Jane is not a proper witness herself, much less through a similarly ignorant third party (the priest) being dragged in perhaps because of residual credibility of a Roman collar in a Baton Rouge courtroom. So now, the priest is being asked to testify SAY what he HEARD Jane SAY she HEARD another SAY (who may well have heard from still others, but never mind). Have you an exception to the HEARSAY rule to cover this ridiculous but quite possible scenario? I did not think so. Neither does the Louisiana Supreme Court unless it claims an unlikely clairvoyance which is not an exception.
7. Judges or no judges, do you have a specific constitutional provision (give me the words and the reference) that somehow, hundreds of years in advance allows the Supreme Court of Louisiana to apply a "compelling interest" to ignore the First Amendment. Yeah, me neither!
8. Every state has a shield law: The First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and most have their own redundant state constitutional provisions. If the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to force states to allow the mass murder of babies or to allow Barry to marry Larry, it will probably also protect Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge in any court not poisoned by the evil agenda of secular humanists. Nicht wahr?
9. The Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says. Do you agree? If not, why not?
10. Scalia's decision in the peyote case was unfortunate in its failure to vindicate the First Amendment. We ought not to let such decisions abrogate the basic freedoms of this nation regardless of the roots of current low-info hysteria.
11. Our rights are easy to defend when their exercise is nice and non-controversial and socially approved. A case arising in WWII-era New Haven, CT, in which or its vicinity, I lived most of my life, involved a Jehovah Witness who was wandering door-to-door in a Catholic working class ethnic neighborhood ostensibly to convert folks to his faith. While I find the Jehovah Witness faith a strange one, I always treat their door-to-door missionaries politely and even represented some as an attorney. This guy, though, had a portable record player which derided the Blessed Virgin Mary's virginity and made many curious and offensive claims contrary to Catholic doctrine. He was arrested for inciting a riot but freed by the SCOTUS, IIRC. I always counseled Catholic clients that their own freedom of speech is only as strong as that of the Witnesses or of pro-aborts or of "gay" rights groups. To aggravate, we need to willingly accept aggravation.
12. Wanna concede?
Thanks for your expertise and well thought out and written positions.
If I were taking your positions, I would probably want to stifle conversation as well.
"Uninteresting???" Is that shorthand for "Your mind is made up, you have no evidence and have no desire to be confused by the facts.
I'll stop for the moment so that you can spend an hour (a day? a week?) of reading consternation trying to catch up.
Next up: "marrying" eight-year-olds off to adults of the same or opposite sex, twelvesomes, and "marriages" of humans to space aliens, barnyard animals and household pets.
Oh, and by the way, tell the authorities of New york and nearby states that we don't allow the ritual killing of animals which is required for kosher meat by Orthodox rabbis and butchers and observant customers and is NONE of the gummint's beeswax. You will also see that peyote decision reversed at some point in the near future. Like, ummm, legalized marijuana.
Nope. Those aren't the facts. The case is about an adult who heard of a crime, had an obligation to report, and did not do so.
Are you willing to concede that the appropriate authority of each religion protected by the First Amendment (and not some bunch of politicians/judges) makes or interprets or applies, as you may prefer, its own internal rules
Nope. The founders didn't believe that and neither does any sensible person. Your religion does not trump the law, and the Constitution does not say it does.
[Do you concede] the priest CANNOT be required by any judge sworn to uphold the Constitution to testify as to even the fact that Mr. Molester has confessed his sins
Does the word DUH mean anything to you? Clearly I do NOT concede such a point, or we are not having this conversation.
[So-called "point" #4 is a hash of nonsense about hearsay. So is so-called "point" #5. This case is not about hearsay. It is about the failure of a priest to report a crime of which he was informed.]
You need to familiarize yourself with the case. The female was one of the molester's victims. Please don't enter into an argument when you aren't even conversant with the basic facts.
[Point #6: it gets worse for me? No, it gets worse for you. It's amazing a person who writes so much meaningless, sanctimonious, piffle isn't able to even read the article he's commenting on]
The petition alleged that on three separate dates in July 2008, the child told Bayhi a church member had inappropriately touched her, kissed her and told her "he wanted to make love to her."
That's not something the child overheard. Read the article, or have mommy read it to you, and quit wasting my time.
The rest of the post is repeating what you think the Constitution says with no reference to actual case law. Please come back when you have serious arguments. Your editorializing about what you think the Constitution means is of no interest to me, and your "arguments" would be laughed right out of court. The First Amendment doesn't shield criminals, even if the criminals believe in Buddha, Jesus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
Wanna actually do some reading?
Compelling interest isn’t the only component of strict scrutiny. Learn the law before you post this slippery slope blather.
So now your position is: whatever the law is, it really doesn't matter. Priests have the right to give bad advice to penitents [advice which is contrary to both the law and their own morality] and damn whatever the law is, because your church has a Constitutional right to protect molesters.
Yes, the Church of Rome has always taken that position, and it is paying dearly for it.
But I digress, you are clearly the only one here who knows basic legal facts. We'll all just defer to your defense of government overreach into a long-protected religious practice.
“...the priest not only did not report the crime as required by LA law [which I accept, given the teaching of his church] he actively counseled the female victim not to report the crime.”
Shouldn’t that be ‘the priest allegedly heard this confession where the girl reported the abuse and then allegedly counseled the girl to not report the crime?’
I don’t get it, why hasn’t this happened before? I mean the teaching of the Church doesn’t allow a priest to even admit they heard a confession at all from a particular person, even if that person divulges that it allegedly happened and what was said. Seems like if this is the way the law is in LA and supposedly other states, then this would have happened before now. What changed? I mean if you hold the diocese responsible with the possibility of monetary compensation (I have no idea if that is the case here), then how are they supposed to defend themselves?
Freegards
Next, I missed that the 12 year old is claimed to have been a victim. When the priest and the diocese are being sued five months after the alleged perp died of a heart attack but a year after the perp's misbehavior, the concept of lawyerly dialing for dollars and looking for deeper pockets come to mind. The claim is likely within the statute of limitations but no more credible in and of itself.
Note that David Clohessey of the ever present SNAP, "Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests" is hovering nearby. In a case involving a Missouri bishop, Clohessy and SNAP were reported to be claiming that forcing them to comply with discovery proceedings would put them out of business since complainants had to have confidentiality. SNAP is one of the leading purveyors of tears and flapdoodle in the American court system. SNAP is, however, NOT protected by the freedom of religion or by any doctor/patient privilege in resisting discovery.
Next, this case is about a PRIEST who, in the course of his priesthood, is ALLEGED to have heard a confession from the 12 year old girl that included that she had been the object of an improper approach by a parishioner who, it is claimed, improperly touched her (whatever that may mean), kissed her and said he wanted to make love to her.
The priest was and is an adult or he would not be a priest. He is also, as a priest, not subject in any event to a statute that violates the Constitution by purporting to be sooooo widely applicable as to demolish the seal of the confessional. If you don't agree with the constitutional wall protecting the seal of the confessional, then, when the civil war breaks out, put FredZarguna in BIG letters on your uniform so that we will know which one you are.
If the child (now 18 or so if she was 12 in 2008) actually WAS a victim, she can testify for herself. If she told mom and dad, they are as well situated to testify as anyone but the girl would be, now that the perp is dead even before the suit was filed. I think they have a HEARSAY problem as well.
Targeting a priest said to have heard her confession presents other problems than First Amendment or HEARSAY. The Church requires that the priest NOT testify under penalty of an extraordinary type of excommunication. Is he an American who happens to be a priest or is he a priest who happens to be an American? His priesthood is infinitely more important than his citizenship. He should refuse to testify and take as much jail time in contempt as needed.
He will never have a greater opportunity to evangelize than he will enjoy behind prison walls as a prisoner of conscience. More than you may suspect by far, the criinal convicts respect militant conscience in a fellow prisoner. Meanwhile Church authorities should make a public example of any and all public officials responsible for this carnival of denial of constitutional rights. The priest is not allowed to testify in his own defense or that of the diocese. He is forced to choose between Faith and freedom. That is what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The laity should back the priest with everything they have got including the best trial lawyers and appellate lawyers. Flamboyant warriors and not corporate stiffs.
Read the First Amendment. The constitution says what it means and means what it says and NOT some transitory judicial opinion attempting to distinguish away core rights in favor of tyranny.
It would seem that your comparing Jesus Christ with Buddha, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy tells as much as we need to know about your motivating attitudes. For now, you are finding kindred secularists on the Louisiana Supreme Court. If the Church, the priest and the public resist as they should, that too shall pass away.
During any time if and when this priest is jailed, the bishop should close the local parish until he is released. The governor of Louisiana is a Catholic, Bobby Jindal. I suspect that he can resolve this situation. The bishop should press him to do so. A transfer of the Louisiana Supremes chambers to a basement lavatory would also seem appropriate pending surrender to their oaths.
Never, no, never, no, never. Absolutely not. Would have said the same thing before I converted. Granted, I tend to believe it’s so unlikely that Father Bayhi could reliably reconstruct the time and contents of a five-or-six-year-old confession even if it were okay for him to that he could honestly say “I can’t remember. I don’t recall.” But he shouldn’t have to. The government is getting entirely too froggy about getting into religious organizations’ business, whether Catholic, Protestant or otherwise.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
False.
“No, it means you can’t commit crimes and then claim your religion protects you.”
Really? Are you that badly misstating this case on purpose, or are you unable to comprehend simple English?
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.