“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
Thanks for the info and the insights. I learn something new every day.