Basilisa Marie Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2015/01/catholic_confession_case_baton.html Looks like the Supreme Court decided to not the hear the civil suit brought by the Diocese of Baton Rouge. The petition seeks to block a woman from testifying in a civil suit against the church and priest about what she said in confession as a child regarding allegations that a fellow parishioner sexually assaulted her. The high court's decision means the lawsuit will move forward in state District Court. The blog, which reports on orders from the U.S. Supreme Court, said Tuesday (Jan. 20) morning the diocese's request for a review of the Louisiana State Supreme Court's ruling on the case was denied. Ahead of the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling, which was rendered in May 2014, the plaintiff argued priests should be subject to mandatory reporting laws regarding abuse of minors if the person who makes the confession waives confidentiality. Normally, priests are exempt as mandatory reporters in the setting of the sacrament of Reconciliation, but the case presented some conflicts with mandatory reporting duties set forth in the Louisiana Children's Code regarding sexual assault of minors. The decision by the state's high court stated confidentially is intended to protect the person who made the confessions, not the person who receives them. As far as I understand, the woman isn't asking the Church to change any rules, but the diocese doesn't want her to testify because it puts the priest in an awkward position. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not A Real Name Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2015/01/catholic_confession_case_baton.html Looks like the Supreme Court decided to not the hear the civil suit brought by the Diocese of Baton Rouge. As far as I understand, the woman isn't asking the Church to change any rules, but the diocese doesn't want her to testify because it puts the priest in an awkward position. Yes? From what it says here, yes."By allowing the woman to testify about what she confessed, however, the diocese has argued it would place the priest the difficult position of being unable to defend himself unless he break the confidential seal of confession, making him subject to excommunication" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oremoose Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Why would it put him in an awkward spot? I thought the way it works that The Confessee can say what they can confess if so inclined But the Priest is the backhole that nevers (In theory) speaks of what they say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Why would it put him in an awkward spot? I thought the way it works that The Confessee can say what they can confess if so inclined But the Priest is the backhole that nevers (In theory) speaks of what they say.... I've heard people say that the state would try to compel the priest to speak about the confession, but I haven't seen any actual proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I feel like if it came down to his excommunication, the church should be like "Yo, we realize you didnt want to be a jerk but also didnt want to break the seal, so if you have to, we totes understand and we wont shun you for life because we are reasonable human beings.Word." Edited January 22, 2015 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 I feel like if it came down to his excommunication, the church should be like "Yo, we realize you didnt want to be a jerk but also didnt want to break the seal, so if you have to, we totes understand and we wont shun you for life because we are reasonable human beings.Word." Actually I'm quite happy that a priest faces excommunication if he breaks the seal. It's a sacred bond, and you would immediately destroy a delicate trust. You're telling someone your deepest, darkest, nastiest secrets, sometimes in detail. If you've ever done anything really bad, would you ever want the slightest doubt that the man could be compelled to tell anyone? Excommunication can always be lifted if the priest repents. But priests are SUPPOSED to be ready to face jail time or worse in order to protect the seal. There should be no question about that, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Meh, Id be fine with it knowing it was to protect children are other such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I really recommend watching the movie that came out last year called Calvary, which is about a Priest in Ireland who is hearing confessions when a guy tells him he's going to murder him. It's a really well-done movie, and it really shows just how seriously the Church takes the Seal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Breaking the seal of confession is one of the most despicable crimes a priest can commit. I am sure there is a special place in hell for priests who have committed that sin and not repented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I feel like if it came down to his excommunication, the church should be like "Yo, we realize you didnt want to be a jerk but also didnt want to break the seal, so if you have to, we totes understand and we wont shun you for life because we are reasonable human beings.Word." If that's your definition of a "reasonable human being", well, you're not going to find it here. There are literally no exceptions or instances where the priest could tell what happened in a confession- even if a pedophile walks free, even if the priest is shipped to Guatemala Bay, even if what he knows could save millions lives. For better or worse, he could never, ever tell. Period. For a non-confusing summary of what's going on: Background: Rebecca Mayeux, now 20, claims that when she was 14, she was subject to groping and other unwanted sexual attention from Charlet, a much older man who was a prominent businessman and beloved community figure. At least some of the harassment took place on the grounds of Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church, where both families attended. Mayeux says on three separate occasions, she told Father Jeff Bayhi in confession that Charlet was coming on to her sexually, and that he told her this was her own problem, that she should sweep it under the rug. Mayeux eventually told her parents, who went to the police. Charlet died of a heart attack during the criminal investigation, which was dropped upon his passing. Now, Mayeux has filed a civil lawsuit against Charlet’s estate, his family’s business, Father Bayhi, and the Diocese of Baton Rouge. She wants Fr. Bayhi to testify that he heard her speak of this in confession, and what the content of the confessions were. He refuses even to acknowledge that the molestation conversations took place, because to do so would be to violate the seal of the confessional, the rock-solid obligation Catholic (and Orthodox) priests have to go to their deaths before revealing to anyone what they learned in confession. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that under state law, Bayhi could in principle be compelled to reveal those conversations (or go to jail for contempt of court), because the law only recognizes the priest-penitent privilege as protecting the penitent — who, in this case, releases the priest from that privilege. Under Catholic canon law, the obligation is binding on the priest, regardless of what the penitent later decides. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/media-bias-seal-of-the-confessional/comment-page-2/ I really hope that's not what the priest said because that's terrible advice. In fact, it's so bad I wonder if it's true. However, we'll never know, and I'm going to assume Rebecca Mayuex is telling the truth unless I have good reason to believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Im pretty indifferent to the seal i guess. And child was molested...I mean, thats pretty terrible. Its not like the priest is telling little Sally's mom that Sally confessed to continually hitting her brother or something. And if it was to save a million lives...yes. Yes I very much expect that priest to break the seal. Even for one life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancilla Domini Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I really recommend watching the movie that came out last year called Calvary, which is about a Priest in Ireland who is hearing confessions when a guy tells him he's going to murder him. It's a really well-done movie, and it really shows just how seriously the Church takes the Seal. I Confess is another good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If that's your definition of a "reasonable human being", well, you're not going to find it here. There are literally no exceptions or instances where the priest could tell what happened in a confession- even if a pedophile walks free, even if the priest is shipped to Guatemala Bay, even if what he knows could save millions lives. For better or worse, he could never, ever tell. Period. For a non-confusing summary of what's going on: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/media-bias-seal-of-the-confessional/comment-page-2/ I really hope that's not what the priest said because that's terrible advice. In fact, it's so bad I wonder if it's true. However, we'll never know, and I'm going to assume Rebecca Mayuex is telling the truth unless I have good reason to believe otherwise. There's a line from the New Testament which says we should not believe incriminating testimony against priests unless 3 or more people testify against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Im pretty indifferent to the seal i guess. And child was molested...I mean, thats pretty terrible. Its not like the priest is telling little Sally's mom that Sally confessed to continually hitting her brother or something. And if it was to save a million lives...yes. Yes I very much expect that priest to break the seal. Even for one life. Unfortunately for you, you are not in charge of such matters. These are the parameters set by Canon Law, and they will never change. They are placed there for a reason, and I've never met a Catholic who wasn't grateful for it. The integrity of the Priesthood itself would be compromised if we gave exceptions to this Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Unfortunately for you, you are not in charge of such matters. These are the parameters set by Canon Law, and they will never change. They are placed there for a reason, and I've never met a Catholic who wasn't grateful for it. The integrity of the Priesthood itself would be compromised if we gave exceptions to this Canon. I dont believe for 1 second that God would punish a priest who broke the seal to save millions of lives. poppycock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now