Church Can't Withhold Names in Calif. Priest Files

Associated Press via Yahoo News ^ | 1/7/13 | Greg Risling

[marshmallow]

LOS ANGELES (AP)

[circlecity]

"Don't they have the right to know what happened in their local church?" Elias said before ruling from the bench."

IF these documents were not introduced as evidence in any trial then where does such a right come from?

[skeeter]

The church can release the sexual orientation of the abusive clergy, as well.

[Nervous Tick]

If there’s any intersection of this information with anything that was disclosed in confession, compliance will be quite a sticky issue.

[marshmallow]

If any of the information in these documents was disclosed in confession, then the seal of confession has already been broken, irrespective of whether or not the information is made public.

The seal of confession applies to priest and penitent only. Anything written down on paper and shared with a third party constitutes a violation of that seal.

Making public the documents mentioned in the article has nothing to do with the seal of confession.

[aimhigh]

"Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." 1 Tim 5:19-20

[CynicalBear]

There ya go using God’s word again. Catholic Church doesn’t need God’s word for their dogma or rules.

[Syncro]

From the article (not enough to go over the excerpt limit):

Files released in other places, such as Boston, have shown the church shuffled predator priests among parishes without calling police.

This was done all over the country, and the higher ups that sanctioned sending pedophiles to other areas to continue their horrible assaults on children should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the worst kind of criminal behaviors.

Isn't it against the law to not report this type of criminal behavior? Have the people who did this, have they no shame??