Posted on 7/30/2016, 7:32:11 PM by marshmallow
BATON ROUGE - A win for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Baton Rouge today in a legal case that centered around a church doctrine prohibiting a priest from revealing what is said inside a confessional.
A state appeals court affirmed that Father Jeff Bayhi does not have to reveal any conversation between him and a woman who claims she was sexually abused by a now deceased parishioner.
Rebecca Mayeux claimed in a lawsuit against the Church that she told Bayhi about the alleged behavior in 2008 and that those statements between the two should be included during any trial proceedings. Mayeux was 14 at the time.
However, attorneys for Mayeux say the court ruling today allows her to testify what was said in the confessional.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbrz.com ...
I would hardly call this a win. The person that made the confession WANTS him to confirm what was said.
Not only does he have the penitent’s permission, he is REQUESTED to do so.
He in neither violating confidentiality nor is he betraying the confessor.
But he is protecting the church.
She always could. The seal of confession applies only to the priest, not the penitent ... although dishing your sins to the general public is discouraged in most cases.
The penitent is of course free to discuss it at any time.
“He’s not allowed to discuss what was said to him in a specific individual’s confession, even if that individual gives him permission to do so.”
Hmmm. You had better inform the Pope so that they can change their Seal of Confidentiality to match your opinion ...
Why wouldn’t this fall under hearsay? She is reporting the crime of a third party.
It's hard to see what she would gain from trying to force the priest to violate his vow of secrecy. It wasn't a vow to *her*, it was a vow to God. And even if he broke secrecy, what is it but hearsay? "I don't know anything firsthand, but this is what I think I remember she told me."
"I think because many or most Confessions are anonymous, so the priest would be guessing based on voice recognition and memory of "somebody" who told him "something" any number of years ago.
"Protecting the church"? In what way is the church responsible for something one parishioner allegedly did to another parishioner? Are they supposed to surveil and control parishioners 24/7/365?
I don't know that the Pope has weighed in on this case.
“TedasGator, this is not campion’s ‘opinion’, this is Canon Law. I don’t know that the Pope has weighed in on this case.”
I believe that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and as such, is responsible for The Seal of the Confessional which allows a priest to ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others.
In this case, he need not ask as he is requested to do so.
“Too late, TexasGator; what Campion states has always been the position of the Church. No Pope has the authority to change that, nor does anyone else. Also, what Mrs. Don-o says is correct. “
Go read The Seal of the Confessional ...
or my previous post ...
Where?
Got a link for that?
What does this sentence mean?
It's about as clear as you can get.
Even if the penitent gave permission to the priest to discuss a case in a general way, say, for example, with someone with expertise in psychiatry ("Could such-and-such a pattern of behavior be indicative of a psychosis?") the priest must never disclose the actual name of the penitent, or any other identifying information.
The penitent simply does not have the authority to order the priest to break this most solemn priestly obligation.
“”...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490) It’s about as clear as you can get.”
If the penitent wants it revealed, he is NOT betrayed.
“Read cannon 983 paragraph 1. It’s pretty clear that whether the penitent wants it or not, the priest can not disclose info. “
Uh, you care to cite the words specifically instead of making up your interpretation ...
“The penitent simply does not have the authority to order the priest to break this most solemn priestly obligation. “
Geez. The priests’ obligation is to the penitent, not to the church. If the penitent wishes the conversation to be disclosed, the priest can do so.
The only issue I see here that the priest could rest his hat on is that he cannot identify her as saying such to him.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed, "Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance."
Serious business.
“In point of fact, the priest’s obligation is to the penitent AND the Church.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed, “Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance.”
It specifically states his obligation to the ‘sinner’. The only way you get to an obligation to the Church is if the Church is the sinner.
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.