Posted on 07/15/2014 6:38:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The facts are hard to tweeze out of this story.
It seems that a girl told a priest in a confessional that a 64 year old man was raping her and the priest treated that as a confession?
Importantly, communist nations with Catholics and other Orthodox established a priority early on that all confessionals must be electronically bugged, because what was said within was of intense interest to the secret police.
Since doctor-patient confidentiality has been effectively destroyed by HIPAA, the confessional has become the most important target of the authoritarian in the US.
(I might add that government wants total control over all religious sacraments, marriage being just the most recent to be absorbed. Eventually government wants recognition as “god”, taking over the role from God.)
If what Bayhi heard was in fact a confession,
The whole idea of the State trying to force a priest to tell what he heard in Confession is stupid.
What guilty murderer, etc. would go to Confession if the State succeeds? So, this is an attempt by the State to prevent people from going to Confession if they must admit any breach of law.
By the way, the priest must not grant forgiveness to such a confessor unless he (the confessor) admits his sin to the government.
How is it a confession if the child didn’t do anything???
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
- Benito Mussolini
Ok, find another reason to throw this priest in jail. He did NOTHING to protect this girl.
“It seems that a girl told a priest in a confessional that a 64 year old man was raping her and the priest treated that as a confession?”
She was either seeking advice because she had no way to stop the rapist, or she might have been guilty of allowing the rape to happen. You can’t possibly know which it was.
Very good comment.
A 12 year old guilty of “allowing” a rape? Listen to yourself.
“A 12 year old guilty of “allowing” a rape? Listen to yourself.”
Were you in the confessional? We have NO idea what she said. Perhaps the rapist threatened to kill her or to harm some other member of her family and she was afraid of going to the police. YOU WEREN’T in the Confessional.
It is crystal clear what happened in that confessional. A twelve year old girl asked for help from an adult she trusted and she got nothing.
Per Church rules anything divulged during the course of a confession cannot be later confirmed by the priest to anyone, even if the person who divulged it wants him to. The priest can’t even confirm to anyone he heard a particular confession from a particular person in the first place, to my understanding.
This is the first time I have seen that the law was changed in ‘91 to presumably allow one party to end confidentiality. So my question is why hasn’t this come up before now in the case of confession?
Freegards
Yes, I do not agree with this “priest” in any way.
Just reinforces my (lack of) regard for the practices of this church.
“It is crystal clear what happened in that confessional. A twelve year old girl asked for help from an adult she trusted and she got nothing.”
Do you mean ‘allegedly a twelve year old girl asked for help from an adult she trusted and got nothing?’
Freegards
We don’t know what was said in the confessional by either party and the perp is now deceased. The reason this is coming to light is because the girl, now 18, and the parents want money from the Church. They know the priest cannot tell if he counseled her to tell authorities, she can, however, say anything she wants and he cannot defend himself.
Well, they’ll be sued into oblivion if this stands because I don’t see anyway for them to defend themselves from those looking for damages for something that allegedly happened in a confession that allegedly led to something actionable against the diocese. So there’s that to look forward to, I suppose.
Freegards
The fact of the matter is, as discussed on a related thread, the alleged confession occurred six years ago. So if the parties involved are interested in justice, they should have the girl, now legally a woman, testify in a court of law. There’s no reason to be asking the priest what was said, the victim can testify herself as to what she told the priest.
Why isn’t that being done? I didn’t see any discussion about that question on the previous thread. I suppose one possibility is because she’s too traumatized by the whole affair but another is simply because, as has also been brought up as a possibility here, this is an attempt by secularists to gain control over the Confessional. I’m sure that’s at least some part of the motivation of some involved in this case. Not the young woman but others supposedly representing her “interests”.
Let’s also not forget that the perpetrator if this crime is dead. He died of a heart attack in the course of a criminal investigation. So there’s nothing to be done here but persecute a priest for keeping the seal of confession inviolate.
Let me ask you something directly DManA: do you think a priest should be required by law to report something he heard in the course of a confession to the police, if said confession contains an admission of a crime, either committed or ongoing?
If you answer that question it may save you some time because I’m going to tell you now: priests are not allowed to tell anyone anything about any confession, even if said confession took place. Period.
So if you answer “yes” to the above your issue is not with this priest in particular but with the Catholic Church.
I see no reason in beating around that bush.
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.