Baton Rouge Diocese Taking Order to Break Seal of Confession to Supreme Court

Zenit ^ | September 5, 2014

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The only way this will be resolved will be for the court to send the priest to jail for contempt, and to keep doing so until public outrage is so great that there will be intervention to preserve the confessional.

Any other conclusion will just be one judge overruling another, which will have no “staying power” in the law. The debate must be taken out of the courts entirely, and that won’t be done by judges.

While not exactly martyrdom, for the priest to hold out over perhaps a year or more indeed deserves eventual high commendation from the church.

[FredZarguna]

If the jury must decide that way, how come the diocese hasn’t been sued into oblivion long before this?

There's no "IF." The jury has to decide that way. You have only the girl's evidence, and the priest's silence. That silence cannot be construed as a rebuttal. As a matter of fact, the normal injunction that it has to be regarded neutrally might not even hold, since the defense can argue that the church's defense of the Seal shields a testimony detrimental to its material interest.

but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?

The laws in most states protect evidence given in specific kinds of confidence. [BTW, none of the protections are actually absolute, not even the attorney-client privilege, which is the oldest privilege recognized in law. It actually predates Christianity.] However, the "mandatory reporting" laws are relatively new, and they were specifically passed in many jurisdictions to keep priests, schoolteachers, social workers, and others who work with people the law does not consider legally competent from withholding evidence of a crime.

You will see more of this, and it's likely that cases like this and the Federal case law it produces will lead to model laws with better protections for confidants, children, or both.

[FredZarguna]

The claim bears on whether or not a priest is a mandatory reporter. If he is, what passed between them is potentially material to his role as a mandatory reporter, and the church becomes liable.

[Ransomed]

I just looked at those old threads, the article in this one says the law was passed back in ‘91.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3180453/posts

So around 20 years or so. I still don’t understand why this didn’t happen before in the last decade or two if the legislation passed in 91. There seems to be no way to defend against it, you would figure there would be those who would take advantage of that in a heartbeat. Not saying this case is something like that, or even if they are suing for monetary damages.

Freegards

[jocon307]

I still don’t understand, was this an ongoing situation with the girl and whoever was molesting her?

Otherwise it seems like it’s a horse gone, close the barn door situation.

[Ann Archy]

NO Priest of good standing will EVER break the Confessional Seal.....they would rather DIE!! It’s SACRED!!

[Ann Archy]

Cardinal Goerge, met him a few times,,,decent man....has said that he will die in bed.....his predecessor will die in PRISON and His predecessor will die a MARTYR!!! We are getting to this point in AMERICA!!! CHRISTIANS WILL BE MARTYRED!!

[Ann Archy]

The standard of law....whatever that is, does NOT BREAK THE SACREDNESS of the CONFESSIONAL.....PERIOD.

[Ann Archy]

You, too,are either a NUTCASE or an anti-Catholic!!!! The Confessional is SCAROSANCT and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!!!

[choirboy]

Lest there be any confusion as to what the church wants to suppress:

No, in this case the Church does not want to suppress anything.

What the Church wants to do is defend its right not to violate the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

I started to add "under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution." But that would have been imprecise. This right precedes the 1st Amendment and would exist even if the 1st Amendment did not exist.

[PAR35]

Or maybe “the child” was set up by some leftist group?

You are qualified to be a bishop with your 'blame the victim' approach to the issue. You and the Catholic church might not consider a 14 year old a child, as evidenced by your use of quotes, but the law does.

"According to the allegations in the petition and the deposition testimony in the record, subsequent “meetings” were had—one between the priest and Mr. and Mrs. Charlet, and another between the Charlets and the minor child’s parents (the plaintiffs)—concerning the “obsessive number of emails and phone calls” between Mr. Charlet and the minor child and the seemingly inappropriate closeness between the two that had been observed by various parishioners."

...

"Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2013-C-2879
[PARENTS OF MINOR CHILD]
VERSUS
GEORGE J. CHARLET, JR., DECEASED
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

[FR_addict]

However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession — a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance — in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of “face-to-face confession,” I have had individuals come up to me and say, “Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?” I have to say, “Please refresh my memory,” or “Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?”

===
From your post, I don't see why this is even a case. All the girl has to do is give the priest permission.

It sound like the priest will not honor the penitent’s wishes, which makes me think he really did tell her not to say anything. It sounds to me like he used the confessional as a way to cower this victim. Don't they have something in Canon law that would make this confession void?

[PAR35]

Scan through the thread - I’ve posted links to the court of appeals (clickable) and Louisiana Supreme Court (cut and paste) PDFs of the two opinions.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Moldau is the German name for the river better known as the Vltava.

I believe St. John Nepomucene is the patron saint of bridges.

[PAR35]

What is it they want to know,and why don’t they just ask the young lady? If she doesn’t wish to tell them, why would they think the priest will tell them?

She did testify in a deposition. Now the church wants to block her from testifying at trial. The Motion in Limine that kicked this off was NOT about the priest's testimony - it was about whether SHE could testify.

[Secret Agent Man]

secular cannot determine if a sacrament took place. not their expertise, or jurisdiction.

[jocon307]

OH, this is very confusing, if I go to confession and say, whatever: I killed 5 people! Obviously the priest can’t reveal that, but I’m not prevented from saying it later.

I’m going to have to read through the thread, you are right.

Is the priest now on trial for not reporting something that the girl herself could have easily revealed?

Is the priest on trial, or the molester?

[Varda]

Read the links. She can testify all she wants about the actual events. The diocese wants not to be dragged into the public record because they aren't a party to the events and by law aren't required to report it.

Color me skeptical about the girls parents motives. Plaintiffs often try to draw as many parties into the record looking for deep pockets for a civil case.

[Salvation]

Two predecessors?