Lest there be any confusion as to what the church wants to suppress:
“...the priest allegedly responded to her that she simply needed to handle the situation herself because otherwise “too many people would be hurt.” The minor child testified that during one of those confessions she told the priest what had happened and asked for advice on how to end it. According to her deposition testimony: “He just said this is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it”
No. 2913 CW 0316 Court of Appeals First Circuit
We only have her word for this, and the other thing is that the it sounds to me as if the priest has an Indian last name, and there are lots of Indian priests (from India, that is) in the US whose understanding of American English is not exactly the best. So I suspect there are “extenuating circumstances” and some ambulance chaser is promoting this.
That said, priests shouldn’t break the seal or nobody will ever confess.
If somebody confesses to abusing children, killing somebody, or whatever, priests always tell that person as part of their penance to turn themselves in. The penance always involves making it right.
A person who reports molestation may or may not be credible, and in any case, there was no sin on that person’s part. If the priest thinks the person is credible, he would usually tell them to get help from civil authorities. Obviously, the Church has no civil power to go out and arrest child abusers or anybody else.
Maybe he didn’t think she was credible? Or maybe his English wasn’t good enough to understand? Or maybe “the child” was set up by some leftist group?
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.
Ok, I found this piece which explains things a little more fully.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/louisiana-supreme-court-raises-seal-of-confession-worries/
So, they are suing the church because it didn’t report what the girl herself could have reported.
The alleged molester was a parishoner, not a church worker or priest or anything else.
They are suing the church because they didn’t report something they were not bound to report, unless, as the article I linked states, it became known to the priest/the church outside the realm of confession.
Dead perp, rich church, no mention if the vic herself ever told anyone about this.
Eh, it seems pretty fishy to me now.
In the absence of other info, maybe they are just spinning a yarn. They know the priest can’t discuss what was told to him, so the gal makes up a story about a dead guy and says: I told father so many times, but he told me to keep quiet. Now show me the money!
That wouldn’t be the strangest thing I’ve heard this week.
But maybe I’m still confused, so if I’ve screwed this up completely someone will buy me a clue.