For clarity, please use the link to read it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/08/louisiana-supreme-court-orders-priest-to-testify-about-confession/


Louisiana Supreme Court orders priest to testify about confession
posted at 10:01 am on July 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

 

Many observers misunderstood the Hobby Lobby dispute and others like it as a First Amendment case, but it wasn’t. It primarily related to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), with an indirect reference to the constitutional freedom of religious expression. A case in Louisiana may be the real McCoy, though. The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a priest must testify in a case about what he heard in a confessional — an order that would result in automatic excommunication and damnation, according to the doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church:

    The state high court’s decision, rendered in May of this year, demands that a hearing be held in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, where the suit originated, to determine whether or not a confession was made. It reverses an earlier decision by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the original lawsuit filed against Bayhi and the diocese.

    The case stems from a claim by parents of a minor that their daughter confessed to Bayhi during the sacrament of reconciliation that she engaged in inappropriate sɛҳuąƖ behavior with grown man who also attended their church. Court docuмents indicate the child was 12 years old at the time of the alleged sɛҳuąƖ abuse.

    A criminal investigation by East Feliciana Sheriff’s Office into the alleged sɛҳuąƖ abuse was ongoing when the accused church member died suddenly in February 2009 of a heart attack.

    The civil lawsuit in question, filed five months later in July 2009, names the late sɛҳuąƖ abuse suspect, as well as Bayhi and the Baton Rouge diocese, as defendants. The suit seeks damages suffered as a result of the sɛҳuąƖ abuse, noting that abuse continued following the alleged confessions.

    The petitioners claimed Bayhi was negligent in advising the minor regarding the alleged abuse and failed his duty as a mandatory reporter in compliance with the Louisiana Children’s Code. It also holds the diocese liable for failing to properly train the priest regarding mandatory reporting of sɛҳuąƖ abuse of minors. Defendants claimed, in addition to other points of law, that only the sɛҳuąƖ abuse suspect was liable for the suffering the minor endured.

This case gets complicated for a couple of reasons. While the common perception has been that priests cannot be forced to testify about confessions in the US because of ministerial privilege and the First Amendment, that privilege gets defined by each state separately. In Louisiana, the privilege attaches to the person offering the confession and not the priest. Once the penitent has revealed what was said — or perhaps more to the specific point in this case, alleges to have revealed what was said — the state can subpoena the priest to confirm or deny the testimony. In that sense, it’s akin to the lawyer-client privilege, which can be broken by the client.

On the other hand, lawyers don’t face eternal disbarment for testifying once a client has waived the privilege. Priests do, and face automatic expulsion from the Catholic Church for complying. There is nothing in church doctrine that requires a penitent to keep quiet about what transpires in the confessional, but the canon law is clear on this point. Can. 983 states that “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” The punishment for breaking the seal is explicitly noted in Can. 1388: “A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae [by the commission of the act] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.”

In this case, the trap is even more complex. The court wants the priest to corroborate the girl’s testimony about the confession. Assuming the priest recalls the confession at all — it was five or more years ago, and priests hear a lot of confessions, and most of them anonymously — he’d have to violate canon law just by talking about it. Plus, if he testifies that the witness is not telling the truth about the confession, he’d be violating the seal of the confessional even more profoundly. Either way, the court would in essence force the priest into betraying his faith and violating his oath or face prison time for contempt of court.

Rod Dreher warns that this is a direct attack on religious freedom:

    This is a very serious situation. I take no position on whether or not the priest handled the particular situation in the parish wisely or justly, but let there be no mistake: the seal of the confessional must be inviolable. The relationship between a priest and a penitent can only take place in the security of confidentiality given two both parties. …

    Again, I’m eager to learn from lawyers who read this blog whether or not the priest here is likely to go to jail, or if he and the diocese are protected by the First Amendment. God help us all if he is not. Even if the plaintiff is telling the truth about the priest advising her in the confessional to sweep it all under the rug, which would make the priest is a scoundrel, the religious freedom principle at stake here is so important that even a scoundrel priest must be defended.

I agree. In order for Catholics to enjoy the free expression of their faith, they have to know that the confessional is inviolable no matter what issues may be at play. For that to happen, priests — who deserve the same freedom of religious expression as everyone else in the US — have to know that they do not risk jail time for the act of hearing confessions. The interest of the state in this civil lawsuit is far outweighed by the need to protect this freedom, and any restriction on privilege set up at the state level that fails to recognize this should be overturned by federal courts on the basis of the First Amendment.

Note: Hat-tip to Gabriel Malor for pointers on the issues of privilege and state law.

Update: A fair question from the comments asks a hypothetical about a priest who learns in confession about an upcoming commission of a crime. Note that this is not exactly what happened in Louisiana, but it’s still a fair hypothetical. Cathy Caridi, a canon lawyer at Catholic Exchange, explains that while a priest has some options to warn the intended victims, he still cannot reveal what was said in confession:

    So what does all this mean for the priest who hears the confession of a person who admits that he intends to kill somebody, or who sɛҳuąƖly molests children and doesn’t indicate that he will stop? Priests are faced with such difficult situations more often than we laity might think! What are they permitted to do?

    Firstly, of course, a confessor can latch onto the fact that if a would-be murderer or child molester has come to confession, he presumably regrets this action and wants to amend his life. The priest can talk this through with the penitent and try to get him to see what true amendment entails. At the very least, he can explain that he cannot impart absolution if the person does not firmly intend to stop committing the sort of sin that he has confessed. Depending on the situation, he may also be able to encourage the person to turn himself in to the authorities. The priest might even offer to accompany the penitent to the police station when he does this; but in such a case he would still be forbidden to repeat the contents of the person’s confession to others. If the penitent wanted him to do so, it would be necessary for him to repeat to the priest, outside the confessional, the things which he had told him in confession. In this way the priest could discuss the penitent’s situation, yet the seal of the confessional would remain inviolate.

    If the penitent is not willing to cooperate, there are sometimes situations in which priests can find ways to help the authorities without revealing the content of a person’s confession. If a penitent has indicated, for example, that he fully intends to kill or harm Person X, a priest may be able to warn the police that Person X is in danger, but without fully explaining how he obtained this information. I personally know of a case in which police received a phone call from a priest, warning them that two teenaged sisters were in danger at that very moment. The police understood that the priest was not permitted to give them more specific information, and simply located the girls, notified their parents, and made sure they were protected. It is quite likely that some horrible crime was averted by this priest’s action, yet he did not violate the sacramental seal-in fact, nobody was really sure if he had learned the information in the confessional or in a confidential conversation outside of it. Once again, such collaboration between the authorities and the clergy happens more often than we may realize.

    At the same time, however, a confessor is forbidden to go to the police with specific information about a penitent which he had learned during a confession. If, for example, a person confesses that he is the serial killer who is being sought by the authorities, and the priest recognizes his identity, he cannot contact the police and reveal it. This is true even if the person indicates that he intends to commit another crime. While he may strive to lead the criminal to turn himself in, or at least to change his plans, a priest is not allowed to take this information to the police of his own accord. No matter how difficult it may be, he must keep this to himself. We can incidentally see here one more excellent reason to pray for our priests, that they be given the strength to bear such weighty burdens!

This is akin to the “ticking time bomb” hypothetical that was used extensively in the debate over interrogations of terrorists captured after 9/11. Needless to say, it’s a difficult position for priests, but Caridi lays out the options for dealing with it.

It all sounds so staged.

The perpetrator died five years ago so he isn't here to deny these accusations.  

The priest may or may not have heard the confession in novus ordo style of face to face.  

The Diocese itself is listed as one of the defendants?

Remember, we didn't learn until decades later that the "Roe" from Roe V. Wade actually was never raped - it was a lie.  However, we do know that 35 million or more babies were exterminated legally because of the wheels put in motion by this lie.

+1
All these high profile cases are specifically chosen for spotlight with an evil agenda coursing beneath, sometimes easily spotted at the outset.  If the state controlled msm are focusing on a certain topic, it's for further mind control/influence of the dumbed down and drugged masses.
I think we all know that the day is coming when there will be no seal of the confessional permitted by the state, and other persecutorial mandates.  We think we're underground now?  

A real priest will never violate the seal of confession and would rather be put to death than violate this seal.

"Fr." Z is using this as a money making scheme though...

Seal of Confession under Attack —
“Father Z” Cashes In

Never let a good Catholic crisis pass without cashing in on it: In the state of Louisiana, the Roman Catholic seal of confession is under attack, and the intrepid biretta-wearing blogging wonder Rev. John Zuhlsdorf (“Father Z”) has already found a way to make a profit from it.

Reporting on this news story about the seal of confession on his blog, Mr. Zuhlsdorf — whose ordination is doubtful because it was administered using the 1968 rite of Paul VI (see PDF here) — encourages people to purchase buttons, T-shirts, car magnets, and other goods sporting the message “I will defend the Seal” and “I will not break the Seal”, which he wants Novus Ordo priests and laity to purchase and wear. For these sales, he gets paid a commission.

In fact, he has an entire web portal called “Fr. Z’s Store” at Cafe Press, filled with this customized merchandise he wants you to buy, which he has named “Z Swag.”



So, what’s the problem with this, you may ask? Why should anyone care? For the following reasons:

This is typical for “Fr.” Z, who has a history of using his blog as a sales/cash gimmick. Whether it be receiving gifts and donations from his supporters or getting a cut on the things he sells on his popular site (from secular movies to coffee to electronic books), Mr. Zuhlsdorf has consistently used his putative Catholic priesthood as a way to make money off his supporters.

It is tacky, that is, in extremely bad taste. If the seal of confession is being challenged by the secular power, you should denounce this terrible injustice, you should exhort people to prayer and sacrifice, and offer or call for support of a court challenge against the government. Yet, in the entirety of Zuhlsdorf’s post on the story, he does not call for prayer or any other spiritual remedy even once. Instead, he wants you to buy cheap but overpriced merchandise that increases his bank account balance. Ker-ching!

Even if no tackiness was intended, at the very least, he ought to donate the proceeds of the sales to the legal case against the state that is attacking the seal of confession, which is, of course, wholly inviolable, as it admits of absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. If he is donating the proceeds, he ought to say so on his blog to prevent any scandal from being taken.

This merchandise, though it focuses entirely on the issue at hand, that is, on the inviolability of the seal of confession, will accomplish very little. It won’t really help the legal case, which is the only way this can successfully be fought, and it is far from clear just how a layman will “defend the seal” anyway. By doing what? Wearing stuff from the Fr. Z Store?

The only thing this will accomplish for sure is fatten “Fr.” Zuhlsdorf’s wallet. And, we suspect, that is the primary goal anyway.

This seal of confession challenge is just one more opportunity for Mr. Zuhlsdorf to sell over-priced merchandise. He has a history of encouraging his avid readers to either send him money, send him gifts, or purchase his Z Swag. For example, when Obamacare became mandatory in the United States, “Fr. Z” was right there asking people to “help me pay for my ‘affordable’ health care.” Perhaps he forgot that his readers, most of whom probably actually work for a living, also now had to pay for their “affordable health care”, but it’s hard to think of others when you spend so much time thinking about and promoting yourself.



A typical Zuhlsdorf sales gimmick

Zuhlsdorf's blog is full of ways to make him money and promote himself. The first two things you will see in the right margin at the top of the page are an Amazon search box with a plea to please purchase all your Amazon goods through him so he gets that 6% commission, and then a “Donate” button you can’t miss, with the generous assurance, “I pray for benefactors.”

When he’s not asking for money, selling merchandise, or encouraging you to buy him items from his Amazon wishlist, Mr. Zuhlsdorf enjoys fine dining, traveling, attending conferences, giving talks, reading electronic books gifted him by his supporters, practicing target shooting at the gun range, and, of course, blogging — about bird feeders, exquisite food, Latin, books, movies, church issues, current events, and himself. Let’s hope that in between his prolific blogging and other “priestly” occupations, he really does find time to offer a few prayers for the pitiable people he’s milking.

It is really hard to understand why a man who spends most of every day doing things that have virtually nothing to do with the priesthood (even by Novus Ordo standards), can be admired as a “wonderful Catholic priest” by so many (he currently has 24,000 followers on Twitter — how pathetic is that!). It is frightening to see how easy it is to take advantage of people’s good will and naiveté, simply by means of a conservative, traditional veneer, utilizing the “smells and bells” of Catholicism: beautiful vestments, lots of incense, and good Latin. It’s all show — no substance.

Still not convinced? Then review our prior blog posts blasting “Father” Zuhlsdorf for his pretend Catholicism, his self-aggrandizement, and his promoting and selling of an immoral (!) movie:

Telling New Year’s Resolutions: The Sad Case of “Father Z”
Rated Z: “Father” Zuhlsdorf promotes Immoral Movie

People need to start asking themselves how it is that a man “ordained” by the “Pope” himself for an Italian diocese ends up living thousands of miles away and instead of doing the typical work of a priest gets to blog all day, sell merchandise, and milk his hapless fans for their hard-earned cash — and has done this for years.

It’s time to face reality, folks: “Father” Zuhlsdorf is a fraud.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/index.htm#.U71_J_ldWSo

From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in ⇒ can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM

I just recalled something from a couple weeks back on TV.

A man confesses to a NO priest about a murder and the priest tells him that confidentiality has it's limits and recants the confession to the police and the guy gets arrested and the priest is heralded as a hero. True story- I don't recall who the priest was except he was Hispanic.

I just recalled something from a couple weeks back on TV.

A man confesses to a NO priest about a murder and the priest tells him that confidentiality has it's limits and recants the confession to the police and the guy gets arrested and the priest is heralded as a hero. True story- I don't recall who the priest was except he was Hispanic.

I'm always alert to this kind of insidious brainwashing.  I think it's called predictive programming?  

I just recalled something from a couple weeks back on TV.

A man confesses to a NO priest about a murder and the priest tells him that confidentiality has it's limits and recants the confession to the police and the guy gets arrested and the priest is heralded as a hero. True story- I don't recall who the priest was except he was Hispanic.

I doubt that that would be a Catholic priest. The penalty of excommunication is latae sententiae, that is automatic. It's remission is reserved to the Pope.

Quote from: crossbro

I just recalled something from a couple weeks back on TV.

A man confesses to a NO priest about a murder and the priest tells him that confidentiality has it's limits and recants the confession to the police and the guy gets arrested and the priest is heralded as a hero. True story- I don't recall who the priest was except he was Hispanic.

I doubt that that would be a Catholic priest. The penalty of excommunication is latae sententiae, that is automatic. It's remission is reserved to the Pope.

It was a Catholic priest. He had an Hispanic name and spoke openly during the program. It is possible that the man spoke outside the confessional.

One of the times I  was a sponsor in RCIA, a priest told us he could not break the seal on a person who confesses a murder but he told us he would as ask the person to speak more about it outside the confessional (he would ask during the confession) so he could trap the person and go to the police.

I think that too would break the confession, seeing how the priest was considered a ground breaker in gαy "Catholic" organizations in sin city I don't doubt he completely lacks an ethical moral conscience.