Louisiana Judge Rules That Priests Don’t Have to Report Abuse if They Hear It During Confession

A Louisiana judge has struck down a state requirement that clergy members report suspected child abuse even if they learn about it during a private confessional.

State District Judge Mike Caldwell ruled Friday that the requirement — a Louisiana Children’s Code provision — violates the constitutionally protected religious freedom rights of a Roman Catholic priest accused of neglecting his duty to report a teenager’s abuse allegations to authorities.

In court, Judge Caldwell ruled Bayhi’s religious freedom rights would be violated if he was forced to talk about the alleged confession.

Two years ago, Mayeux told us she went to Father Bayhi seeking advice when she was 14, because she trusted him more than her parents. Court records show when Mayeux went to Bayhi, Rebecca says he told her, “This is your problem, sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”

But, on the stand today, Father Bayhi told a Judge he can’t even confirm whether someone even came to confession. That’s just how sacred it is. He added no one would trust priests if confessions were public.

Father Paul Counce is a canon lawyer for the Diocese of Baton Rouge. Counce testified this morning that priests can be excommunicated if they break the seal of confession.

Earlier in the day, the Diocese tried to prohibit Mayeux from testifying about what she told Father Bayhi during that alleged confession. A judge ruled she could testify about what she told him, but her attorney can’t argue that Bayhi was mandated to report that.

Raggamuffin wrote:This only seems to pertain to the issue of child abuse, where there is a law that it must be reported, yes? There is no legal duty to report other crimes, no? If that's wrong, feel free to say so.

There's plenty stopping him from reporting the incidents to the police. He has made a vow that he will not divulge what has been said to him in confidence. People who confess under the Seal of the Confession are confessing to God - via a priest. I don't think that other religions attach so much importance to the role of priests really. Secondly, he would be ex-communicated if he did so, and lose his job and role in life.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This only seems to pertain to the issue of child abuse, where there is a law that it must be reported, yes? There is no legal duty to report other crimes, no? If that's wrong, feel free to say so.

There's plenty stopping him from reporting the incidents to the police. He has made a vow that he will not divulge what has been said to him in confidence. People who confess under the Seal of the Confession are confessing to God - via a priest. I don't think that other religions attach so much importance to the role of priests really. Secondly, he would be ex-communicated if he did so, and lose his job and role in life.

There is a duty to report all crimes.
I mean are you seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police? I mean this is the mentality being offered her in defense that the victim of crimes is rendered less important than the confidentiality of a criminal. That is just plain absurd and being as this God is meant to forgive sins, then all the Priest has to do is ask for this deities forgiveness for committing a minor sin, far less a sin than many criminal acts.

He can stick his vow up his fat flabby arse for all I care, as he is rendering the victims of crime of less importance than some daft view of confidentiality. I am you telling me Priests never break vows?
Try the fact around 50% have sex relations in America.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is a duty to report all crimes.
I mean are you seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police? I mean this is the mentality being offered her in defense that the victim of crimes is rendered less important than the confidentiality of a criminal. That is just plain absurd and being as this God is meant to forgive sins, then all the Priest has to do is ask for this deities forgiveness for committing a minor sin, far less a sin than many criminal acts.

He can stick his vow up his fat flabby arse for all I care, as he is rendering the victims of crime of less importance than some daft view of confidentiality. I am you telling me Priests never break vows?
Try the fact around 50% have sex relations in America.

Is there a legal duty to report all crimes though? This is about the legal duty to report crimes involving child abuse (and it's also about money of course). It's also about religious freedom.

I think you would need to put yourself in the shoes of a Catholic Priest in order to understand why they take the Seal of the Confessional so seriously Didge. It's not just a job to them - it's a calling.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is there a legal duty to report all crimes though? This is about the legal duty to report crimes involving child abuse (and it's also about money of course). It's also about religious freedom.

I think you would need to put yourself in the shoes of a Catholic Priest in order to understand why they take the Seal of the Confessional so seriously Didge. It's not just a job to them - it's a calling.

Legal duty? We are talking about men of the cloth, supposed defenders of the truth.
Yes there should be a legal duty for people to report and people have often been found guilty where they have hid the truth, or are you not aware of that?
I was a Catholic and raised in that hideous organisation, so do not tell me what I know about the catholic church, being as my eldest brother was trained to be one. IO have far more of an understanding than you will ever hope to gain

You did not answer m,y points also on your deity.

Are you seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Legal duty? We are talking about men of the cloth, supposed defenders of the truth.
Yes there should be a legal duty for people to report and people have often been found guilty where they have hid the truth, or are you not aware of that?
I was a Catholic and raised in that hideous organisation, so do not tell me what I know about the catholic church, being as my eldest brother was trained to be one. IO have far more of an understanding than you will ever hope to gain

You did not answer m,y points also on your deity.

Are you seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police?

I asked if it was a legal duty to report crimes because this is what this court case hinges on. Deliberately lying is not the same as failing to report a crime. The point is that normally there is a legal duty in that State to report child abuse crimes, yes? However, because the issue was spoken about the Confessional, the question is whether or not the legal duty applies.

I'm not going to get into a personal slanging match about God - this is a about a legal issue and money. I don't think it's even about child protection tbh - not to the people involved.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Legal duty? We are talking about men of the cloth, supposed defenders of the truth.
Yes there should be a legal duty for people to report and people have often been found guilty where they have hid the truth, or are you not aware of that?
I was a Catholic and raised in that hideous organisation, so do not tell me what I know about the catholic church, being as my eldest brother was trained to be one. IO have far more of an understanding than you will ever hope to gain

You did not answer m,y points also on your deity.

Are you seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police?

I asked if it was a legal duty to report crimes because this is what this court case hinges on. Deliberately lying is not the same as failing to report a crime. The point is that normally there is a legal duty in that State to report child abuse crimes, yes? However, because the issue was spoken about the Confessional, the question is whether or not the legal duty applies.

I'm not going to get into a personal slanging match about God - this is a about a legal issue and money. I don't think it's even about child protection tbh - not to the people involved.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I asked if it was a legal duty to report crimes because this is what this court case hinges on. Deliberately lying is not the same as failing to report a crime. The point is that normally there is a legal duty in that State to report child abuse crimes, yes? However, because the issue was spoken about the Confessional, the question is whether or not the legal duty applies.

I'm not going to get into a personal slanging match about God - this is a about a legal issue and money. I don't think it's even about child protection tbh - not to the people involved.

Yes they have an obligation to report as it keep easily pointing out to you
This is again allowing offenders to walk away not only guilt free from a confession but knowing that Priests are going to hide their crimes.
So if there are already a legal duty to report crimes, then the Preist has no right to claim any daft vow, that was invented by the Catholic Church.

Its not a slanging match about Christianity and its deity, so that is a copout Rags

I want your opinion on whether you are seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I asked if it was a legal duty to report crimes because this is what this court case hinges on. Deliberately lying is not the same as failing to report a crime. The point is that normally there is a legal duty in that State to report child abuse crimes, yes? However, because the issue was spoken about the Confessional, the question is whether or not the legal duty applies.

I'm not going to get into a personal slanging match about God - this is a about a legal issue and money. I don't think it's even about child protection tbh - not to the people involved.

You obviously missed this further back:

The state Children's Code says clergy members are mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. The code also states that "notwithstanding any claim of privileged communication, any mandatory reporter who has cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare is endangered" must report that information to authorities.  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/02/judge_rules_child_law_violates.html


Which is why it is being taken to a higher court.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes they have an obligation to report as it keep easily pointing out to you
This is again allowing offenders to walk away not only guilt free from a confession but knowing that Priests are going to hide their crimes.
So if there are already a legal duty to report crimes, then the Preist has no right to claim any daft vow, that was invented by the Catholic Church.

Its not a slanging match about Christianity and its deity, so that is a copout Rags

I want your opinion on whether you are seriously suggesting to me the deity you believe in places higher the confidentiality of a criminal over that of helping the victim see justice through reporting this to the Police?

Well no they don't have an obligation to report it - not in this particular case. I think you need to read up about the case Didge. The point is that had the girl gone to the priest outside of the Confessional, he would have had a legal duty to report what she allegedly said. She didn't do that. This case has been going on for years - look it up.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no they don't have an obligation to report it - not in this particular case. I think you need to read up about the case Didge. The point is that had the girl gone to the priest outside of the Confessional, he would have had a legal duty to report what she allegedly said. She didn't do that. This case has been going on for years - look it up.

Right first point of call, when were confessionals first introduced?

In 1551, the Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, stated that “…Peter, prince of the apostles, recommended penance to sinners who were about to receive baptism with the words: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you. [Acts 2.]”

The Church teaches that Confession, or Penance (also Reconciliation) is one of the seven sacraments of the Church instituted by Christ.


Its a Catholic invention, where if as a Christian you wish to confess, you do not need a Priest to do so. So there was no precedent or system viewing a Priest to take a vow of silence for confessionals, its a complete concept devised and introduced by the Church and the Church has adapted policies throughout its history. Which means they can adapt this to include informing of crimes.

I reckon this was invented by the Church as a political gain to hold and bribe powerful leaders over secrets they held

It does not matter on the specific of a single case rags, as this is all about all and any situation, where there is no duty for these priests to have this daft vow Rags. It needs changing not publicly,. but in cooperation with secrecy with the Police

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Right first point of call, when were confessionals first introduced?

In 1551, the Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, stated that “…Peter, prince of the apostles, recommended penance to sinners who were about to receive baptism with the words: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you. [Acts 2.]”

The Church teaches that Confession, or Penance (also Reconciliation) is one of the seven sacraments of the Church instituted by Christ.


Its a Catholic invention, where if as a Christian you wish to confess, you do not need a Priest to do so. So there was no precedent or system viewing a Priest to take a vow of silence for confessionals, its a complete concept devised and introduced by the Church and the Church has adapted policies throughout its history. Which means they can adapt this to include informing of crimes.

I reckon this was invented by the Church as a political gain to hold and bribe powerful leaders over secrets they held

It does not matter on the specific of a single case rags, as this is all about all and any situation, where there is no duty for these priests to have this daft vow Rags. It needs changing not publicly,. but in cooperation with secrecy with the Police

Didge, I agree that you don't need a priest in order to confess to God. I'm not a Catholic and I don't go along with their views that priests somehow speak for God or have a hotline to God over and above anyone else. However, I also understand that they do believe that, and that's why the Seal of the Confessional is so important to them.

If the law was changed so they must report any confessions made in that way, there would be uproar in the Catholic Church, not just amongst priests but also amongst followers.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They'd have to do away with Confession, and they're not going to do that. I guess they feel they can't cherry pick as to which confessions should be passed on and which shouldn't.

True....no one would go if they knew the priest would tell.
Confessional is just a way to act like an arsehole in real life and come away with a clear conscience though isn't it?

How to overcome shame when going to Confession
April 9, 2014 Frank               
You’re at the Confession line. The entire congregation can see you and your fellow penitents. Two thoughts can come to mind:

1. These people must be thinking I’m such a sinner, a criminal maybe, a mortal sinner on the verge of damnation.
   
2. The priest! He must be horrified at my new mortal sin. Worse, he knows me personally. He would never look at me the same way again!
   
3. The priest! He must be disgusted to learn that I fell into the same sins — including that one sin I am most ashamed of — again and again and again. He will kick me out of the confession box!
   

You know what? Just. Stop. Thinking. About them. THINK ABOUT GOD!
Really, when we go to Confession, we’re neither there to please the public nor the priest; we’re there to please only God, who is reaching out to us to reconcile us with him.
The people might think badly about us — fine! (Although, if those people are in their right minds, they would in fact be edified, seeing people, including you, who are contrite enough to approach the Sacrament.)
The priest might think badly about us — fine! (Although, actually, that would make him a mediocre priest. Because a true confessor assumes the merciful fatherhood of God, who waits and welcomes his daughter or son who returns to him.)
But we can be sure that Jesus — God — will be happiest of all when he encounters us at the confessional through his ordained minister, the priest.
So when we go to Confession, and we feel some shame (which is healthy, as Pope Francis said, because it makes us humble), we only have to think of one thing, one being: God. Confession is our meeting with our Father God.
And instead of worrying, let us be consoled by the fact that Confession is not like the courts of justice, where offenders are punished; Confession is a “tribunal of mercy,” as St Josemaria Escriva would say. Instead of punishment, forgiveness and joy are what we receive in Confession.
*****************
Pope Francis on why Catholics confess to priests
April 1, 2014April 1, 2014Frank        
I wrote something on why we confess our sins to a priest and not ‘directly to God.’
One thing I missed mentioning there is Pope Francis’ more prominent reason why we do it: to be reconciled with the Church, whom one wounds every time he or she sins.
Pope Francis’ words:

In the celebration of this Sacrament, the priest represents not only God but also the whole community, who sees itself in the weakness of each of its members, who listens and is moved by his repentance, and who is reconciled with him, which cheers him up and accompanies him on the path of conversion and human and Christian growth.
One might say: I confess only to God. Yes, you can say to God “forgive me” and say your sins, but our sins are also committed against the brethren, and against the Church. That is why it is necessary to ask pardon of the Church, and of the brethren in the person of the priest. [emphases mine]

I’ve always loved how the Holy Father makes sometimes-complex ideas seem like a crystal ball (for clarity) thrown at you (with impact).
*****************
Pope Francis’ ‘celebration of forgiveness’
March 27, 2014March 27, 2014Frank              
And so, Pope Francis promises not a climax, but a powerful ignition, of a wild campaign of mercy.
Some days ago (sorry I couldn’t blog quickly enough!), the Holy Father announced in his Sunday Angelus that March 28-29 will be a “celebration of forgiveness.”
From midnight of March 28 to midnight of March 29, St Peter’s Basilica and various churches and parishes the world over will have prayer sessions and Confessions galore. Priests will be available to hear confessions.
Pope Francis calls the event “24 hours for the Lord.”
I really hope that bishops and parish priests would look at this as the signal to open the dams of God’s mercy and make the Sacrament of Confession available in all parishes regularly (if possible, daily!) — no more “by appointment only” Confessions!
******************
Why to a priest and not ‘directly to God’?
March 16, 2014March 16, 2014Frank       
We often hear this question among our non-Catholic friends. Sometimes it’s even from some of our Catholic friends. You probably asked this yourself. I know I did.
“Why can’t I just confess directly to God?” I said aloud. But at the back of my mind I continued  “– so I don’t have to humiliate myself before a man who is probably more sinful than I am.”
Okay. I know how you feel, buddy.
Let me explain by slicing (to irrelevance, hehe) that quoted statement above.
First of all, confessing “to a priest” is confessing directly to God. Not that the priest is God, but that Christ wanted his minister, the priest, to act in his name and person. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:19),” Christ told his apostles, whose ‘descendants’ are our bishops and priests. Confessors —  that is, priests and bishops who hear Confessions — are mere instruments of God’s mercy shown in Confession. Jesus Christ wants us to actually hear him forgiving us!
As for that second part of the statement — “so I don’t have to humiliate myself before a man who is probably more sinful than I am.” Well, we are probably right that our confessor is more sinful. But can we please let God judge him instead? Who are we to judge the priest? Besides, the effectiveness of the Sacrament doesn’t depend on the holiness (or lack of it) of the priest, but on the mercy of God alone.
For now let us look at ourselves, who feel the need of a sincere acknowledgement that we are miserable sinners, thirsty for God’s forgiveness. Believe it or not, we need to be humiliated in order to repent deeply. Look at the prodigal son. On his return to his father, he humiliated himself, saying, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.” The boy faced his father! He didn’t write a letter or thought to himself that his father had already forgiven him just because he knew his father was such a good man. He actually returned home!
So that shame or embarrassment we feel when going to Confession — that’s natural. We worry if we don’t have it; it could mean we’re not really sorry about sinning. Pope Francis said, “Even embarrassment is good. It’s healthy to have a bit of shame… it does us good, because it makes us more humble.”
In the end, then, confessing to a priest helps us to become humble. And then — wonder of wonders — the priest, too, is helped to become humble. I heard it from some priest friends that they are indeed humbled by their penitents (of course, they said it in a very general way, lest they toe the line of their secrecy vow). Oh, the amount of humble trust that penitents gave them! And the even greater trust that God gives them in order to carry out his continuous act of forgiving!
*****************https://allaboutconfession.wordpress.com/tag/priest/ 

Pope Francis To Send Out Priests To Forgive The 'Sin' Of Women
Who Have Had Abortions
05/08/2015 07:11 pm ET | Updated May 13, 2015
Pope Francis is reportedly planning to offer a special pardon of sins to women who have undergone abortions, along with the doctors and nurses who helped them with that choice.
As part of his upcoming Holy Year of Mercy, the pontiff plans to send specially trained priests as “missionaries of mercy” to Catholic parishes around the world. The army of priests will reportedly hear these women’s confessions and absolve them of the “sin of a procured abortion,” the Irish Times reports. The forgiveness can also be given to healthcare workers who perform abortions.
Official Catholic doctrine places abortion in a special class of sins that leads to excommunication, a banishment from the life of the church that is considered one of its most serious punishments. Usually, only bishops or the pope can offer forgiveness for these types of sins.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/08/pope-francis-abortions_n_7244630.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


You obviously missed this further back:

The state Children's Code says clergy members are mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. The code also states that "notwithstanding any claim of privileged communication, any mandatory reporter who has cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare is endangered" must report that information to authorities.  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/02/judge_rules_child_law_violates.html


Which is why it is being taken to a higher court.

Yes, and it was ruled that the Seal of the Confessional is exempt from that - ie, it's privileged communication.

How will all of this play out in court? Here are some possible scenarios:

Father Bayhi may be called to testify and then refuse to testify on the grounds that his First Amendment rights trump state law. If he refuses and is found in contempt, this case may once again work its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Mayeux family's lawyer may ultimately decide not to call the priest and instead let the court rely solely on the testimony of Rebecca Mayeux. Why compel a reluctant witness to testify if he might say things that would hurt your case or might tie you up in expensive constitutional litigation for years to come?

The diocese may change its mind and, following the canonical consensus, allow Father Bayhi to testify.

Or the diocese may settle the case out of court before the priest testifies.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, and it was ruled that the Seal of the Confessional is exempt from that - ie, it's privileged communication.

Err - no, it can still go to the Supreme Court

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Err - no, it can still go to the Supreme Court

We're discussing what's happened so far though ...

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We're discussing what's happened so far though ...

Who says?  We are discussing the case in general, and it can still go to the Supreme Court and be overruled, especially in view of the actual rules above.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Who says?  We are discussing the case in general, and it can still go to the Supreme Court and be overruled, especially in view of the actual rules above.

You discuss what you want, and I'll discuss what I want. I'm discussing what's happened so far, the legal reasoning behind it, and also the motive behind the court case.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You discuss what you want, and I'll discuss what I want. I'm discussing what's happened so far, the legal reasoning behind it, and also the motive behind the court case.

So you don't like to think it can be overturned?  Figures.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


So you don't like to think it can be overturned?  Figures.

Well that would open a whole can of worms, wouldn't it?

I have no doubt that you would like to see people profit financially from the faith of others.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that would open a whole can of worms, wouldn't it?

I have no doubt that you would like to see people profit financially from the faith of others.

You do like to sink to the depths don't you.  I would like to see someone, who as a child was abused, turned to someone she trusted and was told to 'sweep it under the carpet' get justice, and the priest be made to see the horror he inflicted on her and the fact he ignored the law that was set out for just such occasion.

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that the alleged incidents happened around July 2008, and that the girl's parents found out about the situation around that time or shortly afterwards. The chap in question died in early 2009 whilst the police were investigating. There doesn't seem much time for this priest to have "ruined" the girl's life by not reporting something she allegedly told him in the Confessional.

It also seems to me that this isn't a very good example of the general issue because it's about money IMO. It looks to me like the parents and/or the girl are suing anyone they can think of in order to get damages.

Now that it's been established that the priest had no duty to report something he was told in the Confessional, the chances of them getting damages from him or the Church are quite low, yes? The issue of what he allegedly said to the girl, or even the issue of whether or not she did tell him anything in the Confessional, is largely irrelevant.

The next step will of course be establish that he knew about the incidents outside of the Confessional.

There's more info on the background to the story in this link.

https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Clinics/mayeux_-_brief_in_opp.pdf

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that the alleged incidents happened around July 2008, and that the girl's parents found out about the situation around that time or shortly afterwards. The chap in question died in early 2009 whilst the police were investigating. There doesn't seem much time for this priest to have "ruined" the girl's life by not reporting something she allegedly told him in the Confessional.

It also seems to me that this isn't a very good example of the general issue because it's about money IMO. It looks to me like the parents and/or the girl are suing anyone they can think of in order to get damages.

Now that it's been established that the priest had no duty to report something he was told in the Confessional, the chances of them getting damages from him or the Church are quite low, yes? The issue of what he allegedly said to the girl, or even the issue of whether or not she did tell him anything in the Confessional, is largely irrelevant.

The next step will of course be establish that he knew about the incidents outside of the Confessional.

There's more info on the background to the story in this link.

https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Clinics/mayeux_-_brief_in_opp.pdf

Bumping this as I think it's got some pertinent points.

My question though: if someone alleges they've said something within a confessional....well couldn't they then do exactly what this girl's family has done and say that a priest "ruined their life" by not speaking out?
Doesn't this open up a hole for chancers to try and make money?

If this girl is successful in winning damages (and if it's true I bloody hope she is), will other people then start coming forward....?

Could get messy

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that the alleged incidents happened around July 2008, and that the girl's parents found out about the situation around that time or shortly afterwards. The chap in question died in early 2009 whilst the police were investigating. There doesn't seem much time for this priest to have "ruined" the girl's life by not reporting something she allegedly told him in the Confessional.

It also seems to me that this isn't a very good example of the general issue because it's about money IMO. It looks to me like the parents and/or the girl are suing anyone they can think of in order to get damages.

Now that it's been established that the priest had no duty to report something he was told in the Confessional, the chances of them getting damages from him or the Church are quite low, yes? The issue of what he allegedly said to the girl, or even the issue of whether or not she did tell him anything in the Confessional, is largely irrelevant.

The next step will of course be establish that he knew about the incidents outside of the Confessional.

There's more info on the background to the story in this link.

https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Clinics/mayeux_-_brief_in_opp.pdf

Bumping this as I think it's got some pertinent points.

My question though: if someone alleges they've said something within a confessional....well couldn't they then do exactly what this girl's family has done and say that a priest "ruined their life" by not speaking out?
Doesn't this open up a hole for chancers to try and make money?

If this girl is successful in winning damages (and if it's true I bloody hope she is), will other people then start coming forward....?

Could get messy

Raggamuffin wrote:If it becomes the law that confessions made under the Seal of Confession involving child abuse or any other crime must be reported, there are several things which could happen.

Priests could refuse to comply. That might lead to them being charged with a crime themselves - major uproar within the Catholic Church.

Priests could comply and then be ex-communicated by the Church. That would result in them losing their jobs.

Priests could comply and not be ex-communicated by the Church. This would mean that anything said in the Confessional would be at risk though, and Catholics would not trust priests. That could potentially harm those people because they would be reluctant to confess to anything, including things which are not an actual crime.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If it becomes the law that confessions made under the Seal of Confession involving child abuse or any other crime must be reported, there are several things which could happen.

Priests could refuse to comply. That might lead to them being charged with a crime themselves - major uproar within the Catholic Church.

Priests could comply and then be ex-communicated by the Church. That would result in them losing their jobs.

Priests could comply and not be ex-communicated by the Church. This would mean that anything said in the Confessional would be at risk though, and Catholics would not trust priests. That could potentially harm those people because they would be reluctant to confess to anything, including things which are not an actual crime.

Then if it becomes law and they refuse, then they should be charged, as there is no reason for them not to do so, as the bases for the vow is an invention made by the Catholic Church which they are placing above the law of the land.

If they are ex-communicated, then the Catholic church which sow the seeds further of its demise, which is excellent

Lat point immaterial, as you are saying that they should be able to trust a priest that they are a criminal when that criminal should place themselves into custody and that their means very little anyway, based on the fact they have commit grievous sins

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then if it becomes law and they refuse, then they should be charged, as there is no reason for them not to do so, as the bases for the vow is an invention made by the Catholic Church which they are placing above the law of the land.

If they are ex-communicated, then the Catholic church which sow the seeds further of its demise, which is excellent

Lat point immaterial, as you are saying that they should be able to trust a priest that they are a criminal when that criminal should place themselves into custody and that their means very little anyway, based on the fact they have commit grievous sins

There is such a thing as religious freedom though, and if you walk all over that, you run the risk of a backlash.

I have nothing against the Catholic Church, unlike you, and I'm sure that Catholics wouldn't agree with you.

I said that they might trust priests at all if those priests have to decide what to pass on or not. Therefore, they might not confess to moral sins either.

Syl wrote:People go to confession to rid themselves of their guilt and be forgiven...say 3 hail Marys and God will forgive  you for whatever dark deeds you have commited....go in peace, do it again, and come back next week for more of the same.

It's ridiculous really.....maybe the confessional box should be discarded with.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:People go to confession to rid themselves of their guilt and be forgiven...say 3 hail Marys and God will forgive  you for whatever dark deeds you have commited....go in peace, do it again, and come back next week for more of the same.

It's ridiculous really.....maybe the confessional box should be discarded with.

Agreed, as its nothing more than symbolic, as no Priest can really absolve a person of the wrongs they do in life

Raggamuffin wrote:Honestly, I'm not a Catholic and I don't see the need for the Confessional either, but to tell Catholics that they don't need them is a bit off. They believe that priests can absolve them - who is anyone to say they're wrong?

Raggamuffin wrote:It would be an assault on religious freedom.

Raggamuffin wrote:Honestly, I'm not a Catholic and I don't see the need for the Confessional either, but to tell Catholics that they don't need them is a bit off. They believe that priests can absolve them - who is anyone to say they're wrong?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Honestly, I'm not a Catholic and I don't see the need for the Confessional either, but to tell Catholics that they don't need them is a bit off. They believe that priests can absolve them - who is anyone to say they're wrong?

Well it's a man made myth that a priest can absolve them Rags, and also quite possible that the priest is a bigger sinner than they are, which makes the whole thing a mockery.

But....I am not religious, I haven't had it drummed into me since childhood that confession is good for the soul.
I know millions believe it is though.

eddie wrote:In answer to your question rags, I hope she wins against the estate of the dead man (alledged abuser).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well it's a man made myth that a priest can absolve them Rags, and also quite possible that the priest is a bigger sinner than they are, which makes the whole thing a mockery.

But....I am not religious, I haven't had it drummed into me since childhood that confession is good for the soul.
I know millions believe it is though.

But that's what they believe Syl, and they're entitled to believe it. As I said, it's not really the same in the CofE or other Christians Churches really. If the Church itself decided they didn't want the Confessionals any more on the grounds that it was making things difficult re people confessing to crimes, that would be one thing, but then Catholics would still want to talk to their priests, and they might get worried that nothing would be confidential then - including non-crimes.

Syl wrote:A confession like this would put priests in a difficult position....morally of course they should report child abuse, but their religion states that whatever they hear must remain secret.....which just proves how religion can mess up a persons responsibilities.

However to not advise the child to speak to someone who could report this.....and to tell her it was 'her problem' and to 'sweep it under the floor' shows how corrupt he (and God knows how many more priests and people who  hide under the banner of religion) really is.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But that's what they believe Syl, and they're entitled to believe it. As I said, it's not really the same in the CofE or other Christians Churches really. If the Church itself decided they didn't want the Confessionals any more on the grounds that it was making things difficult re people confessing to crimes, that would be one thing, but then Catholics would still want to talk to their priests, and they might get worried that nothing would be confidential then - including non-crimes.

I know...I started off having sympathy for a priests dilemma, he has taken the oath to never reveal what he hears at confession, to feel forced to keep quiet about abuse of a child would be horrible. http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html


This particular priest telling the girl to deal with it and sweep it under the floor (if that's what he actually said) is very wrong though.....she probably came to him for advice....he should have helped her.

eddie wrote:Yes wolfie you're correct of course - but I don't see how the child can sue the priest so who exactly is she (her family) suing?