Freedom of religion ....

[Ben Kenobi]

If I read Dreher's post correctly, the priest himself is somewhat implicated by what was ostensibly said, so I don't see why he couldn't hide behind the Fifth instead--maybe they gave immunity and he's not allowed to reject it, idunno.

From what I understand of the case, the interpretation at present is that this is a direct challenge towards the seal of the confessional. The priest cannot acknowledge the identity of the penitent let alone what was said within the confessional. This doesn't mean that this immunity cannot be waived by the penitent in Louisiana, only that such evidence would be considered inadmissible.

The other thing is that the only response if the priest is brought before the jury would probably fall under contempt. He can answer any question posed, but cannot identify the penitent (ie, "is this whom was in your confessional"), he could not answer. He's also not permitted to say, "I don't remember", or say, "no, it's not".

This is one reason why confession behind a screen remains an important part of the sacrament, so that even if the priest did hear the confession, the priest may not be aware of whom was confessing.

Also, he's not permitted to act on anything revealed to him in the confessional. He cannot hear and then, say, call the police. He can refuse to provide absolution unless the penitent turns himself in, but that must be done voluntarily.

He can, however, act on information provided outside of the confessional. Say someone comes to him, outside of confession and provides credible evidence, he's require to report it and investigate.

[DinoDoc]

From what I understand of the case, the interpretation at present is that this is a direct challenge towards the seal of the confessional. The priest cannot acknowledge the identity of the penitent let alone what was said within the confessional. This doesn't mean that this immunity cannot be waived by the penitent in Louisiana, only that such evidence would be considered inadmissible.

The privilege in Louisiana only attaches to the the person offering the confession and not the priest. From the article I linked to: 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.

The case appears to be put the priest and by extension the Catholic Church in an untenable position based on its own doctrine. It will be interesting to see the final disposition of the issue. Any lawyers wanna take a guess if there are any issues on which the Church might appeal to the Federal bench? If not, I guess the priest is going to have to go to jail.

Also, he's not permitted to act on anything revealed to him in the confessional.

Depending on the circumstances he can, just to a very limited extent.

[Ben Kenobi]

The privilege in Louisiana only attaches to the the person offering the confession and not the priest. From the article I linked to: 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.

The penitent is free to break privilege, the priest is not. Even if the penitent breaks privilege, the priest cannot do so.

If the state subpoenas the priest and forces him to take the stand the priest cannot reveal:

1, that the plaintiff is the penitent. and
2, anything that was said within the seal of the confessional by the penitent to the priest.

The priest could answer questions such as, "is this a copy of the rite of confession' that you use within the sacrament." He could not answer any questions that would personally identify the penitent.

The case appears to be put the priest and by extension the Catholic Church in an untenable position based on its own doctrine.

The position is not untenable. The doctrine of the Catholic church is 100 percent clear.

It will be interesting to see the final disposition of the issue. Any lawyers wanna take a guess if there are any issues on which the Church might appeal to the Federal bench? If not, I guess the priest is going to have to go to jail.

The Catholic church will take this to the Supreme Court if necessary to protect the seal of the confessional.

This is all a rather silly case to base this on, given as the Church and priest isn't the primary defendant. I strongly suspect they will reach a settlement.

The penitent is making gratuitous assertions concerning what the priest said in the confessional, that she knows that the priest cannot confirm nor deny without breaking the seal. It also renders her statement as hearsay, and there's a specific clause within Louisiana law which protects the priest against accusations of hearsay.

[DinoDoc]

The penitent is free to break privilege, the priest is not. Even if the penitent breaks privilege, the priest cannot do so.

According to State law, he's not protected by privilege once the penitent breaks it. The issue at hand here is if the right of Catholics to enjoy the full expression of their faith renders that fact moot. The conflict here makes it an interesting legal question IMO.

The position is not untenable. The doctrine of the Catholic church is 100 percent clear.

He's either forced to break the seal of the confessional by the State or goes to jail. Neither of those are pleasant options for the priest.

[The Mad Monk]

One is martyrdom for the priest.

[kentonio]

You have legal protections for confessions?

[KrazyHorse]

If you're going to have it for psychiatrists then why not?

[Sava]

Priests should be licensed by the government

[KrazyHorse]

No, because that would drive up priest wages.

Barriers to competition

[KrazyHorse]

One post
Two post
Red post
Blue post

[Sava]

One post
Two post
Red post
Blue post

Yes. Poly is acting weird today.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to State law, he's not protected by privilege once the penitent breaks it.

Well then. I'm not sure what the prosecution is trying to accomplish. The priest isn't going to reveal anything about the confessional. All this does is piss off quite a few people.

The issue at hand here is if the right of Catholics to enjoy the full expression of their faith renders that fact moot. The conflict here makes it an interesting legal question IMO.

It's not even the central question in the case, which makes it rather silly. I don't see it going much further.

He's either forced to break the seal of the confessional by the State or goes to jail. Neither of those are pleasant options for the priest.

He's not breaking the seal, and certainly not for trivial reasons granted in this particular case. Louisiana code is clear - everything the penitent has said here is mere heresay and isn't actionable. She can lie all she wants.

It's just a money grab.

[Ben Kenobi]

Priests should be licensed by the government

So much for that whole 'separation of Church and state' eh? First amendment prevents state meddling into church affairs.

[Sava]

It's just a money grab.

very accurate description of the catholic church

[Ben Kenobi]

very accurate description of the catholic church

Read up on the case. The Catholic church isn't even the primary defendant. The case came after the primary defendant died and is unable to defend himself. Odd that, eh? It's just a money grab.