Freedom of religion ....

[Ben Kenobi]

1 post by me. 32 by others *****ing about me. Yeah.

[Al B. Sure!]

He is a genuinely terrible person. It is not even because of his abhorrent beliefs but because he is so intellectually dishonest.

[Patroklos]

You give BK too much credit if you think he will show any restraint.

You realize you are indistinguishable from BK, right?

[DinoDoc]

Louisiana Supreme Court orders priest to testify about confession
This seems like a clearer case to test religious freedom than the trolling described in the OP.

[MrFun]

Yeah, that does seem particularly childish

Hypocrite. A lot of your remarks toward me are childish.

[Elok]

Louisiana Supreme Court orders priest to testify about confession
This seems like a clearer case to test religious freedom than the trolling described in the OP.

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.

[loinburger]

Hypocrite. A lot of your remarks toward me are childish.

I have no idea what you're saying because I have you on ignore lololololol

[MrFun]

Satanists are insisting that they are free to use public city spaces in Oklahoma City for their worshipping services, just as Christians are free to do so.

[Felch]

Satanists are insisting that they are free to use public city spaces in Oklahoma City for their worshipping services, just as Christians are free to do so.

They certainly are.

Quick question: are you still a Christian?

[DaShi]

Felch has a good point.

Do you reject Satan and all his works?

[Sava]

Whenever I read a MrFun post now, I get "Divinyls - I Touch Myself" stuck in my head.

[MrFun]

They certainly are.

Quick question: are you still a Christian?

Yes, I'm a Christian. Just because I don't identify with the extreme fundies, does not mean I renounce Christianity.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Felch has a good point.

Do you reject Satan and all his works?

Nope, he still posts here.

[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.