Tweet
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment