Louisiana ruling on confession upsets Catholics

[SecularMotion]

Catholics are decrying a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision that reaches into the most sanctified of church places, the confessional booth.

The ruling revives a lawsuit that contends a priest should have reported allegations of sexual abuse disclosed to him during private confessions and opens the door for a judge to call the priest to testify about what he was told. The lawsuit was filed by parents of a teen who says she told the priest about being kissed and fondled by an adult church parishioner.

If the priest were called to testify, Catholic groups say it could leave him choosing between prison and excommunication.

"Confession is one of the most sacred rites in the Church. The Sacrament is based on a belief that the seal of the confessional is absolute and inviolable. A priest is never permitted to disclose the contents of any Confession," Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said in a statement this week blasting the ruling.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/07/10/louisiana-ruling-on-confession-upsets-catholics/12503945/

[Goblinmonger]

1. They should be mandatory reporters

That seems like a no-brainer to me.

Bill Donohue should shut his stupid mouth for once.

[trotsky]

2. Happy to once again be on the opposite side of an issue from Bigoted Bill Donohue. n/t

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

13. Well, I am unhappy to be on the same side as Bill Donohue

But in this case, he is right. If the communication between the priest and the girl was in the performance of his being a counselor to the child, then it is privileged.

Tell me, if you told your lawyer about a crime, would you be upset if the lawyer were compelled to report your conversation at your trial?

[trotsky]

24. Not even analogous.

Weak and lame.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Absolutely right. The Tarasoff duty to warn/protect overrides confidentiality

in every other instance I'm aware of.

[rug]

27. Which didn't play a role at all in this decision.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Actually, you're right.

Tarasoff would only apply if the perpetrator made the confession. The proper case law is actually Ewing.

Ewing v. Goldstein extended the duty to protect to include acting upon the statements of third parties that indicate possible threat.

[rug]

29. There's a link to the decision in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12215014

[drm604]

3. It doesn't sound like this teen was confessing.

She wasn't confessing to something she had done, but reporting the crimes of someone else. Is that considered protected by the church?

[Goblinmonger]

5. If mental health care and attorneys need to report

when they think that there is a strong likely hood that someone will get hurt (i.e. not just a "I did this one time--holy shit balls what did I do" but "this is going to happen again&quot , then priests shouldn't get some exemption from that. Nope. Not at all.

[rug]

17. This is not Tarasoff. You're confusing two standards.

[yeoman6987]

9. You know what?

You are right. As a practicing Catholic, it does appear she was saying she was mested not that she was molested. Perhaps in a situation like that, the church could loosen up the rules a little bit.

[drm604]

10. What?

I don't understand your post. I never said that she wasn't molested, and what is "mested"?

What I was saying was that she was reporting a crime, not confessing to one.

[NeoGreen]

11. I read yeoman's post as...

...

[quote]it does appear she was saying she was molested not that she was molesting[/quote]

[drm604]

12. Okay. That makes sense.

I was truly puzzled. Yeoman is probably posting from a phone which can lead to typos.

[rug]

16. That's exactly what the decision pivoted on.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Not really a case of casting saints into the sea.

Religious-y positions aren't lawyers, there's no expectation of 5th amendment priv here.

[rug]

18. Are you trying to say something about the expectation of privacy contained in the Fourth Amendment

or the right against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Actually both, in practice.

Your spouse can't be forced to testify against you, but other people can be.
You are correct to roll in the 4th amendment as well, as I failed to mention it.

[edhopper]

6. Telling the priest of a crime

of which they are the victim would not violate the 5th Amendment IMHO.

And as an ethical matter, what does the Priest do, tell the victim to say some Hail Marys and go home for more abuse?
Doesn't he have a moral obligation to help the victim?

[gcomeau]

7. Haha...

Catholic church... moral obligation to help sex abuse victims... yeah they have a long history of seeing things exactly that way...




(That was a punchline to a joke, right?)

[edhopper]

8. No

it was a seriously ironic statement.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

14. Ah, sneering at Catholics. Just the sort of behavior I have come to expect in the Religion forum

[gcomeau]

15. By all means...

...make your case that the Catholic church didn't ABUNDANTLY earn the sneering on this subject.

I'll wait in breathless anticipation.

[cleanhippie]

20. Dude, don't feed them!

Especially after midnight!

[cleanhippie]

19. Is "sneer" on your word-of-the-day calendar or what?

[rug]

22. Check your tattoo to see if he spelled it right.

[cleanhippie]

23. .

[rug]

25. .

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Maybe if the org wasn't so sneer-worthy...

[rug]

21. The privilege is not rooted in the Fifth Amendment.

[edhopper]

37. I thought

that there was a requirement to report an ongoing crime?

[rug]

38. That applies in situations where a privilege exists,

e.g. doctor/patient. There are several privileges that exist which have different ethical rules.

Take the doctor. They are mandated reporters of certain crimes against certain of their patients. Everything else communicated, in the course of medical treatment, is privileged.

Then there are circumstances in which a doctor receives information from her patient that the patient has an STD but that it was contracted when he raped someone some years ago. That would not be an ongoing crime so it must remain confidential.

What you are referring to is a communication from a patient, in a confidential medical setting, that the patient is committing an ongoing crime, e.g, kidnapping, or is about to commit a crime, e.g. murder his boss. In that case the doctor/patient privilege is not only waived but the doctor has a duty to report it.

The analysis turns on whether the communication is made in a privileged setting and who is committing a crime and when. There is no glib rule.

The Fifth Amendment is something different. It prevents the state from confessing to the state any crime, past, present or future.

[edhopper]

39. I was thinking

someone who confessed to a Priest might argue that it was privileged. Though I guess it might not be.
So legally, what does a priest have to do, when some one tells him of an ongoing crime?

[rug]

40. The clergy/penintent privilege is recognized by statute in most jurisdictions.

It cannot be revealed at all, under any circumstances. This case does not directly change that.

[edhopper]

41. So the clergy

get a special exception no other profession does?

[rug]

42. You clearly don't understand the nature of the privilege or whom it protects.

It protects the penitent and it protects the patient.

Have you ever considered how your anti-religious bias is undermining your critical thinking?

[edhopper]

43. How does someone telling a priest they are being sexually abused

and the Priest doing nothing about it protect the penitent?

But maybe I didn't understand, I thought you said clergy do not have the same duty as other professionals, like psychiatrist, to report crimes?

[rug]

44. It protects all things said by all people during a confession.

The penitent holds the privilege and is can waive it. In this case she did, by revealing it to someone not bound by the legal privilege, which is the basis for the Court's decision.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. The child waived privilege, even more than that, this isn't a confession, but rather a victim...

going to an authority figure for help and then that authority figure betraying the child.

If this priest would rather go to jail than attempt to help a child in need and distress, then he deserves to go to jail.

[EvilAL]

33. What was the kid confessing to? Nothing.

Said she was kissed and fondled by a parishioner and the priest should have reported the crime. If it was the other way around and the parishioner confessed to the priest about fondling the child, then I think he should have reported it, but somehow, that is a 'confession' and would probably not have to be reported. Fuckin idiocy.

[cbayer]

34. Priests should be obligated to report anything that may be sexual abuse of a child.

Therapists have to do it and it makes no sense for there to be an exemption for confession.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

35. I thought if a crime was committed

legal privileges like priest-penitent were waived.

At least that's what I remember learning about invoking privileges (doctor-patient, husband-wife, pastor-penitent).

The girl was reporting a crime.

[cbayer]

36. I agree and was surprised that the article did not address this.

[pinto]

45. I would think a choice to remain anonymous when reporting would be a reasonable compromise.

Most mandated reporter statutes have an anonymity clause that a reporter can remain anonymous, iirc. Not sure how that would work in these instances, in real life terms.