Posted on 07/08/2014 9:03:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many observers misunderstood the Hobby Lobby dispute and others like it as a First Amendment case, but it wasn’t. It primarily related to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), with an indirect reference to the constitutional freedom of religious expression. A case in Louisiana may be the real McCoy, though. The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a priest must testify in a case about what he heard in a confessional — an order that would result in automatic excommunication and damnation, according to the doctrine and canon law of the Catholic Church:
The state high court’s decision, rendered in May of this year, demands that a hearing be held in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, where the suit originated, to determine whether or not a confession was made. It reverses an earlier decision by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the original lawsuit filed against Bayhi and the diocese.
The case stems from a claim by parents of a minor that their daughter confessed to Bayhi during the sacrament of reconciliation that she engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with grown man who also attended their church. Court documents indicate the child was 12 years old at the time of the alleged sexual abuse.
A criminal investigation by East Feliciana Sheriff’s Office into the alleged sexual abuse was ongoing when the accused church member died suddenly in February 2009 of a heart attack.
The civil lawsuit in question, filed five months later in July 2009, names the late sexual abuse suspect, as well as Bayhi and the Baton Rouge diocese, as defendants. The suit seeks damages suffered as a result of the sexual abuse, noting that abuse continued following the alleged confessions.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
While the common perception has been that priests cannot be forced to testify about confessions in the US because of ministerial privilege and the First Amendment, that privilege gets defined by each state separately. In Louisiana, the privilege attaches to the person offering the confession and not the priest. 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 priests are forced to testify, shouldn’t Planned Parenthood be forced to testify about rapes, abuses, injuries to or deaths of mothers too?
Oh, forget it....we didn’t think of that....sarc off
If the person has revealed his confession, then he has confessed, and there is no need for the priest to confirm it. Or am I missing something?
“In Louisiana, the privilege attaches to the person offering the confession and not the priest. 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.”
Then I don’t understand why this hasn’t come up before in Louisiana. Did the law just change or something?
Freegards
After this precedent, expect Catholic churches to more thoroughly ensure anonymity, so that a priest can't be forced to testify.
I believe I’d sacrifice attorney-client privilege before I unsealed confessions.
Not a lawyer but here are my thoughts anyway...
Seems to me the priest should have reported the abuse to the police, it wasn’t the abuser in the confessional but the child...( who sadly confessed because she thought it was her fault somehow)
Since his testimony is clearly self incriminating why not plead the fifth?
If the child has already revealed the nature of what occured then it appears that the priest is refusing to testify using the confessional as a way to avoid self incrimination.
Seems to me the diocese will lose this case and probably rightly so.
The priest may not reveal anything that is said in the confessional by anybody, even if it was just comments about the weather.
The priest can advise the penitent to speak to someone else, but one of the givens in confession for the penitent is that the priest will tell no one. Any child remotely catechized for his first confession should be able to tell you that. If the 12 year old wanted to tell someone who might tell someone else, then the priest would not be the person of choice. And if it were possible for the priests to pick and choose whether or not they tell, it would significantly deter people from confessing.
The state of Louisiana doesn’t get to define the privilege. The Holy Roman Catholic Church makes that determination and according to the Church, the seal of the Confessional is inviolable.
Who is paying to keep this lawsuit going for 5 years?
Well, it will be the Roman Catholic Church vs the State of Louisiana then.
In some states ( I think Louisiana is one of them), 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 during confession — 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 priest refuses to confirm or deny what the penitent revealed by invoking the seal of the Confessional, he should be prepared by law to accept punishment.
The courts can do all the ordering they want, but take it to the bank the priest will not testify about the confession.
Couldn’t the priest plea the fifth without having to reveal anything said in the confessionl?
The laws of the Catholic Church are often not the laws of a country or individual state. That said I’m sure that priests are willing to do jail time to protect the sanctity of the confessional. It is still legal however for the state to put them in jail.
OK, so then why hasn’t this been happening all the time in the states where the confessing person divulges what was said and they or the state wants the priest to corroborate testimony? I mean you would have to think we would have heard about it if it was happening.
Freegards
What you might be missing is that someone has an agenda that has nothing to do with the case at hand.
RE: the priest will not testify about the confession.
What happens to the priest then? Will he be held in contempt?
The Founding States had decided not to not make the personal rights protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (BoR) apply to the states. Only the federal government was prohibited from violating those rights.
But the states later agreed not to unreasonably abridge the rights protected by the BoR when they ratified the post-Civil War 14th Amendment (14A).
But thanks in part to many generations of parents who have not been making sure that their children are being taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally enumerated rights applied to the states by 14A, and also in part to post-FDR era activist law school professors who don’t teach the Constitution the way that constitutional lawmakers hod intended for it to be understood, activist judges and justices have been getting away with legislating all kinds of non-constitutional stuff from the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
