Posted on 09/06/2014 2:06:54 PM PDT by NYer
Washington, D.C., September 05, 2014 (Zenit.org) | 3257 hits
Below is a statement released Thursday by the Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, regarding the next legal battles facing the diocese regarding the state supreme court's attempt to mandate breaking the seal of confession.
The diocese reports that now the "Louisiana Supreme Court has directed the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and then to take the unprecedented step of deciding whether or not a sacrament actually took place."
It notes that "civil courts are entirely without jurisdiction to decide what constitutes a sacrament in the Catholic Church."
A statement on the case from July can be read here.
The case regards a girl who was sexually molested by an adult male and allegedly spoke with a priest in confession about the assault.
The parents of the abuse victim have named the Diocese of Baton Rouge and a priest, Father Jeff Bayhi, as defendants in the suit. The parents allege that their daughter spoke to Father Bayhi in confession about the abuse, and that Fater Bayhi advised her not to report the incident.
According to the seal of confession, Father Bayhi cannot even say if he heard the girl's confession(s), and if he did, cannot divulge anything that was spoken of within the sacrament.
Here is the diocese's latest statement:
* * *
On August 15, 2014, the 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge signed a Consent
Judgment submitted by all the parties to unseal portions of the record in the Mayeux v.
Diocese of Baton Rouge case. A copy of that order is attached. [here]
Now that a majority of the record has been unsealed, the Diocese of Baton Rouge takes this
opportunity to address a number of misconceptions and inaccurate depictions which have
appeared in the media of both the facts of this case and the legal arguments which the
diocese and Father Bayhi have advanced.
The primary legal argument advanced by the diocese and Father Bayhi in this case is that
Louisiana Children's Code Article 603 is clear that a member of the clergy is not a
mandatory reporter when receiving communications that, according to the tenets of the
clergy member's church, must be kept confidential. It is beyond dispute that the Catholic
Church requires that priests keep all that is learned during the Sacrament of Reconciliation
absolutely confidential under penalty of excommunication. Moreover, the recently
unsealed records of this case leave no question that the plaintiff alleges her
communications with Father Bayhi only took place during the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Because Father Bayhi is not a mandatory reporter as that term is defined in Children's Code
Article 603 when receiving confessions, Children's Code Article 609, which governs the
duties of mandatory reporters, has no applicability to him.
As a result, the diocese and Father Bayhi filed a motion to exclude from evidence any
mention of the alleged confessions, arguing that the plaintiff's testimony about what
allegedly transpired during the sacrament was irrelevant because Father Bayhi is not a
mandatory reporter as a matter of law when administering the Sacrament of
Reconciliation. That motion was denied by the trial court, but was granted by the First
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unfortunately, the Louisiana Supreme Court did not address the legal issue which with
both the trial court and the First Circuit had previously grappled. Instead, it denied the
motion based upon an argument that the diocese and Father Bayhi had never made;
namely, that Ms. Mayeux's testimony was barred by the priest‐penitent privilege contained
in Louisiana Code of Evidence article 511. The record in the trial court, and in the First
Circuit, makes clear that this was never the defendants' position, and that at all times, the
motion to exclude evidence of the confessions was based upon the fact that Ms. Mayeux's
testimony on her participation in the sacrament was irrelevant at trial because Father
Bayhi is not a mandatory reporter while receiving confession.
More troublingly, the Louisiana Supreme Court has suggested that whether or not Father
Bayhi had a duty to report turns upon whether or not his alleged conversations with Ms.
Mayeux were "confessions per se." More specifically, the court suggests that if the
communications were truly confessions, then Father Bayhi had no duty to report, but if the
communications were not confessions, then a duty to report may have existed. However,
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution plainly forecloses
such an inquiry, as civil courts are entirely without jurisdiction to decide what constitutes a
sacrament in the Catholic Church.
Accordingly, the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi have filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Louisiana Supreme
Court's decision. A copy of that petition filed on August 21, 2014 is attached. [here]
There has also been a great deal of attention paid to Ms. Mayeux's alleged statements to
Father Bayhi during the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and in many instances, those alleged
statements have been treated as established fact. However, it is critical to recall that Father
Bayhi is constrained, under penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church, to
discuss, or otherwise respond to, Ms. Mayeux's allegations. Indeed, Father Bayhi cannot
even address whether or not Ms. Mayeux engaged in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, much
less divulge what, if anything, was said during any administration of the Sacrament.
In closing, the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling strikes a very hard blow against religious
freedom, and one which the diocese and Father Bayhi feel compelled to vigorously contest.
That ruling, left undisturbed, would result in a trial during which the plaintiffs would be
permitted to offer evidence regarding what transpired during a series of alleged
confessions, with Father Bayhi and the diocese utterly unable to defend themselves ‐‐
unless Father Bayhi were to violate his vows to his church by divulging whether or not Ms.
Mayeux obtained confession, and, if such confessions did take place, what was said. The
Louisiana Supreme Court has directed the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and
then to take the unprecedented step of deciding whether or not a sacrament actually took
place. Such a trial is completely at odds with the guarantees of religious freedom enshrined
in our federal and state constitutions, and the diocese and Father Bayhi will take every
legal step available to ensure that those proceedings never occur.
A jury may disbelieve all or part of a witness' testimony, even if that witness is unopposed.
As a practical matter, the jury will be asking why no opposition. If it came to that, I would put the priest on the stand and lead him through the canon law on confessions. "So she can say anything at all - that she came to confession even if she didn't - that she told you something she never told you - and you are bound not to answer - cannot answer even if it costs you your life - "
“Seems to me that a confession repeated would be nothing more than hearsay,”
Yes, I thought of that too.
It would be silly to go into a confessional and lie, but obviously it could be done, and you could go in there and make false accusations, etc.
Besides, some people are just hysterical and delusional, they get to go to confession too.
Apparently this court doesn’t respect that tradition.
So, despite your excitement, the effort must be to preserve the confessional. My argument was that a purely legal win, in which a judge who respects the confessional overrules one who does not, achieves nothing, because another judge who does not respect the confessional will again try to abuse it.
So what *would* restore the sanctity of the confessional is a loud public outcry, forcing politicians to change the law and overrule *all* of the judges at once. Demanding that they *must* respect the confessional.
And the *best* way of getting a loud public outcry would be for this priest to refuse to obey the judge’s demand that he break the confessional. Which would be expected of a priest, or he is not, or should no longer be a priest.
For this he will be thrown into jail for contempt, and when he has done jail time, they will ask him to foreswear his faith again, so he will refuse again.
And each time, the public will become more and more outraged, and demand their politicians do something to stop the courts from this outrage.
Perhaps this is a bit clearer to you?
It would be hearsay if the pertinent matter was the abuse, but it isn't. The pertinent matter is whether the priest was told about the abuse, and whether as a mandatory reporter, he took no action based on the conversation. If the abuser were on trial, it would be hearsay. The abuser is not on trial, a point a number of people commenting on this thread appear not to understand.
The priest himself must maintain the seal. If I was a priest in this situation, I would rather pay the price here on earth than the price this would cost me in the hereafter.
Not only that, the priest cannot even acknowledge that he heard the girl’s confession.
Ok, I found this piece which explains things a little more fully.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/louisiana-supreme-court-raises-seal-of-confession-worries/
So, they are suing the church because it didn’t report what the girl herself could have reported.
The alleged molester was a parishoner, not a church worker or priest or anything else.
They are suing the church because they didn’t report something they were not bound to report, unless, as the article I linked states, it became known to the priest/the church outside the realm of confession.
Dead perp, rich church, no mention if the vic herself ever told anyone about this.
Eh, it seems pretty fishy to me now.
In the absence of other info, maybe they are just spinning a yarn. They know the priest can’t discuss what was told to him, so the gal makes up a story about a dead guy and says: I told father so many times, but he told me to keep quiet. Now show me the money!
That wouldn’t be the strangest thing I’ve heard this week.
But maybe I’m still confused, so if I’ve screwed this up completely someone will buy me a clue.
The claim is that the church is liable because the priest had an obligation to report the abuse. The church’s potential liability doesn’t end when the molester died.
OK, but he’s NOT a mandatory reporter if he’s told something during confession, correct?
And yes, folks, the accused abuser is dead. Whether he was ever accused in his life is still not clear to me. See the post I made with the link to the National Catholic Register story.
I could understand trying to get the contents of the confession of the perp, but isn’t the girl’s confession just hearsay and therefore of no value to the court? What am I missing here?
(Not that I am at all in favor of violating the seal of the confessional in any case!)
“The church’s potential liability doesn’t end when the molester died.”
It never ends, as long as there’s a widow to throw a farthing in the collection plate and an attorney looking to appropriate it via litigation.
Have you ever tried a civil case?
Not the least bit true.
If the priest was having a conversation at a food court in a shopping mall and was overheard by passersby, the secular authority would have every right to dispute a claim that he was hearing a confession. The church simply does not have plenary power to say what constitutes a protected conversation for the purposes of a secular law.
PLUS - lest we forget, we are dealing with Louisiana. They are the only state in the Union with a French, codal legal system. It is completely different from everybody else's. Heaven only knows what they do with hearsay, but I'm sure it's something very strange.
I tried ONE case in Louisiana, many years ago, in federal district court but applying Louisiana law. Real estate law. What a mess. I spent hours and hours preparing for that case, what I learned is I never want to handle another one.
My point was not that the priest should be forced to violate this beliefs, but rather, that when the secular authority and a matter of conscience are in conflict, you must sometimes be willing to pay the price for your beliefs.
Even Scalia, who has generally been favorable to church/state issues has written [for the majority] that the religious protection in Amendment I is not an absolute protection against temporal consequences.
The molester died of medical treatment after things became public. The state Supreme Court has ruled that the trier of fact should determine whether the priest knew of the molestation outside the confessional, and if he had a duty to report.
Folks also need to remember that Louisiana law is not based upon English common law, but on the Code Napoleon. The whole tort analysis is different, and punitive damages are almost completely unknown.
With the Pope holding a 6-3 majority over the Jewish contingent, let’s see what the SCOTUS does.
straw argument. you know exactly what context confession is being talked about. in church, with a private confession to a pastor or priest.
OK, so it seems to me that the confession(s) have nothing to do with it, the issue is did he know of this otherwise; that’s a completely different matter.
I’m still not crazy about the idea that I tell my story to a “mandatory reporter” and if they fail to report I sue them for money.
There’s something about that that strikes me as not quite cricket (is that an expression?).
This is not like a doctor in an emergency room, or a teacher who sees bruises, this is just: she said.
I’ve never really thought too much about mandatory reporting laws, but people do tell lies, pretty much all the time it seems like sometimes, so I’ve got problems with this whole situation.
But, whatever, it does not seem like a case that should be testing the entire “seal of the confession”, not at all.
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.