Posted on 07/08/2014 2:14:18 PM PDT by NYer
From NOLA.com:
The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has issued a statement decrying a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that could compel a local priest to testify in court about confessions he might have received. The alleged confessions, according to legal documents, were made to the priest by a minor girl regarding possible sexual abuse perpetrated by another church parishioner.
The statement, published Monday (July 7) on the diocese’s website, said forcing such testimony “attacks the seal of confession,” a sacrament that “cuts to the core of the Catholic faith.”
The statement refers to a lawsuit naming the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge as defendants and compels Bayhi to testify whether or not there were confessions “and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were.”
“A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable,” the statement says. ”The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment.”
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.
Pinging for your learned input.
No, it means you can’t commit crimes and then claim your religion protects you.
For those actually interested in the plaintiffs complaint:
The petitioners claim[ed] Bayhi was negligent in advising the minor regarding the alleged abuse and failed his duty as a mandatory reporter in compliance with the Louisiana Children's Code. It also holds the diocese liable for failing to properly train the priest regarding mandatory reporting of sexual abuse of minors.
The priest effectively shielded the perpetrator by failing to properly report the crime, and by failing to advise the victim of the proper course of action. That amounts to protecting the molester, regardless of whose confession he heard.
Take the word of Antonin Scalia, whom I assume no one on this board thinks is a "socialist" or anti-Christian.
Writing for a 6-3 majority in the case of Employment Division vs. Smith he wrote: "the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
Taking and keeping confession isn’t a crime.
When judges use “compelling state interest,” it typically means they personally disagree with a statute or constitutional amendment. It means the judge substitutes his opinion for that of the legislative process. It is evil.
Bernardine and her main squeeze Ayres went "underground" after the Weatherman faction of Students for a Demonratic Society had admitted to the adoring lamestream media in the 1970s their role in a vicious street assault on Chicago prosecutor Richard Elrod who was rendered paralyzed from the neck down by the assault. Dohrn then composed lyrics for a parody song "Lay, Elrod, Lay!" to mock the victim. She also expressed her admiration for Charles Manson and the "Manson Family" for the butchery involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders. All in all, other than her once youthful good looks, a real charmer whom you would not have brought home to your mother as your fiancee.
Dohrn and Ayres surfaced again in 1980 and were taken into custody on a variety of serious charges. A dimwit in the prosecution of another radical gave Dohrn immunity from prosecution to force her to testify. Celebrating her immunity, she then refused to testify and did about a year on the installment plan on serial contempt citations and then left free as a bird when the court had to admit that jailing her had no coercive effect. Now she is, what else, a law professor at Northwestern University despite being disbarred for the crimes she committed as a radical.
I hate Bernardine Dohrn, her husband, her associates and her causes. I love her tactics and recommend them to any Catholic, including priests, faced with religious persecution at the hands of any American government or judge. The court system is incapable of restraining such efforts. They cannot get beyond the shock of learning that many folks just refuse to regard them as gods, just like their ancient Roman pagan counterparts. Dohrn who is anything but Catholic has violated our trademark but that's OK. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, in this matter of courts with overgrown ids, an effective weapon and a nonviolent one.
It's a component of strict scrutiny, and is one component of the highest standard of Constitutional protection we have. Read the case law. Read Scalia's opinion in my previous post. Compelling MEANS compelling. It doesn't mean "I personally disagree," or anything remotely resembling that.
It's amazing to me that people who think that some of the same justices who just joined in the Hobby Lobby decision are a bunch of radical leftists.
As for your long-winded discursis, which is equality uninteresting, I recommended EXACTLY the same thing in about 1/10 as many words in a post on this thread long ago.
If the priest really wants to uphold the seal of the confessional, the means are entirely within his power.
There are obviously circumstances when it can be, and at this point the judiciary of LA believes this is one of them.
The thing about a "compelling state interest" is that unlike the Bill of Rights, it is based largely on current attitudes.
An attack on a long-protected Christian practice under the guise of a "compelling state interest" is indeed creeping socialism. We're on a slippery slope.
Sorry, I’ve read enough decisions to know that compelling state interest is a dangerous sweeping term that typically sets leftist government desires above individual rights.
The priest won’t cave. He’ll go to prison first.
The priest won’t cave. He’ll go to prison first.
You must be a Master of Non-Sequitur.
I'm not. That being said can you show me a single case where a Catholic Priest has been ordered to comply and done so.
Priest responds: “first,people don’t identify themselves to me by name.That is by design. Second,I can’t see their faces. That,too,is by design. Third,many people...out of shame or embarrassment...disguise their voices. So even if I *wanted* to help you I couldn’t." Or say a child victim of abuse -- as in this case -- told this in confession. The priest takes the initiative and tips off the police about a possible victim:
Yeah, ring up 911 and say: "Somebody --- I don't know who--- said he or maybe she was sexually molested, but I don't know exactly what was done to him or her, or by whom, or where, or how long ago."
And that benefits whom?
Or, lastly, just put a wire and a videocam in every Confessional.
At which point, nobody goes to Confession.
That solves the problem! --- but only if your "problem" is with the very existence of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
"When told the decision could pave the way for Planned Parenthood and other abortionists having to provide the names of those paying for the abortions of minor girls to see if statutory rape was involved, the Louisiana Supreme Court added an addendum to their decision reading, “Oh .... scratch this decision.”
John 20:21-23.
What, if any, limit on State Power do you recognize? At what point may the Citizen tell the State "NO", and the State must suck it up?
What areas of life may be outside the State, or against the State?
How does your position differ from Mussolini's?
Be specific.
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.