Nope. Those aren't the facts. The case is about an adult who heard of a crime, had an obligation to report, and did not do so.
Are you willing to concede that the appropriate authority of each religion protected by the First Amendment (and not some bunch of politicians/judges) makes or interprets or applies, as you may prefer, its own internal rules
Nope. The founders didn't believe that and neither does any sensible person. Your religion does not trump the law, and the Constitution does not say it does.
[Do you concede] the priest CANNOT be required by any judge sworn to uphold the Constitution to testify as to even the fact that Mr. Molester has confessed his sins
Does the word DUH mean anything to you? Clearly I do NOT concede such a point, or we are not having this conversation.
[So-called "point" #4 is a hash of nonsense about hearsay. So is so-called "point" #5. This case is not about hearsay. It is about the failure of a priest to report a crime of which he was informed.]
You need to familiarize yourself with the case. The female was one of the molester's victims. Please don't enter into an argument when you aren't even conversant with the basic facts.
[Point #6: it gets worse for me? No, it gets worse for you. It's amazing a person who writes so much meaningless, sanctimonious, piffle isn't able to even read the article he's commenting on]
The petition alleged that on three separate dates in July 2008, the child told Bayhi a church member had inappropriately touched her, kissed her and told her "he wanted to make love to her."
That's not something the child overheard. Read the article, or have mommy read it to you, and quit wasting my time.
The rest of the post is repeating what you think the Constitution says with no reference to actual case law. Please come back when you have serious arguments. Your editorializing about what you think the Constitution means is of no interest to me, and your "arguments" would be laughed right out of court. The First Amendment doesn't shield criminals, even if the criminals believe in Buddha, Jesus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
Wanna actually do some reading?
Next, I missed that the 12 year old is claimed to have been a victim. When the priest and the diocese are being sued five months after the alleged perp died of a heart attack but a year after the perp's misbehavior, the concept of lawyerly dialing for dollars and looking for deeper pockets come to mind. The claim is likely within the statute of limitations but no more credible in and of itself.
Note that David Clohessey of the ever present SNAP, "Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests" is hovering nearby. In a case involving a Missouri bishop, Clohessy and SNAP were reported to be claiming that forcing them to comply with discovery proceedings would put them out of business since complainants had to have confidentiality. SNAP is one of the leading purveyors of tears and flapdoodle in the American court system. SNAP is, however, NOT protected by the freedom of religion or by any doctor/patient privilege in resisting discovery.
Next, this case is about a PRIEST who, in the course of his priesthood, is ALLEGED to have heard a confession from the 12 year old girl that included that she had been the object of an improper approach by a parishioner who, it is claimed, improperly touched her (whatever that may mean), kissed her and said he wanted to make love to her.
The priest was and is an adult or he would not be a priest. He is also, as a priest, not subject in any event to a statute that violates the Constitution by purporting to be sooooo widely applicable as to demolish the seal of the confessional. If you don't agree with the constitutional wall protecting the seal of the confessional, then, when the civil war breaks out, put FredZarguna in BIG letters on your uniform so that we will know which one you are.
If the child (now 18 or so if she was 12 in 2008) actually WAS a victim, she can testify for herself. If she told mom and dad, they are as well situated to testify as anyone but the girl would be, now that the perp is dead even before the suit was filed. I think they have a HEARSAY problem as well.
Targeting a priest said to have heard her confession presents other problems than First Amendment or HEARSAY. The Church requires that the priest NOT testify under penalty of an extraordinary type of excommunication. Is he an American who happens to be a priest or is he a priest who happens to be an American? His priesthood is infinitely more important than his citizenship. He should refuse to testify and take as much jail time in contempt as needed.
He will never have a greater opportunity to evangelize than he will enjoy behind prison walls as a prisoner of conscience. More than you may suspect by far, the criinal convicts respect militant conscience in a fellow prisoner. Meanwhile Church authorities should make a public example of any and all public officials responsible for this carnival of denial of constitutional rights. The priest is not allowed to testify in his own defense or that of the diocese. He is forced to choose between Faith and freedom. That is what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. The laity should back the priest with everything they have got including the best trial lawyers and appellate lawyers. Flamboyant warriors and not corporate stiffs.
Read the First Amendment. The constitution says what it means and means what it says and NOT some transitory judicial opinion attempting to distinguish away core rights in favor of tyranny.
It would seem that your comparing Jesus Christ with Buddha, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy tells as much as we need to know about your motivating attitudes. For now, you are finding kindred secularists on the Louisiana Supreme Court. If the Church, the priest and the public resist as they should, that too shall pass away.
During any time if and when this priest is jailed, the bishop should close the local parish until he is released. The governor of Louisiana is a Catholic, Bobby Jindal. I suspect that he can resolve this situation. The bishop should press him to do so. A transfer of the Louisiana Supremes chambers to a basement lavatory would also seem appropriate pending surrender to their oaths.
Fortunately, you will have nothing to say about it; no priest will break a sacramental vow of confidentiality; Fr. Jeff Bayhi is not a criminal; and he's got Jesus Christ Our Lord: you can keep your d-mn Easter Bunny.
A goobermint law that forces Catholic priests to violate the sanctity of the confessional in order to report hearsay to law enforcement ?
This doesn’t sound remotely rational.
The priest could (and should) certainly encourage the girl to go to the authorities. He should definitely do everything in his power to insure and prevent such perps from repeating such crimes - short of violating the confessional.
An unjust law is NO law. A priest is not a paid informer for law enforcement.