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.
"According to the allegations in the petition and the deposition testimony in the record, subsequent “meetings” were had—one between the priest and Mr. and Mrs. Charlet, and another between the Charlets and the minor child’s parents (the plaintiffs)—concerning the “obsessive number of emails and phone calls” between Mr. Charlet and the minor child and the seemingly inappropriate closeness between the two that had been observed by various parishioners." ...
"Therefore, we find the appellate court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as the question of duty/risk should be resolved by the factfinder at trial, particularly herein where there exists material issues of fact concerning whether the communications between the child and the priest were confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report."
The point is, the priest had meetings with the molester and his wife. There was also a meeting -- quite possibly arranged by the priest -- between the molester, his wife, and the girl's parents.
What motivated those meetings? If the priest called the meetings because he had knowledge outside the confessional, he becomes a mandatory reporter, because those are outside conversations. If we accept at face value the priests claim that he would not violate the Seal, then there [may] exist conversations with the girl not protected by the seal.
In any case, because of these meetings, the LA SC has ruled that there are facts in dispute. In our legal system, facts in dispute in causes of action are resolved by a "trier of fact," which in this case is going to be a jury.
Contrary to what some FReepers are claiming, this is not a crazy infringement on the sanctity of the confessional, and the decision by the LA SC is rational and [IMHO] correct. We'll see where it goes from here.
If I remember right, the suit is brought by the girl’s parents. She was in an underage relationship with a much older man, and was confessing it (supposedly) to the priest in question.
Now Mom is suing the diocese because of, well lots of fallout.
In this case the girl was confessing being in a sexual relationship. So it wasn’t a case of forced rape, but statutory rape.
I urge you to read the LA SC summary. What the priest did is not very far removed from my hypothetical. It's not a straw argument in the least.
First: Under our law, minors under the age of consent cannot say "yes" to a sexual relationship. Statutory rape is rape. We aren't talking about an eighteen year old boy and a girl who was 17 and a half. Second: the reason this has become a cause of action against the priest is [supposedly] because the girl wanted the "relationship" to stop, which moots your argument anyway. If she's telling the truth, asking the priest for a way out doesn't sound consensual to me.
Dear Louisiana: Even California’s not allowed to be this stupid.
i’ll check it out, thanks.
So, the parents were informed of this and they are still looking to sue because it wasn’t reported?
I’m just not getting this.
I suppose a cynical point of view is that they've fallen under the influence of the Plaintiff's Bar, and are looking to cash in. The same cynic might also believe that the church is hiding behind an ancient principle to avoid paying-up.
A charitable perspective might be that the girl and her parents have been harmed, and have a need for some kind of restitution. The same charitable perspective might allow that even if that's true, the church has a sacred obligation to protect its sacraments.
My point was, I don't think there is [yet] a serious assault on the First Amendment in this case, and that even if there is, it might be necessary for the priest to accept secular sanctions to uphold his religious duties and protect his soul.
“...it might be necessary for the priest to accept secular sanctions to uphold his religious duties and protect his soul.”
Also the diocese, which would be the greatest source of any damages awarded. And I still don’t understand why we haven’t seen other cases like this. If the religious tenets of a defendant don’t let them play ball which results in an auto-loss civilly, seems like it would be pretty exploitable to the nefariously litigious before now, and hashed out one way or the other. This case may be absolutely legit as far as the what the priest did or didn’t do and what he heard in confession, but it would look the same if it was complete malarkey as far as I can tell.
Freegards
> 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.
Well, I agree with you. As someone pointed out earlier on this thread (maybe it was you, but I am way too lazy to check) there’s no “hold harmless” from secular society in terms of following your beliefs.
If he’s unable to testify as to what he was told, then they’ll have to live with what the victim avers.
Confession is to seek the forgiveness of sins. I don't see how advising someone “not to report the incident” is part of confession. I don't see a problem with the priest either confirming or denying this part of the encounter if the penitent has released him from secrecy.
Confession should never be used to manipulate someone. If the priest is allowed to do anything he wants in the confessional, he could advise children that God wants them to submit. A priest is only human and I'm sure there have been evil priests that may have used the seal of confession this way. The sacraments should not be perverted by either the priest or the penitent.
The Code is clear, even if “permission” is given, the priest can’t violate the seal. What Father wrote above is a bit misleading.
What he’s saying is, with the person in question, if the person comes back for confession again and says, “Remember that issue we discussed last time? “ the priest must say (ask) “ Do you release me from the seal of last time? (Or “refresh my memory please” which does the same thing as releasing him because it’s talking about it in another confession)
You’ll note though if he wants to discuss the case with others he not only needs permission from the Pennitant but also he can’t speak the name of the person in question when he seeks such advice. In other words, even if permission is given, the identity of the person must remain secret.
“Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret.”
So this clearly doesn’t apply here. Even if the poor young woman gives her permission for father to discuss this case with others he can’t, because her identity is already known.
If he advised her to not seek professional help in confession its “part of confession”. So he can’t discuss it. He can’t even say if the confession took place. Anything that happens in the confessional, stays in the confessional.
Now this might work in Lady Justice’s favor really. Because if he did indeed advise her not to go to the police in confession, then he may spend the rest of his life in jail not for not reporting a crime but for contempt. So really in a perverse way he may get what he deserves.
IF she did indeed say that. We will never know. Which is truly sad because he may spend the rest of his life in jail for something he never said. It’s really a question a judge in this case should ask himself, “do I want to send a man to jail based on only one person’s testimony?”
To me it seems unamerican to do so. We can’t assume that poor woman is recalling the events correctly just because she was abused. Ultimately it’s just her word that’s furthered the case this far. It would be exactly equivalent to sending someone to jail just based on the testimony of one person. For any crime. The fifth amendment still applies here, in my opinion. The priest shouldn’t be compelled to testify, even to defend himself.
You are correct. However, this becomes an issue with the seal of confession, a practice and legal precedent going back a long, long time.
We don’t know the details. The legal documents as reported in the press say that the girl had a relationship with an older man (who had a lot of money). The suit pressed by the mother says that the girl told her priest, in confession.
Now, I haven’t been keeping up on this case, but when I first read it a few weeks ago the girl, now in her 20’s, did not state that she had told the priest in court.
This is a mess no matter what. If the priest’s comments are reported accurately, he wanted the problem to go away. If the Mom’s statements are accurate, the girl wanted to end it. If that is the case, confession was not the place to talk about it.
Bottom line - they want money, that is all that matters to them. We can only hear one side of the story and it is always possible there was some confusion on her part as to exactly what was said to her.
He is stating Canon law and interpretation in most of his post above, so I think NYer has it right.
If the victim and her family are taking this to court, then it seems like she would have released the priest from the sacramental seal. So the only reason, I can see that the priest is hiding behind the sacramental seal is because he doesn't want to incriminate himself. If the victim granted a release, if I was on the jury, I would find for the victim.
"Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret."
So yes "permission" can be given to discuss the confession with others but (and this is the key point): only if the identity of the person who made the confession is kept secret. This isn't possible now since the young woman's identity is known.
So there is now no way Father can discuss the confession, or even confirmed it occured, no matter how much permission is given.
There’s an either/or case here. The first case doesn’t say the priest has to keep the identify secret if the penitent releases the priest. The second case used is the priest wanting to discuss the confession with a more experienced priest. It makes sense to keep the identity a secret since the penitent is not known.
These look like examples to me, not written in Cannon Law,
According to the post, Cannon Law states:
“...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity. “
If the penitent releases the priest, I think it’s a stretch to say that the penitent would be displeased or that the penitent would feel betrayed, if she requests the priest to reveal the confession. The seal was placed to protect the penitent. If the penitent has already revealed the confession and releases the priest, I don’t see a problem with the priest either confirming or denying what was said.
I don’t believe the seal was put on confession to allow manipulation of the court system, but to protect the penitent. In this case, the penitent is already known. I don’t really think that telling the penitent to keep quiet should be considered part of a confession. Does a priest have the right to tell a penitent to do something that is contrary to the law? If that were the case, pedophile priest could use the sacrament of penance to get his victims to comply.
What does Cannon Law state about the penance or advice given by a priest during Confession? Surely, there is Cannon Law as to what is allowed in Confession.
What you quoted is a more general description of what happens if “permission” is given. The quote I cited then describes in more detail what is required of a confession that is discussed with others, namely that the identity of the one who made the confession remains secret. Which isn’t possible in this case since others know the identity of this woman.
These aren’t “either/or cases here”. It’s the same circumstance. If permission is given to discuss it with others, then the identity of the penitent must remain secret. Period.
You’re reading post 1 wrong.
Are you Catholic? I only ask because I’ve never met another Catholic that would say it was ever permissible to break the seal of confession. Ever.
I mean movies have been made about this subject. A priest died under torture rather than do so. The very case we are discussing is going to the Supreme Court over this issue.
Don’t you think in at least this case, if what you are saying is right, that it would have been thought of already? That the priest’s bishop would’ve told him, “go ahead you can discuss the confession after all the woman gave her permission”?
Does everyone else have it wrong here?
Do you honestly believe no one has thought of this as a possibility? Why would this “obvious” loophole be overlooked if Canon Law permitted it?
It reduces to absurdity to believe this is possible, according to Canon Law, but they aren’t doing it for...I don’t know what the reason could be. They are putting the priest through hell (and the priest is putting himself through hell) for what? To avoid a 3-5 year prison term for failure to report a crime? If it were permissible for him to disclose the confession, as long as permission is given, don’t you think he’d do that at this point rather than drag this out? And don’t you think the Archdiocese would have him do it, to lessen their culpability in this matter?
After all, it would only HELP the Archdiocese if the priest fell on his sword and took one for the team, and admitted guilt all for himself. That the archdiocese is resisting this along with the priest isn’t really helping them politically or legally. At least not if what you say is true. Which it isn’t.
It’s not possible that you’re just reading the paragraphs in question wrong?
I respectfully submit you’re wrong. There is no way for a priest to publicly discuss a confession. Ever. Period. You’re reading way too much into the commentary (from post 1) to say otherwise.
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.