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.
Thanks Pat ((((Hugs))))
Ohhhh.
The Diocese can maintain the Seal, and then must pay the price.
This will be an important distinction when it comes time for the Catholic Church to stop being an agent of the state when it comes to marriage. If this is determined early on, then the Church can simply state it will witness nothing but Sacramental marriages, thus sidestepping the inevitable lawsuits that will come when a homosexual couple decides to try to be married in the Church.
We only have her word for this, and the other thing is that the it sounds to me as if the priest has an Indian last name, and there are lots of Indian priests (from India, that is) in the US whose understanding of American English is not exactly the best. So I suspect there are “extenuating circumstances” and some ambulance chaser is promoting this.
That said, priests shouldn’t break the seal or nobody will ever confess.
If somebody confesses to abusing children, killing somebody, or whatever, priests always tell that person as part of their penance to turn themselves in. The penance always involves making it right.
A person who reports molestation may or may not be credible, and in any case, there was no sin on that person’s part. If the priest thinks the person is credible, he would usually tell them to get help from civil authorities. Obviously, the Church has no civil power to go out and arrest child abusers or anybody else.
Maybe he didn’t think she was credible? Or maybe his English wasn’t good enough to understand? Or maybe “the child” was set up by some leftist group?
Telling the truth about what? She never said the priest or anybody else in the Church molested her. And the clergy in the confessional are not mandatory reporters. Who knows what he told her? And who knows exactly what she told him?
Maybe if the girl turns out to be lying or manipulated (which I think is the case) the diocese should sue her.
A Priest takes an Oath for Confession.If you go to confession and walk out whatever you said is dead.Father will pray for you.Sounds like a threat Fred.
Seems to me that a confession repeated would be nothing more than hearsay, so I just don’t see where this can be anything other than a baseless shakedown. A priest’s testimony, were it permitted by the Church, would not somehow guarantee a prima facie case.
“If it is her word against his, and he chooses not to give evidence — for whatever reason, good or bad — the jurors must decide that she is telling the truth.”
If the jury must decide that way, how come the diocese hasn’t been sued into oblivion long before this? That’s the part I don’t get. I’m not saying this particular case doesn’t have merit, or even that they are suing for monetary damages, but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?
Freegards
If so, then secular law trumps (and negates) canon law. If not, then why give the appearance of succumbing to man's ruling when you have no intention of obeying?
The Church should take the unequivocal stand and say "Under no circumstances whatsoever will our ministers break the Seal of Confession, the results of this appeal notwithstanding." And Catholics should stand ready to defend their Church if it comes to that.
“And the clergy in the confessional are not mandatory reporters.”
Wait, didn’t LA change the law so they would have to testify if the privilege is broken by the other person? That’s why they are suing, right?
Freegards
To be clear, the answer to your question is: No, a priest cannot divulge what was said in Confession or even if it took place, even if the Pennitant gives his permission to do so.
Maybe they should just tie her up and throw her in a pond and see if she floats.
After all a girl's word against a priests! Can there be any doubt? Why do we even need a stupid investigation?
The reason it's being taken this far is because there is a chance the SC may rule in their favor. If so, then it's a gained protection for the Church against any such future acts. So it's worth the effort even if they loose.
If they loose nothing will change. The priest still won't say anything for the rest if his life in or outside of jail. If he cares for his soul that is.
Well, I don’t really get this. He didn’t hear the confession of the molester, but of the victim. What is it they want to know,and why don’t they just ask the young lady? If she doesn’t wish to tell them, why would they think the priest will tell them?
Do they want him to confess to wrong-doing in telling her not to report it? Then what will they do, sue him for priestly mal-practice? And I don’t see why that info couldn’t be gotten from the penitent either.
She’s not dead or something, is she? It didn’t seem like that from the story, but maybe I missed something big because I’m missing the underlying issue.
Then you assume a fact not in evidence: that the priest is not a mandatory reporter. That is indeed a part of the instant case.
Who knows what he told her? And who knows exactly what she told him?
Again, an emotional and thought-free observation on my post; this is indeed ground I've already covered. In the court of public opinion you are free to make assumptions about the conversations between them, but as a juror you are entitled to no such presumption.
Maybe if the girl turns out to be lying or manipulated (which I think is the case) the diocese should sue her.
And upon what evidence would that be? "We know a lot of stuff we aren't allowed to talk about. Please give us money?" You assume a molested female is a liar. I think you need to examine the reasons for your reflexive lack of charity.
OK. What has this to do with anything? My point isn't that this is good or bad, or that the priest should be forced to violate his oath. It's that freedom isn't free.
Father will pray for you.
I reject the good will of no one. Thank the priest on my behalf.
Sounds like a threat Fred.
I don't have the slightest idea what this sentence means. You are free to believe as a poster on a public forum that the priest would never give bad counsel. Unfortunately, as a juror you are not entitled to that belief. If you voice a belief that you find the evidence given (or withheld) by a priest to be of greater value than any other witness during the voir dire, you will be dismissed for cause. When the judge charges you, you will be under the solemn obligation of your own oath as a juror to find according to the law. That law does not permit you to believe that the priest would never have given bad counsel if the only witness in the case says that he did.
However, those people aren't likely to become friends of the Church regardless of the Supreme Court's decision.
:)Lawyer.Threat.Father will go to jail before he gives up the seal of Confession.
"Government prosecutor....”tell me who has confessed sexual abuse to you”....
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 should the priest take the initiative and tip 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.
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.