Baton Rouge Diocese Taking Order to Break Seal of Confession to Supreme Court

Zenit ^ | September 5, 2014

[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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The only way this will be resolved will be for the court to send the priest to jail for contempt, and to keep doing so until public outrage is so great that there will be intervention to preserve the confessional.

Any other conclusion will just be one judge overruling another, which will have no “staying power” in the law. The debate must be taken out of the courts entirely, and that won’t be done by judges.

While not exactly martyrdom, for the priest to hold out over perhaps a year or more indeed deserves eventual high commendation from the church.

[FredZarguna]

If the jury must decide that way, how come the diocese hasn’t been sued into oblivion long before this?

There's no "IF." The jury has to decide that way. You have only the girl's evidence, and the priest's silence. That silence cannot be construed as a rebuttal. As a matter of fact, the normal injunction that it has to be regarded neutrally might not even hold, since the defense can argue that the church's defense of the Seal shields a testimony detrimental to its material interest.

but how come less reputable people haven’t done exactly that long ago or whenever this law changed to allow it?

The laws in most states protect evidence given in specific kinds of confidence. [BTW, none of the protections are actually absolute, not even the attorney-client privilege, which is the oldest privilege recognized in law. It actually predates Christianity.] However, the "mandatory reporting" laws are relatively new, and they were specifically passed in many jurisdictions to keep priests, schoolteachers, social workers, and others who work with people the law does not consider legally competent from withholding evidence of a crime.

You will see more of this, and it's likely that cases like this and the Federal case law it produces will lead to model laws with better protections for confidants, children, or both.

[FredZarguna]

The claim bears on whether or not a priest is a mandatory reporter. If he is, what passed between them is potentially material to his role as a mandatory reporter, and the church becomes liable.

[Ransomed]

I just looked at those old threads, the article in this one says the law was passed back in ‘91.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3180453/posts

So around 20 years or so. I still don’t understand why this didn’t happen before in the last decade or two if the legislation passed in 91. There seems to be no way to defend against it, you would figure there would be those who would take advantage of that in a heartbeat. Not saying this case is something like that, or even if they are suing for monetary damages.

Freegards

[jocon307]

I still don’t understand, was this an ongoing situation with the girl and whoever was molesting her?

Otherwise it seems like it’s a horse gone, close the barn door situation.

[Ann Archy]

NO Priest of good standing will EVER break the Confessional Seal.....they would rather DIE!! It’s SACRED!!

[Ann Archy]

Cardinal Goerge, met him a few times,,,decent man....has said that he will die in bed.....his predecessor will die in PRISON and His predecessor will die a MARTYR!!! We are getting to this point in AMERICA!!! CHRISTIANS WILL BE MARTYRED!!

[Ann Archy]

The standard of law....whatever that is, does NOT BREAK THE SACREDNESS of the CONFESSIONAL.....PERIOD.

[Ann Archy]

You, too,are either a NUTCASE or an anti-Catholic!!!! The Confessional is SCAROSANCT and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!!!

[choirboy]

Lest there be any confusion as to what the church wants to suppress:

No, in this case the Church does not want to suppress anything.

What the Church wants to do is defend its right not to violate the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession).

I started to add "under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution." But that would have been imprecise. This right precedes the 1st Amendment and would exist even if the 1st Amendment did not exist.

[PAR35]

Or maybe “the child” was set up by some leftist group?

You are qualified to be a bishop with your 'blame the victim' approach to the issue. You and the Catholic church might not consider a 14 year old a child, as evidenced by your use of quotes, but the law does.

"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."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2013-C-2879
[PARENTS OF MINOR CHILD]
VERSUS
GEORGE J. CHARLET, JR., DECEASED
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

[FR_addict]

However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession — a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance — in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of “face-to-face confession,” I have had individuals come up to me and say, “Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?” I have to say, “Please refresh my memory,” or “Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?”

===
From your post, I don't see why this is even a case. All the girl has to do is give the priest permission.

It sound like the priest will not honor the penitent’s wishes, which makes me think he really did tell her not to say anything. It sounds to me like he used the confessional as a way to cower this victim. Don't they have something in Canon law that would make this confession void?

[PAR35]

Scan through the thread - I’ve posted links to the court of appeals (clickable) and Louisiana Supreme Court (cut and paste) PDFs of the two opinions.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Moldau is the German name for the river better known as the Vltava.

I believe St. John Nepomucene is the patron saint of bridges.

[PAR35]

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?

She did testify in a deposition. Now the church wants to block her from testifying at trial. The Motion in Limine that kicked this off was NOT about the priest's testimony - it was about whether SHE could testify.

[Secret Agent Man]

secular cannot determine if a sacrament took place. not their expertise, or jurisdiction.

[jocon307]

OH, this is very confusing, if I go to confession and say, whatever: I killed 5 people! Obviously the priest can’t reveal that, but I’m not prevented from saying it later.

I’m going to have to read through the thread, you are right.

Is the priest now on trial for not reporting something that the girl herself could have easily revealed?

Is the priest on trial, or the molester?

[Varda]

Read the links. She can testify all she wants about the actual events. The diocese wants not to be dragged into the public record because they aren't a party to the events and by law aren't required to report it.

Color me skeptical about the girls parents motives. Plaintiffs often try to draw as many parties into the record looking for deep pockets for a civil case.

[Salvation]

Two predecessors?