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

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Reconciliation. That motion was denied by the trial court, but was granted by the First

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

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

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

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

The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the penitent. This secrecy is called "the sacramental seal," "the seal of the confessional," or "the seal of confession."

The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism 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.

(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock's "I Confess," which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)

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?"

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.

What happens if a priest violates the seal of confession? The Catechism (No. 1467) cites the Code of Canon Law (No. 1388.1) in addressing this issue, which states, "A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense." From the severity of the punishment, we can clearly see how sacred the sacramental seal of confession is in the eyes of the Church.

Actually, the Church's position in this matter has long-standing credibility. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) produced one of the first comprehensive teachings concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Addressing various problems ranging from abuses to heretical stands against the sacrament, the council defended the sacrament itself, stipulated the need for the yearly sacramental confession of sins and reception of the Holy Eucharist, and imposed disciplinary measures upon priest confessors. The council decreed, "Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance."

A beautiful story (perhaps embellished with time) which captures the reality of this topic is the life of St. John Nepomucene (1340-93), the vicar general to the Archbishop of Prague. King Wenceslaus IV, described as a vicious, young man who easily succumbed to rage and caprice, was highly suspicious of his wife, the Queen. St. John happened to be the Queen's confessor. Although the king himself was unfaithful, he became increasingly jealous and suspicious of his wife, who was irreproachable in her conduct. Although Wencelaus tortured St. John to force him to reveal the Queen's confessions, he would not. In the end, St. John was thrown into the River Moldau and drowned on March 20, 1393.

Each priest realizes that he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to him, but through him to the Lord. Therefore, humbled by his position, the priest knows that whatever is said in confession must remain secret at all costs.

Another interesting side to this question is the obligation of the laity: An interpreter needed for someone to make a confession or anyone who gains knowledge of a confession (such as overhearing someone’s confession) is also obligated to preserve secrecy (Code of Canon Law, No. 983.2). For such a person to violate the secrecy of another person’s confession is a mortal sin and warrants "a just penalty, not excluding excommunication" (No. 1388.2). A person who falsely accuses a priest of breaking the seal of the confession incurs a mortal sin and perhaps other canonical penalties, including excommunication.

Clearly, the Church regards the seal of confession as sacred. Every person — whether priest or laity — must take the obligation to preserve the secrecy of confession absolutely seriously.

The Seal of the Confessional - FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

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.