Louisiana court's ruling that Catholic priest testify about confession criticized by Baton Rouge Diocese: UPDATED

[Skeptic92]

Sue?

I guess it just matters how bad a transgression you think it was. Personally, I would find him unfit to perform his duties after offering that kind of advice and I am pretty confident that simply talking to him and the pastor will have little consequence. So I can certainly can empathize with the parents.

Again, I have no idea of the truth in the matter–it may be a money grab. But if this happened to my daughter, I can totally see it coming down to suing the priest and diocese…

Suing a man that can neither confirm nor deny what was said in the confession? Which means he can not even attempt to defend himself? That seems underhanded, uncharitable, and unethical. There is no chance of a fair trial here.

 

[Corki]

This new is surprising to me as a lawyer. First there is something called clergymen privilege that legally would prevent this from happening. Given that I am not a lawyer in Louisiana I decided to take a look at the evidentiary code of Louisiana to see if maybe Louisiana lacks this privilege…and right when I open the code, it is right in there. Clergyman privilege is a.privilege in Louisiana. I am not familiar with this case but the communication between the girl and the girl seems to be protected under a privilege so I think there is something here misreported. There is something not making sense here. However, i Hope that if indeed there is an actual court order, the church is aware of this privilege and they hire an attorney and that the church claims the privilege.

Thanks for the lawyer (name removed by moderator)ut. This seems really odd to me too. I did hear some commentary on the radio. One of the points is that the attorney for the girl’s family is said to be asserting that the clergy privilege only applies to a person confessing his/her own sins to a priest. In other words, once the girl brought up the wrong doing of a third party, the privilege no longer applied. This seems to be the jist of the diocesan statement about the court trying to re-define the actual Sacrament – to say that part of a person’s Confession is protected by the seal but part of it may not be.

 

[Memaw]

I am confused…do you know that the child is lying? Do you know for certain that the priest didn’t tell her to avoid reporting the incident for her to"sweep it under the rug?" You know that this is simply an outrageous attack on an innocent priest (b/c, it is pretty outrageous to think a priest could possibly do something like that )

If the priest did in fact tell the child this, what do you think this parent should do? If true, would you consider what the priest did was wrong? Would you feel comfortable with him advising your children and others’ in the future?

How do you know the Priest didn’t tell her to tell her parents and the police? You seem to be willing to jump on a priest as fast as the media does. God Bless, Memaw

 

[marymary1975]

Thanks for the lawyer (name removed by moderator)ut. This seems really odd to me too. I did hear some commentary on the radio. One of the points is that the attorney for the girl’s family is said to be asserting that the clergy privilege only applies to a person confessing his/her own sins to a priest. In other words, once the girl brought up the wrong doing of a third party, the privilege no longer applied. This seems to be the jist of the diocesan statement about the court trying to re-define the actual Sacrament – to say that part of a person’s Confession is protected by the seal but part of it may not be.

I can see why the girl’s lawyer is making that argument. As there is a privilege that applies to this case their point would be that that particular conversation is not covered by the privilege. If I were on his shoes I’d probably do the same argument and in fact that is the argument every lawyer makes whenever they are faced with a privilege.

I personally do not agree with the girl’s lawyer after reading the code of evidence CE 510 on communication. It states that it is made privately and not intended for further disclosure. The fact that is under confession. Takes care of not being intended for further disclosure as all catholics know about the confession seal. (Or it is presumed) and is obviously private. There is an exception as to other person “present” with the purpose of furtherance of communication but given that no one was present it doesn’t apply. So per the reading of the statute it is not true that applies to only confessings your sins as the only condition is that is any communication, privately done, and not being intended for further disclosure In fact if we go by the definition the privilege in lLouisiana covers more than confession and it may cover any conversation someone had with a priest in private.

Now I am not an attorney in Louisiana, so don’t take my word as final but from my personal knowledge in the area…and added to the fact that Louisiana uses civil law instead of common. Law… That argument is not good and I think the privilege would apply.

 

[Rico_S]

It certainly is the American way!

Let me ask you, though, what would you expect to get out of a lawsuit? Would the goal be to punish the priest? Get him to change the way he counsels in the confessional? Get him defrocked? Bankrupt the diocese?

Without even hearing his side of the story?

Peace

Tim

If criminal charges for not reporting are not an option…and having him removed from parish priestly duties and/or any position of authority doesn’t happen (and let’s be honest, simply reporting to the priest, pastor and bishop will not accomplish this), then the lawsuit is essentially a punitive measure. Afterall, going after the pocket book always grabs attention. Now…before everyone decries “money grab, money grab” consider the effect of all the lawsuits in recent history over the shuffling of pedophile priests. Do you think those civil lawsuits and settlements have effected the way the Church handles things? Do you think children are safer, in some part, due to those lawsuits being filed? Do you think the Church does things better in regards to handling problematic priests b/c of those lawsuits?

 

[Rico_S]

How do you know the Priest didn’t tell her to tell her parents and the police?

I don’t know…it is entirely possible.

You seem to be willing to jump on a priest as fast as the media does.

Oh no!! Not true at all. You are simply not reading my posts. I have gone out of my way to say that I don’t know the truth of the matter and that it may be a money grab. Please go back and read.

But my posts stand in stark contrast to your assured declaration:

Their just after money.

It is entirely possible that you are familiar with the parents and they have told you so. But aside from that, I don’t know how you can make that declaration with certainty.

 

[Skeptic92]

If criminal charges for not reporting are not an option…and having him removed from parish priestly duties and/or any position of authority doesn’t happen (and let’s be honest, simply reporting to the priest, pastor and bishop will not accomplish this), then the lawsuit is essentially a punitive measure. Afterall, going after the pocket book always grabs attention. Now…before everyone decries “money grab, money grab” consider the effect of all the lawsuits in recent history over the shuffling of pedophile priests. Do you think those civil lawsuits and settlements have effected the way the Church handles things? Do you think children are safer, in some part, due to those lawsuits being filed? Do you think the Church does things better in regards to handling problematic priests b/c of those lawsuits?

No; the reforms to Canon law happened long before the lawsuits. The only thing they achieved was the closing of parishes, and the cessation of charitable missions by several dioceses.

 

[Orogeny]

If criminal charges for not reporting are not an option…and having him removed from parish priestly duties and/or any position of authority doesn’t happen (and let’s be honest, simply reporting to the priest, pastor and bishop will not accomplish this),

Nor should it. Remember, the priest is accused but cannot defend himself. You don’t mete out that kind of punishment based on a one-sided accusation.

then the lawsuit is essentially a punitive measure.

For something that you don’t even know happened?

Afterall, going after the pocket book always grabs attention. Now…before everyone decries “money grab, money grab” consider the effect of all the lawsuits in recent history over the shuffling of pedophile priests. Do you think those civil lawsuits and settlements have effected the way the Church handles things? Do you think children are safer, in some part, due to those lawsuits being filed? Do you think the Church does things better in regards to handling problematic priests b/c of those lawsuits?

You are equating a claim made by an 11-12 year old girl, who didn’t trust her parents enough to tell them about the abuse first, to a systemic problem with the way the Church handled the sex abuse crisis?

It IS a money grab if you sue for *monetary *damages when you KNOW that the priest cannot defend himself.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Now I am not an attorney in Louisiana, so don’t take my word as final but from my personal knowledge in the area…and added to the fact that Louisiana uses civil law instead of common. Law… That argument is not good and I think the privilege would apply.

Well, the state Supreme Court decided that the privilege does not apply in this case.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brendan]

This new is surprising to me as a lawyer. First there is something called clergymen privilege that legally would prevent this from happening.

My understanding of the decision (and I could be way off base) is that the child is viewed as having released the privilege.

In Attorney\Client privilege, if the client releases the attorney from privilege, can the attorney then be subpoenaed to testify?

If so, I think that is how the LA courts are viewing it.

 

[Rico_S]

Tim,

All of speculation on what I would do and want is predicated on my belief in my daughter’s story. So to say “take the word of a 12 year old…” or “she didn’t even tell her parents first” … is sort of back tracking. All I am giving you is my views if this happened to my daughter and I believed her.

I understand it puts the priest in a pinch bc/ “he can’t defend himself”, but if this is truly what I believed happened to my daughter, I would not be content with talking about it to the pastor or bishop…I think it rises to the level of action. If the only action is a lawsuit for damages…then so be it. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[marymary1975]

Well, the state Supreme Court decided that the privilege does not apply in this case.

Peace

Tim

From the reading of the news it is very very unclear that the this matter have already been appealed all the way up. The news speak about “probable” and it seems it is a lawsuit still in trial. That is why is said there is something in the new misreported or not making sense because the way is being portrayed is not the way things world in the real world.

 

[pnewton]

Quite possible. But of course, perhaps this is the only recourse to bring to light what the priest said to the girl?

Nothing can or will be brought to light. Priests are taught, understand and agree that they must be willing to die rather than violate the seal of confession. I do not think for one minute this ruling will stand, as it is in direct violation of the First Amendment. If a priest is force to violate on of his most sacred vows or be guilty of violating the law, then we have zero religious liberty. We might as well ban worship of the Christian God in the same breath, as it makes as much sense.

 

[marymary1975]

My understanding of the decision (and I could be way off base) is that the child is viewed as having released the privilege.

In Attorney\Client privilege, if the client releases the attorney from privilege, can the attorney then be subpoenaed to testify?

If so, I think that is how the LA courts are viewing it.

In the attorney client privilege, most jurisdictions the client is the holder of the privilege. Per the CE 510 both the client and the clergymen are the holders of the privilege. The childay have disclose information by releasing information but if the attorney on the other side on a deposition or trial attempts to have the priest talk about the confession the priest can claim the privilege.

I may look for some other news on this case, as again this article is not making sense and is obvious that the person who wrote it is not familiar with discovery, subpoenas, appeals, etc. I am really intrigues by this

 

[pnewton]

I understand it puts the priest in a pinch bc/ “he can’t defend himself”, but if this is truly what I believed happened to my daughter, I would not be content with talking about it to the pastor or bishop…I think it rises to the level of action. If the only action is a lawsuit for damages…then so be it. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, the priest and the diocese are not accused of perpetrating an abuse. They are just the deep pockets. It was a parishioner that is accused, but he is dead and does not have enough money to make suing worthwhile. This is a ridiculous and greedy lawsuit. If the whole State of Louisiana were put under an interdict by the Holy See it would be no more that such an extreme reversal of religious freedom would demand.

This is so bad, that if confession was made void for the whole country, it would be justifiable to consider leaving en masse the United States as religious refuges, or standing in civil rebellion. Those are the two historic options when a government shuts down the whole of a religious faith cold. I only say this because I have little doubt this fluke will be overturned, it is that ridiculous.

 

[marymary1975]

OK I read a little more as to the case and as I thought the media is misreading things. The court did not order the priest to break the seal. What the court ordered was a hearing to determine whether a confession happened. The court did not say that the privileged does not apply that is wrong. What was appealed was the issue of whether a confession happened and the court determines that a hearing must be held to determined if the circumstances in which the communication happened amount to a confession ( most likely they are going to look at if the intent of the parties during the communication was no further disclosure. This is a very different scenario as forcing the priest to break the confession seal.

 

[Lapey]

I personally know Fr. Jeff Bayhi and his family. He is a wonderful and holy priest. Additionally, he is compassionate and personable, and would never, in my opinion, tell anyone to “sweep it under the rug.” He is much more likely to tell this girl to speak to her parents or to mention the situation to him outside the confessional. I am confident, based on my previous experience with him, that he would attempt to find a way to stop the abuse and bring the abuser to justice (while never breaking the seal of confession). For years, he was one of the men who counseled the boys considering a vocation to the priesthood- including the son of one of my friends- and the kids always seemed to connect with him, due to his personality and integrity. What this girl and her family are doing is wrong on so many levels and while I feel genuine sorrow for what happened to her, as Catholics, they should understand about the sacrament of reconciliation and the seal. I will continue to hold Fr. Bayhi, this girl and her family, and the soul of the abuser in my prayers.

I know his as well and must agree. Fr. Bayhi is not the type of man that would encourage a child to cover up a terrible crime like this. I do not believe the stories I have read.

 

[Rico_S]

Just to be clear, the priest and the diocese are not accused of perpetrating an abuse. …

I am totally aware of that. I guess I am alone in thinking that if the priest advised the little girl what she claims he did, that it deserves more than a “tsk tsk” from the pastor or a “he shouldn’t do that” from the bishop.

 

[Lapey]

If criminal charges for not reporting are not an option…and having him removed from parish priestly duties and/or any position of authority doesn’t happen (and let’s be honest, simply reporting to the priest, pastor and bishop will not accomplish this), then the lawsuit is essentially a punitive measure. Afterall, going after the pocket book always grabs attention. Now…before everyone decries “money grab, money grab” consider the effect of all the lawsuits in recent history over the shuffling of pedophile priests. Do you think those civil lawsuits and settlements have effected the way the Church handles things? Do you think children are safer, in some part, due to those lawsuits being filed? Do you think the Church does things better in regards to handling problematic priests b/c of those lawsuits?

Ok, now you want to place the seal of confession on trial with the sex scandals? This is sick, you want to use punitive damage awards to change the laws and doctrines surrounding confession seals because of hearsay in a law suit; in which the defendant CANNOT defend himself without being excommunicated.

You have a strange way of seeing this situation.

 

[Lapey]

I am totally aware of that. I guess I am alone in thinking that if the priest advised the little girl what she claims he did, that it deserves more than a “tsk tsk” from the pastor or a “he shouldn’t do that” from the bishop.

The point is, he cannot be compelled by courts to divulge what he did or didn’t say in the confessional. Not you or the supreme court of the US can force him to do that. Remember, we as Catholics are compelled to follow just law; in the same way we are compelled to NOT follow unjust law. This would be unjust and Fr. Bayhi would be compelled to not follow it even though the highest court in the land insists. Furthermore, you as the make believe parent can’t do anything about it. It is secret and will never be divulged. You may win a lawsuit, but all you would do is fight a battle against God’s priest. You will not get to the content of the confession.

With that said, the only possible outcome is to get a check.