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

[Hopey]

Do you know that this has never happened before?

I know it has within the Church.

You can not ever know the whole truth about this case. My decisions were not based on feelings alone but victims first which is what the Church is about too. Even alleged victims.

There are a million ways to harm people including priests. We have been warned, first by Christ. We still go out, spread the Good News, and go on.

I personally think SNAP would not be around if there was not a need for victims to have the support they need within the church.

That is my opinion. We have gone through a time where grave crimes were committed and sometimes the victim was revictimized by those in the Church (this is also why I hope they don’t proceed but settle out - so the young lady can get on with her recovery - this behind her - and for the poor priest to not be in this position anyway).

 

[cycleman]

The current position of the Church is ‘since I cannot respond, you cannot accuse’. That is putting the priest above the law and in effect saying they are immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability for any misconduct committed within the confessional.

That may very well be the letter of Canon law, but it is a perversion of the reason for priest/penitent privilege which is meant to protect the penitent. (Or, maybe the church’s position really is you can’t touch us for wrongdoing as long as we are smart enough to do it in the confessional)

The girl has rights too.

I’m not an American, so I don’t know your constitution but I know you have freedom of speech provisions. If this does go to your highest court, it sounds like it will be a fight between conflicting constitutional rights. Freedom of speech on the part of the girl, and freedom of religion on the part of the priest.

 

[JimG]

I cannot imagine anything like this happening in my parish, since we use standard confessionals in which penitents are private and anonymous, and there are enough parishioners that a priest would simply not know or remember who came to confession at any given time even if he recognized the voice, which I doubt. Confessions are usually short. Confess your sins, receive absolution.

Now, I’m not a priest, but if I were, I think I would cut off a penitent who started to mention someone else’s name in the confessional. That’s not the purpose of confession.

If you have a personal matter to discuss, go to the priest outside of confession. But even that now seems worrisome to me. There’s nothing wrong with counseling, but will a priest now have to worry that whatever is said in a private counseling session may become a matter of litigation? (If I were a school counselor, I would also worry about the outcome of this case putting me at risk.)

In the case being discussed, the priest cannot even say whether or not the girl came to him for confession, let alone discuss what was said. As manualman has said, it would make a precedent which has the capability of bankrupting the Church, which I’m sure some would like.

Plaintiff: “Priest X told me Y during confession, and because of that I am suing for civil damages.”

Priest: “I cannot discuss in any way whether I heard any person’s confession or what was discussed in any confession.”

Judge: “Priest does not deny the allegations. Summary judgment for the plaintiff.”

 

[Corki]

The current position of the Church is ‘since I cannot respond, you cannot accuse’. That is putting the priest above the law and in effect saying they are immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability for any misconduct committed within the confessional.

That may very well be the letter of Canon law, but it is a perversion of the reason for priest/penitent privilege which is meant to protect the penitent. (Or, maybe the church’s position really is you can’t touch us for wrongdoing as long as we are smart enough to do it in the confessional)

The girl has rights too.

I’m not an American, so I don’t know your constitution but I know you have freedom of speech provisions. If this does go to your highest court, it sounds like it will be a fight between conflicting constitutional rights. Freedom of speech on the part of the girl, and freedom of religion on the part of the priest.

It’s not putting the priest above the law. It’s simply pointing out that the law doesn’t work very well in this case. The girl can testify but the priest cannot respond. He cannot confirm or deny anything she says nor can he add to it. That is not the way the court system is supposed to work.

And it’s not an American thing. No priest, in any country, can reveal anything said in Confession.

 

[choose_to_love]

Late to the party, I have been commenting elsewhere.

It appears to me, from what I have seen, that cycleman has the factual context correct.

In preparing for trial, the diocese and priest filed a motion in limine to exclude the girl from testifying about what she said or what the priest said in confession, or that there even was a confession. A motion in limine is a mechanism to exclude certain evidence before trial. This was, as I understand it, before trial, and again as I understand it, trial has not occurred. The trial court denied the motion, which had the effect of allowing the girl to testify as to a) whether she went to confession and b) what each of them said.

The Diocese appealed. The appeals court not only reversed the trial court, but basically said there was no way for the plaintiff to win, because the priest received whatever information he received in the confessional. Plaintiff’s case was thrown out as against the diocese and priest. Plaintiff appealed to Louisiana Supreme Court (LA SC).

The LA SC reinstated the case. It reasoned that the privilege provide in LA evidentiary law was for the clergyman to claim for the benefit of the penitent. Since the penitent waived it, the confessor could not invoke it. Canon law considerations did not really apply, only the LA evidentiary code.

It then remanded back to the trial court to consider 1) did an actual confession take place and 2) did the priest have outside knowledge of the abuse that would have triggered a duty to report.

I have not seen that the plaintiff’s lawyer wanted the priest to testify, only that the girl be allowed to testify. As several here have pointed out, this raises some competing issues of justice.

On the one hand, the victim should have the right to attempt redress of alleged wrongs. If she is precluded from testifying, the basis of her case evaporates.

On the other hand, the priest cannot defend himself from accusations about what may or may not have occurred in the confessional, and that is a fundamental injustice as well.

As far as the LA SC’s decision, if it turns out the girl went to a scheduled time of confession, or made an appointment for the same with the priest, it seems the inquiry should be short as to whether “confession” or a confidential communication with a clergyman took place. If it is much beyond that, I think that is a real problem. I don’t think we want the state determining whether or not sacramental confession took place.

 

[sweetcharity]

I don’t know…it is entirely possible.

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:

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.

So what you are saying here is that a forum full of adults are misunderstanding what you are saying.

Too bad there aren’t any 14 year old girls here because they would never misinterpret your comments.

 

[cycleman]

Late to the party, I have been commenting elsewhere.

It appears to me, from what I have seen, that cycleman has the factual context correct.

In preparing for trial, the diocese and priest filed a motion in limine to exclude the girl from testifying about what she said or what the priest said in confession, or that there even was a confession. A motion in limine is a mechanism to exclude certain evidence before trial. This was, as I understand it, before trial, and again as I understand it, trial has not occurred. The trial court denied the motion, which had the effect of allowing the girl to testify as to a) whether she went to confession and b) what each of them said.

The Diocese appealed. The appeals court not only reversed the trial court, but basically said there was no way for the plaintiff to win, because the priest received whatever information he received in the confessional. Plaintiff’s case was thrown out as against the diocese and priest. Plaintiff appealed to Louisiana Supreme Court (LA SC).

The LA SC reinstated the case. It reasoned that the privilege provide in LA evidentiary law was for the clergyman to claim for the benefit of the penitent. Since the penitent waived it, the confessor could not invoke it. Canon law considerations did not really apply, only the LA evidentiary code.

It then remanded back to the trial court to consider 1) did an actual confession take place and 2) did the priest have outside knowledge of the abuse that would have triggered a duty to report.

I have not seen that the plaintiff’s lawyer wanted the priest to testify, only that the girl be allowed to testify. As several here have pointed out, this raises some competing issues of justice.

On the one hand, the victim should have the right to attempt redress of alleged wrongs. If she is precluded from testifying, the basis of her case evaporates.

On the other hand, the priest cannot defend himself from accusations about what may or may not have occurred in the confessional, and that is a fundamental injustice as well.

As far as the LA SC’s decision, if it turns out the girl went to a scheduled time of confession, or made an appointment for the same with the priest, it seems the inquiry should be short as to whether “confession” or a confidential communication with a clergyman took place. If it is much beyond that, I think that is a real problem. I don’t think we want the state determining whether or not sacramental confession took place.

choose to love,

thank you for taking the time to prepare a well researched, well balanced review of the facts and issues in the case to date.

 

[sweetcharity]

If you want to learn a little bit about Fr. Bayhi, go here: closerwalkministries.com/shows.php

I only skimmed his videos. At the 7:30 mark on this video, Fr Bayhi discusses children. Not abuse of children, but children in general. closerwalkministries.com/1381.html

I think once he gets into court, Fr. Bayhi will be able to properly defend himself.

 

[mikekle]

New Orleans Times-Picayune:

So is Louisiana’s plan to turn priests into mandated reporters?

If this is true, then I truly hope and pray the people of that particular parish and really any christian people living in that area, need to stand up and fight back against this, they should not sit back and accept any part of this.

If this is allowed to go forward, it will set a dangerous precedent for all other parishes and priests all over the country!

I think this has reached a point where the local townspeople need to be marching down the street towards city hall with torches, shotguns, etc. this is not the time to concede or give and take, or settle. Pray for this priest!

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

I think this has reached a point where the local townspeople need to be marching down the street towards city hall with torches, shotguns, etc. …

I’m sorry, but I loled at this, especially the “torches” bit. It’d be like a scene from Young Frankenstein.

 

[Hopey]

"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 7
confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report. "

That is what the SP ruled. What should happen, if the priest takes the stand, he could answer in a number of ways: I have no information of abuse, etc, and still respect the seal.

Or if he did outside the confessional, then he would be subjected to law.

 

[mikekle]

I’m sorry, but I loled at this, especially the “torches” bit. It’d be like a scene from Young Frankenstein.

Yeah, I find it kind of funny too, especially because I can think of NOTHING that would make people of today march down the street! I think even if Govt threatened to forcibly take away their first born, SOME people would just sit back and obey. LOL

Americans today are some of the most easily controlled people I can think of (compared to other countries and other time periods), I cant think of anything that would cause a large majority of people to riot in the streets or do anything that risks their own freedom or comfort/ quality of life, its simple, most people dont want to be bothered, they want to live in their little cul de sac worlds and want nothing to interfere with that…in return they are willing to pay literally any new taxes, fees, fines, etc. obey any new law, regulations, etc without a question…no matter what they are asked, they obey 100%. LOL

This is surely not what our founding fathers desired for the nation, we have lost alot of our patriotism over the years, now its all just talk, no action.

 

[JimG]

"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 7
confessions per se and whether the priest obtained knowledge outside the confessional that would trigger his duty to report. "

That is what the SP ruled. What should happen, if the priest takes the stand, he could answer in a number of ways: I have no information of abuse, etc, and still respect the seal.

Or if he did outside the confessional, then he would be subjected to law.

If the purpose of his testimony is to determine whether or not he heard the girl’s confession, he can not disclose whether or not he heard or confession. Neither can he disclose anything that was said in the confession.

 

[vsedriver]

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

Even without the seal of the confessional there is no way to prove who said what. I’m surprised this case even went to court.

 

[seakelp]

Even without the seal of the confessional there is no way to prove who said what. I’m surprised this case even went to court.

It’s not in court, yet.

The Court basically concluded a few things:

1. Whether the priest can avail himself of the priest-penitent privilege in order to bar the testimony of the penitent?

The legal privilege is for the benefit of the penitent. If the penitent wants to waive the seal of confession and testify about what she said during confession, no rule of evidence bars the admission of that testimony. In other words, the first point has nothing to do with forcing the priest break the seal. The case is silent on the unraised issue of whether a *priest *may be forced to testify when the penitent has waived the privilege.

1. Whether the priest is a mandatory reporter?

This gets into the state’s mandatory reporter law. It says that clergymen are mandatory reporters, meaning that they must report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. There is an exception to this mandatory reporting law that says priests who hear about sexual abuse during Confession do not have to report.

The question, then is whether in this particular case the priest learned of the sexual abuse during Confession, or during a regular conversation. If the former, the priest had no duty to report. If the latter, he did, and may be liable for damages to the family.

In other words, if we look closer at the opinion, the priest-penitent provision remains steadfastly in place.

 

[Hopey]

It’s not in court, yet.

The Court basically concluded a few things:

1. Whether the priest can avail himself of the priest-penitent privilege in order to bar the testimony of the penitent?

The legal privilege is for the benefit of the penitent. If the penitent wants to waive the seal of confession and testify about what she said during confession, no rule of evidence bars the admission of that testimony. In other words, the first point has nothing to do with forcing the priest break the seal. The case is silent on the unraised issue of whether a *priest *may be forced to testify when the penitent has waived the privilege.

1. Whether the priest is a mandatory reporter?

This gets into the state’s mandatory reporter law. It says that clergymen are mandatory reporters, meaning that they must report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. There is an exception to this mandatory reporting law that says priests who hear about sexual abuse during Confession do not have to report.

The question, then is whether in this particular case the priest learned of the sexual abuse during Confession, or during a regular conversation. If the former, the priest had no duty to report. If the latter, he did, and may be liable for damages to the family.

In other words, if we look closer at the opinion, the priest-penitent provision remains steadfastly in place.

That’s how I am understanding it also. I think they would rather the priest not even have to testify, but I think it could be determined without even breaking the seal, or compelling him to do that.

It may not even get that far.

 

[vsedriver]

She alleges that he told her (a 12 year old girl being molested by an older man, a prominent parishioner) to ‘keep quiet or people will get hurt’. The classic coverup and protection of the abuser, an all too familiar story in the Catholic church.

in 2008 after all the publicity and damage ‘cover ups’ did to the church would anyone honestly think a priest would cover up for a parishioner?

 

[seakelp]

That’s how I am understanding it also. I think they would rather the priest not even have to testify, but I think it could be determined without even breaking the seal, or compelling him to do that.

It may not even get that far.

I’m not familiar with LA law, but do you know what exactly is the cause of action, here? Just a, “You failed to execute your statutory duty, which caused me harm?” type thing?

 

[Blessedwithfive]

in 2008 after all the publicity and damage ‘cover ups’ did to the church would anyone honestly think a priest would cover up for a parishioner?

Yes I absolutely believe a priest would keep quiet about everything told to him in a confession. Including someone seeking forgiveness for child molestation. And he can not require the person to turn himself in as a part of the sacrament

 

[vsedriver]

Yes I absolutely believe a priest would keep quiet about everything told to him in a confession. Including someone seeking forgiveness for child molestation. And he can not require the person to turn himself in as a part of the sacrament

that’s isn’t what I meant, what I meant was with all the past history would anyone believe a priest would tell a child not to report sex abuse?

it is my understanding that all the ‘cover ups’ were to protect clergy. So why would a priest feel he needs to cover up to protect a parishioner?