- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Catholic Confession Case: Baton Rouge Diocese asks U.S. Supreme Court for Review
Posted on 9/6/14 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 9/6/14 at 7:25 pm
quote:
The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling by the state Supreme Court it says threatens the confidentiality of religious confessions.
The Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling, rendered in May, laid out arguments that priests should be subject to mandatory reporting laws regarding abuse of minors if the person who makes the confession waives confidentiality. Normally, priests are exempt as mandatory reporters in the setting of confessions. The decision by the state's high court stated confidentially is intended to protect the person who made the confessions, not the person who receives them.
"The Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling strikes a very hard blow against religious freedom," said the diocese in a press release sent Thursday (Sept. 4).
The original case involves a minor girl who alleges she confessed during the sacrament of Reconciliation to Baton Rouge priest Father George Bayhi that a fellow church parishioner had molested her.
Rebecca Mayeux, who was a minor at the time of the alleged confessions, said in an interview to WBRZ in July, at age 20, that Bayhi told her to "take care of it."
The Mayeux family has sued the priest and diocese for damages, claiming they were negligent in allowing the alleged abuse to continue and should have reported it to authorities. The suit also names the estate of the man Mayeux says molested her, who died in 2009, as a defendant.
The court's ruling did not decide the case but ordered it returned to the district level for a hearing to let both sides present evidence about the nature of the confessions. The hearing would decide if the communications between Mayeux and Bayhi should be considered religious confessions and/or explore the content of what was allegedly said.
The diocese's latest petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed Aug. 24, argues case law from Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich makes clear that "religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry."
quote:
The hearing proposed by Louisiana Supreme Court would violate the church's constitutional protection afforded by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, to abide by its own laws, it concludes. Moreover, the diocese noted in a press release sent Thursday (Sept. 4) that the "Catholic Church requires that priests keep all that is learned during the Sacrament of Reconciliation absolutely confidential under penalty of excommunication."
Mayeux's allegations have already been expressed publicly, and if they were to go to trial as the state's high court has ordered, Father Bayhi and the diocese would be "utterly unable to defend themselves," the release says, unless Bayhi violate his vows.
LINK
This is an interesting test of religious freedom should SCOTUS take it up.
Three questions.....
Can the gov't / judicial system decide what constitutes as a confession in the religious setting?
Does the gov't and the courts have the authority to decide church polity and rule on matters that are purely religious in nature?
If the gov't and courts do decide matters of religion, do they do it even if it impacts church polity or stop before it gets there?
Now, I don't know much about case law and the red tape about religious matters and gov't involvement in it so I'll just hang up and listen.
This post was edited on 9/6/14 at 11:58 pm
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:02 pm to Sentrius
No to first two not sure about #3
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:47 pm to Sentrius
No right exists in a vacuum.
That's why people go to school for a ling time to start to learn law.
That's why people go to school for a ling time to start to learn law.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:00 am to Sentrius
Correct me if I am wrong - but is it not a fact that the confessor waived her rights to confessional privacy?
If that is the case - I doubt the SCOTUS will even hear it. Confessional privacy is the right of the confessor - not the confessee. In all other forms of protected communication - doctor/patient, lawyer/client, the latter of each may waive the privilege. Can you imagine how absurd it would be if you signed all the right forms to have your doctor send your medical records to a 3rd party and he claimed "sorry, doctor/patient privilege - I won't release the records". That's lunacy ... and so is the idea that religious practice excludes you from a legal obligation to produce evidence of a felony that is in your possession. Hey - my religion says I don't have to pay taxes, stop at stop signs, or obey the dope laws.
If that is the case - I doubt the SCOTUS will even hear it. Confessional privacy is the right of the confessor - not the confessee. In all other forms of protected communication - doctor/patient, lawyer/client, the latter of each may waive the privilege. Can you imagine how absurd it would be if you signed all the right forms to have your doctor send your medical records to a 3rd party and he claimed "sorry, doctor/patient privilege - I won't release the records". That's lunacy ... and so is the idea that religious practice excludes you from a legal obligation to produce evidence of a felony that is in your possession. Hey - my religion says I don't have to pay taxes, stop at stop signs, or obey the dope laws.
This post was edited on 9/7/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 9/7/14 at 9:36 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Posted by SpidermanTUba
You're wrong. The issue is that the Catholic Church does not allow a priest to even say that a confession took place at all. It's not the same as doctor-patient privilege.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 11:32 am to Sentrius
this seems pretty simple to me. The priest needs to decide if he answers to god or the government and do accordingly.
the courts should determine faults of the matter with no thought as to what religion the man is because they don't answer to a religion they answer to us the people based on what he did or did not do( or are supposed to be answering to us)
The church should maintain their doctrine as it's from god and he seemed pretty perfect before so I don't understand why he'd change his mind now based on our courts. Government has no business changing that but it also has no reason to accommodate that.
the courts should determine faults of the matter with no thought as to what religion the man is because they don't answer to a religion they answer to us the people based on what he did or did not do( or are supposed to be answering to us)
The church should maintain their doctrine as it's from god and he seemed pretty perfect before so I don't understand why he'd change his mind now based on our courts. Government has no business changing that but it also has no reason to accommodate that.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 11:35 am to Sentrius
From what I know if the case, this was not a confession.
Plus, like any other privilege, it is the speaker's privilege, to assert or waive.
So, since the girl us the speaker, and is apparently waiving the privilege, I don't see the issue.
Plus, like any other privilege, it is the speaker's privilege, to assert or waive.
So, since the girl us the speaker, and is apparently waiving the privilege, I don't see the issue.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:03 pm to udtiger
quote:
From what I know if the case, this was not a confession.
the diocese has stated that the state has no right to decide if a confession has taken place or not. In the opinion of the diocese confession took place. Because of the nature of confession you can't challenge that ruling. If no confession took place than the priest would have talked about it, but because it did take place he can't say a word, even to confirm that she went to confession.
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:14 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
the diocese has stated that the state has no right to decide if a confession has taken place or not. In the opinion of the diocese confession took place. Because of the nature of confession you can't challenge that ruling. If no confession took place than the priest would have talked about it, but because it did take place he can't say a word, even to confirm that she went to confession.
IMO, this entire thing is an attempt to arrest priests, as (a) many priests teach themselves how to forget everything said in the confessional and (b) most confessions are completely anonymous (and, in most court cases, from years ago)
Posted on 9/7/14 at 4:09 pm to catholictigerfan
This is from a conversation with a friend of mine who's also a lawyer.
Thoughts?
quote:
In 1976 SCOTUS ruled on a case involving a defrocked Serbian Orthodox diocesean bishop who argued that his dismissal violated canon law. See LINK
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the bishop and ruled that the Serbian Orthodox Church violated its own rules in defrocking the bishop. SCOTUS overruled, saying that the Illinois court "had overstepped its bounds in deciding issues related to ecclesiastical and political intra-church matters".
If SCOTUS believes that it cannot get involved in whether or not a church bishop was lawfully defrocked based on canon law (though many times courts determine if an employee's firing was valid, based on company policies), how can it turn around and determine if what a Roman Catholic Church priest or diocese considers to be a confessional without inserting itself into canon law? Unless it plans to declare Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich to no longer be good case law, I can't see how it can.
Thoughts?
Posted on 9/7/14 at 10:12 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Thoughts?
I order to determine the validity of a confession, you must be able to have knowledge on what happened during that confession.
The best way to argue that confession didn't take place is that somehow they prove that she didn't confess any sins. That is next to impossible if impossible. She may say that confession didn't take place (even though in her testimony she believed she did), but that is her own story, nothing can back that up.
Nothing in canon law would allow the priest to revel confidential communication, that took place in a confessional.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:13 am to catholictigerfan
When all parties took part in the confession, all parties expected it to be confidential. How can she unilaterally decide to change the terms under which the confession occurred? In my mind, she cannot. Period.
I side with the church.
I side with the church.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News