Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Catholic Confession Case: Baton Rouge Diocese asks U.S. Supreme Court for Review

Posted on 9/6/14 at 7:25 pm
Posted by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
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 by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56009 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:02 pm to
No to first two not sure about #3
Posted by Tigah in the ATL
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
27539 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:47 pm to
No right exists in a vacuum.

That's why people go to school for a ling time to start to learn law.
Posted by Oh Lawd
Member since Sep 2014
497 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:50 pm to
Thanks Obama.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:00 am to
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.

This post was edited on 9/7/14 at 12:01 am
Posted by Paluka
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
10763 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 9:36 am to
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 by oklahogjr
Gold Membership
Member since Jan 2010
36748 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 11:32 am to
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.

Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98470 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 11:35 am to
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.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56009 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:03 pm to
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 by TN Bhoy
San Antonio, TX
Member since Apr 2010
60589 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 12:14 pm to
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 by Sentrius
Fort Rozz
Member since Jun 2011
64757 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 4:09 pm to
This is from a conversation with a friend of mine who's also a lawyer.

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 by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56009 posts
Posted on 9/7/14 at 10:12 pm to
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 by Sid in Lakeshore
Member since Oct 2008
41956 posts
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:13 am to
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.
Posted by Quidam65
Q Continuum
Member since Jun 2010
19307 posts
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:34 am to
Well first of all, thanks for quoting my earlier post.

LINK
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 9:37 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram