Louisiana Judge Rules That Priests Don’t Have to Report Abuse if They Hear It During Confession

A Louisiana judge has struck down a state requirement that clergy members report suspected child abuse even if they learn about it during a private confessional.

State District Judge Mike Caldwell ruled Friday that the requirement — a Louisiana Children’s Code provision — violates the constitutionally protected religious freedom rights of a Roman Catholic priest accused of neglecting his duty to report a teenager’s abuse allegations to authorities.

In court, Judge Caldwell ruled Bayhi’s religious freedom rights would be violated if he was forced to talk about the alleged confession.

Two years ago, Mayeux told us she went to Father Bayhi seeking advice when she was 14, because she trusted him more than her parents. Court records show when Mayeux went to Bayhi, Rebecca says he told her, “This is your problem, sweep it under the floor and get rid of it.”

But, on the stand today, Father Bayhi told a Judge he can’t even confirm whether someone even came to confession. That’s just how sacred it is. He added no one would trust priests if confessions were public.

Father Paul Counce is a canon lawyer for the Diocese of Baton Rouge. Counce testified this morning that priests can be excommunicated if they break the seal of confession.

Earlier in the day, the Diocese tried to prohibit Mayeux from testifying about what she told Father Bayhi during that alleged confession. A judge ruled she could testify about what she told him, but her attorney can’t argue that Bayhi was mandated to report that.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:A confession like this would put priests in a difficult position....morally of course they should report child abuse, but their religion states that whatever they hear must remain secret.....which just proves how religion can mess up a persons responsibilities.

However to not advise the child to speak to someone who could report this.....and to tell her it was 'her problem' and to 'sweep it under the floor' shows how corrupt he (and God knows how many more priests and people who  hide under the banner of religion) really is.

-
This happened in Louisiana, a singularly Catholic state.  Not surprising.  No doubt it will (or is being) be appealed.  Churches are getting aggressive with the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.

However, if religion is able to trump law--particularly child protective laws--imagine the field day the FLDS (Fundamental Latter Day Saints) will have.  

The LDS, or Mormons, believe that female children should be married as soon as they reach puberty; god teaches that it the duty of humans to reproduce as quickly and as vociferously as possible.  The same standard recommends polygamy, as the more wives a man has, the more he can impregnate.  Utah only prohibited these practices in 1925, and a lot of them still go on (I know a sheriff in one Utah county who has several wives).

The FLDS still practice these customs.  If the First Amendment prohibits curtailing Church doctrines and customs, you may well see 9-year old girls being to have sex by the local Bishop.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes wolfie you're correct of course - but I don't see how the child can sue the priest so who exactly is she (her family) suing?

I Suppose if the family got their initial case heard in time, the court could "freeze" or delay the settling of a deceased's will..

If they wanted to include the priest, they would likely have to sue the Catholic Church in America, probably the local parish, as his employer, as most priests wouldn't have enough personal assets to cover possible damages, plus legal costs..

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
-
This happened in Louisiana, a singularly Catholic state.  Not surprising.  No doubt it will (or is being) be appealed.  Churches are getting aggressive with the First Amendment freedom of religion clause.

However, if religion is able to trump law--particularly child protective laws--imagine the field day the FLDS (Fundamental Latter Day Saints) will have.  

The LDS, or Mormons, believe that female children should be married as soon as they reach puberty; god teaches that it the duty of humans to reproduce as quickly and as vociferously as possible.  The same standard recommends polygamy, as the more wives a man has, the more he can impregnate.  Utah only prohibited these practices in 1925, and a lot of them still go on (I know a sheriff in one Utah county who has several wives).

The FLDS still practice these customs.  If the First Amendment prohibits curtailing Church doctrines and customs, you may well see 9-year old girls being to have sex by the local Bishop.

But hasn't religion always had that power Quill? Priests have always been gagged by the oath they have taken.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But that's what they believe Syl, and they're entitled to believe it. As I said, it's not really the same in the CofE or other Christians Churches really. If the Church itself decided they didn't want the Confessionals any more on the grounds that it was making things difficult re people confessing to crimes, that would be one thing, but then Catholics would still want to talk to their priests, and they might get worried that nothing would be confidential then - including non-crimes.

I know...I started off having sympathy for a priests dilemma, he has taken the oath to never reveal what he hears at confession, to feel forced to keep quiet about abuse of a child would be horrible. http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/catholic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html


This particular priest telling the girl to deal with it and sweep it under the floor (if that's what he actually said) is very wrong though.....she probably came to him for advice....he should have helped her.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

But hasn't religion always had that power Quill? Priests have always been gagged by the oath they have taken.

No.  Not in the US.  Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 - (Supreme Court 1879) (Polygamy was first outlawed in Utah when it was still a territory. In 1874, Congress banned the practice, which had become commonplace in Utah's Mormon community).  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1104642225155375579&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Stormee wrote:Does the priest actually have to know the person confessing?

Raggamuffin wrote:It could be a good chance for people to tell their daughters not to kiss and cuddle with married men old enough to be their grandfathers, and to not go to see them privately and sit on their knee.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  Not in the US.  Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 - (Supreme Court 1879) (Polygamy was first outlawed in Utah when it was still a territory. In 1874, Congress banned the practice, which had become commonplace in Utah's Mormon community).  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1104642225155375579&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Thanks for that Quill.
I meant the oath of confidentiality though when a confession has been given.
They are actually witholding information if they know a serious  crime has been commited....just as the priest in the OP did.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It could be a good chance for people to tell their daughters not to kiss and cuddle with married men old enough to be their grandfathers, and to not go to see them privately and sit on their knee.

Kids who are abused don't usually instigate the abuse Rags...they are the victims here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Kids who are abused don't usually instigate the abuse Rags...they are the victims here.

She was 14, not 4. Why did she go along with it?

Can anyone tell me why she or her parents need money because of something which happened one summer nearly 8 years ago? The man who the girl was a bit pally with died, so how is money going to to help?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She was 14, not 4. Why did she go along with it?

Can anyone tell me why she or her parents need money because of something which happened one summer nearly 8 years ago? The man who the girl was a bit pally with died, so how is money going to to help?

Many girls are abused at 14....it doesn't always start when they are babies or toddlers.
We don't know the hows and whys of the abuse do we? But it's probable that the dirty old bugger had all the control whilst she had none.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:Does the priest actually have to know the person confessing?

I don't think so Stormee. Why do you ask?

Stormee wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think so Stormee. Why do you ask?

Just to understand if the priest knows a criminal or not, if not it would be more difficult for a priest to shop a criminal

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many girls are abused at 14....it doesn't always start when they are babies or toddlers.
We don't know the hows and whys of the abuse do we? But it's probable that the dirty old bugger had all the control whilst she had none.

I know that - I was asking why she went along with it if she didn't like it.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know that - I was asking why she went along with it if she didn't like it.

Who knows how any 14 year old is sexually abused by a dirty old bastard? Scared, intimidated, tricked, pressured, threatened, bribed.....the list goes on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:

Just to understand if the priest knows a criminal or not, if not it would be more difficult for a priest to shop a criminal

Yes, that's true. I think they have a screen between them in the Confessional. Well they do in films anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:It could be a good chance for people to tell their daughters not to kiss and cuddle with married men old enough to be their grandfathers, and to not go to see them privately and sit on their knee.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It could be a good chance for people to tell their daughters not to kiss and cuddle with married men old enough to be their grandfathers, and to not go to see them privately and sit on their knee.

Are you kidding?? Don't you think parents tell their children this sort of thing all the time?
Most abused children are groomed rags...you do know that, right?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Are you kidding?? Don't you think parents tell their children this sort of thing all the time?
Most abused children are groomed rags...you do know that, right?

So why didn't she just tell her parents straightaway? I simply can't understand why a girl of that age would let a man of that age do that stuff if she didn't want him to.

Raggamuffin wrote:I've been trying to think of a TV crime serial where one episode featured a Catholic Priest with longish reddish hair, and I can't remember which one it was. It's really annoying me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I've been trying to think of a TV crime serial where one episode featured a Catholic Priest with longish reddish hair, and I can't remember which one it was. It's really annoying me.

It was A touch of Frost. Phew!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



It was A Touch of Frost. Phew!

lol.
Don't you just hate it when google cant provide the answer.

Syl wrote:Well your persistence paid off then.
I sometimes rephrase things loads of times in google and it still wont tell me what I want to know.

Syl wrote:It's so frustrating when you cant remember something.

Years ago we were in Israel on holiday and there seemed to be no English people in the place we were staying.
We couldn't remember who played one of the actors in Bootsie and Snudge...Alfie Bass we remembered....but we were listening out for English speakers to ask we were so desperate to find out.
It was Bill Fraser.... we remembered about 2 days later.