Louisiana court's ruling that Catholic priest testify about confession criticized by diocese UPDATED

[rug]

By Emily Lane, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on July 07, 2014 at 7:48 PM, updated July 07, 2014 at 11:22 PM

The Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge has issued a statement decrying a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that could compel a local priest to testify in court about confessions he might have received. The alleged confessions, according to legal documents, were made to the priest by a minor girl regarding possible sexual abuse perpetrated by another church parishioner.

The statement, published Monday (July 7) on the diocese's website, said forcing such testimony "attacks the seal of confession," a sacrament that "cuts to the core of the Catholic faith."

The statement refers to a lawsuit naming the Rev. Jeff Bayhi and the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge as defendants and compels Bayhi to testify whether or not there were confessions "and, if so, what the contents of any such confessions were."

"A foundational doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable," the statement says. "The position of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and Fr. Bayhi is that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has run afoul of the constitutional rights of both the Church and the priest, more particularly, has violated the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State under the first amendment."

http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/07/priest_confession_testimony_lo.html

http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/13C2879.pc.pdf

The pdf of the statement of the diocese is at this link:

http://www.diobr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=189

[meow2u3]

1. The court has overstepped its authority

by compelling a priest to testify about the contents of a confession--under absolute seal--in open court. What is that judge thinking?

This judge is saying the interests of the state trumps a priest's right to exercise his religion freely.

[rug]

3. The hook they're using is that the penitent waived the privilege.

The penitent holds the privilege and if she waived it, the priest cannot assert it.

Those are very narrow, technical evidentiary grounds.

I suspect there's a lot more to the circumstances of this case that isn't in the decision.

At least they did not find that a priest hearing confession is a mandated reporter.

[goldent]

5. In my view, even if the penitent waived the privilege

the priest should not be compelled to testify. The priest does not know why the penitent waived the privilege, and this is very bad precedent.

[okasha]

2. Then what happens to doctor-patient confidentiality?

Attorney-client privilege?

This is a horrible decision.

[rug]

4. It's a treacherous area.

There are sex offenders who must undergo therapy as a condition of parole. The parolee/patient, as a condition of parole, must sign a release that the therapist must tell the parole officer what goes on during therapy. That's a far cry from simply reporting that the parolee is attending and compliant.