Opinion
No. 2013–C–2879.
2014-05-23
[PARENTS OF MINOR CHILD] v. George J. CHARLET, Jr., Deceased, Charlet Funeral Home, Inc., [the Priest], and the Roman Catholic Church of Thediocese of Baton Rouge.
Applying For Rehearing of this court's action dated April 4, 4014, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 580066; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2013 CW 0316.
Prior report: 135 So.3d 1177.
Rehearing denied. VICTORY, J., dissents from the denial of rehearing and would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
WEIMER, J., recused.
GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
GUIDRY, J., concurs in the denial of rehearing with reasons.
The privilege created by La.Code of Evid. art. 511 is for “confidential communications,” that is, communications “made privately and not intended for further disclosure by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser,” and belongs to the communicant. There is no express statutory privilege, exception to the reporting mandate, or even particular reference to communications during the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession. Whether or not the communication was part of a “confession per se” as that term is understood in religious doctrine, may be an ecclesiastical problem for the priest, but it does not appear to be relevant here to consideration of the meaning and intent of the Louisiana statutes involved in this case. VICTORY, J., dissents from the denial of rehearing and would grant and docket.
ON REHEARING
I dissent from the majority's decision to deny rehearing and would grant and docket the case for full argument and briefing by the parties to consider whether the reporting requirement of La. Ch. C. art. 609 overrides any privilege that may otherwise be claimed by the priest. At the very least, I would grant rehearing to correct the per curiam which remands the case to the trial court to determine whether the communications between the priest and the minor were “confessions per se.” Instead, the proper inquiry would be whether the communications were “confidential communications” under La. C.E. art. 511 and La. Ch. C. art. 603(15). Not only is a “confession per se ” undefined in the per curiam, it has no legal relevance to this case.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing.