Scott Peyton joined the Anglicans after the crime against his son. Then the Catholic church officially expelled him
The Roman Catholic church has upheld the excommunication of a Louisiana deacon who resigned from the clergy after a priest molested his son.
Scott Peyton learned of the decision by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) – the Vatican entity in charge of Catholic clerical discipline – on Friday in a meeting with the bishop of the diocese of Lafayette, J Douglas Deshotel. The DDF cited technical grounds in rejecting Peyton’s appeal, saying he had joined an Anglican congregation, “published [that] fact … on social media” and therefore refused to submit to the Catholic pope, who since May 2025 has been Leo XIV.
deleted by creator
Just a reminder that, for all the nice speeches Francis and Leo made, the Catholic church is still the Catholic church.
ok I get the outrage but why would the deacon care. He left the church and this is the church going you can’t quit your fired or whatever. Its kinda pathetic.
In appealing, Peyton argued that “there was no pastoral good to be accomplished” by excommunicating him. He also said his wife and six children felt unwelcome in the Catholic church because of his excommunication, meaning it had “harmed the spiritual lives of eight Catholics” in one fell swoop.
wait. so his wife and other children kept going to catholic church while he converted to anglicanism? that seems even wierder.
To be precise, kept going to the church whose priest had molested their sibling and her son. The fuck are they still there for?
Wife is heart set on keeping the kids and herself catholic, is afraid of loosing her friends and community in a change of venue, and the kids are being drug along. The husband wants to stay Christian but can’t stomach the Catholic Church and possibly doesn’t feel welcome to that one, while not wanting to drag his wife through a possible crisis of faith.
Just a speculation based off other experiences.
yeah its kinda wierd the kids are still going with the mom. I must not understand something.
Catholicism. Even when you’re not particularly religious, it can be a huge part of your ethnic and generational identity. You are also generally encouraged to endure whatever you encounter, and if the wrong you endure is both in the church and unbearable, you are to seek another part of the church that does not have this problem. You are, in every circumstance – even when your kid is getting raped by a priest – to remain in the church.
I doubt very much that they ever communicate this in so many words (though I have known people that got something very close) but it is hammered in from your earliest hour in every possible way, especially if your schooling was Catholic.
That is why this loving father was punished, and so severely, even if they did not admit it directly: he put his son over the church, and the Catholic church unironically considers itself to be on par with God, to the point that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, is considered to be the infallible voice of God on earth.
So for Catholics, the full expectation would be that the wife and kids would remain Catholic, even though the marriage is intact and the husband is now excommunicated: loyalty to the church precedes the marriage in importance, and historically always has. Even for as much as a woman is supposed to submit to her husband, the earliest female saints were often women who refused a marriage with someone not of the faith, often by suicide or by choosing death over the marriage to the unfaithful, and these saints are still celebrated.
Also, a mother finding herself strapped to a suddenly non-Catholic husband would also be expected to take it upon herself to ensure that her Catholic children are also brought up in the church, even if it means doing so without their father, even if it means she gets the stink eye whenever she goes, even if going is a living hell for her and her family, which it arguably has been.
All of this is not so much dogma, though the basis of it certainly is, as it is simply written into every fiber of Catholic living.
And the piece of shit pedophile defender that excommunicated this guy – doing it in such a way that it harmed the entire family – knew all this when he did it, even more completely and personally than I or anyone else could possibly describe it, and was glad.
NOTE: I am an atheist and do not personally believe or defend any of it, so don’t come at me: this is simply an explanation, NOT a defense.
Didn’t want to edit so I will just add here: I had not read the article yet when I wrote the above, so I was unaware that the guy had joined another denomination when he left the church, and does not wish to return. Technically, that refusal to return to Catholicism and “submit to the pope” is solid ground for excommunication from the Catholic church.
But having known myself at least two or three dozen openly lapsed Catholics over the years that I met in other churches, it’s pretty clear they don’t commonly excommunicate for this alone, so I stand by what I said: the real crime was not leaving, but leaving publicly, and in open protest of the assaults on his child, and in such a way that the official doing the excommunication used it not to bring him back, but to punish him and his entire family for not suffering in silence.
He also said his wife and six children felt unwelcome in the Catholic church because of his excommunication
I would have thought they’d feel unwelcome because the congregation threw a farewell lunch for the child molester. What twists people’s minds and morals enough to do that?
Religion is a hell of a drug
And the only way for humanity to survive is by removing it.
What do they think excomminication is?
To be clear, it was the victim’s father who was excommunicated, not the perpetrator.
I understand that. I’m not justifying the decision, it’s entirely wrong. But excomminication is the ultimate decision in the Catholic Church. Why would they expect a welcome?
They have their answers: the church is fucked and evil and they should be grateful not to be a part of the organization covering for a pedo.
Because they aren’t the ones excommunicated
Oh he should certainly get far away, but it was his family, who had not been excommunicated, who were made unwelcome. I don’t think they were actually expecting to be welcomed, rather they were making a point that that congregation is rotten to the core. We know the rot spreads throughout the organisation, but it can be helpful to bring examples to light for those who aren’t so certain yet.
Exactly. God has literally given him a sign to become an atheist!
Now we’re talkin’.
Guidry, 83, was later treated to a farewell lunch by his church – for which the Lafayette diocese was forced to apologize
They had a going away party for a child molester.
The guy didn’t expect them to reverse the excommunication, and neither would I, but it’s really an unnecessary thing to add as a cherry on top of the church failing this family. I don’t know why he’d care considering everything else, but I’m not religious so I don’t expect to fully understand anyway.
The Catholic Church has known about, and tolerated, systemic molestation of young boys for CENTURIES. Many of those young boys grew up to become priests, who molested the next generation. It has been a major recruitment tool for many centuries. Without it, what do they have to entice young men into the priesthood? Celibacy has never been a strong selling point.
But if you can troll through the young boys, you’ll find a few who are into it, and quickly get recruited and indoctrinated, and they understand that as priests, they can indulge their hobby for their entire lives. It’s an effective recruiting scheme that historically probably accounts for 20% or more of their ranks, so why would the church want to stop it?
I think all child molesters should get going-away parties and never be seen again.
And gifts of lead.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
AKA the Inquisition
I wasn’t expecting that.
Meanwhile, Goldstein’s statement said that Deshotel on Friday admitted that the abusive clergyman who preyed on Peyton’s son – the imprisoned Michael Guidry – remained in the Catholic priesthood.
Peyton said he understood Guidry was suspended from being able to publicly minister. He also cited comments Guidry made at a public hearing where he unsuccessfully requested parole, during which he talked about providing spiritual direction while incarcerated and considering himself to still be a priest.
“That is the scandal,” Peyton said in his statement on Sunday. “That’s the contradiction.”
I have to agree with Peyton here that that’s the contradiction in this story. Ironically, Peyton’s actions necessitate a jure excommunication within the laws of the church, as being a minister of the Catholic Church and then publicly saying “I’m going to another denomination”, regardless of reason, is refusal to submit to the Pope – where apostasy is basically the stereotypical excommunication ground. (The excommunication could be simply undone upon him wanting to go back to Catholicism.)
Meanwhile, the child rapist’s actions ironically may not because it doesn’t violate any of the latae sententiae* excommunication reasons. (Of course, though, trying to make a woman a deacon, is one. lmao) This would be ferendae sententiae, but it’s presumable that the priest repented to the Church/God/whatever once this came to light, where excommunication is strictly a tool designed to encourage repentance.
For some context, excommunication within the fiction of Christianity isn’t anything like “you won’t get into Heaven”; it’s that you can no longer receive the sacraments of the Catholic Church. It’s what’s called a “medicinal” penalty, i.e. not designed to punish or rebuke past behavior but strictly hoping to hasten repentance. Basically, it’s a tool of “nooooo, please don’t excommunicate me! I neeeeed that yummy bread circle!” Excommunications are made with the hope they’ll be undone. Thus, if the person is already penitent, the tool isn’t going to have its sole intended effect.
What’s completely fucked here is that the priest is only “suspended” from practicing; it’s gross there’s a chance he’ll ever practice again. And the fact he “still considers himself a priest” makes it even worse and shows a lack of penitence. That crosses a line from the technicalities of Catholic law and its emphasis on forgiveness and loyalty to “quit protecting rapists, Vatican”.
* Latae sententiae excommunication means the excommunication happens automatically upon perpetration, because you’ve broken a short list of presumed-known rules. I.e. even if no one ever finds out, you’ve been excommunicated the whole time until you confess and repent. Ferendae sententiae means judgment needs to be brought first and then announced before you’re excommunicated.
Excellent comment, thank you for taking the time to write it. I wrote a more superficial “why” of it elsewhere, but you actually brought canon. Well said.
Yeah, the clickbait title is leaving out a pretty key piece of info. I thought he was excommunicated because he caused a stink, but no, it’s because he broke the rules by joining another denomination.
I mean, it’s still a stupid rule, but it seems that his excommunication wasn’t retaliatory or malicious.
Here’s your signal to renounce religion, fool.
He had six kids? Aren’t Catholic clergy meant to be celibate?
Permanent deacons (ie a deacon who is not going to be a priest) can indeed be married.
But they have to marry first iirc
yes. unmarried are usually convinced to become priests.
Permanent Deacons can be in pre-existing marriages upon ordination.
