As convicted priest Michael Guidry approaches release from prison, fresh allegations and unanswered questions about what fellow priests knew expose a troubling disparity in the Diocese of Lafayette’s administration of justice.
On 14 November 2026, Father Michael Guidry, aged eighty-three, is scheduled to leave prison after serving the custodial sentence imposed for sexually abusing the teenage son of his permanent deacon. Guidry admitted the offence, pleaded guilty in 2019 and received a ten-year sentence, with three years suspended. His release will be subject to the civil requirements applicable to a registered sex offender. Yet, despite his conviction and permanent removal from public ministry, the Diocese of Lafayette has declined to clarify whether he has been dismissed from the clerical state. The silence has acquired particular significance since Rome confirmed the excommunication of Scott Peyton, the father of the abused boy, for formally joining an Anglican congregation after his family’s relationship with the Catholic Church had broken down.¹
The latest development is a further allegation against Guidry, disclosed by investigative journalist Jim Hummel of Acadiana News First on 2 November. A man has brought a civil claim against the Diocese of Lafayette alleging that Guidry sexually abused him while he was an altar server during the 1970s. The allegation has not been judicially established, and nothing in the published report warrants treating it as another proven offence. It is nevertheless a serious accusation against a priest whose sexual abuse of another child has already resulted in a criminal conviction. The proceedings form part of a substantial body of litigation made possible by Louisiana’s revival of previously prescribed claims concerning childhood sexual abuse, following legislative action and a ruling of the state Supreme Court. The present period for bringing such proceedings expires on 14 June 2027.²
The renewed scrutiny of Guidry’s history recalls an aspect of the case which received considerable local attention in 2021, but has been largely absent from more recent national reporting. In a deposition taken on 27 January that year, Guidry claimed that he had disclosed his abuse of Oliver Peyton to a small, informal support group of priests shortly after the offence occurred in 2015. Oliver did not report the abuse until 2018. According to an investigation published by Ben Myers in The Acadiana Advocate on 18 June 2021, Guidry identified Fathers Harold Trahan and Buddy Breaux among members of the group. Both acknowledged belonging to it but emphatically denied having received the disclosure which Guidry described.³
Those denials are important. The deposition establishes that Guidry made the claim under oath; it does not establish that the priests concerned knew of his crime or concealed it. There remains, however, a substantial question about the evidence itself and the response which followed its disclosure. If Guidry told other priests about the assault in 2015, what precisely did he tell them, and under what circumstances? Was the matter communicated to any ecclesiastical superior? What investigation was undertaken after the deposition became public in 2021, and what findings, if any, resulted? The published accounts examined here provide no definitive answers.
The distinction between an informal gathering of priests and sacramental confession must also be properly understood. The inviolability of the sacramental seal admits of no exception; information obtained exclusively through sacramental confession cannot be disclosed. An informal support group, however, does not acquire the sacramental seal merely because its members are priests or have promised one another confidentiality. Whether particular communications were protected by civil law is a separate question requiring examination of Louisiana’s legislation and the circumstances in which they occurred. In 2021, Myers reported that the legal obligations of the priests concerned were disputed. It would be wrong to pronounce them guilty of concealment upon the available evidence. It would be equally unsatisfactory to regard Guidry’s sworn account as a matter requiring no further inquiry.³
His deposition contained other disturbing statements concerning the offence for which he was convicted. Myers reported that Guidry sought to place responsibility for aspects of the encounter upon Oliver Peyton, despite his guilty plea and earlier admission to investigators. The priest’s explanations were challenged by the family’s lawyer, Kristi Schubert, who had represented numerous victims of clerical abuse. The published account of his testimony makes uncomfortable reading, particularly in its portrayal of behaviour towards a minor as an exercise of pastoral concern. Such statements are relevant to understanding why the Peyton family questioned whether the institution which had employed Guidry had adequately confronted the character of his wrongdoing. They also bear upon the broader question of rehabilitation and the assessment of an offender’s contrition, though the deposition alone cannot establish his present disposition.⁴
The Diocese of Lafayette’s public acknowledgement of the original abuse came in May 2021, following settlement of the family’s civil action. The diocese declared Oliver Peyton’s allegations credible, denounced Guidry’s conduct, apologised to Oliver and his family, and confirmed his permanent removal from ministry. That was a necessary acknowledgement. Nevertheless, it offered little explanation of the wider circumstances surrounding the case, including the questions raised by the priest’s testimony and the allegations concerning the treatment of the Peyton family during litigation. The earlier reporting of The Acadiana Advocate described diocesan legal pleadings which sought to place responsibility upon Oliver’s parents and made allegations against Scott Peyton which the presiding judge found unsupported. An ecclesiastical apology cannot reasonably be judged in isolation from the conduct which accompanies it.⁵
There is now a further reason to seek an account of the diocese’s knowledge of Guidry’s history. The new civil allegation concerns conduct said to have occurred approximately four decades before the offence against Oliver Peyton. Its truth remains undetermined, and the mere filing of a lawsuit supplies no evidence that diocesan authorities were aware of the alleged incident at the time. Nevertheless, the allegation raises questions about whether any earlier complaints, disciplinary records or warnings exist, and whether the new claim has been referred for investigation under the applicable ecclesiastical procedures. Such enquiries are ordinary requirements of responsible administration where a convicted offender is subsequently accused of earlier misconduct. The answers may demonstrate that the diocese acted appropriately upon the information available to it. If so, their disclosure, subject to legitimate legal and privacy restrictions, would serve the cause of justice.
The question of Guidry’s clerical status is distinct from these enquiries, though it is by no means insignificant. Under the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, clerical sexual abuse of a minor under eighteen was already a grave delict reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Guidry committed his offence in 2015. The 2010 norms expressly provided for punishment according to the gravity of the crime, including dismissal from the clerical state. Such dismissal was not automatic, and the competent ecclesiastical authority was obliged to observe the relevant substantive and procedural law. The preservation of the sacramental character of Holy Orders must also be distinguished from continued possession of clerical status: a dismissed priest remains ontologically a priest, although he loses the rights associated with the clerical state and is prohibited from exercising his orders except in circumstances specifically permitted by law.⁶
The Diocese of Lafayette has said that Guidry was permanently removed from ministry. That statement confirms an important disciplinary restriction, but it does not answer whether a penal process resulted in dismissal from the clerical state, whether some lesser canonical measure was imposed, or whether the competent Roman authority made a determination concerning his status. According to Peyton’s canon lawyer, Dawn Eden Goldstein, Bishop J. Douglas Deshotel acknowledged during their meeting on 16 October that he had recommended Guidry’s retention in the clerical state because of his age. This is Goldstein’s account of the conversation, rather than a publicly confirmed admission by the bishop. The diocese has not answered requests from the National Catholic Reporter and OSV News for clarification.⁷
Advanced age may properly influence decisions concerning the care, supervision and maintenance of a cleric who has committed a serious offence. It cannot change the nature of the offence, and the grounds for a disciplinary decision should remain intelligible. There may be canonical reasons for the outcome reached in Guidry’s case which have not been made public. The present difficulty is that no adequate account of those reasons has emerged from the diocese, while the same ecclesiastical authorities have shown considerable determination in pursuing the public canonical consequences of Scott Peyton’s departure.
Nuntiatoria examined that decision on 23 October in The Father Excommunicated, the Abuser Still a Priest: Rome’s Crisis of Justice. The editorial considered the eleven-page declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 22 May 2026 and communicated to Peyton on 16 October, confirming Bishop Deshotel’s March 2024 declaration that Peyton had incurred latae sententiae excommunication for schism. Peyton had informed the bishop in December 2023 of his intention to leave the diaconate and the Catholic Church; the following January he and his family were formally received into Trinity Anglican Church in Lafayette. They subsequently transferred to a nondenominational congregation, but the change did not resolve the question of his earlier formal separation from Catholic communion.⁸
The October investigation accepted the substantial ecclesiological argument upon which Rome relied. A Catholic’s obligation of communion with the Roman Pontiff and those subject to him does not disappear because ecclesiastical ministers have committed grave wrongs. Formal reception into another ecclesial communion is consequently a serious matter, particularly for a man who has received Holy Orders and publicly exercised ministry in the Catholic Church. The decisive objection concerned the Dicastery’s application of penal law: its published reasoning treated the deliberate character of Peyton’s external action as sufficient to establish the culpability necessary for automatic excommunication, without expressly examining the provisions which can exclude that consequence.
Gina Christian’s subsequent report for OSV News on 5 November introduces a significant intervention from Monsignor John Paul Kimes, a Maronite priest and professor of canon law at the University of Notre Dame. Having acknowledged the distinction between the objective act and the subjective responsibility of the offender, Kimes described Peyton’s arguments concerning the latter as “emotional arguments, not actual legal ones”. The observation is surprising, given that the law itself requires consideration of circumstances affecting imputability. The Church’s legislation does not confine legal argument to the external behaviour of the accused, nor does it regard personal freedom, fear or diminished responsibility as matters outside the juridical enquiry.⁹
Canon 1321 requires grave imputability and establishes a rebuttable presumption of responsibility where an external violation has been proved. Canons 1323 and 1324 identify circumstances which may exclude or diminish liability. The latter is especially important because canon 1324 §3 expressly prevents the incurrence of an automatic penalty when one of the circumstances specified in §1 applies. These include certain instances of grave fear, necessity, grave inconvenience and diminished imputability. It follows that a person may have deliberately undertaken the external act constituting an offence while nevertheless being exempt from the automatic censure because of a qualifying circumstance recognised by law. The existence of such circumstances in Peyton’s particular case requires proof; his family’s suffering does not establish them by itself. But they are questions of law, and they remain questions of law however distressing the evidence may be.¹⁰
The Dicastery acknowledged that the family’s situation had become untenable and recognised Peyton’s desire to preserve his children’s Christian faith. It also accepted that Bishop Deshotel might have warned him more explicitly about the consequences of his intended departure. It nevertheless concluded that his formal reception into the Anglican Communion constituted an intentional separation from Catholic ecclesiastical authority. In the decree examined by Nuntiatoria, canons 1323 and 1324 received no express treatment. The omission is important because their application, where established, alters the legal consequence of the act irrespective of whether the external conduct was deliberate. Rome may have sound grounds for finding that the requisite mitigating circumstances were absent. Those grounds, however, have not been demonstrated in the published reasoning.⁸
Goldstein’s contention that Peyton wished principally to preserve his family’s Christian worship does not of itself remove the ecclesiological significance of his decision. Nor can the Church recognise formal Anglican membership as an acceptable substitute for Catholic communion merely because a bishop’s conduct has been grievously disappointing. Yet there is a difference between recognising that Peyton’s action was objectively contrary to Catholic ecclesiology and determining whether he incurred the automatic penalty prescribed by canon 1364 §1. The Church’s penal legislation deliberately distinguishes those questions, precisely because external conduct does not always disclose the full degree of an offender’s responsibility.
The additional difficulty raised by Monsignor Kimes concerns Peyton’s possible return to diaconal ministry. Even were his excommunication remitted, Kimes explained, he would require a dispensation from an irregularity affecting the exercise of Holy Orders. Canon 1044 §1, 2° provides for such an irregularity where an ordained cleric has committed the public delict of apostasy, heresy or schism. This is a distinct canonical disability, rather than a second excommunication. It is also important to avoid describing it as the inevitable consequence of simply resigning from ministerial duties: its juridical basis is the public commission of the specified delict. The distinction matters if the underlying finding of schism is itself challenged through further canonical recourse.¹¹
Peyton intends to pursue that recourse, according to Goldstein. His prospects cannot reliably be predicted from the documents presently available. Reconciliation with the Catholic Church would in any event be a different matter from authorisation to resume active ministry, and ecclesiastical superiors would retain responsibilities concerning his suitability for office. Nevertheless, remission of a censure and dispensation from an irregularity presuppose a correct determination of the canonical circumstances. The answer to a contested declaration cannot simply be that the person concerned may seek its removal without further scrutiny of whether it was incurred.
There is a deeper pastoral difficulty which the latest developments make increasingly apparent. In May 2021, the Diocese of Lafayette publicly apologised to the Peyton family for Guidry’s established abuse. Within three years, Bishop Deshotel publicly declared Scott Peyton excommunicated. By October 2026, Rome had confirmed that declaration, and an intended further appeal was being reported. Throughout the same period, questions concerning the priest’s canonical status have remained unanswered publicly, while the newly reported civil allegation and the earlier sworn testimony provide further reasons for a comprehensive account of the diocese’s handling of the case. The disparity does not prove unequal application of the law, since the two cases involve different offences, proceedings and canonical consequences. It does make the quality and transparency of the respective decisions a legitimate matter of ecclesiastical scrutiny.
The Dicastery has expressed the hope that Peyton may eventually be reconciled with the Church, invoking the medicinal character of excommunication. That purpose is intrinsic to a censure, whose object is the offender’s repentance and restoration to communion. Yet the Church’s own legislation requires penal authority to be exercised with canonical equity, having regard to the restoration of justice and the repair of scandal. These obligations do not rest upon the accused alone. They govern the conduct of bishops, tribunals and Roman dicasteries entrusted with the administration of ecclesiastical discipline.¹²
In the present case, the questions requiring answers are reasonably specific. What canonical disposition was made concerning Michael Guidry after his criminal conviction, and by which competent authority? Was his 2021 testimony about an alleged disclosure to fellow priests investigated, and what was established? What steps have been taken in response to the newly reported civil allegation? And why did the Dicastery’s published judgement concerning Peyton fail expressly to address the statutory provisions governing circumstances which prevent an automatic excommunication from being incurred?
A competent authority may possess answers which cannot be disclosed in their entirety without compromising legitimate rights, pending proceedings or the privacy of victims. That does not excuse an absence of meaningful public accountability where ecclesiastical penalties have themselves been publicly declared and where the administration of justice has become the subject of serious and documented concern.
The approaching release of Guidry supplies an uncomfortable occasion for these questions to be asked again. His imprisonment followed a confession, a guilty plea and a criminal conviction. Peyton’s excommunication followed a declaration concerning his separation from Catholic communion, the validity of which he continues to contest. The civil and canonical processes cannot be made identical, but the Catholic Church is responsible for the integrity of its own decisions. Until Lafayette and Rome can give a satisfactory account of those decisions, the case will continue to expose something more troubling than an unfortunate disparity in disciplinary outcomes: an uncertainty about whether ecclesiastical authority has applied to its own conduct the same seriousness with which it has judged the conduct of a wounded father.
¹ Gina Christian, “Vatican Upholds Excommunication of Former Deacon, Who Plans to Appeal”, OSV News, 5 November 2026; Jim Hummel, “Convicted Priest to Be Released from Prison; Faces New Allegation of Child Sex Abuse”, Acadiana News First, 2 November 2026.
² Jim Hummel, “Convicted Priest to Be Released from Prison; Faces New Allegation of Child Sex Abuse”, Acadiana News First, 2 November 2026.
³ Ben Myers, “Faced with Financial Liability, Lafayette Diocese and Fallen Priest Shift Blame to Victim’s Family”, The Acadiana Advocate, 18 June 2021, reproduced by BishopAccountability.org; Society of St Peter Damian, “Did Our Priests Cover Up Child Sex Abuse?”, 27 May 2021.
⁴ Ben Myers, “Faced with Financial Liability, Lafayette Diocese and Fallen Priest Shift Blame to Victim’s Family”, The Acadiana Advocate, 18 June 2021.
⁵ KATC, “Lafayette Diocese: Allegations Against Former Priest Michael Guidry Credible, Formally Apologizes to Victim and Family”, 7 May 2021, reproduced by BishopAccountability.org; Ben Myers, “Faced with Financial Liability, Lafayette Diocese and Fallen Priest Shift Blame to Victim’s Family”, The Acadiana Advocate, 18 June 2021.
⁶ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Normae de gravioribus delictis, 2010, art. 6 §§1–2; Code of Canon Law, canons 290–293.
⁷ Camillo Barone, “Vatican Upholds Excommunication of La. Deacon Who Left Church After Son Abused by Priest”, National Catholic Reporter, 21 October 2026; Gina Christian, “Vatican Upholds Excommunication of Former Deacon, Who Plans to Appeal”, OSV News, 5 November 2026.
⁸ Nuntiatoria, “The Father Excommunicated, the Abuser Still a Priest: Rome’s Crisis of Justice”, 23 October 2026; Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decretum: Declaratio Excommunicationis Latae Sententiae, Prot. N. 405/2024, 22 May 2026.
⁹ Gina Christian, “Vatican Upholds Excommunication of Former Deacon, Who Plans to Appeal”, OSV News, 5 November 2026.
¹⁰ Code of Canon Law, canons 1321–1324, particularly canon 1324 §§1 and 3.
¹¹ Code of Canon Law, canons 1041, 1044 and 1047.
¹² Code of Canon Law, canon 1311 §2; canon 1752.
Leave a Reply