WACO (TX)
KCENTV 6 [Waco, TX]
May 27, 2026
By Jacob Wallin, Cory McCord
Anthony Odiong is accused of taking advantage of his position to sexually assault multiple women. His trial began this week.
Editor’s note: Details in this story are very graphic and may be disturbing
The sexual assault trial for former Waco priest Anthony Odiong began this week.
Odiong has pleaded not guilty to the three sexual assault charges he’s facing.
In 2024, Odiong was charged with several counts of first-degree sexual assault in McLennan County. He was arrested when police reportedly found explicit material of children on his computer and has been in jail in Texas since November 2024.
RELATED: Former McLennan County priest booked into McLennan County Jail on sexual assault, child porn charges
The Waco Police Department said nearly a dozen survivors accused Odiong of sexual crimes. They said he abused his position within the Catholic church to take advantage of people while he was a priest at St. Peter’s Catholic Student Center between 2007 and 2012. Police said he also served in Luling, Louisiana, from around 2015 to 2023.
During a court appearance in November 2024, new DNA evidence was presented, revealing that Odiong is the biological father of a child conceived through one of the alleged sexual assaults. The findings were described “with a certainty of (more than) 99.99%” by laboratory analysis. Authorities said he may be the father of more children conceived as a result of the alleged assaults.
On Tuesday in Waco, jury selection began.
On Wednesday, prosecutors laid out the allegations against Odiong. During opening statements, they described one woman’s experience with her priest.
The woman said she was a devout Catholic who was involved in her church. She said she met Odiong when he was the priest at St. Peter’s in 2008 and turned to him at the end of an abusive relationship.
She said she confided in him and told him about her troubles. She claimed that during a family gathering at her home, he took her into a bedroom and had sex with her. She said she felt like she couldn’t refuse his advances because he was her priest.
In 2023, she saw an article about the allegations that were surfacing against Odiong and thought they were about her, but then she realized there were more victims.
She filed a report with Waco PD, which, in turn, led to more people coming forward to tell their stories.
State prosecutors said Odiong’s pattern of abuse was similar in each of the three cases in McLennan County, he would blend confession and physical affection as well as mass and sexual favors. All the women were in difficult periods of their lives and went to their priest for help.
The defense reserved their opening statement.
For the first witness of the trial, the State called the daughter of one of the alleged victims. The witness said her mother was a devout Catholic who went to St. Peters Church and interacted with Odiong “constantly.”
The witness said her parents had divorced in 2007, calling it a “contentious relationship.” She said her mother turned to Odiong for counseling and spent a lot of time with him, counseling in the church office and at home. She said her mother would often leave “distraught.”
The witness told the court about a day in 2011 when she and her siblings were at home and Odiong and her mother were in her mother’s bedroom. She said the room did not have doors, just shutters her mom would tie closed.
The witness said her brother was suspicious and went into bedroom. She said she saw her mother sitting on the couch and Odiong not wearing pants. The witness said it looked “like [Odiong] had just gotten off of her or something.” She said she thought the two were having sex.
The witness testified that the night of the alleged assault, he was drinking heavily and went to the bedroom to tell his mom he was going to the skate park. He testified that he heard sounds, and when he opened the door he saw his mom on the floor with Odiong on top of her with his pants down.
The witness said he ran to a neighbor’s house who knew the family.
A report of what Odiong did made it to the Austin Diocese, according to the witness. The witness said he told the Diocese what he saw wasn’t true. He said he lied because he was scared and didn’t want to ruin anyone’s life or get anyone in trouble.
In cross examination the defense argued that the memory of “a drunk 14-year-old” “might not be entirely accurate” and argued the witness had substance issues and did not have a good record of telling the truth.
The defense emphasized that the witness had lied to protect Odiong and mother, out of fear his mother would lose her job.
The witness testified that he rarely talks to his mother or sister. He also said only Odiong and his family were present at the party where the alleged assault occurred.
Next, the State called Dr. Bert Burleson, who was a Baylor chaplain for 18 years and a dean of spiritual life.
Burleson said he worked with the neighbor of the previous two witnesses whom one had gone to for help that night. Burleson said they spoke about “concerning information.”
Burleson testified that he frequently dealt with leadership in religious groups on campus.
Burleson said the issue was brought to him during a period of “evaluation” on how Baylor handles cases such as these. He said he spoke to the Baylor Vice President, and then spoke to his bishop.
Burleson said he told Odiong he was going to report the incident to the bishop, to which he said Odiong replied “we are but men.”
Attorneys asked Burleson about the role of church leaders as mentors, saying “people come to pastors with expectations of trust and care”, which Burleson agreed with.
Burleson said it was “not at all” wise to meet behind closed doors or at a home, and said the “person coming forward is likely vulnerable.”
Burleson and the state discussed state code of ethics for marriage and family therapists, saying they should “make every effort” to avoid personal relationships as there is a chance for exploitation.
He argued that being a pastor and therapist gives a person a unique power.
Burleson said it is not appropriate for counselors to become emotionally attached to someone they are counseling. He said the position of Christian leadership “shouldn’t be a way to use someone.”
Burleson testified that Odiong had a big influence at church and for Baylor students.
The defense argued that going to a therapist is different from going to a church leader. Burleson clarified the difference between counsel in a religious sense and actual counseling.
The defense said Burleson does not know the practices of Catholic priests and does not know what Catholicism allows for in terms of counseling.
The defense argued that anyone who falls in love or has a personal attachment with someone has an emotional tie.
The state again spoke to Burleson, asking if kissing or touching would ever be appropriate in a confession box, to which he said no.
Both the state and defense cross examined Burleson multiple times to debate the relationship between a priest and someone they are counseling. The defense asked if a church member came to ask for help, would it be help as a friend, a pastor or a therapist. The prosecution argued the relationship would matter depending on what the person knew.
The state then called Father John Paul Kimes, a prosecutor of canonical law. Kimes said he did not know Odiong, and is just an expert in the field. He said Catholic law is revised every so often but there is an official process.
Kimes testified that Catholic priests are not permitted to marry or engage in sexual intercourse with women. He testified to “extraordinary exceptions”, but said most people in the Catholic faith know the boundary.
Paul also said it is “absolutely forbidden” for a priest to know or gesture to anything shared in confession.
Paul testified “priests do not stop being human beings” when spending time with friends, but said that boundaries are important for priests to enforce for themselves.
Paul explained spiritual direction, and said he does not do it for any of his students. He said priests have a responsibility as a figure of authority to avoid taking advantage of a person, saying there is a power dynamic on a human and spiritual level, especially as a priest has the power to grant absolution of sin.
Paul testified that boundaries taught to priests also apply cultural contexts, but said cultural practices must still be subject to state laws.
When asked if there is “any circumstance where the Catholic Church condones priests, also a spiritual director, condones a sexual relationship with the person getting direction,” Paul answered “no.”
The defense asked Paul if there are priests who have sex, to which he replied it has happened.
Paul and the defense discussed what is considered criminal versus sinful sexual activity. Paul said all is prohibited, but some priests can have sexual encounters and not face Catholic criminal charges, but he said some activity can escalate to criminal activity.
The defense also discussed the role of advisors and advisees and the power dynamic between them.
When questioned by prosecution if a priest should tell a parishioner to go home and allow their husband to have anal sex with them and then return and explain how it was, Paul said said it would be a “dereliction of duty” and would represent “spiritual voyeurism.” He agreed with prosecution that he would consider it an exploitation of a parishioner’s vulnerability.
The prosecution asked if there was a reason a priest would tell a parishioner that they had a “spiritual marriage” apart from an “actual marriage”. Paul said no, but that he had heard it in cases he had prosecuted.
Paul said church punishment has no bearing on state law, but said it is a concern to engage in sexual relations with a parishioner, especially one in confession and spiritual direction.
The defense asked if a cultural difference can cause a misunderstanding, and could lead to crimes in one place and not another. Paul said yes, and that it is a priest’s responsibility to act appropriately for his parish.
The state next called another alleged victim, who will be referred to as “Jane Doe”.
Doe said she converted to Catholicism in 2010 to help her marriage with her then-husband, who was Catholic and was a lecturer at Baylor who had been fired. She said her ex husband became physically violent.
The witness said her family attended St. Peters in 2010, and said she sought help from Odiong to save her marriage and receive spiritual direction. She said she would get weekly spiritual direction in Odiong’s office.
Doe described Odiong’s behavior as “warm and affectionate” though she said a comment he made at one session seemed flirtatious and felt like a “turning point” in their relationship.
Doe testified that Odiong told her that her marriage to her husband was not a “true marriage” and that she was fated to be in a “spiritual marriage” with Odiong, saying he had “fallen in love with her.”
During one visit, Doe said Odiong shut the door and began kissing her aggressively and pulling her into his lap.
Doe said she continued to see him for spiritual advice in hopes to save her marriage. She testified that one of her ex-husband’s problems in their relationship was their sexual relationship, namely that he wanted anal sex and she did not. Doe said she went to Odiong for advice, and he told her she should do whatever he wanted in the marital bedroom as they were one flesh.
Doe said Odiong compared her husband hurting her during sex to a baby hurting her while breastfeeding.
Doe testified to an instance where her husband initiated anal sex during the night. She said she tried to remember what Odiong said. When she told him about it later, she said he told her it was “good for her humility.”
Doe said Odiong became unpredictable. She said she reached out to another priest at a different church to begin spiritual direction. The other priest reportedly encouraged her to consider separating from her husband out of fear of physical violence.
When Doe mentioned this to Odiong, she said he was “furious” and later said she was an “evil woman” during a confession, and shouted at her that she had ruined his life and her son’s lives.
Doe said she told her husband what Odiong had said, and said he used those words against her in custody hearings after their divorce.
On cross examination, the defense asked Doe why she went back to St. Peters after speaking to the other priest. She said it was because her husband went there, and because Odiong had said he would not let her family continue to attend if she did spiritual counsel with another priest.
The defense emphasized that Odiong was not present during the sexual incident with her husband, arguing that was on her husband, not Odiong. The prosecution argued on reexamination that she would not have let it happen were it not for Odiong’s direction.
Doe testified that she never intended to press criminal charges, and was contacted by law enforcement in March 2024.
The witness said she was only ten years old at the time. She told the court she was still taken to St. Peters after the incident, though she was not comfortable.
The defense said the witness’s memory was through a 9 or 10-year-old’s lens. They said another clergy member, Father Timothy, would also come to the house for dinner, to which the witness replied it was “a bit more public” with more people present.
The defense argued there were more people present at a party where an alleged assault occurred than just Odiong.
The witness told defense that her mother remarried in 2013, and went to visit Odiong once during the marriage. She said her mom had asked her not to tell.
Next, the state called the previous witness’s brother to the stand.
The brother said Catholicism was “extremely important” to his mother, who turned to faith in hard times. He said Odiong was a “pretty constant fixture in the house” and was “like a father figure” to him.