www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Cardinal Law Resigns

Brian,
I never stated this forum should take the place of the Liturgical and/or Pedagogical life in the Churches. Please read what I wrote..don't read into what I wrote.

The statement was made to support a prior post declaring the problems that are originating in the seminary that have trickled down into our parishes and pulpits. My post was written to state the conditions of many pulpits ( I didn't say most or all), not to put this forum on a pedestal.

+ Thanks for your understanding,

V

I'm sorry , Volodymyr. I flew off the handle! Please forgive me, a sinner.

These are trying times for all of us!

Peace,
Brian

I am not a "conservative", but I do think that Glenn makes an important point.

It is not a matter of blaming, but the Churches must begin to address these issues - however unpleasant...and however widespread....for the good of everyone and all stakeholders.

herb

Brothers and Sisters:

Cardinal Law's resignation is, indeed, a sad situation for all of us. The fact that we are in communion makes his behavior an injury to us all.

In his defense, though this is not popular at this time, we have been in a period where "pastoral concerns" and a "pastoral approach" have been the norm since the close of the Second Vatican Council. That means that we have been encouraged to deal with those who fall with mercy and forgiveness. That is something that the world, especially the secular mass media, cannot understand.

The retired bishop of Altoona-Johnstown dealt with a priest who behaved in the same way. The priest's case has been winding through the courts here and will cost the diocese a great deal of money. The bishop, now 90, still believes that everyone is capable of being rehabilitated. He is a kind man.

In my opinion, the problem is partially due to the reliance on the expertise of psychology and psychiatry. These disciplines have changed their positions about the nature of these problems--pedophilia, pederasty, etc. When many of these priests were transferred, it was believed that people with this disorder could be rehabilitated.

Of course, it has also come to light that many of these same priests have been involved in secular organizations that have advocated that the type of behavior they engaged in should no longer be criminal and that society should somehow get used to it. How about the North American Man-Boy Love Association? Fr. Shanley from Boston, now going through the criminal justice system, was instrumental in helping this organization get started. I have to ask where the man's bishop was when this stuff hit the newspapers.

My question has to be at this point whether a bishop has enough authority under Canon Law to do what I think should be done. It doesn't appear he does. If only the Pope can defrock an errant priest, what does a bishop do? Suspend someone indefinitely? I have been told that this is also not an option.

I also have to wonder if Cardinal Law is only the first bishop to have to resign. From the news we get here in central Pennsylvania, it seems that there are a number who have engaged in the same behavior over the last 20 years.

But we all need to pray for the Church. There are many decent priests and bishops who have worked without incident for the same period. Many of them have told me that they feel under suspicion just for being clergy. I have taken one of them as a daily intention for special prayer, that the Lord will support him in his work. There are many like him. May I ask each of you good people to take a priest and pray for him daily in the same way?

BOB

Brian,

There was no apology necessary. We are ALL upset and frustrated at these events. I, a sinner, should apologize, I can come across with my "in your face" attitude at times.

I would like to pose another question regarding this problem:

Does anyone think the privacy of the confessional, the obligation not to repeat what is said during the sacrament of reconciliation, was perhaps an "open door" to these sinful acts/behaviors not being addressed as they should have?

For example, the priest goes to his Father Confessor and confesses his sinful behavior with an 8-year-old boy this past week. The Father Confessor pleads with him to seek counsel, which the priest promises to do, then absolution is given.

When this took place, and I'm sure it did, what then should have been done? by both the confessor and confessee? should the local authorities have been called right away? should the family of the boy be in on the counseling and follow-up of the priest?

+ May the blood of our Lord cleanse and heal all priests that are guilty and the hearts and souls of those they have violated and hurt.
V

This is largely non-sequitur.

The stuff for which Cardinal Law got busted and other bishops in hot water was in their diocesan files, and was therefore in the external forum.

The Seal of Confession is not the problem. The problem, if there is one, may be in Latin Canon Law. I can't remember the number of canon, but it reads, "A public punishment may not be imposed for an occult (i.e. secret) transgression."

If the confessor could impose a penance such as, "turn yourself in to the cops", well then...

Just my 2 kopecks...

Oh, one other observation. Now that Cardinal Law has resigned, he will no longer be inconvenienced by duties at a church, and can devote more time to praying with Moslems! :rolleyes:

A little aside about the nature of the seal of the confessional from past discussions with priests over many years.

The seal is so special that nothing revealed in the confessional may ever be revealed. Not only that, but the priest may not use anyting learned in the confessional even to save his own life. The example I was given many years ago:

A penitent confesses that he has placed poison into the cruets and mixed it with the wine and water that will be used immediately after the priest finishes hearing confessions. The priest may not on leaving the confessional pour out the contents of the cruets and use other cruets or replace the contents even if he knows that not to do so will ensure his own death.

That may seem harsh and it may be a dated example--the priest who told me was trained before Vatican II. But it illustrates the sacred character of what is revealed in the internal forum. A priest must also guard against reacting to the person who has confessed if they meet outside the confessional in such a way that the person is given the impression that the priest has changed his estimation of the person.

What is learned in the confessional must stay "under the seal" as long as the priest lives. Even priests who are defrocked are under the same obligation for their entire earthly life.

BOB

Wait. You almost got me on this one. If a penitent is confessing this, he obviously would remove the cruets him/herself. DUH!!

It has been suggested a number of times on this forum that Cardinal Law should serve some prison time. As an expression of indignation this sentiment is certainly understandable. But it strikes me a scary stretch of the law.

In the first place, there was no legal requirement, in Massachusetts, for reporting any of the incidents that were brought to the attention of the Cardinal. During the past year a new law was enacted in Massachusetts to make such reporting mandatory. The idea of trying to apply the new law ex post facto is, of course, totally inconsistent with fundamental principles of our country's legal system.

I have read that a grand jury has been convened with the idea of applying child endangerment laws to this embrace the actions of Cardinal Law. Stretching laws in this way strikes me as fraught with hidden dangers. Next thing you know RICO laws will be stretched to prosecute anti-abortion groups. (Oh wait we're already doing this!)
If the past (from the Fells Acres daycare case to the Salem witch trials) is prelude to the future, my guess is that there will be another "legal" frenzy: he will be indicted and convicted. And much later it will all be seen as a sorry spectacle of bad law.

Actually, no. The person in the confessional could have been telling the priest about the poison merely to cruelly warn his intendant victim of his soon to approach death. In such a case the seal of the confessional would hold him bound from repeating this information. I understand the point that Theophan is making but the example is a bit weak. It would certainly be wrong for the priest to act in a manner that betrayed what he was told in confession. If, however, he behaved in a manor which could prevent the murder of himself and others there would be no question about him taking such a course of action. He could easily decide that the wine smelled rancid for some reason and insist on a fresh bottle. Or he could "accidently" drop the tray containing the cruets because he is a klutz.

The issues here are both simple and complex. Simple in that any priest who engages in sexual activity with a teen or child should never be allowed to be in a position of public ministry ever again. Period. Complex because in this past generation bishops often covered up this immoral and criminal activity. These bishops often claim that psychologists told them that with counseling the patient was cured of such unnatural desires. This reasoning may excuse a bishop the very first time such an offense occurred but it does not excuse any additional offenses by the same priest or any new offences by other priests. As a Church we have a dual responsibility. First, to those who have been harmed. They certainly have a right to expect an appropriate and just response from the Church and the society (criminal prosecution). Second, we have the responsibility to minister to those who have caused the harm. We can offer these people appropriate forgiveness and rehabilitation at the same time they are criminally prosecuted for their offenses. Forgiveness does not mean that their chosen action does not come at a personal cost. Forgiveness does not mean that the Church must put offenders back into positions in which they will again be tempted to commit immoral and illegal behavior.

The points that Glenn made yesterday are, IMHO, valid. The vast majority of these cases are those of homosexual encounters between priests and teenage males (pederasty), not young children (pedophilia). To find that some bishops were kicking out priests for engaging in heterosexal sex with women but protecting those who were engaging in homosexual sex with boys under 18 is horrifying. The media has certainly been hypocritical in portraying this as simply pedophilia. But given the media's open embracement and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle it is not surprising that they report this with such a slant. Such political correctness and acceptance of sin has even made inroads into other Christian churches. I read just today that two Episcopal bishops in Massachusetts issued a statement that the Catholic Church should stop speaking about the sinfulness of homosexual activity because such speech could lead to discrimination or violence against homosexuals. Talk about not understanding! These bishops have clearly missed the boat. A Christian response to someone openly embracing a sinful lifestyle can never to bless and accept that lifestyle. It can only be to call all peoples to embrace Christ and follow His clear teachings.

About that whole "poisened wine" thing... couldn't the priest just give the penance to the would be assasin of removing the wine? :-)

In Christ,

anastasios

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Regarding some questions regarding the Seal of the Confessional - as answered by me parish priest.

Question One: Penitent Confesses that he or she poisoned the wine to be consecrated at the Liturgy; what should be done?

Answer:

If the penitent is not contrite and does not show that he or she desires to make amendment, which would mean going with the priest to the sacristy to pour the wine down the sacrarium, then the priest first would not grant absolution and would do it himself; Father told me this is upheld by the principle of economia. The Greater Good, saving lives,is always higher than the lesser good. By doing this the priest is not breaking the Seal and is insuring that lives are saved.
In fact Father said if a pedophiliac confessed to him, if he had to, he would leave the priesthood to save the children involved. If I was a priest I would too. When I was a teenager I went through a Lutheran phase, and when I went to the Pastor for confession ( Lutherans also have private confession) the Minister said that he would be more than happy to hear my confession, but he was oblidged to contact the Authorities on anyone who confessed to him: Murder or Child Abuse or any situation that violated the safety of other human beings. I respected that. He said the Lutherans have the Seal as long as the sin mentioned does not endanger or threaten the life of another. I think that Rome should revise the theology of the Seal; it needs some updating and in light of these recent scandals - it needs to be done immediately.

I think that the massive medias are not being fair.

Do you know that while 2.5 percent of the Catholic priests have been involved in sexual abuse, 3.6 percent of the Protestant ministers have been involved in abuse and incest?

I won't talk about Cardinal Law because I don't know very much about him, but don't you think that, in spite of the errors he commited, he is now blamed for everything and that they just wanted his head as an expiatory victim? How can people know if he in fact followed the orders or the advice of superior hierarchs in Rome?

(I hope this doesn't offend anyone, it is just a comment)

Remie,

I've heard this case made before. I don't think it makes much difference. I don't think it should matter to us what the media thinks or does. They have served a righteous purpose in exposing this evil. Bernard Cardinal Law has paid a rather light penalty for what he did. Some others need to do the same.

Dan Lauffer

Interesting. So what is the Roman Catholic understanding of the seal of confession? Is it the phyiscal site -- the confessional; or is it in the sacramental act of confession?

In the above situation it seems that this was not a penitent going to confession, but a person with no intention or sign of making a sacramental act blurting some information out to a priest, while, I presume, in a situation where the priest was hearing confessions.

Axios