EXCOMMUNICATION THREAT witness gag order in church sex trial

[CatholicCid]

I agree with you 100% here.

Just because I don’t believe a sincerely contrite priest/bishop/cardinal, cannot repent and amend his life, doesn’t mean I condone such despicable behavior.

However, this brings another question to mind: How does the Seal of the Confessional apply in cases like this?

If Fr. Smith committed the deplorable act of hurting a child, realizes the horror of what he’s done and goes to Confession with a sincere and contrite heart, what is the responsibilty of the Confessor?

Are there exemptions to breaking the Seal of the Confessional?

I remember watching “Web of Faith” once, where the question of breaking the Seal came up.
Fr. Levis said a priest can never break it, and he went on to use the “Poison in the Wine” scenario.

I’m sorry this is so far off topic, but now my curiousity is on hyper-drive.
If a Moderator feels it necessary to move my question, please do so.
In any event, I’d really like to know what happens in a case like this.

Thanks and God Bless!

The Seal of Confession is absolute.

From Canon Law (983):
The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

–

Breaking the seal by a Priest would lead to a latae sententiae excommunication.

The Priest may however, encourage the Penitent to admit his sins to the proper authority or such (but he cannot require it)

 

[Denise_Shae]

The Seal of Confession is absolute.

From Canon Law (983):
The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

–

Breaking the seal by a Priest would lead to a latae sententiae excommunication.

The Priest may however, encourage the Penitent to admit his sins to the proper authority or such (but he cannot require it)

So if a priest confesses to having committed such attrocities against children to a Bishop, and the Bishop doesn’t report him to authorities/police, the Bishop is not held accountable of any wrongdoing or of obstruction of Justice? (I’m basing my question on the premise that the Bishop does all he can to persuade the penitent priest to turn himself in, of course)

Sorry; but I just want to be absolutely and positively clear on this.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[michaelmac]

I was hoping that people could comment on the excommuncation edict in this case. I have never heard of excommunicatin being threatened for something like this, and I see it as a bad sign moving forward.

But I see Michaelmac has hijacked yet another thread to be all about him.

Michaelmac if you were molested as a child my heart goes out to you, sincerely it does. I have heard statistics that one out of three boys or even 6 out of ten are molested growing up, so you certainly aren’t the only one. Not every topic pertaining to an issue like this has to be hijacked for your own agenda. It isn’t only about you, there’s a greater problem in the Church. Now please stop hijacking the threads to rant against priests and the church.

Saint Michael , one day you might realies ,Most I say on this forum is not I repeat not about me ,In my last post I was talking about some one who is not A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGIOUS ORDER , I ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS FORUM , FROM PEOPLE WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN ABUSED BY BOTH PRIESTS AND NUNS ,

 

[CatholicCid]

So if a priest confesses to having committed such attrocities against children to a Bishop, and the Bishop doesn’t report him to authorities/police, the Bishop is not held accountable of any wrongdoing or of obstruction of Justice? (I’m basing my question on the premise that the Bishop does all he can to persuade the penitent priest to turn himself in, of course)

Sorry; but I just want to be absolutely and positively clear on this.

Thanks and God Bless!

Under Canonical Law, a Priest could not turn the Priest into the authorities… He could not also turn in serial killers, rapists, robbers, or even someone stealing cable.
Whether or not a court would hold him under Obstruction of Justice or some such charge is up to the State…

As Canon Law states again, **it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent **

The Priest cannot also make the Penance anything such as “Turn yourself in” as that is a way of betraying the penitent.
If the Penitent is not sincere, the Priest can withhold absolution, but the Seal still stands

 

[CatholicCid]

Under Canonical Law, a Priest could not turn the Priest into the authorities… He could not also turn in serial killers, rapists, robbers, or even someone stealing cable.
Whether or not a court would hold him under Obstruction of Justice or some such charge is up to the State…

As Canon Law states again, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent

The Priest cannot also make the Penance anything such as “Turn yourself in” as that is a way of betraying the penitent.
If the Penitent is not sincere, the Priest can withhold absolution, but the Seal still stands.

 

[Sam88]

CatholicCid is correct in that there are no exceptions to the seal at all. But this has nothing to do with the case cited by the OP. Witnesses at a hearing of any kind may be under a oath of silence, but this is not the same thing as the seal of the confessional.

The alleged threat sound inapproprate to me, but I am not at all convinced that it was as represented in the article.

 

[Denise_Shae]

CatholicCid is correct in that there are no exceptions to the seal at all. But this has nothing to do with the case cited by the OP. Witnesses at a hearing of any kind may be under a oath of silence, but this is not the same thing as the seal of the confessional.

The alleged threat sound inapproprate to me, but I am not at all convinced that it was as represented in the article.

Hi Sam,

I realize my question has nothing to do with the OP. I wasn’t inferring that it did.
But since we wound up getting off topic, I was curious as to the extent of the “Seal of Confession”.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Under Canonical Law, a Priest could not turn the Priest into the authorities… He could not also turn in serial killers, rapists, robbers, or even someone stealing cable.
Whether or not a court would hold him under Obstruction of Justice or some such charge is up to the State…

As Canon Law states again, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent

The Priest cannot also make the Penance anything such as “Turn yourself in” as that is a way of betraying the penitent.
If the Penitent is not sincere, the Priest can withhold absolution, but the Seal still stands

Hi CatholicCid,

Thanks so much for the above info and for citing the canon.

I really appreciate your help.

God Bless!

 

[rr1213]

Ok, here’s a question. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the Church Court finds that this priest sexually abused children. If that finding is made, will the Church turn its evidence over to the District Attorney for prosecution or will it threaten excommunication of anyone who discloses the verdict? Charges like this should be brought in a court of law pursuant to the authority of the civil magistrate. There is a reason why scripture reminds us that it is not for nothing that the magistrate bears the sword.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello All,

What do you think? Does Church excommunication, if unrepented, send people to hell? Does Church excommunication spiritually harm a person in anyway? Has the Church put any warnings on just what this “excommunication threat” really pans out to be in reallity? Can the witnesses talk all they want and, although “excommunicated” it really does not have any spiritual damage to their souls? Or, after judgement day, would those who broke the Church gag order (gulity of excommunication) be wishing the Church had tied a mill stone around their neck and drown them in the depths of the sea rather than put a Church excommunication on their soul?

 

[Denise_Shae]

Hello All,

What do you think? Does Church excommunication, if unrepented, send people to hell? Does Church excommunication spiritually harm a person in anyway? Has the Church put any warnings on just what this “excommunication threat” really pans out to be in reallity? Can the witnesses talk all they want and, although “excommunicated” it really does not have any spiritual damage to their souls? Or, after judgement day, would those who broke the Church gag order (gulity of excommunication) be wishing the Church had tied a mill stone around their neck and drown them in the depths of the sea rather than put a Church excommunication on their soul?

With regards to sending people to hell… The Church cannot send anyone to hell, for only God alone knows what’s in a person’s heart.

What the Church teaches is: Anyone who dies, in a state of Mortal/Grave sin, separates himself from God for all eternity, since the person didn’t repent.

As far as I know, the Church doesn’t excommunicate people for venial sins, therefore, I’m sure that there would be much spiritual damage to a person who is excommunicated.

RE: Or, after judgement day, would those who broke the Church gag order (gulity of excommunication) be wishing the Church had tied a mill stone around their neck and drown them in the depths of the sea rather than put a Church excommunication on their soul?

That is not for any human being to say. It’s between God and the individual soul.
No one has the right or authority to condemn another person to hell. Not even the Church. All Catholic Christian know this. If not, they need to read the Catechism.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Ok, here’s a question. ** Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the Church Court finds that this priest sexually abused children.** If that finding is made, will the Church turn its evidence over to the District Attorney for prosecution or will it threaten excommunication of anyone who discloses the verdict? Charges like this should be brought in a court of law pursuant to the authority of the civil magistrate. There is a reason why scripture reminds us that it is not for nothing that the magistrate bears the sword.

Actually, I’m curious about this, myself.
I just don’t know where to go to find the answer.

I’m assuming that if the Church court found the priest guilty, they’d turn whatever evidence they have over the the DA for prosecution.

If I do find out what happens in the case you stated above, I’ll post it.

God Bless!

 

[geezerbob]

Look on the web site of the diocese involved. There should be a link to their abuse policy and it should be spelled out there. Ours does.

 

[geraldffff]

CatholicCid is correct in that there are no exceptions to the seal at all. But this has nothing to do with the case cited by the OP. Witnesses at a hearing of any kind may be under a oath of silence, but this is not the same thing as the seal of the confessional.

The alleged threat sound inapproprate to me, but I am not at all convinced that it was as represented in the article.

This above statment I agree with whole heartedly. thanks to all who have poured out their hearts before on this post in an attempt to enlighten. There is a suggestion in the content of either the problem of misrepresentation or misinterpetation or are we wearing our rose colored glasses.
.

 

[Steven_Merten]

What the Church teaches is: Anyone who dies, in a state of Mortal/Grave sin, separates himself from God for all eternity, since the person didn’t repent.

As far as I know, the Church doesn’t excommunicate people for venial sins, therefore, I’m sure that there would be much spiritual damage to a person who is excommunicated.

Hello Denise,

So why do you think the Church has threatened Church excommunication on the witnesses for talking, but the Church has not threatened sexual predetor clergy with excommunication for raping children? Why have bishops not been threatened with excommunication for secretly moving known sexual predetor priests from one group of unsuspecting children to the next? Is the Church telling us, with their sellection of who they excommunicate, that the really, really Mortal/Grave, soul damning, sin is committed by witnesses who reveal to the world the evil that Church leaders have done?

 

[Steven_Merten]

With regards to sending people to hell… The Church cannot send anyone to hell, for only God alone knows what’s in a person’s heart.

That is not for any human being to say. It’s between God and the individual soul.

No one has the right or authority to condemn another person to hell. Not even the Church. All Catholic Christian know this. If not, they need to read the Catechism.

God Bless!

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus gave His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors that anyone they bind to sin on earth, Jesus will bind to sin in heaven? If Jesus binds a person to sin in heaven, what happens to the person? People Jesus refuses to forgive in heaven, go to hell.

In Church Anathema, the Church uses Jesus sworn oath to Apostolic Successors, that Jesus will bind to sin in heaven anyone who they call upon Him to do so from earth. I would be very supprized if Jesus did not hold true to His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors.

Please visit: Throwing Stones

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: "Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to **the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, **whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…**In passing this sentence, the pontiff **is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces **the formula of anathema **which ends with these words: **Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate **, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Under Canonical Law, a Priest could not turn the Priest into the authorities… He could not also turn in serial killers, rapists, robbers, or even someone stealing cable.
Whether or not a court would hold him under Obstruction of Justice or some such charge is up to the State…

As Canon Law states again, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent

The Priest cannot also make the Penance anything such as “Turn yourself in” as that is a way of betraying the penitent.
If the Penitent is not sincere, the Priest can withhold absolution, but the Seal still stands

Right, a priest who has information on a crime from a confession can not turn that person in nor can he withhold absolution from a sincere penitent. He also can not make part of the penance turning himself/herself in.

But if a priest has information about a crime from out side of the confessional he can turn it over to the authorities.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why be in such a hurry. Spell check is quick.

As to the **EXCOMMUNICATION THREAT. The assault of a priest is an automatic EXCOMMUNICATION. **So it is possible that is how it is being looked at. If this priest is found not to be guilty of the charges then the public disclosure of the testimony would be equal to bringing false charges (verbal assault) against a priest.

Not having read the disclosure contract we do not know what this covers. Besides not everything should be made public.

Is that “of” subjective or objective ? In plain English - assault committed by one, or assault committed against one ?​

I know one gets kicked out of the CC for assaulting the Pope - I haven’t heard of anything similar for assaulting lesser fry, like priests. Now if it were excommunicable to assault the laity, that I’d agree with - we laity are sacred, so keep your mitts off (Not you in particular - just people generally)

How does bringing charges judged eventually to lack adequate foundation amount to assault ? Doesn’t that make the Vatican’s refusal of the right to appeal against its judgements (as in the Maciel & Burresi cases) into potential assaults ? Just being consistent.

It seems strange that priests should have securities the laity don’t - members of the laity have the right to a good name, no less than the chaps in collars.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Hello Denise,

So why do you think the Church has threatened Church excommunication on the witnesses for talking, but the Church has not threatened sexual predetor clergy with excommunication for raping children? Why have bishops not been threatened with excommunication for secretly moving known sexual predetor priests from one group of unsuspecting children to the next? Is the Church telling us, with their sellection of who they excommunicate, that the really, really Mortal/Grave, soul damning, sin is committed by witnesses who reveal to the world the evil that Church leaders have done?

Dear Steven,

Apparently, I must be coming across as condoning and/or defending what the above particular Bishops and clergy have done when in fact, I do not.

Personally? I feel those found guilty should be removed from their office and stripped of their faculties. I believe the highest form of punishment should be imposed on those guilty, “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. (per Jullien - Post #3).
I admit, I don’t know all the particulars involved with Excommunication. I would think that if the guilty priests and bishops are unrepentant, that would be the highest form of the Church’s disciplinary measures.

RE: “the Church has not threatened sexual predetor clergy with excommunication for raping children?”

I believe the Church should “threaten sexual predetor clergy with excommunication for raping children”. I hope I haven’t given the impression that I feel otherwise.
Unfortunately, whenever I give my opinions on what the Church should or shouldn’t do (this is usually in real life conversations; not online…yet), nine times out of ten, there’s someone who comes along and asks me, “Who made YOU Pope?”. This is why I try and refrain from offering such opinions.

RE: "So why do you think the Church has threatened Church excommunication on the witnesses for talking

In the case that the OP presented, I have to argee with what Kathleen Elsie replied in Post # 2 below, as it can do a lot more damage to the man and his credibility even if the charges are unfounded, and he’s proven innocent.

Wouldn’t you agree, Steven, that a man (even a priest) is innocent until proven guilty?

How do we know that his accuser or the witnesses don’t have an axe to grind?
Has this priest in the OP pleaded guilty of the charges? According to the article, he hasn’t.

If/when the priest if found guilty, let the witnesses talk all they want. But why add fuel to the fire until we know for sure of if he is, in fact, guilty of the crime?

"As to the EXCOMMUNICATION THREAT. The assault of a priest is an automatic EXCOMMUNICATION. So it is possible that is how it is being looked at. If this priest is found not to be guilty of the charges then the public disclosure of the testimony would be equal to bringing false charges (verbal assault) against a priest

."An FYI: I’m in no way trying to turn the alleged victim into the villain.

Is the Church telling us, with their sellection of who they excommunicate, that the really, really Mortal/Grave, soul damning, sin is committed by witnesses who reveal to the world the evil that Church leaders have done?

As I am not an official spokesperson for the Church, I’m not at liberty, nor do I have the right or authority to tell anyone what the Church is telling us, Steven.
We both know this.
I suppose each individual will come to his or her own conclusion with regards to your question.

I hope you had a wonderful and Blessed Thanksgiving.

God Bless!

 

[Denise_Shae]

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus gave His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors that anyone they bind to sin on earth, Jesus will bind to sin in heaven? If Jesus binds a person to sin in heaven, what happens to the person? People Jesus refuses to forgive in heaven, go to hell.

In Church Anathema, the Church uses Jesus sworn oath to Apostolic Successors, that Jesus will bind to sin in heaven anyone who they call upon Him to do so from earth. I would be very supprized if Jesus did not hold true to His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors.

Please visit: Throwing Stones

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: "Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate , so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - Anathema

P.S. – Steven, I did promise you I’d visit Throwing Stones, and I will.
I’ve had a very hectic week (trying to get everything ready for Thanksgiving dinner). We also had a death in the family very early this morning, so I haven’t had the oppirtunity to thoroughly and comprehensively read the info. on the site.

I will try and get to it sometime this evening or tomorow afternoon.

I just wanted you to know I wan’t ignoring it.

God Bless!