New report from ireland

[Corki]

Thanks Corki for those insights.#61
Further though on the excommunication issue. If a priest was excommunicated latae sententiae for such an offence, he wouldn’t be able to receive absolution for this grave sin until the penalty was lifted. (ref. CCC 1463)

1. If the Priest tried to confess, the sacramental seal would not then be an issue as no valid sacrament took place.
2. A guilty priest seeking forgiveness would need to first have the penalty lifted, by say the Pope. In order to do this he would have to reveal the issue to someone outside the sacrament in order to obtain papal contact and absolution.

Re:

1. The seal attaches when the Confession begins. It is still valid sacramental Confession but not completed until the absolution is given.
2. With the latae sententiae excommunication, such as for abortion, the priest hearing the confession (if he doesn’t have delegated faculties to lift the excommunication) goes to the Bishop but keeps the identity of the penitent secret. I would imagine this applies to all excommunications. So yes, the issue would be revealed to the Pope, in your hypothetical, but not the identity of the penitent.

There are some public sins that require pubic recantation such as apostasy or heresy. This is usually tied to permission to publically receive the Sacraments rather than the lifting of a penalty.

I hope I am not mangling this. If so, one of our cannonists can correct me.

 

[Corki]

What I’m about so say may sound a bit OTT, but I’ve just had an uneasy thought about this issue, IF (big if!) it became law.

I have a vague memory of the subject of police “bugging” of confessionals being discussed, either in the UK or the EU. Can’t remember the outcome, but IF this became law - the possibility of “bugging” of confessionals could be a possibility to overcome priests not wanting to break the seal. If somebody was under suspicion and they were known as using a particular church for confesion - the confessional could be bugged.

As I say I know ut sounds OTT and highly improbable - but I’ve a memory of this coming up a few years ago. And I believe that at some point the Vatican condemned the audio recording of confessions. Perhaps somebody could do an Internet search?

I don’t know if this is what you are looking for but it’s what I found.

There was a case in Oregon where the DA had to issue a public apology; it nearly triggered a Congressional investigation. The recording was not allowed to be used and was permanently sealed; the Bishop had wanted it destroyed.

There were rumous of the UK Intelligence bugging confessionals as part of a hunt for IRA terrorists. I don’t know if they were ever substantiated.

 

[Seno_Ryan]

Reading this topic troubled me. Not because of the seal of confession because that is not going to work anyway, but that I get the impression that people are not getting what is behind this goverment reaction.

This is not some anti catholic attack on the poor church, lead by an athestist minister. This is a reaction to a report that states that not only did a BISHOP not follow child protection policies, he lied and said he was. The report makes for very damning reading to the point that you wonder can you trust what any Bishop or the Vaitcan says about child abuse.

This report gave the goverment no choice (or golden opp) but to stand up to the church and say if you won’t do it yourself, then we will have to make you.

This was a perfect time for the hierarhcy to show that they were everything that they said they would for the protection of chidren. If they had we wouldn’t have this topic. But once again they failed the victims, the people of Ireland and the church.

I agree that according to the report the Bishop in question handled sex abuse cases irresponsibly to say the least. There are some cases globally where the bishops and clergy mishandled the sex abuse cases. When you said “for very damning reading to the point that you wonder can you trust what any Bishop or the Vaitcan says about child abuse.” You seem to be insinuating that the entire Catholic hierachy globally is involved in the mishandling of cases this in not the case. If this law is passed in Ireland, how is this law going help protect children of sex abuse? This proposed law is not the best way forward to deal with this issue. I think if this law is passed it will cause more problems than solutions and would eventually lead to government to remove the protection of seal for all crimes.

 

[feargalmac]

This was a perfect time for the hierarhcy to show that they were everything that they said they would for the protection of chidren. If they had we wouldn’t have this topic. But once again they failed the victims, the people of Ireland and the church.

Actually it was the National Board for Safeguarding Children set up by the Hierarchy in Ireland that brought the situation in Cloyne to light, so the Hierarchy are doing what they said they would. The media are choosing to ignore this fact. The report also states that the Churches child protection guidelines are clearer than the states own (see page 49 of the report).

 

[JaMc]

What would this even accomplish?

Anything told to the priest in the confessional would be hearsay. Inadmissible in U.S. courts, and likely Irish ones as well. Also, the priest could easily say that such information was never admitted to them in the confessional. The courts would have nothing to go on but their word.

If a priest broke the seal of the Confessional, what the child abuser said WOULD be admissible - it’s called an “admission of a party opponent,” or, if you watch a lot of TV, the fact that “any you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” It’s an exception to the hearsay rule.

 

[Farsight001]

If a priest broke the seal of the Confessional, what the child abuser said WOULD be admissible - it’s called an “admission of a party opponent,” or, if you watch a lot of TV, the fact that “any you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” It’s an exception to the hearsay rule.

It’s an exception to the police only. I have had numerous patients tell me about crimes they have committed. I cannot testify in court that they did those things, though, unless I personally witnessed them. It may be different in Ireland, but I highly doubt it.

Can you imagine what would happen if this exception applied to everyone? Petty and snobbish people everywhere would be constantly going to the police and claiming that so-and-so confessed this or that to them, and the police would then have to go round them up. It would be chaos.

 

[Mustard]

What I’m about so say may sound a bit OTT, but I’ve just had an uneasy thought about this issue, IF (big if!) it became law.

I have a vague memory of the subject of police “bugging” of confessionals being discussed, either in the UK or the EU. Can’t remember the outcome, but IF this became law - the possibility of “bugging” of confessionals could be a possibility to overcome priests not wanting to break the seal. If somebody was under suspicion and they were known as using a particular church for confesion - the confessional could be bugged.

As I say I know ut sounds OTT and highly improbable - but I’ve a memory of this coming up a few years ago. And I believe that at some point the Vatican condemned the audio recording of confessions. Perhaps somebody could do an Internet search?

It was the case in the north of Ireland during ‘The Troubles’ that when a priest was hearing confessions in a prison he would never use the confessional box as it would be routinely bugged by the British authorities. The practise was for republican prisoners to gather in a circle in the middle of the prison chapel, surrounding the priest and penitant, and shout, sing and chant at the tops of their voices while the penitant whispered his confession into the ear of the priest. Curiously, the necessity for them to do that caused outrage in the south, including among some who support this legislation now. Funny how time drifts away, eh?

 

[Mustard]

It’s an exception to the police only. I have had numerous patients tell me about crimes they have committed. I cannot testify in court that they did those things, though, unless I personally witnessed them. It may be different in Ireland, but I highly doubt it.

Can you imagine what would happen if this exception applied to everyone? Petty and snobbish people everywhere would be constantly going to the police and claiming that so-and-so confessed this or that to them, and the police would then have to go round them up. It would be chaos.

I assume you’re a professional person of some kind, like a doctor? As it happens, this subject was being thrased out on a talk show over here a few days ago and one of the panellists, a lawyer, was doing the outraged liberal thing in full support of the new legislation. I emailed the show enquiring if she would care to tell us about any crimes committed by her clients and imparted to her under client privilage. I was expecting the usual glib lawyer’s answer, but in fact, she collapsed into an incoherent heap of babble. It seemed she had not actually studied the full intent of the legislation, and when it was enquired into, it appears that it will apply to lawyers, doctors and all persons who come into any knowledge of any indictable offence. Solicitors will now have to snitch off thier clients and doctors will be obliged to drag patients down to the police stations. This makes me wonder if the legislation will ever actually pass. Kicking the Catholic Church is all very well, but ‘doing the right thing’ when it affects professional people of the upper middle class is something else again. On the other hand, if they try to limit it to just Catholic priests, it’ll look like the anti-Catholic legislation it actually is. This should be interesting.

 

[bellasbane]

Wow, that was an intense article!

My only response is that we must protect the children first and make whoever is responsible for hurting them face the consequences - whatever that might be.

 

[jwinch2]

I am very scared right now for the future of the Faith in Ireland and the rest of Europe for that matter. I was hoping that during the recent trip by the Holy Father to the UK these things would have been discussed (they may have been for all I know), and things put in place so that it would not escalate to this level.

It is sad to say but if the faith continues to die in Ireland as seems to be happening now we will have no one to blame but the Church herself.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to turn the tide in the Emerald Isle? I am thinking that the Church should almost treat it as a missionary project and send a bunch of religious in to start the whole thing over from the ground up (schools, evangalization, etc.)

 

[ringil]

I just want to say I’m sorry about all the trouble you guys are having in the Irish Church.

I’ll be praying for you. It’s tragic when out leaders come up short., and in this case we see just how bad things can get when that happens.

Christ be with the Irish children and the Irish Church.

 

[Corki]

Wow, that was an intense article!

My only response is that we must protect the children first and make whoever is responsible for hurting them face the consequences - whatever that might be.

I certainly hope you aren’t implying that the Papal Nuncio somehow hurt children. This is what this statement sounds like.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I feel that the Irish government’s current antagonism toward the Church is little or nothing more than old-fashioned anti-clericalism. They are shamelessly using child abuse as an excuse to persecute the Church.

 

[PodunkMommy]

I am very confused about this article. Does this mean that the Vatican did indeed mettle in the state of affairs in Ireland?

I thought Ireland was still very Catholic for the most part. This is sad.

Blessings.

 

[Namwalker]

I certainly hope you aren’t implying that the Papal Nuncio somehow hurt children. This is what this statement sounds like.

The way that I read the article that the opening poster presented was that the Diocese of Cloyne somehow didn’t get the message and failed to take the initiative to institute reforms and protections that were mandated by the report. If that was indeed what happened then the actions of the Bishop were alone to be scrutinized. Nowhere did I read that the actions of the Nuncio were responsible other than perhaps the Vatican was responsibile for the inactions of the subordinate.

What I find missing in all of this report was any indication of priestly misconduct after the issuance of the Irish governments report and that it would appear that this diocese alone, out of all the diocese in Ireland, failed to get the message that corrective action needed to undertaken. If that is the case, then after all the uproar that the Irish people have seen over priestly failures in the past, then indeed the Vatican needs to step up and make real changes in the running of this particular diocese. It would seem that out of all the dioceses and bishops in Ireland this diocese somehow didn’t get the message.

Or did I miss something in my reading of the article. The calls for the expulsion of the Nuncio do seem vastly premature. The problem from my reading lies within the diocese or at its head. I think that this was a call for action by the Vatican office to direct the bishop to do his duty. Why is this diocese the only one to be picked on? It sounds like the other diocese’s got the message.

 

[bellasbane]

Originally Posted by bellasbane
Wow, that was an intense article!

I don’t believe there was anything in the article accusing Giuseppe Leanza of personally hurting children, so why would you think that?

I understand the outrage being expressed in Ireland and stand by my comment, which was not directed at anyone but the perpetrators and their enablers. Both John Geoghan and Paul Shanley were priests in my parish, so it should be no surprise that my first sympathies go with the children.

 

[Corki]

I don’t believe there was anything in the article accusing Giuseppe Leanza of personally hurting children, so why would you think that?

Let’s see.

Title of thread is

Papal Nuncio should be expelled

To which you respond:

make whoever is responsible for hurting them **face the consequences **- whatever that might be.

Since the call is for the nuncio to “face the consequences” who do you think I should assume you meant?

 

[Dale_M]

A couple related threads are over in the Catholic News forum:

Confessional seal to be ruptured in Ireland

Papal Visit Now Looks Doomed After Cloyne Backlash Hits Church

The second thread doesn’t have much discussion, but the news article does mention that Ireland’s Justice Minister isn’t backing the call to expel the papal nuncio.

 

[Dale_M]

A couple related threads are over in the Catholic News forum:

Confessional seal to be ruptured in Ireland

Papal Visit Now Looks Doomed After Cloyne Backlash Hits Church

The second thread doesn’t have much discussion, but the news article does mention that Ireland’s Justice Minister isn’t backing the call to expel the papal nuncio.

 

[Namwalker]

Reading this topic troubled me. Not because of the seal of confession because that is not going to work anyway, but that I get the impression that people are not getting what is behind this goverment reaction.

This is not some anti catholic attack on the poor church, lead by an athestist minister. **This is a reaction to a report that states that not only did a BISHOP not follow child protection policies, he lied and said he was. **The report makes for very damning reading to the point that you wonder can you trust what any Bishop or the Vaitcan says about child abuse.

This report gave the goverment no choice (or golden opp) but to stand up to the church and say if you won’t do it yourself, then we will have to make you.

This was a perfect time for the hierarhcy to show that they were everything that they said they would for the protection of chidren. If they had we wouldn’t have this topic. But once again they failed the victims, the people of Ireland and the church.

The part of your comment that bothers me the most is what I have enboldened. If the bishop did in fact lie, then he should be held accountable, especially since he is not only a priest but a bishop. A misdirection or half truth is still a lie. That is something that we all have learned from the church and our parents. It tears at the very fabric of our system. If it is proven that he did lie then any further testimony or statements would not be trusted as his position of trust calls for. This is a very uncomfortable and distasteful topic to be discussed. Our priests and bishops should be above reproach in all matters.