Question about disciplining bad priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
Maybe I can’t find anything on this particular topic, because it’s just a rumor. But surely you news-buffs would be up on this.

Someone in my family was slamming the Magesterium for the lack of dealing with the pedophelia priests, and said that the Cardinals presented some sort of legislation for the Pope (John Paul II ? ) to sign that would punish the priests, but he refused to sign it. That’s what I got 3rd hand. I wasn’t there for this conversation.

Anyways, maybe something like that occured… to which I think “there’s plenty of seemingly good laws that the governors and Presidents over history have vetoed or refused to support for what they deemed worthy reasons to not support the bills.” Myself, not being up on Papal Politics and Discipline, I’m not gonna rashly judge the Pope on something I know absolutely nothing about.

So, trying to learn about it, the only thing I came across was this disciplinary document dated back in 1962 called “Crimine Solicitationis” and I’ve got the link to it here. It’s from an anti-Catholic website, but I’ll give it the benefit of doubt. Anyways, from what I’ve read of it, it looks like pretty good policy for dealing with such things. But I haven’t read it all, my opinion may change. Anyways, that’s not what they were talking about, so it really doesn’t help much.

** So, anybody know anything about the “Crimine Solicitationis” or more importantly this alleged “legislation” the Pope (JP2) didn’t sign?** I’m gonna get back to the source family member, and ask for some credible information, and I intend to be like a good lawyer, and already know the answer to my questions.
 
I cannot find a reference to it anywhere in my list of papal documents, but that doesn’t mean much. I do however have to wonder why it is only anti-catholic sites that have any type of reference to it. A google search of Crimine Solicitationis
turned up only 55 references of it and without fail each site that mentions it was an anti-catholic site.

I won’t post entire links because I do not want to support these sites, but I will give an example of the names.

irregulartimes
vaticancoverup
survivorsfirst
relapsedcatholic
rentapriest
ritualabusetorture

as well as a couple of others that seem to show up multiple times in the google results.

IF there was such a document, one would be able to find it almost everywhere including the vaticans own website.

Just do a google search on, oh let’s say Nimiam Licentiam (The validity of Marriages) and look at the glaring difference of the type sites it is found on.

Just doing this one would have to start to discredit anyone who claims that Crimine Solicitationis especially when you have sites like this. papalencyclicals.net/all.htm (NOT a Vatican site) that list almost if not all papal encyclicals, apostolic constitutions and bulls.

Crimine Solicitationis in my opinion is a lie, just as I believe a large majority of claims against the church for abuse are.
 
Reformed Rob:
Maybe I can’t find anything on this particular topic, because it’s just a rumor. But surely you news-buffs would be up on this.

Someone in my family was slamming the Magesterium for the lack of dealing with the pedophelia priests, and said that the Cardinals presented some sort of legislation for the Pope (John Paul II ? ) to sign that would punish the priests, but he refused to sign it. That’s what I got 3rd hand. I wasn’t there for this conversation.
.
this is a rumor, if you have no source, it does not exist for the purpose of serious discussion. that being said, canon law does have a procedure for dealing with crimes and offenses committed by priests, as does the civil law. The problem arose not with the Magesterium, which also protects and transmits God’s revelation about such sins and offenses, but with the individual bishop’s who failed to follow canon law and/or civil law when cases came to their notice. One bishop is not the Magesterium.
 
Reformed Bob:
So, anybody know anything about the “Crimine Solicitationis” or . . . ?
Perhaps this will be helpful. Let me know.
  1. Crimen sollicitationis was an instruction in 1962 from the Holy Office to hierarchs (see more below on “instruction”), which informed them how to proceed when an allegation of solicitation took place in the context of the sacrament of confession. Since the reputation of the cleric as well as the accuser were at stake, and the investigation would brush against the inviolability of the seal of confession, it was to proceed with the highest possible level of secrecy, i.e., the pontifical secrecy. This is not unusual in any judicial or administrative process in which a penalty may be inflicted and a person’s reputation is at stake.
Crimen only treated the crime of solicitation in the sacrament of confession, “de crimine pessimo” or any sexual act with an “impuberes” (a child prior to puberty), a sexual act with persons of the same sex, and a sexual act with “brute animals” (bestiality). As the instruction defines the subject matter, it must be strictly interpreted. It did not include any invitation to any sexual act under any conditions or circumstances. Journalists and trial lawyers have certainly given the broadest possible interpretation however for their own motives.

Allegations of solicitation in the confession were apparently so rare, as I understand it, that some bishops and canonists had to scramble to find copies of Crimen in 2001 since it is referenced in Graviora delicta (see below). In part Graviora says, “the Instruction Crimen sollicitationis, issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962, in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical Codes were promulgated.” The language indicates that it was in force until 2001 then and since the entire subject matter was re organized, it then lapsed as law.

I have not carefully double checked the copy on the website you gave against what I have seen, but it appears to be reasonably accurate.

I’ll post the rest in a second post
 
Reformed Bob:
So, anybody know . . . more importantly this alleged “legislation” the Pope (JP2) didn’t sign?
  1. The alleged legislation is somewhat a fiction. The fact that much has been done: a) belies the allegation that the pope refused to “sign legislation” and, b) betrays a American mindset that misunderstands how law is made in the Church
a) There has been extensive public discussion and awareness about recent actions of the Church in regard to sins of clerics against the Sixth Commandment of the decalogue (canon 1395 is the chief reference).

During the pontificate of John Paul II, the Holy See has issued Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (given motu proprio, that is, on his own intiative on 30 April 2001) by which he promulgated the substantive and procedural norms of Graviora delicta (issued by the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith, 18 May 2001).

(see vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_dis_index.htm).

On June 14, 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests, Deacons, or Other Church Personnel. These were revised in 2005 as was the Charter.

(see usccb.org/ocyp/norms.shtml and usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml).

On December 8, 2002, a recognitio, a kind of approval from the Holy See required to confirm legislation of an episcopal conference, was granted.

In 2003, the pope approved certain changes to the substantial and procedural norms. So he was pretty involved in these years.

Some action had been taken earlier. Effective April 25, 1994, a derogation for the United States from the Code of Canon Law (canon 1395, §2, 2º) was given under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff for a period of five years. It raised the age of a minor for offenses against the sixth commandment to someone under eighteen rather than sixteen.

This derogation was given a ten year extension to take effect on April 25, 1999.

Then in Graviora, CDF modified this norm for these offenses and raised the age of a minor to someone under eighteen for the universal Church. ("…A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of eighteen years").

So there exists a series of norms regarding such delicts with his authority.

b) The pope is his own legislator and the only legislator for the Latin Church as well as the universal Church. Unlike the American system, the pope is not per se presented by legislation passed by a standing legislative body which he signs or vetoes. The closest we come to that is the case of an ecumenical council or synod. Synods are only advisory (canon 342) and the pontiff must ratify any of their decrees if he has given them deliberative power (canon 343). The pontiff must also approve any decrees of an ecumenical council (canon 338 §1; 341 §1).

The pope delegates papal authority to the various congregations of the Roman curia by the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus (1988). He may also approve their instructions, which are modes of executing the law that oblige those who are responsible for executing the law and have the force of law (canon 34 §1). He can also approve them in forma communa or in forma specifica. In the latter case, he actually makes the document his own.

Pastor bonus, n. 52, gives competence in this matter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It “examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments, which have been reported to it, and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law. . .”

But the Church has always had both administrative and judicial measures to inflict canonical penalties upon clerics who violate the the Sixth Commandment of the decalogue. Prior to the present code, a bishop could remove a cleric from active ministry by acting according to his “informed conscience.” More recent laws have attempted to afford the accused cleric some measure of the protection of due process which was felt to be lacking.
 
they take them into the office and wack them with the sacramentary and say, bad priest!, bad priest!
 
40.png
FrCorey:
they take them into the office and wack them with the sacramentary and say, bad priest!, bad priest!

FrCorey,

Please don’t tempt us. :o 😉
 
You don’t have to go to blatantly anti-Catholic sites to find this situation milked for all it’s worth. Separatist traditionalists are doing the same thing (though they generally do not claim the existence of a fictional document but are in fact usually careful to check their facts and then make the most invidious interpretation). I visit Traditio.com pretty often out of curiosity, amusement, and to keep myself informed (there is no danger of my “going over”) and they are a broken record on this subject. The abuses are the direct result of the Church diverging from true Catholicism after Vatican II, according to them. They would never consider the possibility (more likely they consider it and ignore it out of convenience) that the same thing might have happened and probably did with priests whose formation was pre-Vatican II.
 
cameron_lansing said:
2) The alleged legislation is somewhat a fiction. b) betrays a American mindset that misunderstands how law is made in the Church

That’s what I was kind of thinking when I heard this initially, it reminded me of Senators and Representatives passing bills through committees, and eventually maybe it making it’s way to the governor or president, for him to sign.

However, I am well aware that the Pope doesn’t unilaterally compose everything that comes before him. He’s not a one person government.
 
40.png
jbuck919:
You don’t have to go to blatantly anti-Catholic sites to find this situation milked for all it’s worth. Separatist traditionalists are doing the same thing (though they generally do not claim the existence of a fictional document but are in fact usually careful to check their facts and then make the most invidious interpretation).
I’m sorry, “fictional document” what do you mean?
 
cameron_lansing said:
2) The alleged legislation is somewhat a fiction. The fact that much has been done: a) belies the allegation that the pope refused to “sign legislation”

In 2003, the pope approved certain changes to the substantial and procedural norms. So he was pretty involved in these years.

Some action had been taken earlier. Effective April 25, 1994, a derogation for the United States from the Code of Canon Law (canon 1395, §2, 2º) was given under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff for a period of five years. It raised the age of a minor for offenses against the sixth commandment to someone under eighteen rather than sixteen.

Hey thanks Cameron so very much. Well, you lost me there a little bit, but I can read it again and it will make more sense. A couple of the links didn’t work, but I got the 2 for the USCCB documents. Except they’re not wanting to print right:(… no, it prints ok with Internet Explorer.

You have helped me greatly. I will seriously consider getting back to this family member (who is in Florida now back home) and asking him if he was really discussing that topic (because if they were, it was to slander me and more significantly, Christ’s Church), and if so to justify it. I just heard about it last night, so I needed time to cool down and collect some info.
 
40.png
FrCorey:
they take them into the office and wack them with the sacramentary and say, bad priest!, bad priest!
Is that the Catholic equivalent of a Baptist “Bible beating”?

I must admit, I sure wouldn’t want anyone to wail off and hit me with a sacramentary!!

Well, in all seriousness, I should pray more that this source of scandal will soon be a thing of the past. In the past is still real, but hopefully the victims may eventually recover and be assured that the Church acts like God and champions the cause of the poor, downtrodden, the young and the afflicted.

And maybe at least people can look back and say “Well, they dealt with it finally” … except for blatant anti-Catholics and ultra-traditionalists. No way to satisfy them.
 
40.png
cameron_lansing:
Perhaps this will be helpful. Let me know.
  1. Crimen sollicitationis was an instruction in 1962 from the Holy Office to hierarchs (see more below on “instruction”), which informed them how to proceed when an allegation of solicitation took place in the context of the sacrament of confession. Since the reputation of the cleric as well as the accuser were at stake, and the investigation would brush against the inviolability of the seal of confession, it was to proceed with the highest possible level of secrecy, i.e., the pontifical secrecy.
Cameron,

Question for you, and this is my question, not someone else’s…

Isn’t the Seal of Confession meant to protect the penitent, not the priest? I mean, I know it is, that’s a rhetorical question. Perhaps you can make some distinctions there. But perhaps I can explain what I mean.

For example:

A priest solicits for sexual favors when he finds out the penitent has done prostitution type things. Why should the penitent be limited by that which is meant to restrict the priest and ensure the privacy of the penitent’s confession?

I can think of some reasons, such as, it may be that the priest would have to tell some information from the Confession, namely, “I was tempted when they confessed to a history of prostitution” which the penitent might not otherwise tell the police or their family/friends, etc.

All in all, I realize it’s a very fragile and delicate situation, I’m not denying that, but hopefully you can see the jist of my question. And I’ve only read the first 1/3 of the Crimini document, so maybe I’m missing something foundational.

thanks
 
Reformed Bob:
Isn’t the Seal of Confession meant to protect the penitent, not the priest? I mean, I know it is, that’s a rhetorical question. Perhaps you can make some distinctions there. But perhaps I can explain what I mean. For example: A priest solicits for sexual favors when he finds out the penitent has done prostitution type things. Why should the penitent be limited by that which is meant to restrict the priest and ensure the privacy of the penitent’s confession?
**The inviolable seal of the confessional is intended to protect the free manifestation of conscience by the penitent, but also the integrity of the sacrament itself. ** Otherwise, the sacrament would be rendered “odious and onerous” as one author writes due to revelation. As the Rite of Penance reads (n. 10d), it is only because the priest is God’s minister that the priest comes to know the secret of another person’s conscience.

Canons 982-984 address the seal, and canons 1387, 1388 and 1390 address the ecclesiastical crimes and penalties that can be connected to confession. Canon 1387 provides “A priest who in the act, on occasion, or under the pretext of confession solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished, according to the gravity of the delict, by suspension, prohibitions, and privations; in graver cases he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.” This is heavy stuff. (See * below.) Canon 1390 §1 provides “A person who falsely denounces before an ecclesiastical superior a confessor for the delict mentioned in canon 1387 incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a suspension.”

Clearly the present code understands that the penitent is free to denounce a solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue to a competent Church authority. Unlike the former code, however, it is not required that he or she do so (CIC 1917 canons 905 and 2368). You could say this in different ways, but there is a right arising from divine-natural law to bodily integrity and to seek holiness, an obligation of the priest to chastity, the right of the penitent to live a chaste life and to approach the sacrament for absolution without this kind of behavior, and a right to protect those rights by bringing this matter to an authority in the Church.
I can think of some reasons, such as, it may be that the priest would have to tell some information from the Confession, namely, “I was tempted when they confessed to a history of prostitution” which the penitent might not otherwise tell the police or their family/friends, etc.
The priest cannot testify even in a process of the Church on the matter. Canon 1550 “§2. The following are considered incapable: . . . 2º priests as regards everything which has become known to them by reason of sacramental confession, even if the penitent requests their manifestation; moreover, whatever has been heard by anyone or in any way on the occasion of confession cannot be accepted as even an indication of the truth.” It is a delicate matter.

PS- That vatican site only lists the documents and does not link to them. I do not know if they are on the internet.

40.png
FrCorey:
they take them into the office and wack them with the sacramentary and say, bad priest!, bad priest!
My sense of humor pales next to you wry Benedictines. Must be those sandles! I think you posted elsewhere you were at Saint Anthony’s Abbey. The only such abbey I know of that name is in Sri Lanka. But I see more recently you mentioned Las Vegas forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=105236 . Are you missioned there? Do you know Fr. Tony who is the diocesan director of vocations there and also a Benedictine?
 
cameron_lansing said:
The inviolable seal of the confessional is intended to protect the free manifestation of conscience by the penitent, but also the integrity of the sacrament itself. **
T
he priest cannot testify even in a process of the Church on the matter.**
PS- That vatican site only lists the documents and does not link to them. I do not know if they are on the internet.

Thanks Deacon Cameron,

I read that 2002 article (which is also the 2005 article?) at the USCCB site, pretty strict all things considered. Thanks for that link.

Yeah, I was sure that if above situation (prostitute confess to a priest, the priest solicit) were to happen, then the priest would be unable, because of the Seal, to testify regarding the confession. Which is why there has to be the secrecy regarding such Confessional matters.

Regarding the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I realized today, that regardless of something the “Pope didn’t sign” to do something about the bad priests, it’s pretty irrelevant, since **Canon Law has for a long time laid out a course of action and disciplinary action for such delict behaviour. So, the Pope allegedly not enacting some new something is really irrelevant. **
 
For those of you who are cracking jokes on this subject…wow! :eek:

Priests…or ANYONE who abuse (sexually or otherwise) deserve to be punished by our legal system. Jesus said to ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.’ We have created laws that govern us…and no matter what vocation you’ve chosen, you are still supposed to live like a civilized law-abiding citizen. We all make mistakes, and we all sin. But, if you break the law (especially with children oy vay!) then, you need to experience the legal ramifications.

There’s nothing REMOTELY funny about this topic to me.
 
whatevergirl you are correct as long as the information given to Caesar isn’t what was gleened in the confessional. Even priests are covered by the seal of confession when they are the confessor.

Finally, the original topic was about a non-existant document that those on the witch hunt against ALL priests try to use. Which is why you might see some humor in this as there are many groups of people out there who will try to use any means including falsehood and the bearing of false witness to damage the church.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Finally, the original topic was about a non-existant document that those on the witch hunt against ALL priests try to use.
I’m sorry, “non-existant document” :confused:

Which non-existant document are you referring to, this one? Which, according to cameron lansing, was referenced in the document that Cameron called "Graviora Delicta." Actually, you can look, it’s referenced in the second paragraph, I do believe. It’s also down there in Footnote #3. **Looks like it’s officially called “**DE *DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS.”

Let’s own up to the apparently what is the truth here. I believe the “Crimine Solicitationis” is a good, legitimate Vatican document, unless I see compelling evidence otherwise. It may be obsolete, I don’t know, but that doesn’t change what appears to be a fact that it was at least at one time in effect.

We don’t deny the validity of other documents such as “Unam Sanctum” by Pope Boniface VIII, even though many use that against us to try and say “hey look, you’ve completely changed your teachings” and I won’t go on, but say that we can’t always say “No, that’s a forgery” or something. It makes us look like we have something to hide, which, we have plenty of bad to answer for (for clarification - Unam Sanctum** not** being among bad things to answer for) but I don’t think we have anything to hide.

Actually, I’m not referring to any documents, even like crimine solicitationis being “bad things” … I’m more referring to actions of people, like the human side of the Church, which, although it’s very beautiful and it’s washed in the blood of the Lamb, sometimes our sins offend many, and they also offend 3 Persons whom we ought not offend… The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. And we sure can’t hide our offenses from God!

Peace be with you,

Rob
 
Can you help me find the actual document on the vatican site?

Also did you know this document was not known about by anyone until CBS new broke the story in 2003

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

This is the same CBS news that had documents about George W. Bush if I remember correctly.

Also do you know of an English translation of DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS?

Finally IF the document was truly issued in 1962, that would mean the Popes knew what was going on which would make it difficult to explain the responses in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107086
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Can you help me find the actual document on the vatican site?

Also did you know this document was not known about by anyone until CBS new broke the story in 2003
. . .
Also do you know of an English translation of DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS?

Finally IF the document was truly issued in 1962, that would mean the Popes knew what was going on which would make it difficult to explain the responses in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107086
I’m not certain which document you are seeking.

Crimen sollicitationis has not been electronically published by the Vatican. It was not, to my knowledge, disseminated to anyone other than bishops in 1962, and then, of course, only in Latin. Since it’s no longer in force, it probably won’t be posted electronically on the Vatican site…

Graviora delicta and de Delictus gravioribus is the same document. It is called by both of the titles (one is nominative case and the other with the preposition for “regarding” or “about,” is the ablative case.)

It is aka’ed as On More Grave Delicts Reserved . . . and sometimes* Graver Delicts Reserved . . .*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html

An unofficial English interpretation ** was made available by the USCCB a couple of years back for the private use of bishops and canonists. I quoted it, but I do not feel at liberty to post it due to infringement concerns. There are probably “boot leg” copies on the internet though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top