When to report a priest? ( AKA. The Castrillon letter controversy)

[Pelly]

in order to receive forgineness, the guilty priest would have to hand himself over to the law of the Land to receive due ‘reward’ for his crimes ; where he does not, the Sacrament is meaningless for he is not repentant and there is no forgiveness!!

If the priest didn’t repent, just used Confession as a blocking impediment to the law, then this priest didn’t get valid absolution and abused the Seal. The priest need penitence, too. I don’t know whether the penitence can substitute secular penalities.

You sure about that? I don’t remember Jesus handing the woman caught in adultery over to the ‘law of the land’, which if you recall was standing right by waiting to give her the ‘due reward’ (ie stoning to death) for her crimes. On the contrary, he stepped in between her and the ‘due reward’ that the ‘law of the land’ wanted to impose.

And there was no hint that she was anything less than a hundred percent repentant and a million percent forgiven. Even though she didn’t volunteer herself for stoning

Methinks you have a thing or two to learn about man’s justice compared to God’s mercy (which is more perfectly utterly and completely just than our human laws could ever dream of being).

That’s why I oppose some secular penalties, such as execution and life imprisonment. But there’s a point when a person abuses Jesus’ Mercy. And it’s “I think”, not “me thinks”. BTW sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And there was no hint that she was anything less than a hundred percent repentant…

Actually, there is no evidence she was repentant at all, or not. It isn’t addressed.

No one was too concerned about protecting some man from her corrupting advances. Pedophiles destroy lives of innocents and commit serious felonies. Our interest is, or should be, protecting the potential victims and helping extant victims. You call the police. The Church rule should be: no absolution without confession to the authorities.

 

[Corki]

If the priest didn’t repent, just used Confession as a blocking impediment to the law, then this priest didn’t get valid absolution and abused the Seal. The priest need penitence, too. I don’t know whether the penitence can substitute secular penalities.

How would a priest use the Sacrament of Confession as an impediment to the law? If he wasn’t contrite, he wouldn’t say anything in Confession at all. Going to Confession doesn’t give a priest immunity, nor does it keep him from being held accountable by civil authorities. It is ONLY the information shared during Confession that is protected by the seal.

I know this is a point of Church teaching that people like to get worked up about. But it is really overstated. Confession does not prevent anyone in the Church from using any and all information obtained **outside **the Confessional, it does not protect the priest from prosecution, it does not treat priest sexual misconduct any differently than any other heinous sin.

Since most Confessions are anonymous, is this even an issue? Just think if the Church required that all of these Confessions be reported. What good do you think would result? Do you think that a bunch of priests are going to flock to thier confessors, demand face-to-face Confession and all will be right with the world? Do you think that all of a sudden a report that says “a priest who **sounded like **Father so-and-so confessed abuse” is going to become admissible evidence? The only thing that might happen is either that priests don’t confess this at all and their souls are lost or priests will only confess anonymously to confessors who couldn’t possibly guess thier identity.

 

[Corki]

The Church rule should be: no absolution without confession to the authorities.

That is certainly a possible change. But it wouldn’t change the Seal of Confession.

 

[wisedom]

You sure about that? I don’t remember Jesus handing the woman caught in adultery over to the ‘law of the land’, which if you recall was standing right by waiting to give her the ‘due reward’ (ie stoning to death) for her crimes. On the contrary, he stepped in between her and the ‘due reward’ that the ‘law of the land’ wanted to impose.

And there was no hint that she was anything less than a hundred percent repentant and a million percent forgiven. Even though she didn’t volunteer herself for stoning

Methinks you have a thing or two to learn about man’s justice compared to God’s mercy (which is more perfectly utterly and completely just than our human laws could ever dream of being).

the woman in adultery was being condemned by those whose lust was responsible for her sin…she was made a scape-goat for the lust of the teachers of the law, etc…so the law of the land, as you put it, was punishing her for their own sins, which outweigh the sin of the woman, who was a pawn in their hands!..also Jesus was able to see her HEART and he was the only SINLESS one who had any authority and he was MERCIFUL… where are the adulterous men who caused her to sin?? the men are innocent but the woman is guilty?..bewildering, considering that your name suggests you are feminine? so here the woman was led into sin, maybe forcibly too, and she is not guilty, she is INNOCENT, which Jesus reveals!..SO MADAM, HOW COULD THE GUILTY PUNISH THE INNOCENT???

where an ordained priest breaks his multiple vows taken and commits a despicable sexual assault of an innocent child, you allow the sex-pervert to go scot-free and you punish the innocent child and other children who are at great risk to this lust-animal by allowing or permitting their precious lives to be shattered and thus sowing the seed of resultant sex-crimes on their part against other innocent children…

the law of the land can never punish ordinary people for ‘rape’ of children, and allow extra-ordinary people like priests, nuns, etc., to special protection and no punishment, unless the said law be consigned to the dust-bin or made irrelevant or redundant!

if the church grants special protection to such sex-perverts, its teaching is that such perverse sex acts are quite normal and can be indulged in by the laity too…

“what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”

LIKE THE PHARISEES & TEACHERS OF THE LAW DURING JESUS’ PUBLIC MINISTRY, YOU FOLLOW THE LAW TO THE WORD, BUT JUST FAIL TO UNDER THE 'SPIRIT" OF THE LAW?
WHEN JESUS COMES THE 2ND TIME HE WOULD SAY : " YOU HYPOCRITES, YOU VIPERS, YOU SONS OF THE DEVIL (INTHIS CASE, DAUGHTER), YOU ARE TO BE THROWN INTO ETERNAL FIRE FOR SEXUALLY ASSUALTING THESE LITTLE CHILDREN, WHO ARE DEAREST TO MY HEART!

have a heart dear lily m ! or else like your teachers of the law cum pharisee-ancestors, you will not be able to recognise the Lord, at his 2nd coming!

 

[wisedom]

If the priest didn’t repent, just used Confession as a blocking impediment to the law, then this priest didn’t get valid absolution and abused the Seal. The priest need penitence, too. I don’t know whether the penitence can substitute secular penalities.

That’s why I oppose some secular penalties, such as execution and life imprisonment. But there’s a point when a person abuses Jesus’ Mercy. And it’s “I think”, not “me thinks”. BTW sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven.

can Jesus be merciful to the perpetrator of an unimaginably heinous or depraved crime, while being merciless to his innocent CHILDREN, whose cries demand justice and meaning for their lives; how could they ever reconcile to the fact that their belief in his Church (clergy), was totally betrayed by Jesus himself?

 

[Corki]

the law of the land can never punish ordinary people for ‘rape’ of children, and allow extra-ordinary people like priests, nuns, etc., to special protection and no punishment, unless the said law be consigned to the dust-bin or made irrelevant or redundant!

The “law of the land” does not allow special protection to clergy and religious.

if the church grants special protection to such sex-perverts, its teaching is that such perverse sex acts are quite normal and can be indulged in by the laity too…

The Church does not grant “special protection” to any class of sinners. ALL sinners are treated the same in Confession - clergy or lay. ALL abusers are subject to the same penalties outside of Confession except that clergy may also face ecclesiastical penalties IN ADDITION to the civil penalties.

 

[wisedom]

EDITED AND RE-SENT…

LIKE THE PHARISEES & TEACHERS OF THE LAW DURING JESUS’ PUBLIC MINISTRY, YOU FOLLOW THE LAW TO THE WORD, BUT JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE 'SPIRIT" OF THE LAW?
WHEN JESUS COMES THE 2ND TIME HE WOULD SAY : " YOU HYPOCRITES, YOU VIPERS, YOU SONS OF THE DEVIL (INTHIS CASE, DAUGHTER), YOU ARE TO BE THROWN INTO ETERNAL FIRE FOR SEXUALLY ASSUALTING THESE LITTLE CHILDREN, WHO ARE DEAREST TO MY HEART!

have a heart dear lily m ! or else like your teachers of the law cum pharisee-ancestors, you will not be able to recognise the Lord, at his 2nd coming!

 

[FaithBuild18]

talking about canonizations, one wonders why the previous pope was considered for sainthood and for what? there is nothing extra-ordinary that he achieved which,to my memory, his 3 predecessors didn’t…

While I can acknowledge many of the great things JPII did, I am honestly beginning to sympathize with this statement. I just think his beatification was… quick. There was a tremendous amount of sensationalism over JPII when he passed.

In retrospect, now that we are beginning to see the sheer evil of this modern era, I’m less appreciative of the work that JPII did as Pope. His doctrines were as pure as ever, and his demeanour was probably leaps and bounds above that of many Popes before him, but looking back, he seemed a bit too eager to cooperate with a lot of modern trends. He was, in my opinion, the most modernist Pope the Catholic Church has ever had. For that reason alone I have certain reserves against some his prudential judgements. I feel Benedict XVI is a bit more in touch with the traditions of the Church, and much much bolder when confronting the modern.

It’s also interesting that even though he was beatified at light speed, progress towards his canonization has been somewhat silent as of lately. Meanwhile the current Pope and the Vatican seem to be longing for a revival of the glorious and beautiful traditions and teachings that JPII… somewhat ignored.

 

[LilyM]

EDITED AND RE-SENT…

LIKE THE PHARISEES & TEACHERS OF THE LAW DURING JESUS’ PUBLIC MINISTRY, YOU FOLLOW THE LAW TO THE WORD, BUT JUST FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE 'SPIRIT" OF THE LAW?
WHEN JESUS COMES THE 2ND TIME HE WOULD SAY : " YOU HYPOCRITES, YOU VIPERS, YOU SONS OF THE DEVIL (INTHIS CASE, DAUGHTER), YOU ARE TO BE THROWN INTO ETERNAL FIRE FOR SEXUALLY ASSUALTING THESE LITTLE CHILDREN, WHO ARE DEAREST TO MY HEART!

have a heart dear lily m ! or else like your teachers of the law cum pharisee-ancestors, you will not be able to recognise the Lord, at his 2nd coming!

The woman was guilty as guilty can be. Jesus would not have told her to sin no more if she wasn’t a great big old sinner in the first place. Any idea that she was some innocent victim is a totally unsubstantiated fabrication of yours.

And who says she wasn’t the seducer in the scenario? Women seduce - women seduce quite often, in fact. Maybe the man was the more innocent party? We simply don’t know. And not knowing, you cannot say that Jesus intervened only because she was relatively innocent. If that were true, why did He not smite all her sinful accusers? Being God He could easily have done so. Why not at least broadcast their sin to the whole world so that they would all be stoned, since by your logic His justice demands nothing less?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

And who says she wasn’t the seducer in the scenario?

No, it’s never her fault. You don’t understand. The patriarchy made her do it!

Rule of thumb: everything that women do wrong is because of evil chauvinist men, everything that non-whites do wrong is because of evil imperialist whites, everything that the poor do wrong is because of evil property-owners, everything that gentiles do wrong is because of evil Jews, and so on.

 

[wisedom]

LilyM:
The woman was guilty as guilty can be. Jesus would not have told her to sin no more if she wasn’t a great big old sinner in the first place. Any idea that she was some innocent victim is a totally unsubstantiated fabrication of yours.

And who says she wasn’t the seducer in the scenario? Women seduce - women seduce quite often, in fact. Maybe the man was the more innocent party? We simply don’t know. And not knowing, you cannot say that Jesus intervened only because she was relatively innocent. If that were true, why did He not smite all her sinful accusers? Being God He could easily have done so. Why not at least broadcast their sin to the whole world so that they would all be stoned, since by your logic His justice demands nothing less?

JESUS is telling you and me not to sin anymore!..because we are not adulterous, it means not that we do not have worse spiritual sins to our credit or debit, as the case may be…so she is as sinful or innocent as you or I!
i have always maintained (my Opinion), that Jesus’ Mercy overrode his Father’s Justice!

if he did forgive the woman with great sin, he simulataneously forgave all others with greater sin!

WHAT IS DEPLORABLE IN THE INCIDENT, IS THAT SINFUL PEOPLE JUDGED WHAT RIGHTFULLY WAS JESUS’ RIGHT! i.e.,whenever any of us judge another to be a sinner, we dethrone Jesus from his throne, and what could be a worse sin than that?

 

[wisedom]

". BTW sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven.

‘your brother Abel’s spirit cries for Justice’…

these holy innocents also cry out for Justice, so what would God do?

 

[manualman]

Let’s be VERY clear here on the difference between the seal of confession and “covering up” abuse.

If a man confesses to a priest or bishop that he has sold a megaton worth of weapons grade plutonium to a terrorist organization that has vowed to blow up New York, that priest or bishop MAY NOT call the authorities or even use the information to leave New York to preserve himself. Confessional privacy is absolute. This is offered as a mercy to repentant criminals who haven’t yet mustered the courage to turn themselves in to the authorities.

If a priest confesses to abuse to his bishop in the confessional, the bishop’s hands are tied. And when you think about it, this IS reasonable. If the confessional did NOT have an inviolate seal, the priest would never confess it. He’d never get wise or holy counsel. He’d never hear the voice of Christ telling him he was forgiven, and to go and sin no more. How’s THAT helping??

Bishops are morally and legally required to report sexual abuse crimes they learn of ANY other way. But the confessional is there precisely to induce repentance and reformation. You’ll achieve NOTHING by eliminating that mercy (except of course making yourself feel all righteous, of course).

 

[sw85]

If his allegation about the Pope is true, then JPII would lose his beatification. Is it lawful to protect a priest from secular legal action, even in grave matters ( I know that homicide would make a priest irregular, so can irregural priest reported)?

Actions learned about in the confessional can never, ever be spoken of outside the confessional, so there is at least one possible circumstance where a bishop would not only be right not to report it but would be morally obligated to do so.

Surely Jesus would not have had it in his mind, that the Sacrament of Confession would be abused to the detriment of innocent children, whom he dearly loved?

Don’t presume to know the mind of God. That’s monstrous hubris.

The seal of the confessional exists in order to remove all deterrents from people seeking confession. Would you prefer to deter people from confession, and thus place their souls at risk of Hell, in order to extract some worldly justice which God is perfectly capable of enacting against them at the Last Judgment?

surely there must be an exception to this rule, for as we know ‘every rule has an exception’

Erm, no, it doesn’t. Why the quotes around that statement, by the way? No one’s ever said it before until just now.

I wonder how many kids needlessly got raped because of this rule. If a bishop commended a priest for not revealing that another priest confessed to pedophilia, and my child was raped by that priest subsequently, I would at the very least spit in his face. It is pathetic.

Because your sensibility of the sacred has been deadened by years of relentless leftist agitprop. Like the kids say, duh.

that is what Jesus would want according to the Hon. corki or whatever!

Fr. corki, do you represent Jesus?, how is it you fail miserably to behold him in the heart of a child, whom your colleagues “rape”, but are able to see him in the HOLY EUCHARIST?

I see nothing in Corki’s post that amounts to this. On the other hand, I just called you out for your post a little bit ago doing exactly that – presuming to know the mind of God. That is extreme presumption.

 

[JM3]

The priest admitted his crime in Confession.

and you know this, how?

 

[LilyM]

The woman was guilty as guilty can be. Jesus would not have told her to sin no more if she wasn’t a great big old sinner in the first place. Any idea that she was some innocent victim is a totally unsubstantiated fabrication of yours.

And who says she wasn’t the seducer in the scenario? Women seduce - women seduce quite often, in fact. Maybe the man was the more innocent party? We simply don’t know. And not knowing, you cannot say that Jesus intervened only because she was relatively innocent. If that were true, why did He not smite all her sinful accusers? Being God He could easily have done so. Why not at least broadcast their sin to the whole world so that they would all be stoned, since by your logic His justice demands nothing less?

JESUS is telling you and me not to sin anymore!..because we are not adulterous, it means not that we do not have worse spiritual sins to our credit or debit, as the case may be…so she is as sinful or innocent as you or I!
i have always maintained (my Opinion), that Jesus’ Mercy overrode his Father’s Justice!

if he did forgive the woman with great sin, he simulataneously forgave all others with greater sin!

WHAT IS DEPLORABLE IN THE INCIDENT, IS THAT SINFUL PEOPLE JUDGED WHAT RIGHTFULLY WAS JESUS’ RIGHT! i.e.,whenever any of us judge another to be a sinner, we dethrone Jesus from his throne, and what could be a worse sin than that?

Jesus’ mercy never can and never does override the Father’s justice. Both Jesus and the Father, being God, are at one and the same time always both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. For either to be otherwise would be a failing, and in short would mean that they were acting contrary to their own Godly natures, which is logically and morally impossible.

And what part of forgiveness being conditional upon repentance did you miss in the story of the woman? Of course Jesus forgave her because she was repentant. He will not forgive any sinner who is not repentant, so He is not obliged to forgive everyone just because He forgave this woman, since not everyone is repentant.

However, you are missing an important part of the story, which is that He quite simply did NOT, in His perfect justice, require her to turn herself in for secular punishment. As has been rightly pointed out, human laws (and I say this as a lawyer who believes in them deeply) contain only the faintest of faint echoes of the divine justice. And in many cases do not resemble it at all. And so a reluctance to turn oneself in to secular authorities is at best only only occasionally an indication of one’s lack of repentance. And so has little to do with one’s standing vis a vis God.

 

[wisedom]

Actions learned about in the confessional can never, ever be spoken of outside the confessional, so there is at least one possible circumstance where a bishop would not only be right not to report it but would be morally obligated to do so.

Don’t presume to know the mind of God. That’s monstrous hubris.

The seal of the confessional exists in order to remove all deterrents from people seeking confession. Would you prefer to deter people from confession, and thus place their souls at risk of Hell, in order to extract some worldly justice which God is perfectly capable of enacting against them at the Last Judgment?

Erm, no, it doesn’t. Why the quotes around that statement, by the way? No one’s ever said it before until just now.

Because your sensibility of the sacred has been deadened by years of relentless leftist agitprop. Like the kids say, duh.

I see nothing in Corki’s post that amounts to this. On the other hand, I just called you out for your post a little bit ago doing exactly that – presuming to know the mind of God. That is extreme presumption.

Jesus revealed his mind when he said that if anyone were to lead a child into sin, it is better for a mill-stone to be tied around his neck and he be cast into the depths of the ocean…but you sexually assault an innocent in animal-style?..so you presume the mind of God to be opposite ? and you presume that i presume to know the mind of God!

the ques. not answered is: you hypocrite, you are able to see Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, which you elevate, but are unable to see him in a Child (his heart is God’s Temple!), and you desecrate God’s temple when you satisfy your lust by sodomising or ‘raping’ a child?..TO ‘RAPE’ A MALE IS MUCH WORSE THAN TO RAPE A FEMALE!

THE CHURCH IS AT THE RECEIVING END OF ITS OWN HYPOCRISY AND SINS DOWN THE AGES!..NO WONDER THERE IS AN EXODUS FROM A DESPOTIC INSTITUTION!

the ques. not answered is: you hypocrite, you are able to see Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, which you elevate, but are unable to see him in a Child (his heart is God’s Temple!), and you desecrate God’s temple when you satisfy your lust by sodomising or ‘raping’ a child?..TO ‘RAPE’ A MALE IS MUCH WORSE THAN TO RAPE A FEMALE!
(REPEATED)

 

[Corki]

Jesus revealed his mind when he said that if anyone were to lead a child into sin, it is better for a mill-stone to be tied around his neck and he be cast into the depths of the ocean…but you sexually assault an innocent in animal-style?..so you presume the mind of God to be opposite ? and you presume that i presume to know the mind of God!

Be careful with your use of the pronoun “you”. It almost sounds like you are accusing sw85 of assaulting a child. No one here has said anything about excusing or condoning sexual assault of a child. No one. NO ONE. Nor has anyone even hinted at the idea that it would be God’s will that a child be assaulted or that the perpetrator would not be held accountable - especially by God.

the ques. not answered is: you hypocrite, you are able to see Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, which you elevate, but are unable to see him in a Child (his heart is God’s Temple!),

Who here has given you any indication that we don’t see Christ in every human being, including and especially children? How is a belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist a denial of our ability to see Christ in others?

and you desecrate God’s temple when you satisfy your lust by sodomising or ‘raping’ a child?..TO ‘RAPE’ A MALE IS MUCH WORSE THAN TO RAPE A FEMALE!

No one disagrees with the former statement. I am not sure about the latter. I don’t think the adjective “worse” should ever be used when speaking of rape. All rape is heinous sin.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread is now closed.