Violation of the seal of confession

The Roman Catholic Faithful ^ | September 16, 2003 | Stephen G. Brady

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[Dajjal]

Bumpus ad summum

[Antoninus]

Groan...

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

according to the rule of St. Benedict “Implicit in this is that I [ Fr. Vorderlandwher] do not possess [have ownership] anything individually but that we hold all things in common.”

I doubt this is the kind of situation St. Benedict had in mind.

[ultima ratio]

This violates canon law and is a latae sententiae offense. This means the priest has been automatically excommunicated.

I'll bet the bishop doesn't want to hear about this nor about the unusual arrangement of the priest and his boyfriend. I would also be willing to bet he's the first one to hurl abuse at SSPX priests whose offense was that they refused be complicit in destroying the ancient Mass.

How do you spell corruption?

[Robert Drobot]

"....How do you spell corruption?"

I hear a fish rots from the head down.

[LadyDoc]

As a doctor, we do not reveal what is told to us in our office.

However, often when a person left my office, ny secretary would mention some of the same "private" facts to me, to fill me in on the story (usually but not always adulterous relationships).

You see, my secretary knew all the town gossip. So I would have people "confess" to me facts that were already well known to most of the gosspimongers in the small town.

If a priest learned of a relationship in the confessional, he is not allowed to speak of it. But if he also heard from a third party of adultery, abuse etc. he IS allowed to intervene and tell a third party.

So you just can't assume that the seal of confession was broken in this matter...

As for a priest's private relationship with his "cook", that is none of your business...that is the bishop's business...

[Aestus Veritatis]

I guess docs tend to think the same way about evidence. I was also wondering whether the priest heard it from the Moores or the other way around. The Hutchens need a statement from the Moores that the priest told them, not a statement from Mr. Hutchens that he believes it happened this way. This may be part of a parish feud.

But, I disagree about whether the "cooking" relationship is anybody's business. Esp. since the bishop appears to be ignoring it.

Sincerely,
Gentleman MD,PhD

[AAABEST]

As for a priest's private relationship with his "cook", that is none of your business...that is the bishop's business...

I find your statement beyond outrageous.

Would it be his flock's busines if he had his fingers in his "cook's" rear-end the morning before giving Holy communion? I think it is very much their business and I think the subject of gay priests getting any where near the Eucharist (which will happen today, our sabbath, in thousands of churches) is EVERYONE's business.

I think the great evil that these homosexuals and deviants have wrought is EVERYONE'S business. I think that the "this is a private matter" attitude is part of the problem.

No m'am you're wrong. The homosexual God haters in the clergy need to be purged ASAP, and that very much IS all of our business.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

LadyDoc, normally I agree with many of your posts. On the matter of the priest's relationship with the cook, it needs to be viewed in light of Catholic teaching on sin:

Nine Ways Of Being Accessory To Another's Sin
By counsel--By command--By consent--By provocation--By praise or flattery--By concealment--By partaking--By silence--By defense of the ill done.

Not to mention the fact priests are supposed to be spiritual leaders and fathers to their flocks. How can a priest in a state of several unrepentant mortal sins fulfill his duty?

[sinkspur]

If a priest learned of a relationship in the confessional, he is not allowed to speak of it. But if he also heard from a third party of adultery, abuse etc. he IS allowed to intervene and tell a third party.

Actually, LadyDoc, if a priest learns of a relationship in the confessional and hears about the same relationship outside the confessional, since he heard about it FIRST in the confessional, he is not allowed to tell a third party about it. Period.

And this letter illustrates the reason why. If a penitent feels that a priest has violated the confidence, as this priest did, it undermines the seal.

There is no analogy to a doctor's confidence. You can violate your confidence in the matter of child abuse; a priest cannot.

The seal of confession is absolute.

[Robert Drobot]

LadyDoc, please list for the unwashed, the types of issues revealed in a doctor's office may not be passed on to a government agency. Further, is the staff of a doctor bound by the same rule of silence?

[johnb2004]

"If a priest learned of a relationship in the confessional, he is not allowed to speak of it. But if he also heard from a third party of adultery, abuse etc. he IS allowed to intervene and tell a third party.

So you just can't assume that the seal of confession was broken in this matter...

As for a priest's private relationship with his "cook", that is none of your business...that is the bishop's business..."

What sources can you site from official Church documents to prove your point about breaking the confessional seal?

The priest's relationship is ABSOLUTELY the business of the parishioners. If he is giving scandal he needs to be corrected at the very least.

[autopsy]

Would it be his flock's busines if he had his fingers in his "cook's" rear-end the morning before giving Holy communion?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

[narses]

Ping.

[Dominick]

This is outrageous, and if the original victims had made this complaint then this would be actionable. As it stands it is gossip, and a third party complaint. This would probably be viewed as a complaint about a inappropriate relationship, with a charge of breaking confession to make it stick.

I'll bet the bishop doesn't want to hear about this nor about the unusual arrangement of the priest and his boyfriend. I would also be willing to bet he's the first one to hurl abuse at SSPX priests whose offense was that they refused be complicit in destroying the ancient Mass.

Nothing in the letter talks about this. This is simply more of the same persecution complex about the SSPX. Why must everything that happens in the Church somehow point back to the poor heretical SSPX?

The Priests relationship with this man is not germane to the breaking the seal of confession, even though there may be questions about the relationship, the Church is not in the business of pursuing gossip. This perhaps isn't written as a serious complaint, but for public consumption.

[ultima ratio]

"Why must everything that happens in the Church somehow point back to the poor heretical SSPX?"

Because people like you persist in hurling slanders at them, while giving the priests who shack up with their boyfriends, and the bishops who ignore this, a pass. How is the SSPX heretical? Name a single Church doctrine they have disavowed. This is something you will never do because no such doctrine exists. They accept everything, including the authority of the Pope. But they disagree with the present modernist agenda that has created in spades the kinds of anomalies described above.

[Dominick]

Because people like you persist in hurling slanders at them, while giving the priests who shack up with their boyfriends, and the bishops who ignore this, a pass.

It isn't slander if it is true, and nobody here imagines that this person gets a pass, even if they proved the charge. Linking the two charges is intellectually dishonest, and furthers my observation of megalomania on the part of SSPX supporters like you.

I am not in favor of expelling a priest when the charge of homosexuality has not been demonstrated, when the charge of Heresy against the SSPX has been upheld by the Holy See.

How is the SSPX heretical? Name a single Church doctrine they have disavowed

Consult previous threads, ad nauseum, it is against the TOS to rehash this over and over, as per the mods direct instructions. Why do you persist making the same befuddled arguments?

They accept everything, including the authority of the Pope

Many Protestants do as well, and like the SSPX they also refuse to act to obey. It is no longer about modernism, if is about power, like where all who trod that path eventually fall. This has nothing at all about the SSPX in it, but yet you interject the SSPX.

News item: "Hey look! St. Jerome's is serving mac and cheese with tuna fish"

UR: I bet the teachers mutter slander about the SSPX while they eat their lunch. This is just more evidence of pervasive modernism. This is a plot to destroy the Church by including fish in the beloved traditional menu.

Like I said, consult our previous meetings, if you have something new and on topic post it here.

[ultima ratio]

"It isn't slander if it is true..."

That's precisely my point. It is patently untrue to call the SSPX heretics. There is no evidence for this. To be a heretic one must deny some article of faith. There is not a single article of the Catholic faith disavowed by any SSPX priest anywhere. Not a one. This is why I challenged you to name one heretical belief you think they hold. You can't. Therefore the charge is false, and therefore it is a slander.