Posted on 07/31/2003 8:21:16 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
I haven't been "taken in." I know very well what this document refers to, and always have.
It reflects the silence the Church has surrounded itself with in matters of clerical abuse, especially the ridiculous excommunication after 30 days if the victim of a clerical solicitation doesn't come forward.
Perhaps you think this is not reflective of the environment which shielded clerics from criminal charges in abuse cases. I do.
The current code of canon law was promulgated in 1983 which obviously supercedes this and other previous documents. This document would refer to the code of 1917, I believe.
Neglecting the fact that this document is superceded by the new code of canon law, and the fact that I am not a canon lawyer, this document is very sensible in the context of the Sacrament of Penance due to the seal of silence which must surround it. It provides a way for the crime to be reported and the offending confessor to be disciplined without breaking the seal. Because of the seriousness of the sin involved, why is the Church wrong in requiring it to be reported?
Excommunicating a frightened adolescent is the height of idiocy.
My line of thinking was more like sinkspur's last comment #282, but he said it better and I was inclined to go along with the thing at face value. That was just my instinctual reaction and if I am being unfair, I am sorry, but my impression is that justice in the church is stacked in favor of the clergy.
When I personally grappled with this sort of thing, I heaved a hug :-) sigh of relief that I didn't have to pursue the matter further because I felt that I wouldn't be believed and not only that, but that it would cast me in a very bad light, and that they would side with the priest That's how I can relate just a teeny tiny bit to how the victims might feel.
I liked the priest and didn't want to get him in trouble because he was young and I didn't think he had done anything wrong. But the determination was not mine to make.
Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) - A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.
In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds.
The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort. In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.
The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.
[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]
The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.
In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry.
It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role.
It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy.
The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children.
The CBS report claimed:
The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.
That is inaccurate.
While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional.
Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court.
In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime.
The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense. Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document? Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia? The questions are worth pondering.
I wouldn't guess that adolescents were the primary target of the statement. The individual would have to know about it for one thing. Probably the admonition that the offending cleric after committing the heinous sin still in the context of performing the Sacrament, would be obligated under guilty conscience to instruct the penitent (including all men and WOMEN) to "turn him in" within the time period. I'm sure that the specifics have probably changed, but the concept seems valid to me.
If the offender is not "turned in", how's anybody gonna know? Hence the requirement by the Church that this particular sin, especially grievious in the context of a divine sacrament, be known to the divinely appointed representatives of Christ who alone can punish it properly.
And if "father" says it never happened, and he can't, under the seal of confession, go into it further?
Remember, not even the Pope can command a priest to break the seal.
Just out of curiosity, how do you entail that a situation like this be adjudicated in a secular court case which is open to the public in our country? I refer to sins, or allegations of sin, committed during a Sacramental Confession. How would you allow testimony that doesn't break the seal of confession? Or do you suppose that the "seal", made under OATH before GOD, should just be thrown out?
You incessantly mention "silence" and "shielding" on the part of the Church. But that is precisely what we Catholics should expect from the Church concerning the Sacrament of Penance. You are using this document to extend your allegations outside of the confessional. No, I don't believe that there has been widespread abuse concerning this as you and others do.
Did you not ever see Hitchcocks I Confess?
There HAS been, however, and as you know, a major solicitation and abuse problem OUTSIDE the confessional, and the Church has guarded the details of those encounters as tightly as if they had been in the confessional.
Well, that's the whole point of the inquisition process mentioned in the document, now isn't it? Is Kobe Bryant guilty of rape or not? That's the whole point of the legal proceedings occurring in Colorado. A jury of 12 will have to make a decision based on the testimony they hear. What if it comes down to a he said/she said decision? I suppose this problem exists in all adjudication processes. That's why the Church, and our American Judicial system puts people under oath to the God of all Truth to tell the truth.
According to the document, the issue of solicitation can be investigated. So serious are the allegations that they went as high as the then Holy Office. The issue has the accused confessor dealing with the added and definite mortal sin of sacrilege added to the solicitation.
Through the Centuries? Enough of a possibility that the Church has to have canon law to deal with the possility.
There HAS been, however, and as you know, a major solicitation and abuse problem OUTSIDE the confessional...
Listen, that's my point in reference to the article. Durso and Shea are two scumbag lawyers playing a willing press like a violen to attack the Church with their major "find". The document doesn't do anything for them legally, and they know it. They have purposely quoted it in misleading ways to garner support. I don't even know if it is authentic. Probably is.
It most certainly does not;
"73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)."
Your source, CWN, is as biased as CBS, on opposing sides, of course. Can’t you read the entire document, cover to cover, for yourselves?
That's a new one. Where'd you pull that from? If it is the "God" of the American Judicial system, as you say, I'll pass on your "god".
Where did you come up with that 73? I opened the thing up and searched on 73, nothing, worst, nothing, equivalent, nothing. Can you give me the page number so I can verify that it is in the document? Please?
Also I can't figure out how to copy and paste from it, as it won't let me highlight.
So why was it kept secret from the Catholic laity?
I was propositioned in the confessional, during my confession, by the priest. I quietly said "Uh, I don't think so. May I please have my absolution now". The absolution was given to me, but I was not instructed, by the priest to report himself to his Bishop, or else, I would be excommunicated. I never went back to that church.
This happened in Lake Charles, LA in the summer of 1978.
Page 16 of 39 in Adobe Acrobat. I can't cut and paste, either. I transcribed.
I'm expecting no responses tonight, so take your time. Why don't you just read the entire document?
That is a very good question. I only stumbled across the info when I was looking up something else in canon law. How many ordinary people thumb through canon law? It doesn't seem to have been thought through very well, but I guess I wouldn't expect any priest to mirandize me in the process of making a confession.
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but since you now know, you are obligated to seek out a confessor and follow his advice, if you haven't already done so, or you *may* be excommunicated. Not that *I* consider you excommunicated. They will probably just blow it off and tell you to get on with things.
I don't know why it struck me with such terror. I do not think most people would react that way.
That was a long time ago. You were a good girl. He was a naughty priest, but all too human. It probably happens more than we know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.