Vatican official says 1962 norms on solicitation no longer apply.
So let's see, some in the Novus Ordo say the 1962 document merely codifies the teaching of the Catholic Church dating back to 1917. Now a Vatican official says, ""When a matter is re-ordered, the previous procedures are suspended."
This Novus Ordo nonsense is too confusing and self-conflicting. I won't be bothered by it.
The new norms refer to the way in which the church handles solicitation complaints. Now it seems it is optional to denounce the priest.
When a matter is re-ordered, the previous procedures are suspended.
Yes.
"Canon 1387 - Whether in the act or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, a priest who solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished with suspension, prohibitions and deprivation in accord with the seriousness of the offense; and in more serious cases, he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.
"There are some noteworthy differences between the revised law and the 1917 Code which obliged the solicited penitent to denounce the offending confessor (CIC 904) and penalized both the soliciting confessor as well as the penitent who knowingly failed to denounce the former (CIC 2368). First of all, the revised law on penance neither explicitly obliges the solicited penitent to denounce the soliciting confessor nor requires another confessor to advise the one solicited of the obligation to denounce the offending confessor. Rather, it binds one making a false denunciation to retract it formally and repair any damage done before absolution is granted (c. 982). As will be seen shortly, canon 1390, §1 subjects the false denunciator to the penalties of interdict and suspension if a cleric is involved. Both canons are primarily concerned with protecting the reputation of the innocent confessor whose ministerial effectiveness could be seriously jeopardized in such a delicate matter.
"Secondly, the present canon describes the meaning of solicitation. It is an invitation to commit a serious sin against the sixth commandment, which is expresed precisely within the penitential context broadly onceived. One may question the restriction of the law to sexual sins, but it clearly involves them alone.
"Thirdly, the present canon does not refer to the penitent who knowlingly fails to denounce an offending confessor, presumably because the canons on p[enance do not require such a denunciation. The canon penalizes only the allegedly soliciting confessor, with due latitude for the competent penal authority to act according to the seriousness of the offense. One should proceed very cautionsly here, particularlybecause of the delicate situation of the confessor, who is bound by the seal of confession and hence is somewhat impaired in defending his integrity. Should a confessor be denounced, the instructions of the Holy See are to be followed."
I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. Must have had the wrong canon law book years ago when this came up in my life or didn't understand that canon law had been updated at the time. I wonder if the priest even knew why I sought his advice . . .bummer.
It doesn't sound like you have to do anything to me.
I don't have much patience for this deep stuff so maybe someone else knows if there is more to this . . .and can help you out, other applicable canons, etc., SIR :-) Hope you didn't lose any sleep over it.
Say what???
First off, the "Novus Ordo" is the unofficial name given by some for the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul the VI in, I don't know, 1970? It refers to the Liturgy of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, revised after Vatican II.
If you want the teachings of the Church, refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Canon Law is, well, laws of the Church. These deal with a whole host of issues, including very mundane and regulatory types, realities needed by the Church, or any organization for that matter. They include disciplinary issues as well. Exactly like the State you live in, except these are for the particulars of the Church. It shouldn't surprise you that laws change over time as needed - just like civil laws. Canon law went through a big revision in 1983 following Vatican II from the previous revision done in 1917 some 65 years earlier. Whats hard to understand about that?
The paper in question dealt with one issue and one issue only: The abuse by Priests within the context of hearing confessions to solicit sexual favors from penitents. I'm no canon lawyer, and I suppose few are, but it makes perfect sense that the Church has a law dealing with the discovery, adjudication, and punishment of this abuse. I suppose the specifics are slightly different now than they were in '62.
?? This whole article is much ado about nothing other than introducing the canonical term "solicitation" into most peoples vocabulary, and allowing shyster lawyers to wage a PR campaign against the Catholic Church.