With regard to that “secret protocol” from the pontificate of John XXIII that some lawyers suing the Church claim is the smoking gun showing a pattern of conspiracy to cover up crimes: This article from the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia shows that the provisions contained in that document are much older than that and points out what the document is really concerned with.
The entry is on the canonical crime of “solicitation,” which is soliciting any person to carnal sin by a priest before, during, or after confession, or when the penitent expects to make confession, whethr or not confession actually takes place.
One of the “outrages” outlined by the lawyers is the time limit placed on the victim which imposes penalties on the victim if he doesn’t confess. The article explains that:
Even though the wicked confessor has since amended his life, or though the crime of solicitation took place many years ago, the obligation of denouncing him still remains, because the law is made, not merely to procure amendment, but also to inflict punishment. If the penitent, without sufficient cause, does not make the denunciation within a month from the time he or she has learned the obligation to do so, excommunication is incurred ipso facto. When the negligence has been repaired, any approved priest may absolve from the excommunication. If the penitent has reasonable ground for fearing serious damage to self or family from a formal denunciation, some other method of informing on the delinquent priest may be sought for.
That seems awfully harsh at first glance, but think about it. Because of the nature of the confessional and the role of the priest, a predator can use his influence and the power of the Church’s authority to intimidate a victim into silence—as we have seen time and again. Notice there’s a loophole: “without sufficient cause.” It’s not an absolute penalty.
Even so, even victims have a responsibility to others to come forward and name the abuser, even if it is anonymously. This is different from American jurisprudence which places the feelings of the individual above all else; for the Church, preventing further crimes and sins by the abuser is paramount.
And you can also understand why a veil of absolute secrecy is placed over the handling of this matter. Because the seal of the confessional is involved, extra special care must be taken to ensure that the seal is not violated.
Bottom line: what we have is, I think, a canon lawyer/priest with an axe to grind who has presented some overeager trial lawyers with something with which to attack the Church. The priest should have known better and I think he has done real damage to the Church and borne false witness by this.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
The canonical crime of solicitation
With regard to that “secret protocol” from the pontificate of John XXIII that some lawyers suing the Church claim is the smoking gun showing a pattern of conspiracy to cover up crimes: This article from the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia shows that the provisions contained in that document are much older than that and points out what the document is really concerned with.
The entry is on the canonical crime of “solicitation,” which is soliciting any person to carnal sin by a priest before, during, or after confession, or when the penitent expects to make confession, whethr or not confession actually takes place.
One of the “outrages” outlined by the lawyers is the time limit placed on the victim which imposes penalties on the victim if he doesn’t confess. The article explains that:
That seems awfully harsh at first glance, but think about it. Because of the nature of the confessional and the role of the priest, a predator can use his influence and the power of the Church’s authority to intimidate a victim into silence—as we have seen time and again. Notice there’s a loophole: “without sufficient cause.” It’s not an absolute penalty.
Even so, even victims have a responsibility to others to come forward and name the abuser, even if it is anonymously. This is different from American jurisprudence which places the feelings of the individual above all else; for the Church, preventing further crimes and sins by the abuser is paramount.
And you can also understand why a veil of absolute secrecy is placed over the handling of this matter. Because the seal of the confessional is involved, extra special care must be taken to ensure that the seal is not violated.
Bottom line: what we have is, I think, a canon lawyer/priest with an axe to grind who has presented some overeager trial lawyers with something with which to attack the Church. The priest should have known better and I think he has done real damage to the Church and borne false witness by this.
COMMENTS
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.