FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Change of Celebrant Announced
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This is a confusing story as it seems to involve the seal of confession and still it seems the bishop also had other sources of information as he was apparently told by the victim's mother. Father Zuhlsdorf is arguing on his site that the bishop was essentially frozen by the seal issue as he had to keep it secret and in fact could not act on what he was told in the confession, i.e., he could not even suspend the priest.
SNAP was threatening a public protest at the Shrine, so I guess the Paulus Institute decided to chuck Hoyos.
However, they now must find another bishop to say the TLM by Saturday. That could be tough.
Here's Father Z's take on it: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/card-cast...reporting/

C/
Yes, I think it may be some days before the smoke clears on this one. And it may just be that the bishop was only trying to protect the seal of confession. Meanwhile the Washington Post is going with the headline: "John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse: Cardinal" ( !)
I am sure when all the facts are out we can expect the media to offer a balanced and reasonable point of view. NOT!

One thing is for sure, this thing is all over the major networks and blogs as well. That TLM is probably going to be more crowded than it would have been otherwise.

C.
Honestly, I think they will be lucky to find another bishop who knows how to say the TLM and is available on this short of notice.
(04-21-2010, 07:20 PM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]The bishop does not have to break the seal of confession by turning someone in to the cops. He can make it the person's penance to turn himself in.

Then he can publicly comment that the priest is disobeying an order to turn himself in without saying what for.


I mean, if I were a bishop that's what I would do.....   

Men are sooooooooo lucky I am a woman!    ;D

Actually, while the bishop could have made it a condition of absolution for the priest to turn himself into the secular authorities, the bishop cannot either say or act upon anything he learned in the confessional.

Hence the bishop couldn't later publicly or even privately use the information he gained from the confession. He could not have commented about the priest not acting on such an order, because it was under the seal. He could not even approach the priest outside the confessional and discuss what had been said or demanded of the priest.

The bishop could only take action if he had a secondary source which came from outside the confessional.

Cardinal Castrillion was praising the bishop for upholding the seal, even to the point of being charged with a crime for doing so and serving jail time. He probably did not say anything along the lines of "protecting the seal" in order to, himself protect seal.

A priest can use information from the confessional in a general way without even suggesting what any one person confessed. For instance, a priest could comment that he hears a number of sins against the flesh in the confessional and this should be a focus, because it has no way of being tied to any one penitent.
If a person is known to have rejected the penance then he is not absolved of the sin and cannot receive the Eucharist, thus the priest cannot celebrate the Mass.  The Bishop would have to act on that.
(04-21-2010, 08:57 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Hence the bishop couldn't later publicly or even privately use the information he gained from the confession. He could not have commented about the priest not acting on such an order, because it was under the seal. He could not even approach the priest outside the confessional and discuss what had been said or demanded of the priest.

Which is why it isn't a good idea for superiors to hear the confessions of those directly beneath them, really; it ties their hands.  I'm not sure why the bishop even heard his confession in the first place.
What are the chances that they are going to be able to find someone else to say this Mass?  If this doesn't happen I'm going to be really upset with the Paulist Institute.  This seems like such a stupid move, especially for an organization that put this together to help bring back Tradition.

ETA:  I'm still confused as to why Castrillon is being pulled now.  Is this letter from the Cardinal to Pican just coming out now or are they pulling him simply to avoid protests?
(04-21-2010, 08:57 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, while the bishop could have made it a condition of absolution for the priest to turn himself into the secular authorities, the bishop cannot either say or act upon anything he learned in the confessional.

Actually that is not quite theologically correct. It is never allowable for a confessor to condition absolution on the revelation of a crime to civil authorities, as this would break the seal of confession. 

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405qq.asp

"Q: Can absolution be withheld from a murderer until he agrees to give himself up to authorities? 

A: Absolutely not. A priest may withhold absolution from a murderer if he has reason to believe that the penitent is insincere. He also may assign the penitent to atone for his sin by helping those he has harmed, anonymously if necessary. For example, if the victim was a husband and father, the priest may direct the penitent to contribute to the support of the widow and children. In order to avoid revealing the murderer’s identity, the support may be given through the mediation of the parish’s charitable funds. The priest also may encourage the penitent to turn himself in to authorities. But he may not condition absolution upon the murderer’s confession to civil authorities. No one—not even the priest—can require an action that would reveal to outsiders the contents of his sacramental confession and thus violate the seal of the confessional." 

Absolution wouldn't be withheld in that situation though.  Absolution is valid and effective whether or not the person fulfills their penance.  I see no reason why a priest couldn't give a penance of turning oneself in.  In fact, I think that would probably be his duty as confessor.
(04-22-2010, 01:04 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Absolution wouldn't be withheld in that situation though.  Absolution is valid and effective whether or not the person fulfills their penance.  I see no reason why a priest couldn't give a penance of turning oneself in.  In fact, I think that would probably be his duty as confessor.

That is still breaking the seal of confession by ordering that he turn himself in to civil authorties A confessor can recommend the penitent turn himself in, as a form of advise, but he cannot order him to do it as a part of his penance. Penance is an order to make reparation for sin and is given before absolution. The absolution is conditioned on every penitent accepting his penance.
Pages: 1 2 3