www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican recalls Nuncio to Ireland

That, of course, was my point.

That was the original practice, you know. Confession was not about receiving the forgiveness of God, which is immediate and unconditional in the presence of a contrite heart; rather, it was about offenses against one's neighbor, and in particular, against other members of the Body of Christ. When one member of the Ekklesia sinned against another, he would have to confess before the Ekklesia, and the bishop would decide how amends would be made.

When the Church grew beyond a small elite, and became a mass movement, the problems inherent in this practice became apparently, and the Church adjusted by having the penitent confess to the bishop who stood in persona ecclesia; the bishop decided what the penitent would have to do to be readmitted to communion.

Over time, bishops habitually delegated the authority to hear confessions, assign penances and grant absolution to the presbyters. Also, the focus of confession changed from one of reintegration to the community, to one of either atonement for sins against God (the Western emphasis) or the healing of spiritual illness (the Eastern emphasis).

The problems inherent then, would also be present now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that a priest could not make absolution conditional upon someone "turning themselves in". They could suggest it and recommend it, but not make it conditional.

I was told this by a priest, but that doesn't guarantee that it's 100% correct, either.

Also, to add to what you said, some sins were only forgiven once in a life time. Obviously, that was one of those inherent problems.

General absolution would seem to be a way around it.

I guess different rules apply to Popes.

But those crimes mentioned such as the murder of St. Thomas Becket were not hidden (occult) sins. They were public (notorious) sins. Thus the comparison cannot be made to the a cleric who confesses sexual abuse of a minor in confession. Presumably this is an occult sin and crime. Apples and oranges. I stand by the result, that if Father X mandates a manifestation of conscience as a dependency for sacramental absolution, a direct violation of the Seal occurs, and penalties for the priest are automatically incurred.

My Code is in my office, and am unable to quote directly. I am not a canon lawyer, nor do I play one on television. But our seminary drilled this into us, for our good and the good of the souls in our care.

These smart phones are great. Here I believe are some relevant canons:

Can.  978 §1. In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is equally a judge and a physician and has been established by God as a minister of divine justice and mercy, so that he has regard for the divine honor and the salvation of souls.

§2. In administering the sacrament, the confessor as a minister of the Church is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium and the norms issued by competent authority.

Can.  979 In posing questions, the priest is to proceed with prudence and discretion, attentive to the condition and age of the penitent, and is to refrain from asking the name of an accomplice.

Can.  980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

Can.  981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Can.  982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can.  985 The director of novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases.

Fr. Jon

And lastly (I hope):


Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

I don't want to deliberately offend anoy one here and I've alot to learn about the Byzantine Catholic way. However as an Irish RC it is very hard not to be angry with the way the Vatican has handled the issue of child abuse.

But my faith in our Lord, his Father and the Holy Spiorit are still intact...:)

Well good luck. Hope in vain for those ecclesiastical bureaucrats EVER to admit guilt or ask pardon of anyone for anything.

Any additional response to this topic from me would be futher slamming the hierarchy so I'll just keep mum & let others do it for me.

I stay in the Church not because of them but in spite of them.

Perhaps one of our Eastern Catholic or Orthodox priests or seminarians might shed some light as to a possible Eastern approach to this problem? Whenever I start reading or trying to understand Latin Canon law rules, my head starts to spin and I am trained as a lawyer! The only thing close in the civil law is the IRS code!

Don't Orthodox bishops have much more authority and autonomy when it comes to suspending or returning their priests to the lay state? My understanding is the affected cleric can appeal to his synod and ultimately to his patriarch, but it is rare for the authority of the bishop to be overturned except in clear cases of episcopal misconduct or an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Dear Stuart,
An Orthodox bishop MAY suspend a priest within his own diocese.He MAY also forbid a priest from another diocese from serving in his diocese.However, he CANNOT laicise ANYONE on his own;a Canonical Trial is mandated for Deacons,Priests, and Bishops.I don't have my trusty RUDDER with me,but I believe it takes 3 bishops to judge a deacon,six for a priest,and 9 for a bishop.
Regarding Confession,my former ROCOR bishop in response to my query said that under no circumstances may Confessions be revealed.He did add that if the priest hearing the confession of someone preparing for Holy Orders learns of an impediment,he may tell the bishop of the candidate that there is an impediment,WITHOUT revealing the confession.At that point,it is on the bishop to question the potential candidate and act as he sees fit.The seal of Confession,however, is not violated.My former bishop has a DD from a Serbian Theological Academy,so I'm fairly certain of his answer.
I hope this information helps,

Fr.Andrei

Interesting. It is still significantly more flexible and response than the equivalent Catholic process, whereby every decree of laicization must come out of the Curia Romana.