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

In what appears to be a direct decision by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican has recalled the Nuncio to Ireland "for consultations". Now the question could well be "does the Irish government realize that the Pope has just rebuked them?". The recent attacks on the Holy See includes, for example, the abolition of the seal of Confession - which could not possibly have any positive effect beyond increasing the number of Irish martyrs. What will be next, the dissolution of the monasteries?

Fr. Serge

Sounds to me like Oliver Cromwell has risen from the grave.Isn't he buried in Ireland?
Seriously,this sounds like sad news.

I hadn't thought of the Cromwellian connection. But now that you mention it . . .

One must realize that the Church scandal is being used by politicians to divert attention from the economic scandal. But one must also realize that the Church simply does not know how to deal with scandal in an era of liberal democratic government and unregulated media. It never seems to get out in front, it always manages to look more concerned with maintaining appearances than in seeing justice done, and when it finally does react, it usually implements draconian policies that go too far in the opposite direction.

The problem, of course, lies with the bishops, who, having been infantilized over the centuries by the constant interference of the Holy See, simply do not know how to govern their own houses any more.

We have an independent Senator here in Australia who is making his own attack on the seal of confession. It has been in our media for a few days now. Few have commented on it apart for comedians. If it comes up in Senate debates it will be interesting where it goes from there. I doubt very much if any politicians here would really expect to force changes to Catholic practice. We have a hung Senate as it is and no one in politics wants to upset that balance. One of the 2 major parties would loose seats there.

It has always seemed to me that a confessor has disciplinary authority over a penitent, particularly when the penitent is a cleric. Should a cleric confess, under seal of confession, to sexual abuse of a child, it would be entirely proper in my opinion for the confessor to require the penitent to tell his bishop or monastic superior what he has done as a condition for absolution, and to withhold absolution until he has performed that penance. The superior would then be under legal obligation to report the abuse, as it would not be covered by the seal of the confessional.

And if the abuser tries to get around this by confessing to his bishop or abbot, then the bishop or abbot should require the abuser to turn himself in to the authorities as a condition for absolution. And if the abuser does not do this, then the bishop should immediately suspend him (the bishop need not give cause) and begin proceedings to return the cleric to the lay state.

I suppose this is why Abbots can't hear the confessions of their monks, so they dont get compromised. I presume that also applies to other religious superiors and for the same reasons.

Your humble servant suggests that much of the problem comes from bishops thinking of themselves, not as fathers and shepherds, but as the CEOs of a religious business enterprise.

Fr. Serge

No so much CEOs, as middle managers or franchise holders of some large multinational corporation. EWTN regularly broadcasts the annual meeting of the USCCB--and for the life of me, it looks like nothing less than a corporate management retreat. Highly disedifying, but then, I suppose if we had broadcast the deliberations of the Council of Nicaea, it would not live up to the poetry of the festal hymns.

I would like to make two observations from a priestly perspective to this suggestion.

When I was in seminary we were to never go to confession or spiritual direction to a superior who had charge over the canonical vote, i.e. those who had to decide whether a man would be advanced to the various ministries or to Holy Orders. Anything a seminarian said to a priest or did in front of a priest in this "external forum" would be up for strict evaluation.

I do not believe it is usual, to say the least, for a bishop to hear the confessions of his priests. That is why priests ought to have a personal spiritual director. Even within our diocese, during Holy Week at our afternoon of recollection the religious order priests serve as confessors for the secular priests.

Yes, the bishop is present as Christ the Priest, a spiritual father of a diocese and its priests, but he also makes present Christ the King, and as such he must be able to correct or counsel and not be bound by the sacramental seal or the professional confidence expected in spiritual direction. It is indeed a "fine line". In short (too late) I don't know of any of the guys who go to confession to their bishop.

Now, the suggestion that the confessor mandate a priest to reveal his sin to a superior as a condition for absolution is reprehensible; it is, in all reality, breaking the inviolable sacramental seal. Your opinion is misinformed. NEVER can sacramental absolution be used as a lure for someone to reveal their conscience in an external way. A confessor can plead and try to convince so that true justice is served, etc., but never mandate.

Additionally, sexual abuse by a cleric of a minor child is already a reserved sin, in which the priest needs permission of the Apostolic Penitentiary to absolve. However, this is strictly within the seal and the penitent remains anonymous. This development as well as the automatic excommunication which this crime garners (now recognized also as an ecclesiastical crime and not just civilly) either came from Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (I think???) in the late '90s or from the recent adjustments made to canon law at the request of then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 2003, or both.

Fr. Jon

I'm not a canonist, but I am an historian, and I can cite at least three examples where a penitent was ordered to confess his sin publicly as a condition of his absolution:

1. Emperor Theodosius is commanded by Archbishop St. Ambrose of Milan to beg forgiveness from the people of Thessalonica for his massacre of 7000 people following a popular revolt.

2. Emperor Henry II is ordered by Pope Gregory VII to publicly confess as condition for lifting his excommunication.

3. King Henry II of England is required to confess and do public penance as condition of absolution for the murder of Thomas Becket.

I'm sure I could find numerous other examples if I looked harder. The penitential practice of the early Church was significantly different from that of the Church today. Nonetheless, past confessors were not reluctant to make sinners grovel publicly before reintegrating them into the Body of Christ.

Haven't looked at the current Code (promulgated by JP 2) but certainly the previous legislation does not forbid the priest to require the penitent to make and act of public repentance - the classic example is murder. But the point is that it is the penitent himself who must make the act of public repentance; the priest-Confessor cannot do it for him. Thus the seal of Confession is not violated.

Fr. Serge

It seems that the Irish and English can never be on the same side - now that the English are slowly reintegrating themselves back in to the Catholic Communion, the Irish are disintegrating themselves and into secularism.

Sadly the Civl servants in the Vatican and many of the Irish bishops turned their back on the Irish people.

The loyal flock in parishes up and down the country were betrayed. The Nuncio igonred a request to co-operate with the Cloyne inquiry. He's lucky he wasn't sent home by the Irish government.

Humility and atonement is required from the Vatican. I live in hope...

Maybe the answer is to make absolution for every sin conditional upon public disclosure to the person wronged.
One must tell their spouse of adultery, lust for another, etc.
Tax cheats must report themselves to the IRS. Gossipers must tell the person whom they were talking about. Etc.