Some thoughts and some questions arising from this document (Loan and Swap)

by PeterR , Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 11:06 (1261 days ago) @ Helen

Helen,

As Brian mentioned, this document has been around for a while. This morning I printed it out from the link you provided and I have spent some time reading it.

The document addresses the procedure to be followed when a person reports sexual abuse by a confessor when that abuse is in any way connected with the sacrament of confession. The section on "The Worst Sin" appears to expand the subject matter to sexual crimes, committed by a cleric, that are not related to the sacrament of reconciliation. Could a canon lawyer clarify this please?

In general, the document seems to prescribe the usual procedure of canon law of trying to establish all the facts by hearing both sides of the question, reaching a decision and prescribing subsequent action.

If one were to compare the TLC of Bishop Geoffrey Robinson who appreciated the suffering of the victim with the legalism of this document, the latter is to be condemned. I suppose much would depend on the attitude of the clerics who implemented the procedure. (See Pars. 16-23) There is no understanding of the emotional trauma of the vicitim displayed in this document.

Any wise person who had been assaulted would be well advised to go to the police first. Let bishops and canon lawyers learn of the crime by reading about the abuse in the newspapers. Bishops would seem to have learnt that lesson themselves in recent years.

Given all the oaths of secrecy that participants take, I wonder if that is part of the cause for the "mental reservations" exercised by bishops when they have had to appear in court. If the civil process had been allowed to occur before this canonical procedure, maybe the bishops would be in a better position when they are questioned in relevant civil court cases.

The accused cleric appears not to be abliged to tell the truth before the canonical court. From my reading, Par. 52 states and has underlined: "In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth." The earlier part of this paragraph deals with the preservation of the seal of confession; hence, I presume that is the context in which this ruling is made. Help from canon lawyers sought again.

Pars. 71 -74 deal with "THE WORST SIN", defined in Par 71 as: "By the name of the worst crime is understood at this point a signification of any obscene external deed, gravely sinful, in any perpetrated by a cleric or attempt with a person of his own sex."

Whether there is a typo involved or that is a preparation of the clergy for the new barbaric translation of the liturgy I am not sure.

Par. 72 seems to extend the commission of "THE WORST CRIME" beyond the confessional setting. Canon lawyers: Is my "seems" correct?

"72. Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid, changing only those things necessary to be changed by their very nature, for the worst crime, if someone by chance in the presence of the Ordinary of the place, concerning which (which may God prevent) happens to be accused, having accepted the obligation of the
denunciation from the positive law of the Church, unless perhaps it has been joined with the crime of solicitation in sacramental confession. In decreeing penalties, however, against delinquents of this type, besides those which are found spoken of above, and they should also be kept before one’s eyes (Canon 2359, § 2)."

Whether my "seems" is right or wrong, the final sentence of Par. 74 indicates that the Vatican is informed:

"74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless
there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed,
according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a
judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as
the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office."

Would I be correct in thinking, tentatively, that +Ratzinger, in his capacity as Chief Inquisitor for approximately a quarter of a century would have known of these crimes?

Peter