Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Alex Murphy
I didn't find any good references to 1922, but I was able to find: Crimen sollicitationis (Latin for "the crime of soliciting") was a letter sent in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite". In the document, the Holy Office laid down procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents; its rules were more specific than the generic ones in the Code of Canon Law.[2] In addition, it instructed that the same procedures be used when dealing with denunciations of homosexual, paedophile or zoophile behaviour by clerics. It repeated the rule that any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest who had made such advances in connection with confession was automatically excommunicated and could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so.[3] A revision of the document, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962) and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was issued in 2001 in the form of the Instruction De delictis gravioribus. An English translation of this 2001 Instruction appeared on Origins, 31:32 (24 January 2001).

All Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite. Somebody's falsifying something here. Either the author of the article or the Dublin diocese.

Purpose of the secrecy

The document dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.

"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."[5]

Some interpret the secrecy about the procedure as a cover-up of scandalous conduct. This view was presented in a BBC documentary film Sex Crimes and the Vatican.[6] of 1 October 2006.

Others see it as aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed: "It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops."[7]

A presentation of the question can be read in a study [8] of 1 November 2006 by Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD.

Notice here, that there is no order of secrecy on the victims and that there was an established method for reporting to the secular authorities. I guess that I am still puzzled by the 1922 report, and the air of secrecy from all. The diocese was given the 1962 report, of that I have no doubt. Somebody is lying and if it is the bishop, then hell would be too good for him.

11 posted on 12/20/2009 7:13:07 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: MarkBsnr
It repeated the rule that any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest who had made such advances in connection with confession was automatically excommunicated and could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so

Thanks for the info, Mark. There's a whole lot of [excommmunicated] FReeper Catholics out there who'd rather denounce me than denounce their own priests, based on their own posting history.

25 posted on 12/21/2009 5:33:57 AM PST by Alex Murphy (qyot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson