Posted on 07/31/2003 8:21:16 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
Why, do I have to now? It's been superceded by the 1983 Code of Canon law, has it not? And I did not find about this secret rule until 2003.
Because I don't feel like it and it is very heavy reading and a lot of it goes way over my head. If it will make you feel better, I may take a stab at it. But not tonight.
Mine's all screwed up. It jumps from ++16++ to ++18++ with no ++17++ that I can find. That would be 16 of 60 in the one I've got. I do not find your quote yet.
Enough is enough for tonight.
The pages have evidently been scanned and are in some format other than text; that's why we can't highlight and copy/paste.
You have started your countdown of 90 or however many days since you now know :-).
All you are required to do is seek out a different confessor, tell him what happened and he decides if you should take it any further. If you want me to look it up for you I can do that tomorrow if I can find the book.
Oops. Sorry. Chuckling. It is your screen name. I figured you were an Irish lass.
I hope I didn't offend you. If I did, I humbly apologize.
You may have missed my point. I agree our American judicial system is now becoming a legislative and executive system as well. In other words, an unconstitutional system. However, there was a time when the Judeo-Christian roots of our system of government were taken seriously. They took the swearing of oaths seriously. In fact, most cultures did. They had to.
In swearing an oath to God, you are calling on God to be your witness. Grace (actual) is given you to 1) strengthen you to tell the truth, and 2) reward you with an increase, a growth, of virtue for doing so. If in telling the truth nobody else believes you, God sure does. If you tell a lie and everybody believes you, God knows you are lying. A very bad thing. You are then "making" God an accomplice in your lie. This is mortal sin.
The founders of our country knew and understood this, even the non Judeo-Christians (such as Thomas Jefferson, a Deist). That is why, for example, they wrote the 5th Admendment. To ensure that people, put in difficult situations to testify against, say, spouses, where the temptation to lie under oath might be very strong concerning life here on earth, they would place their eternal salvation on the line. People today often can't make sense of that, back then they sure did.
Lying is never good, but lying under oath is extremely dangerous. Why put people under oath? Because in situations like this, the truth is of paramount importance in making a decision of innocence or guilt. True for either a secular court case or ecclesiastical adjudications. In both instances, the God of all Truth, the God Who is Truth, is called as a direct witness by either "court" through the swearing of an oath.
"Sacrament" stems from the Latin as the word used for swearing an oath. That is what Christ does for us in the Sacraments, particularly the Blessed Sacrament. He swears an oath on our behalf to God the Father.
Where on earth did this definition come from???
The dictionary.
Where on earth did this definition come from???
The dictionary.
The Latin term 'vicarius' from where 'vicar' is derived connotes a substitute, deputy, proxy, delegate, representative, etc. It is in this vein that the Pope (and the other Bishops as well) are called "vicars of Christ". Having been consecrated as successors of the Apostles, who were delegated directly from Christ to teach in His name with His authority, the Bishops are "vicars of Christ". Nothing heretical or profane or blasphemous about it. The dictionary you used had a weak interpretation of the term or expression, at least as the Catholic Church uses it, in my opinion.
I went back and saw the argument start with your question:
More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?
The answer is no on several accounts.
1. The Catholic Church is not a "nefarious institution". She is a Divinely constituted institution.
2. While satan attacks Her and will till the end of time, Christ is Her foundation and Head.
3. This document, if indeed authentic, is a perfectly reasonable one dealing with a specific ecclesiastical matter. It has been misrepresented by shyster lawyers, which is to be expected.
4. Don't believe everything you read.
Vatican official says 1962 norms on solicitation no longer apply.
So let's see, some in the Novus Ordo say the 1962 document merely codifies the teaching of the Catholic Church dating back to 1917. Now a Vatican official says, ""When a matter is re-ordered, the previous procedures are suspended."
This Novus Ordo nonsense is too confusing and self-conflicting. I won't be bothered by it.
The new norms refer to the way in which the church handles solicitation complaints. Now it seems it is optional to denounce the priest.
When a matter is re-ordered, the previous procedures are suspended.
Yes.
"Canon 1387 - Whether in the act or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, a priest who solicits a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is to be punished with suspension, prohibitions and deprivation in accord with the seriousness of the offense; and in more serious cases, he is to be dismissed from the clerical state.
"There are some noteworthy differences between the revised law and the 1917 Code which obliged the solicited penitent to denounce the offending confessor (CIC 904) and penalized both the soliciting confessor as well as the penitent who knowingly failed to denounce the former (CIC 2368). First of all, the revised law on penance neither explicitly obliges the solicited penitent to denounce the soliciting confessor nor requires another confessor to advise the one solicited of the obligation to denounce the offending confessor. Rather, it binds one making a false denunciation to retract it formally and repair any damage done before absolution is granted (c. 982). As will be seen shortly, canon 1390, §1 subjects the false denunciator to the penalties of interdict and suspension if a cleric is involved. Both canons are primarily concerned with protecting the reputation of the innocent confessor whose ministerial effectiveness could be seriously jeopardized in such a delicate matter.
"Secondly, the present canon describes the meaning of solicitation. It is an invitation to commit a serious sin against the sixth commandment, which is expresed precisely within the penitential context broadly onceived. One may question the restriction of the law to sexual sins, but it clearly involves them alone.
"Thirdly, the present canon does not refer to the penitent who knowlingly fails to denounce an offending confessor, presumably because the canons on p[enance do not require such a denunciation. The canon penalizes only the allegedly soliciting confessor, with due latitude for the competent penal authority to act according to the seriousness of the offense. One should proceed very cautionsly here, particularlybecause of the delicate situation of the confessor, who is bound by the seal of confession and hence is somewhat impaired in defending his integrity. Should a confessor be denounced, the instructions of the Holy See are to be followed."
I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. Must have had the wrong canon law book years ago when this came up in my life or didn't understand that canon law had been updated at the time. I wonder if the priest even knew why I sought his advice . . .bummer.
It doesn't sound like you have to do anything to me.
I don't have much patience for this deep stuff so maybe someone else knows if there is more to this . . .and can help you out, other applicable canons, etc., SIR :-) Hope you didn't lose any sleep over it.
Say what???
First off, the "Novus Ordo" is the unofficial name given by some for the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul the VI in, I don't know, 1970? It refers to the Liturgy of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, revised after Vatican II.
If you want the teachings of the Church, refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Canon Law is, well, laws of the Church. These deal with a whole host of issues, including very mundane and regulatory types, realities needed by the Church, or any organization for that matter. They include disciplinary issues as well. Exactly like the State you live in, except these are for the particulars of the Church. It shouldn't surprise you that laws change over time as needed - just like civil laws. Canon law went through a big revision in 1983 following Vatican II from the previous revision done in 1917 some 65 years earlier. Whats hard to understand about that?
The paper in question dealt with one issue and one issue only: The abuse by Priests within the context of hearing confessions to solicit sexual favors from penitents. I'm no canon lawyer, and I suppose few are, but it makes perfect sense that the Church has a law dealing with the discovery, adjudication, and punishment of this abuse. I suppose the specifics are slightly different now than they were in '62.
?? This whole article is much ado about nothing other than introducing the canonical term "solicitation" into most peoples vocabulary, and allowing shyster lawyers to wage a PR campaign against the Catholic Church.
Nope.
"73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)."
Once again, you are wrong. I'm tired of reposting this. Why don't you just read the entire document for yourself before you step up on your soapbox?
In the document I downloaded, I haven't been able to find that quote, but I confess I did not spend any time on it today. Mine is about 60 pages long. Perhaps LoI has a different one from mine.
Can someone verify whether this quote is in that document or not, please.
Listen, I'm not a canon lawyer and don't care to simulate one. You posted paragraph 73 of the document which is found at the end under the last, excepting short conclusion and appedices, and short (1 page long) "Title V" concerning "Worst Crimes". It contains paragraphs 71 - 74. Go on to paragraph 74. It states that "even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or judicial manner" after stating that "unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation".
What gives? The document is about solicitation. It directs superiors and ordinaries to the proper canons of the Church concerning worst crimes. No changes UNLESS these are involved with the crime of solicitation. This document only deals with worst crimes to the point they are mixed in with solicitation - WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DOCUMENT. The title of the document in question?
It takes too long to load to pull it into this thread, 281 kb (screen shot of that portion of document).
I would tend to accept Totus' explanation as to why it is there and what it means unless a better interpretation comes along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
