Posted on 10/18/2007 1:57:29 PM PDT by NYer
MANILA, Philippines -- A Catholic priest from Sorsogon was formally excommunicated by the Church for breaking the “seal of confession.”
In a decree dated September 21, 2007, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sorsogon declared the penalty of “latae sententiae excommunication” against Father Alejandre V. Galias.
Excommunication means the exclusion of a Catholic from the community of the Church for misconduct.
Galias is now prohibited from celebrating and attending masses, and is barred from receiving any of the sacraments.
Sorsogon Bishop Arturo Bastes was quoted in the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) website as saying that Galias had violated the Church rule that binds a priest to keep under absolute secrecy the sins confessed by penitents.
Bastes said that he acted on a formal complaint and that an investigation had found that Galias had violated the seal of confession.
“This is a very serious breach of confidence. [Priests] know this as a serious law of the Church. The law must be followed. I am the authority, being his bishop, to implement the law,” Bastes told a Radio Veritas interview.
Bastes said that different dioceses in the country have been informed of Galias’ excommunication.
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, an expert on canon law, explained that for a Catholic, excommunication means that one is separated from the life of the Church.
An excommunicated person is not included anymore in the prayers of the entire Catholic community during Masses and in the liturgy.
But the punishment does not mean that people should ostracize the excommunicated, said Cruz. It just means that the excommunicated is just “thrown out of the benefits of the Church’s prayer” which happen to include all the Christian faithful throughout the world.
Excommunication is either “ferendae sententiae” (imposed as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or “latae sententiae” (incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place).
The most common grounds for excommunication are abortion and being a direct or indirect agent for its commission, breaking the seal of confession, and physically striking the Pope.
Excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty levied against ministers of the Church.
But the excommunication of a priest, as in Galias’ case, though quite rare, is not a first for the Church, said Cruz.
PIng
physically striking the Pope.
Geez louise, I hope that’s not really that common.
you wrote:
“Geez louise, I hope that’s not really that common.”
It isn’t. The author misunderstood the source, I believe. There are a handful (8?) reasons for that type of excommunication that are given in the Code. I think the article author mistakenly believes they are common, when in reality they are “commonly given” as the reasons for that type of excommunication.
Hmmm, I wouldn’t think that this would necessarily result in excommunication. Now, if the priest disagreed with the principle of the seal of the confessional.
I do have another question to put to those more knowledgeable then me, do latae sententiae excommunication really mean that the excommunicated person can not attend MASS?
Violation of the seal of the confessional is about as bad as it gets. Such a priest not only betrays the individual trust of the penitent -- he also devalues and jeopardizes the Sacrament of Confession as a whole.
Priests have died rather than violate the Seal.
St. John Nepomuk, who suffered a martyr's death rather than reveal the confession of the Queen of Bohemia to her husband.
You wrote:
“I do have another question to put to those more knowledgeable then me, do latae sententiae excommunication really mean that the excommunicated person can not attend MASS?”
As far as I know an excommunicated person is allowed to attend Mass. Perhaps in this case the bishop has prohibited that? I really don’t know.
Canon experts?
Cannot receive the sacraments. Most notably, Holy Communion.
That would be my guess. This would be in effect until he was brought into communion with the Church again.
This article doesn't describe what would needed to be done for this to happen.
I’m pretty sure that excommunication is considered a one-way ticket straight to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. The ancient prayers stated as much. As such, I can’t imagine why such a person would be tolerated at a mass. It’s a far graver thing than “merely” being denied communion for osbtinate sin.
Can. 1388 §1 A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal, incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.
This means that the excommunication can only be lifted by the Vatican.
It’s a grave offense. I wonder why he did it?
It would be helpful to have some idea of the confession the priest violated. Did a serial killer confess his past murders and plans for future murders? Or was it some trivial piece of gossip-type sin that the priest blabbed? Either way, I suppose the priest would be required to not tell, but how serious was the confession?
Wrong. He is only prohibited from celebrating Masses. Even excommunicated people have an obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. Of course, under their circumstances, on a human level, they probably won't go to Mass, but that's not the point.
Exommunication is not a ticket to Hell. The formula that talked about damnation was a subjective damnation: “this person leaves himself open to damnation if he dies in this state.” Only God can judge souls. Besides, an excommunication can be lifted, and the possibility of that happening has to be left open even at the time the excommunication is imposed. But I grant you that dying in an excommunicated state is not a good thing to have to deal with at one’s Particular Judgment!
Anyway, being excommunicated is not the same thing as being stripped of one’s status as a Christian. The character of a Christian was infused at baptism. Even a person excommunicated is expected to honor the Lord’s Day, and this means he is expected to attend Mass even if he can’t receive Communion.
************
That makes sense. The door is still open to the excommunicated, as it should be.
I don’t think that is so, at all. Any person who dies in a state of sin leaves himself open to damnation; the excommunicated has committed grave sin to be excommunicated, and lacks access to the sacraments to be absolved of the grave sin. Plus, they are denied the benefits of prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial and funeral, indulgences, etc. Further, they are to be shunned even from “civilia jura,” the ordinary relations between members of the same society.
Now, you have a point in that excommunication means only that if the person were to die *while*excommunicated* he would go to Hell; there’s always the hope of absolution. Indeed, excommunication is described as medicinal, rather than punative, in that it is issued so as it becomes clear to the person that they are bound for Hell, so that they change their course.
“The most common grounds for excommunication are abortion and being a direct or indirect agent for its commission...”
Shall we start with the Democrat Catholics?
My point was only to take issue with what I believed was your assumption that excommunication is an automatic spiritual death sentence. It is not necessarily so, though, again, I would agree with you that to die in the state of excommunication, legitimately imposed, is not a good way to start your proceedings at your Particular Judgment. :-0
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.