Retired Bishop Says He Would Break The Seal Of Confession

[Nihil Obstat]

Absolutely appalling...

[url="http://m.ucanews.com/news/2012/11/14/pell-does-not-speak-for-the-whole-church-says-retired-bishop"]http://m.ucanews.com...-retired-bishop[/url]

[indent=1]GEOFFREY ROBINSON: If the person won't go that far then I would have to make a decision, and if I really thought that young people were at serious risk here then I would speak to the police.

TIM PALMER: You would break the seal of confession?

GEOFFREY ROBINSON: Well, you know, I'd have to weigh a lot of things up - did I know the name of the alleged offender? Did I know the name of the alleged victim? If I didn't, if it's simply someone who comes into confessional who's not known to me, then obviously I can't tell the police that.

[size=5][b]I would be prepared to break the seal of confessional because you have to weigh up the greatest good, and here the greatest good is surely the protection of innocent people.[/b][/size][/indent]


[size=5][size=4]Our great canon lawyer, Dr. Peters, [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/apparently-we-have-to-ask-how-do-bishops-lose-facutlies-for-confession/"]weighed in[/url].[/size][/size]



[indent=1]Just so we’re clear, the seal of confession is absolutely inviolable (Canon 983 § 1) and [i]any[/i] confessor who violates the seal is liable to excommunication (Canon 1388 § 1).[/indent]

[indent=1][...][/indent]


[indent=1][size=1][size=4][b]Faculties for confession are required for validity (Canon 966 § 1). Even bishops need, but have by law (Canon 967 § 1), this faculty. [/b]Granting that no canon expressly covers the revocation of a bishop’s faculties for confession (the Code cannot anticipate every eventuality that might confront the Church in our bizarre times), ecclesiastical authority can, I suggest, respond coherently and effectively to utterances such as Robinson’s.[/size][/size][/indent]
[indent=1][size=1][size=1][size=4]The pope has the authority (Canons 331, 1405 § 1, n. 3) to enjoin Robinson’s compliance with ecclesiastical (and indeed, divine) law (Canon 49), under pain of penalty (Canons 1319, 1339), in regard to confessions he has already heard. As the Legislator of the Code under which Robinson enjoys faculties for confession, [b]the pope also has the authority (Canon 331) to revoke Robinson’s faculties and has, I believe, obvious cause to consider doing so (Canon 974 § 1).[/b][/size][/size][/size][/indent]

[indent=1][size=1][size=1][size=1][size=4]While only the pope can take the above actions in regard to Robinson, [b]other diocesan bishops can act to protect the faithful in their dioceses from approaching any cleric who has declared his willingness to violate the seal of confession by notifying Robinson, and the faithful, that Robinson does not have permission to celebrate the sacrament in their territory (Canon 967 § 1).[/b] Such a declaration does not go to the validity of any future confessions heard by Robinson, but it would tend to limit the harm caused by his startling readiness to violate fundamental law.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/indent]



[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And then a follow-up on the nature of the Seal:[/font]
[url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/some-points-regarding-the-debate-over-seal-of-confession-in-australia/"]http://canonlawblog....n-in-australia/[/url]


Those statements by Bishop Robinson are incredibly irresponsible, and very very dangerous. No bishop has the authority to say such things. I hope that he is set right by his superiors.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Lil'Monster]

Oh my gosh...

[Lil Red]

unbelievable. *smh*

[inunionwithrome]

Wow.

[CatholicCid]

Not surprising, given the source. At least you now know who to avoid when going to confession.

[Basilisa Marie]

Good thing he's retired.

I find the attitude of "gtfo of my Church" one of the most appalling things a Christian can think. And yet...things like this make me desperately want to embrace such a mindset. In my mind, it's the ultimate betrayal of the trust and responsibility and authority a priest has. It completely violates the sanctity of the sacrament, causes incredible scandal and damage to the lives of the faithful. Catholicism is not and never will be utilitarian. I hope this bishop gets the moral formation he so obviously needs, so he can change his mind.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1353179596' post='2511897']
At least you now know who to avoid when going to confession.
[/quote]
You have got that right.

[mysisterisalittlesister]

[i<3LSOP]

[Ash Wednesday]

Cardinal Pell's response should be, "yeah, well, I'm Cardinal Pell, and you're not."

Edited November 17, 2012 by Ash Wednesday

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1353183590' post='2511934']
Cardinal Pell's response should be, "yeah, well, I'm Cardinal Pell, and you're not."
[/quote]
And then forbid him from hearing confessions in Sydney.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353180506' post='2511907']
Catholicism is not and never will be utilitarian.
[/quote]
I've heard this, before.

[Spem in alium]

This is so unbelievable and frustrating. It's things like this that make me hope and pray for change and growth in the Australian Church.

[Egidio]

[quote name='Spem in alium' timestamp='1353253749' post='2512337']
This is so unbelievable and frustrating. It's things like this that make me hope and pray for change and growth in the Australian Church.
[/quote]

Don't be discoraged. There are plenty of faithful bishops and priests here down under...(two of them are on Phatmass) !!!

Please, be sure that you all never forget to pray for priests... there are powers against us that can be overcome only by many prayers!

AVE MARIA!!!!!!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

My former priest is going down to Australia to be the regional superior of the FSSP for the Southern Cross district. He is excellent. Australia and New Zealand is in good hands.