As I understand it, the archbishop has always upheld the inviolability of the seal of confession, but offered a diplomatic apology on that occasion for his “clumsy wording,” which was misinterpreted as saying the Church was a law unto itself.
Thanks for that. The links are dated Oct 2021, though. A misprint in all three?
In any case, in the first one the writer is rightly aghast by that comment. In the last one Karine Dalle, the communications director of the French bishops’ conference is reported to have said that: “There will certainly be some adjustments proposed, which Rome will accept or not. But no, in no case did Archbishop de Moulins-Beaufort say that the seal of confession would be put aside. He never said that.”
From what I read, he did say that. Probably he misspoke, but he did say it.
If an archbishop in the US said "the law of the Church is more important than the Constitution" there would be similar blowback in US media, especially in media hostile to Catholicism and I imagine there would be some similar kind of clarification by the archbishop.
Canon law question: is the specific penance given by the priest "optional"? I know if you truly forget to do it, that's fine, you still got absolution. But if you are truly sorry for your sin, have a sincere effort to not do it again, are you also required to accept the penance for valid reception of the sacrament? Or maybe more of a theologian question.
Also, glad they addressed "that confessions were not “prolonged excessively,” becoming a form of spiritual accompaniment. " How many lines have I been in when someone takes 10-15min and therefore not all the people can get through before the priest has to leave.
It's not optional, but absolution is also not contingent upon completing your penance. Also, if you find your penance to be unduly burdensome or too nebulous to complete, you may ask your confessor for a different penance. But generally, just do the penance, and - in general - do penance.
I think we should be cautious about throwing around the “330,000” number without being very clear that this was not actually a direct finding of the report, but an extrapolation. I know the article says “estimated”, but even that, I think, gives more weight to it than it deserves.
I do not believe it serves the cause of truth to use a number, that was derived from potentially flawed methodology, by enemies of the Church; let us deal and respond to actual victims and abusers, not hypothetical ones.
Wait…the bishop walked back his teaching on the inviolability of the seal of confession? Help me understand.
I was reading this article expecting the worse, but instead it was ok, that is until the end.
I am not really sure what they are saying there at all, and the pillars choppy style of writing/editing (why????) does not help clarity at all.
As I understand it, the archbishop has always upheld the inviolability of the seal of confession, but offered a diplomatic apology on that occasion for his “clumsy wording,” which was misinterpreted as saying the Church was a law unto itself.
Meaning?
Sorry for not expressing myself well. These articles offer a detailed account of the controversy over the archbishop's words:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249261/catholic-archbishop-discusses-clumsy-wording-on-confessional-seal-with-french-minister
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249278/analysis-the-church-in-france-must-uphold-the-confessional-seal
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249282/france-s-catholic-bishops-will-uphold-confessional-seal-spokeswoman-clarifies
I hope they're helpful.
Thanks for that. The links are dated Oct 2021, though. A misprint in all three?
In any case, in the first one the writer is rightly aghast by that comment. In the last one Karine Dalle, the communications director of the French bishops’ conference is reported to have said that: “There will certainly be some adjustments proposed, which Rome will accept or not. But no, in no case did Archbishop de Moulins-Beaufort say that the seal of confession would be put aside. He never said that.”
From what I read, he did say that. Probably he misspoke, but he did say it.
The report was released (and the bishop’s comments were made) in Oct. 2021.
If an archbishop in the US said "the law of the Church is more important than the Constitution" there would be similar blowback in US media, especially in media hostile to Catholicism and I imagine there would be some similar kind of clarification by the archbishop.
Thanks Luke! Seems like they walked a thin line.
Canon law question: is the specific penance given by the priest "optional"? I know if you truly forget to do it, that's fine, you still got absolution. But if you are truly sorry for your sin, have a sincere effort to not do it again, are you also required to accept the penance for valid reception of the sacrament? Or maybe more of a theologian question.
Also, glad they addressed "that confessions were not “prolonged excessively,” becoming a form of spiritual accompaniment. " How many lines have I been in when someone takes 10-15min and therefore not all the people can get through before the priest has to leave.
It's not optional, but absolution is also not contingent upon completing your penance. Also, if you find your penance to be unduly burdensome or too nebulous to complete, you may ask your confessor for a different penance. But generally, just do the penance, and - in general - do penance.
I think we should be cautious about throwing around the “330,000” number without being very clear that this was not actually a direct finding of the report, but an extrapolation. I know the article says “estimated”, but even that, I think, gives more weight to it than it deserves.
I do not believe it serves the cause of truth to use a number, that was derived from potentially flawed methodology, by enemies of the Church; let us deal and respond to actual victims and abusers, not hypothetical ones.