 |
| The Capture of Christ, detail (c. 1250-1300) by Cimabue |
Recently, an acquaintance of mine related that an Opus Dei priest refused him absolution during confession. The incident persuaded me to compose this critical post.
begin Has confessional secrecy ever been abused? Not directly, perhaps, but Vladimir Felzmann relates a disturbing incident. After some time as a lay numerary he was ordained and returned to England where he heard the confessions of members. One day he was visited by senior Opus Dei officials. It had come to their attention, they told him, that someone had confessed to him the sin (as they saw it) of homosexuality, yet Felzmann had not informed Rome. That, pointed out Felzmann, would have been to breach the seal of the confessional. The officials grudgingly conceded the point, but told him he should have made the person involved, on the pain of not receiving absolution from his real or supposed sin, come back to him or to someone else outside the confessional in the form of a confidence, so that the information might be used. Felzmann protested to the point of tears that this could still technically be construed as breaking the seal. The senior members would not accept this, and rebuked him sharply for his want of loyalty to the organization. end
—Michael Walsh, Opus Dei: An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power within the Roman Catholic Church (1992), pages 118-119
When Opus Dei directors require priests to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal his or her sins in the external forum, they violate the seal of the sacrament—not directly, but indirectly.
begin The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or INDIRECTLY, BY SOME SIGN, SUGGESTION, OR ACTION. [all capitals mine] end
—Father William Saunders, “The Seal of the Confessional,” Catholic Education Resource Center, reprinted with the permission of Arlington Catholic Herald, 2000
In the above account of Father Vladimir Felzmann, the priest is being required by the directors to reveal the content of the confession by using a threat (action) not permitted under the circumstances to compel the penitent to disclose the details of the confession in the external forum.
Categorically, the priest is not allowed to withhold absolution in order to compel the penitent to reveal information in the external forum.
There are limited circumstances in which the priest is allowed to withhold absolution, e.g., the penitent does not show contrition.
begin The correct disposition on the part of the penitent is sorrow for their sins and a purpose of amendment (c. 959). Occasionally, a penitent may “confess” their sins, but indicate that they have no regret in respect of them. …There are those also who mention a sin but leave the confessor in little doubt that there is no intention of future amendment. This is most frequently the case with “states of sin”, e.g. an irregular union or an ongoing adulterous relationship. With sensitivity the priest endeavours to bring the penitent to see the true consequences of their action, which includes the wounding of their relationship with God, the Church and the wider human community. “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The priest might highlight the providential nature of their act of confession, and encourage consideration of avoiding the occasions of the sin in question.
Often a grudging acknowledgment of sorrow, a hesitant acceptance that they will endeavour to begin to rectify the situation will be elicited. To grant absolution, one is not seeking cast-iron guarantees that the sin will never be committed again, nor demanding perfect contrition. Other things being equal, absolution can be granted if the penitent simply expresses the desire not to sin again, or regrets the consequences of sin. end
http://www.faith.org.uk/article/november-december-2008-withholding-absolution-a-pastoral-option
—Mark Vickers, “Withholding Absolution. A Pastoral Option?” FAITH Magazine (November-December 2008)
The Opus Dei directive bears all the hallmarks of the abuse of religious and spiritual authority in the organization—deception (before going to confession the penitent does not know that the priest prospectively harbors the intention to withhold absolution illicitly), manipulation, and the obscene transgression of fundamental rights. Besides, the directive violates the sacred trust that should be maintained between penitent and confessor, and is according to canon law, criminal.
THE GURU’S CAT
ReplyDeleteWhen the guru sat down to worship each evening
the ashram cat would
get in the way and distract the
worshipers. So he ordered that
the cat be tied during evening
worship.
After the guru died the cat
continued to be tied during evening
worship. And when the cat
expired, another cat was
brought to the ashram so that it
could be duly tied during evening
worship.
Centuries later learned treatises
were written by the guru’s scholarly disciples
on the liturgical significance
of tying up a cat
while worship is performed.
In Anthony de Mello, S.J., The Song of the Bird (1984), page 63
Gonzalinho
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
It is more accurate to say that Opus Dei is a mixture of what is good and holy, along with beliefs and practices that are not only questionable but arguably immoral. No one can quarrel, for example, with the value of prayerful devotion or the practice of Christian asceticism. However, the outright deception of parents in the name of the virtue of prudence clearly transgresses the eighth commandment against lying. The practice of taking parents’ possessions and transferring them to the Opus Dei centers without the parents’ knowledge, a practice that during my stay in Opus Dei was encouraged directly in writing by Father Alvaro del Portillo, citing “the example of our holy Founder,” the then deceased Msgr. Josemaria Escriva, also transgresses the seventh commandment against stealing. What are patently immoral practices can only be justified by misguided casuistry.
The notion that Opus Dei ideology and praxis is entirely the product of divine inspiration is, in my opinion, theologically insupportable. Much of Opus Dei ideology and praxis originates from Blessed Escriva, if we are to believe historical testimony as well as the practice among Opus Dei directors of citing Blessed Escriva to justify what is often called the Opus Dei “spirit.” Yet we must acknowledge that the source of this spirit is Blessed Escriva’s claim to private revelation, which belongs to a very different category of truth from the depositum fidei of the Church. Indeed, in many cases it seems that Opus Dei beliefs and practices, as is evident from Ms. Tapia’s account, may just as well be the product of human judgment, preference, and opinion.
Father Escriva’s beatification and probable canonization do not alter this equation because the papal act of beatification does not necessarily sanction Blessed Escriva’s claim when he was alive that he, as the Founder of Opus Dei, is the sole source and arbiter of a divinely communicated system of belief and practice. One has only to read the history of the Church and peruse copies of original documents to realize that in notable instances, the saints made mistakes that in the context of current knowledge and modern mores might very well be regarded as disgraceful. Some of the saints’ mystical writings also show them to be recipients of private revelations that turned out to be false.
Instead of assuming that what has been passed on from Blessed Escriva is divinely inspired in its entirety, I believe that it is a more accurate theology to recognize that the truth and value of private revelation is manifest in its effects: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). It goes without saying that systemic aspects of Opus Dei ideology and praxis have had very negative effects on individuals who joined the organization under the impulse of unknowing idealism, including Ms. Tapia.
Therefore, to cite or criticize the negative aspects of Opus Dei does not necessarily constitute “slander,” an emotionally charged word that tends to obfuscate the issues raised by what may very well be legitimate criticism. Insofar as Ms. Tapia testifies to harmful aspects of Opus Dei that are consistently confirmed by many former members, including myself, she is simply telling the truth.
To be continued
Private Revelation Does Not Guarantee Truth or Rectitude
ReplyDeletePosted on Amazon.com on September 7, 2000
Minor editing on original post
Continued
I emphatically attest that numerous beliefs and practices of Opus Dei have worked to the harm, at times severely damaging, of many former members, including Ms. Tapia, as well as their families, and that this abuse is insupportably justified by invoking a divine mandate. In consequence, it is my sincere desire that Opus Dei reform itself in specific aspects, for the sake of many aggrieved persons and for the protection of the next generation. Reform entails the rejection of important aspects of Blessed Escriva’s idiosyncratic legacy. I earnestly hope that the little I have written will work toward enlightenment and genuine reform. We should not have to wait as long as Galileo did for rectification.
Gonzalinho