In all the media hype surrounding the sex abuse scandal, haters of the Church have wondered if that scandal could destroy the Church and the priesthood. The short answer is no, but a scandal like this one could. (Not destroy permanently, of course. Nothing could do that.)
Father David Verhasselt, a priest in the parish of St. Catherine of Alexandria Church in the diocese of Milwaukee, has been placed on administrative leave because he is under investigation for breaking the seal of confession.
The charge is so serious that Archbishop Jerome Listecki has even barred Fr. Verhasselt from visiting the church.
According to local news in Milwaukee
“The allegation itself has internal credibility and has reason for us to look into it further,” said Father Paul Hartmann, judicial vicar for the archdiocese.
Church leaders said they became aware of the accusations “months ago.” Verhasselt says he was not aware he was under investigation until Monday.
Fr. Verhasselt denies the charge saying “I’m innocent, I’m shocked at the charges. That’s definitely not me.”
I hope so. To have a priest break the seal of confession so greatly damages the trust placed in the priest and in the sacrament; the ramifications are hard to imagine. If a potential penitent cannot trust that his confession will stay private and chooses to stay in sin rather than risk exposure through confession, that is a scandal the could destroy the priesthood and potentially souls.
Archbishop Listecki has done the right thing to suspend the priest while the investigation continues. This is too important and delicate a matter to seem to be siding with the priest. If there is even an inkling that the charge may be true, the Archbishop had no choice.
I pray that the priest is innocent. This is a potential scandal that could really embolden the enemies of the church and undercut already shaky trust.
Comments
Post a Comment
Nothing can destroy the church or the priesthood, although the devil tries he’ll never succeed.
This would be a far worse scandal though, and I pray that the priest is innocent, or if guilty repents and does penance for the sin.
Does this have anything to do with a New York Times sexual abuse “story”?
Our Lord God has declared that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church. We may need to go through hellish persecutions though but, unless we pick up our crosses and follow Him then we won’t be worthy of Eternal salvation.
Fr. Kearns indicated this week that he had to finally address the truth of the abuse of sexual abuse of seminarians before he could in good faith address the wider questions in the Church.
The CDF acted on testimony about sexual abuse and Maciel’s abuse of confession. By your editor’s own words, how can your paper address violation of confession when you remain silent on Maciel’s abuse of the confessional? Over a year ago Fr. de Souza asked the Register to address that very issue:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/02/the-legion-and-the-national-ca
nat,
The Register is not commenting, I am. I am not a reporter. I am a blogger. I am commenting on news, that is what bloggers do. I am not a member of the legion or any such thing therefore I feel your concern is not valid with regard to my opinions.
Pat,
Thanks for the reply. Your relationship to the Legion is irrelevant. I asked about the Register which publishes your blog.
Yes, your opinion is your own. But the larger question to the Legion still stands. When will they address that issue so that they can deal credibly with instances like the one you just blogged about on their web site?
Pat, Sorry. Now I’ve popped in the Legion when we are talking about the Register. That should have read “But the larger question to the REGISTER still stands”
nat
You wrote “how can your paper address violation of confession when you remain silent on Maciel’s abuse”
The paper isn’t commenting, I am. I choose what I write about and I am not limited by your opinion about what the Register has or has not covered. Your comment was addressed to the Register because I chose to comment on this subject.
The Register does not limit what I choose to comment about nor did they have any prior knowledge. Therefore your criticism is not founded.
Pat, Unfounded criticism of your comments? I don’t even disagree with your comments! As you note my comments were directed to your publisher the Register.
When Register bloggers like Mark Shea publish on site what they publish off site I’ll be far more impressed by the Register’s blog site:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/04/fr-owen-kearns-offers-personal-apology.html
nat
Please be clear. I think that your criticism is unfounded because you are criticizing the Register becuase I commented on this subject. You suggest that I don’t have the right to comment on this subject on this site because the Register has not, in your opinion, adequately addressed the Maciel issue.
For reasons already stated, I reject that line of thinking.
Pat, If you think I wasn’t clear, why are you so certain what I meant?
Your comments were fine, and you have every legal and moral right to have them published wherever you wish.
Your publisher on the other hand stated that he could not fairly comment on sex abuse in the Church until he addressed one half of the seminarians sworn testimony to the CDF.
By the same logic he can not comment on violation of the confessional until he addresses the other half of that testimony, he cannot fairly comment on violation of the confessional.
My only intent (and please stop providing me with one) was to point out that your posting highlights the importance of the issue AND that your publisher needs to deal with it in his own backyard.
“you are criticizing the Register because I commented on this subject.”
the occasion is not the cause. your posting highlighted the silence of your publisher on the issue. It did not make their silence better or worse.
First of all, I really get annoyed when I hear people say sinners will remain in a state of sin if they don’t go to Confession. That’s just not true, and it isn’t even what the Church teaches. It is possible to make a sincere confession to God, who is the one forgiving us our sins after all, without benefit of the confessional.
Secondly, I am personally aware of one situation in which the priest did not think he had violated the seal of the confessional, but he had indeed done so.
Personally, I am of the mind that what happens in the confessional, stays in the confessional, and that means silence on the part of both the priest and the penitent. While instances of priests violating the seal are probably rare (or at least violating the seal in such a way as the information becomes public), I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard parishioners blabbing on and on and on about their personal experience in the confessional or what they confessed, and so on.
It’s hard to have a lot of respect for the confessional when it’s treated as a personal feel-good therapy session for too many penitents, and like a complete and total drag for too many priests.
Me, knowing what I unfortunately know now, I reserve my confessions for God and God alone.
Susan,
Sorry to hear of the deep scandal that you’ve been given, but I’ll confine my remarks to the question you raise about the Church’s teaching.
The Church doesn’t teach that God can’t forgive us without the sacramental of confession. Just like it doesn’t teach that God can’t save us without the sacrament of baptism)
But the Gospels reveal and the Church teaches that baptism and confession are the certain means that God gave us to use:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1457 According to the Church’s command, “after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess SERIOUS sins at least once a year.” Anyone who is aware of having committed a MORTAL sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.
I would like to see face-to-face Confession abolished. It is nothing but trouble, and I think it has been a major factor in creating the crisis of the Sacrament of Penance. But I would like to urge every pastor who has a confessional with a screen—Please put in a chair. There is absolutely no reason for penitents (often elderly or disabled) to be forced to kneel in Confession if they wish to use the screen.
Michael - good response to Susan. I would add that you should read Acts, the Gospel of Mark, etc. Remember, it’s not true because the Church says it, the Church says it because it’s true.
Susan, I’ve had wonderful experiences in the confessional, and I’ve had not-so-wonderful experiences. There are many good priests and good confessors out there. Find one. When Christ has spoken, don’t substitute your opinion of what God ought to do for Christ’s clear teaching.
Susan, it is very easy to have wrong conclusions. Why should you think about the qualification of the priest when you really repent and confess your sins to him. Also God has given you freedom to select your confessor. Let us go by the word of God and by the traditional teaching of the True Church Confession gives peace and lighness and serenity and contentment
Michael: you are just repeating what Susan said:“The Church DOESN’T teach that God can’t forgive us without the sacramental of confession.”
I asked once why a murderer was given a Catholic funeral Mass and the priest said “who knows, maybe in his last breath he said ‘god forgive me my sins’. A priest does not know what is in a person’s heart, only God does. As to the seal of Confession, I agree with her also, that many people discuss what they said in confession, with others. That is not right and it can lead to a priest being accused of breaking the ‘Seal of Confession”. (GOSSIP) I think you misread her. As to Father Fitzpatrick, I agree, it is almost impossible for some elderly to kneel and the screen is much better for both the penitent and the priest.
Sue,
If I repeated what she said, I also said it about baptism. Neither statement negates the Gospels and the Church’s teaching on baptism and confession. Where is the wisdom in grabbing part of the teaching and pretend it contradicts the whole.
My husband and I were discussing the other night how the federal government has already legally snatched the confidentiality rule from doctors, psychologists, and therapists and may try to gain access to the confessional as well. It seems an impossibility, but then many of our American ‘freedoms’ have been taken from us that we thought were protected by our Constitution-let’s just make an amendment and change it!!
I know that the priesthood is another entity entirely, but so many other things are looked on backwards(good as evil and evil as good) in this society that doubt is cast.
If priest’s become legally bound in the confessional- we may start seeing priests once again ‘martyred’ for their faith and vocation. I pray for their holiness in all things. And may God have mercy!
what do i do if a priest broke the secrecy of confession
“Did Priest Break Seal Of Confession” This headlining report is very very informational for new world.Thanks for post.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.