Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee has stripped one of his priests of the faculty to hear confessions following the clergyman’s public support for civil laws mandating that priests break the seal of confession for sins of sexual abuse.
“I have informed Father James Connell that effective immediately he is to cease all such erroneous communications that distort the teachings of the Church about the confessional seal,” Listeicki wrote in a March 22 statement.
“I have also immediately removed the canonical faculties of Father Connell to validly celebrate the sacrament of confession and to offer absolution, here in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and thereby also in the Catholic Church around the world.”
Connell, a retired priest in the archdiocese and former vice chancellor, made comments March 13 in delawareonline.com advocating for a Delaware state bill that mandates priests break the seal of confession for penitents who confess sins of child sexual abuse.
Connell wrote that “no institution in our society, not even a recognized religion, has a significant advantage over governments’ compelling interest and responsibility to protect its children from harm by abuse or neglect.”
“Thus, no valid freedom of religion argument rooted in the absence of truth can provide a moral justification for sheltering perpetrators of abuse or neglect of children from their deserved punishment, while also endangering potential victims,” he continued.
This isn’t the first time Connell, a canon lawyer, has spoken publicly on the issue. In 2018, he appealed to Pope Francis in an online article to “release from the seal of confession” all information regarding child or vulnerable adult sexual abuse so authorities can be notified.
The seal of confession “is not a matter of divine law,” he said in that piece.
In the Code of Canon Law, Canon 983 says that “the sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
In 2019, he filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court against Wisconsin and nine other states arguing that exemptions for the clergy from being mandatory reporters in cases when sexual abuse became known to them under the sacramental seal are unconstitutional.
That lawsuit was dismissed by the judge one day after it was filed.
Connell is a vocal advocate for victims of clerical sexual abuse. Following the August 2022 death of Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who covered up priestly sexual abuse and paid hush money to a former adult seminarian with whom he had a sexual relationship, Connell publicly called for clergy in the archdiocese to boycott the funeral.
Connell himself was accused in 2009 of covering up a sexual abuse case when he worked in the chancery, a claim that both he and the archdiocese denied.
In his recent column, Connell wrote that “all people in Delaware should support the proposed HB 74 that would repeal the Delaware clergy-penitent privilege statute.”
Listecki said that Connell’s comments on the confessional seal are “gravely contrary” to Church teaching and that the Church “firmly declares that the sacramental seal of confession is always, and in every circumstance without exception, completely inviolable.”
“The false assertions of Father James Connell have caused understandable and widespread unrest among the people of God, causing them to question if the privacy of the confessional can now be violated, by him or any other Catholic priest,” he said.
CNA reached out to Connell for comment but received no response by time of publication.
Sandra Peterson, the archdiocese’s communications director, referred CNA to Listecki’s statement and added that she is unaware of any intervention against Connell for his prior comments against the seal of confession in the two years she has been working for the archdiocese.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Dainelys Soto, Genesis Contreras, and Daniel Soto, who arrived from Venezuela after crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, wait for dinner at a hotel provided by the Annunciation House on Sept. 22, 2022 in El Paso, Texas. / Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
CNA Staff, Sep 9, 2024 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Long a champion of immigrants, particularly those fleeing war-torn countries and impoverished regions, Pope Francis last month delivered some of the clearest words in his papacy yet in support of migrants — and in rebuke of those who turn away from them.
“It must be said clearly: There are those who work systematically and with every means possible to repel migrants,” the pope said during a weekly Angelus address. “And this, when done with awareness and responsibility, is a grave sin.”
“In the time of satellites and drones, there are migrant men, women, and children that no one must see,” the pope said. “They hide them. Only God sees them and hears their cry. This is a cruelty of our civilization.”
The pope has regularly spoken out in favor of immigrants. In June he called on the faithful to “unite in prayer for all those who have had to leave their land in search of dignified living conditions.” The Holy Father has called the protection of migrants a “moral imperative.” He has argued that migrants “[must] be received” and dealt with humanely.
Migrants aboard an inflatable vessel in the Mediterranean Sea approach the guided-missile destroyer USS Carney in 2013. Carney provided food and water to the migrants aboard the vessel before coordinating with a nearby merchant vessel to take them to safety. Credit: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The Catholic Church has long been an advocate and protector of immigrants. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) notes on its website that “a rich body of Church teaching, including papal encyclicals, bishops’ statements, and pastoral letters, has consistently reinforced our moral obligation to treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that prosperous nations “are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.”
Popes throughout the years, meanwhile, have expressed sentiments on immigration similar to Francis’. Pope Pius XII in 1952, for instance, described the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt as “the archetype of every refugee family.”
The Church, Pius XII said, “has been especially careful to provide all possible spiritual care for pilgrims, aliens, exiles, and migrants of every kind.”
Meanwhile, “devout associations” throughout the centuries have spearheaded “innumerable hospices and hospitals” in part for immigrants, Pius XII said.
Implications and applications of Church teaching
Chad Pecknold, an associate professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America, noted that the catechism “teaches that nations have the right to borders and self-definition, so there is no sense in which Catholic teaching supports the progressive goal of ‘open borders.’”
“There is a ‘duty of care’ which is owed to those fleeing from danger,” he told CNA, “but citizenship is not owed to anyone who can make it across a national border, and illegal entry or asylum cannot be taken as a debt of citizenship.”
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney who previously served as chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, agreed.
“States have to have responsibility for their own communities, they have to look out for them,” he told CNA. “So immigration can be regulated so as to not harm the common good.”
Still, Hunker noted, Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance.
Paul Hunker, an immigration attorney and former chief counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Dallas, says Catholic advocates are not wrong in responding to immigration crises — like the ongoing irregular influx through the U.S. southern border — with aid and assistance. Credit: Photo courtesy of Paul Hunker
Many Catholic organizations offer shelter, food, and legal assistance to men, women, and children who cross into the country illegally; such groups have been overwhelmed in recent years with the crush of arriving migrants at the country’s southern border.
“It’s the responsibility of the federal government to take care of the border,” he said. “When the government has created a crisis at the U.S. border, Catholic dioceses are going to want to help people.”
“I completely support what the Catholic organizations are doing in Mexico and the United States to assist people who are there,” Hunker said. “The people responding are not responsible for these crises.”
Latest crisis and legal challenge
Not everyone feels similarly. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation of multiple Catholic nonprofits that serve illegal immigrants in the state. Paxton alleges that through the services it provides to migrants, El Paso-based Annunciation House has been facilitating illegal immigration and human trafficking.
A lawyer for the group called the allegations “utter nonsense,” though attorney Jerome Wesevich acknowledged that the nonprofit “serves undocumented persons as an expression of the Catholic faith and Jesus’ command to love one another, no exceptions.”
There are considerable numbers of Church teachings that underscore the need for a charitable response to immigrants. In his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII argued that man “has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own state,” and further that “when there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.”
In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, meanwhile, Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 acknowledged that migration poses “dramatic challenges” for nations but that migrants “cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce.”
“Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance,” the late pope wrote.
Edward Feser, a professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College in California, noted that the Church “teaches that nations should be welcoming to immigrants, that they should be sensitive to the hardships that lead them to emigrate, that they ought not to scapegoat them for domestic problems, and so on.”
Catholic teaching does not advocate an ‘open borders’ policy
Yet Catholic teaching does not advocate an “open borders” policy, Feser said. He emphasized that the catechism says countries should accept immigrants “to the extent they are able,” and further that countries “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.”
There “is nothing per se in conflict with Catholic teaching when citizens and politicians call on the federal government to enforce its immigration laws,” Feser said. “On the contrary, the catechism backs them up on this.”
In addition, it is “perfectly legitimate,” Feser argued, for governments to consider both economic and cultural concerns when setting immigration policy. It is also “legitimate to deport those who enter a country illegally,” he said.
Still, he acknowledged, a country can issue exceptions to valid immigration laws when the moral situation demands it.
“Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families or return an immigrant to dangerous conditions back in his home country,” he said.
“Governments should take account of this when formulating and enforcing policy,” he said.
The tension between responding charitably to immigrants and ensuring a secure border was perhaps put most succinctly in 1986 by the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s.
“It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders,” said the late Father Theodore Hesburgh, who served as chairman of the U.S. Select Commission for Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created by the U.S. Congress in the early 1980s. Credit: Photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame
Writing several years after the commission, Hesburgh explained: “It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We must also consider the consequences of not controlling our borders.”
“What about the aspirations of Americans who must compete for jobs and whose wages and work standards are depressed by the presence of large numbers of illegal aliens?” the legendary late president of the University of Notre Dame reflected. “What about aliens who are victimized by unscrupulous employers and who die in the desert at the hands of smugglers?”
“The nation needn’t wait until we are faced with a choice between immigration chaos and closing the borders,” Hesburgh stated nearly 40 years ago.
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 14, 2022 / 10:26 am (CNA).
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas has he is “sad” over the way Pope Francis has handled the controversy surrounding the … […]
In 2023 there were more than 275,000 child pornography websites on the internet, with approximately 11,000 photos generated by AI in just one month. / Credit: Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash
Connell makes a powerful argument. Civil lawful reasoning doesn’t remove the principle of absolute privacy in confessing sins to a priest. The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.
If the seal were permitted to be removed, under any circumstance [once removed the seal is no longer inviolable in any instance] the penitent would in effect be making his confession to the world. That impedes the freedom for the penitent to confess and avoid scandal or reprisal. State would have the legal right to investigate and obtain access to all confessions.
No. What I’m saying is that Connell, a former canon lawyer makes a strong civil law argument for breaking the seal, which I follow up with reasons why it would be detrimental to justice and the sacrament of penance – which is why Archbishop Listecki justly censured him.
I grew near the city where the horrific case of a young girl who was raped and murdered on her way to school in March of 1964 occurred.
In the spring of 2022, a young man with a forensic genealogy business that began as a hobby, solved the case by use of DNA with almost perfect certainty (the chance of an error was something like one in seven trillion) and the perpetrator, 23 in 1964 escaped civil justice by dying suddenly at the age of 38 in 1980.
He had another charge brought against him by an adult woman which he received a rather lenient sentence (some records were lost) included testimony from the victim that during the course of the assault, she thought he might kill her.
I cite this for multiple reasons.
First, I am familiar with such a situation where the perpetrator may have confessed. It is possible, as he was provided a Catholic burial according to newspaper obituaries. As much as it upended the community; it seems the gravest of injustices that he was not brought to temporal justice to offer her family that small and inadequate consolation, so I can understand the desire for apprehension by any means possible. We are reminded the ends do not justify the means.
Second, this case actually involves a worse crime than abuse-murder. As bad as taking a child’s innocence is-taking his or her life is even worse. Surely, if one demands the violation of the seal, so does the other. If anybody is stupid enough to think that Connell’s position is anything more than a prelude to compelling (not allowing) priests to be state agents for all manner of sins that involve “compelling state interest”, I hope that they cease driving immediately.
However, I would suggest to you that Connell is NOT making a “strong case”, because one cannot be made. Furthermore, his vow was to the Church and its mission to save souls, not to the state and its mission to apprehend, try and sentence the guilty.
And then there’s the effect of such a thing. Once the seal is broken, confession will become self-incrimination and the sacrament will be discarded to an even greater degree than it is now-it won’t stop abuse, but it will prevent absolution of what must be among the gravest of sins, even though I doubt such criminals avail themselves of confessional candor with any regularity.
“The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.”
And the GOD that I serve – Father, Son & Holy Spirit – would instruct the one confessing to criminal molestation of a child or vulnerable adult:
“First go and inform the police so as to enable this offense to be dealt with under legal jurisdiction – I will accompany you to make it easier for you – after that I will give you absolution, for the sake of your soul.”
Unwillingness to face the horrendous personal & social consequences of their actions indicates a lack of true sorrow and contrition, justifying the withholding of absolution until they have a genuinely Catholic change of heart.
Attempting to absolve one who is manifestly not contrite is:
(1) ineffective for the sinner’s soul, and it contaminates the confessor’s soul;
(2) an encouragement to the sinner to engage in repeated criminal offending.
Matthew 5:24 – “. . go and be reconciled with your brother or sister first, only then come and present your offering to GOD.”
Ever seeking to hear & lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Connell is advocating for something truly evil, under the guise of helping those who were abused. Plus, he’s causing confusion and division among Delaware’s Catholics. He should just be completely defrocked. His compelling argument is a danger to the faith.
Justice, the protection of children, and the veil of confession can all coexist. Outside the confessional in the courtroom, Pope St. Peter was feared by the people.
Acts of the Apostles 5 Ananias and Sapphira.
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him…
The Blessed Mother told the Fatima seer children that Archangel Michael will bring with him a transparency of actions on earth. In Acts of the Apostles, we see Ananias and his wife trying to lie to St. Peter in the courtroom. By the end of their testimony, St. Peter, all his flock, and we the readers, have a clear and transparent view of Ananias and Sapphira’s true actions.
Matthew 18 outlines Jesus Will to His Catholic Leaders on the use of Catholic Anathema to protect the innocent, when personal, civil and Church litigation does not work.
Matthew 18:17 Fraternal Correction
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ “If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:5
“Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
What I hear, Jesus in Matthew 18 and the Holy Spirit in Acts 5, telling us, is that Pope Francis has to pull out Jesus’ sword of Catholic anathema to protect our children in our present child molester scandal. Pope Francis has to auto-anathematize all child molesters, and those clergy who aid and abet them, until they confess their crimes against children to civil prosecutors, judges and juries.
Bravo to Archbishop Listecki! Finally, a high churchman with a spine. If a priest cannot commit to such a basic church principal as the sacredness of the seal of confession, he should be removed from the priesthood. Nobody approves of the abuse of children. However this is not an excuse to destroy the principle of the seal of confession. To do so would be to destroy one of the basic founding pillars of the church. Would that all of our high churchmen could act so decisively.
Connell makes a powerful argument. Civil lawful reasoning doesn’t remove the principle of absolute privacy in confessing sins to a priest. The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.
If the seal were permitted to be removed, under any circumstance [once removed the seal is no longer inviolable in any instance] the penitent would in effect be making his confession to the world. That impedes the freedom for the penitent to confess and avoid scandal or reprisal. State would have the legal right to investigate and obtain access to all confessions.
Do you mean Listecki? Connell is the one advocating for violation of the Seal.
No. What I’m saying is that Connell, a former canon lawyer makes a strong civil law argument for breaking the seal, which I follow up with reasons why it would be detrimental to justice and the sacrament of penance – which is why Archbishop Listecki justly censured him.
I grew near the city where the horrific case of a young girl who was raped and murdered on her way to school in March of 1964 occurred.
In the spring of 2022, a young man with a forensic genealogy business that began as a hobby, solved the case by use of DNA with almost perfect certainty (the chance of an error was something like one in seven trillion) and the perpetrator, 23 in 1964 escaped civil justice by dying suddenly at the age of 38 in 1980.
He had another charge brought against him by an adult woman which he received a rather lenient sentence (some records were lost) included testimony from the victim that during the course of the assault, she thought he might kill her.
I cite this for multiple reasons.
First, I am familiar with such a situation where the perpetrator may have confessed. It is possible, as he was provided a Catholic burial according to newspaper obituaries. As much as it upended the community; it seems the gravest of injustices that he was not brought to temporal justice to offer her family that small and inadequate consolation, so I can understand the desire for apprehension by any means possible. We are reminded the ends do not justify the means.
Second, this case actually involves a worse crime than abuse-murder. As bad as taking a child’s innocence is-taking his or her life is even worse. Surely, if one demands the violation of the seal, so does the other. If anybody is stupid enough to think that Connell’s position is anything more than a prelude to compelling (not allowing) priests to be state agents for all manner of sins that involve “compelling state interest”, I hope that they cease driving immediately.
However, I would suggest to you that Connell is NOT making a “strong case”, because one cannot be made. Furthermore, his vow was to the Church and its mission to save souls, not to the state and its mission to apprehend, try and sentence the guilty.
And then there’s the effect of such a thing. Once the seal is broken, confession will become self-incrimination and the sacrament will be discarded to an even greater degree than it is now-it won’t stop abuse, but it will prevent absolution of what must be among the gravest of sins, even though I doubt such criminals avail themselves of confessional candor with any regularity.
“The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.”
And the GOD that I serve – Father, Son & Holy Spirit – would instruct the one confessing to criminal molestation of a child or vulnerable adult:
“First go and inform the police so as to enable this offense to be dealt with under legal jurisdiction – I will accompany you to make it easier for you – after that I will give you absolution, for the sake of your soul.”
Unwillingness to face the horrendous personal & social consequences of their actions indicates a lack of true sorrow and contrition, justifying the withholding of absolution until they have a genuinely Catholic change of heart.
Attempting to absolve one who is manifestly not contrite is:
(1) ineffective for the sinner’s soul, and it contaminates the confessor’s soul;
(2) an encouragement to the sinner to engage in repeated criminal offending.
Matthew 5:24 – “. . go and be reconciled with your brother or sister first, only then come and present your offering to GOD.”
Ever seeking to hear & lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Connell is advocating for something truly evil, under the guise of helping those who were abused. Plus, he’s causing confusion and division among Delaware’s Catholics. He should just be completely defrocked. His compelling argument is a danger to the faith.
Justice, the protection of children, and the veil of confession can all coexist. Outside the confessional in the courtroom, Pope St. Peter was feared by the people.
Acts of the Apostles 5 Ananias and Sapphira.
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him…
The Blessed Mother told the Fatima seer children that Archangel Michael will bring with him a transparency of actions on earth. In Acts of the Apostles, we see Ananias and his wife trying to lie to St. Peter in the courtroom. By the end of their testimony, St. Peter, all his flock, and we the readers, have a clear and transparent view of Ananias and Sapphira’s true actions.
Matthew 18 outlines Jesus Will to His Catholic Leaders on the use of Catholic Anathema to protect the innocent, when personal, civil and Church litigation does not work.
Matthew 18:17 Fraternal Correction
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ “If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:5
“Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
What I hear, Jesus in Matthew 18 and the Holy Spirit in Acts 5, telling us, is that Pope Francis has to pull out Jesus’ sword of Catholic anathema to protect our children in our present child molester scandal. Pope Francis has to auto-anathematize all child molesters, and those clergy who aid and abet them, until they confess their crimes against children to civil prosecutors, judges and juries.
Bravo to Archbishop Listecki! Finally, a high churchman with a spine. If a priest cannot commit to such a basic church principal as the sacredness of the seal of confession, he should be removed from the priesthood. Nobody approves of the abuse of children. However this is not an excuse to destroy the principle of the seal of confession. To do so would be to destroy one of the basic founding pillars of the church. Would that all of our high churchmen could act so decisively.
Connell did far worse than the men who Pope Francis excommunicated or removed from office.
Connell should lose all his faculties and his pension. Since his first loyalty is to the state; let him become their dependent.
Absolution should be contingent upon penance. The penance for such outrageous crimes should require another ‘confession’ to legal authorities.
Shawn: Should this apply for all sins where a civil law has been violated?