Vatican City, Jul 5, 2019 / 08:00 am (CNA).- This week, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, issued a document defending the sacramental seal, as civil governments in California, Australia, and other places attempt to pass laws that would force priests to reveal what they hear in the confessional.
Piacenza also defended professional confidentiality, including the pontifical secret, and appeared to take aim at the use of leaked Vatican information in the media – suggesting leaks from the Vatican are detrimental to the public good.
“In a time of mass communication, in which all information is ‘burned’ [leaked] and with it often unfortunately also part of people’s lives, it is necessary to re-learn the strength of word, its constructive power, but also its destructive potential,” the cardinal warned.
Following a year in which scandals of episcopal misconduct and accountability have combined to create a crisis of confidence in Church leadership in some places, reaction to the application and violation of confidentiality in the Church illustrates the emerging fault lines in a debate between parts of the hierarchy and faithful, in which both sides accept the need for transparency, though often with very different understandings of the word.
In his defense of the need to respect administrative (rather than sacramental) secrecy, Piacenza cited the Catechism, which teaches that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional.”
It is easy to think of ecclesial examples in which confidentiality, even secrecy, are for the good of souls, as Piacenza argued. For example, discretion about the Vatican’s support for evangelization efforts in persecuted areas, most notably in China and the Arabian Peninsula, is manifestly in the interest of the good of souls.
But consensus breaks down quickly when discussions about confidentiality turn to how much the faithful will be told about misconduct in the Church.
Bishops in Rome and the U.S. concede that the faithful have a right to know that a scandalous situation is being handled. But, as the ongoing fallout from the disgrace of Theodore McCarrick shows, many Catholics have lost trust that the root causes of sexual scandal are addressed with, the laicization of a cardinal notwithstanding.
The faithful in the United States are still waiting for the results of a promised Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s rise to prominence despite decades of allegations. Following the dramatic statements of Archbishop Vigano, many remain concerned that whatever public report is released will be sanitized and omit reference to those ignored allegations or benefited from McCarrick’s patronage over the years.
Those concerns have been amplified by the case of former Wheeling-Charleston Bishop Michael Bransfield, who has been the subject of scandal and investigation since his resignation last year.
When the Vatican-appointed investigator Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore submitted his report on accusations of sexual and financial misconduct by Bransfield, it emerged that he omitted the names of other bishops and cardinals who had received large gifts of money from him over the years. Despite the possibility that these gifts might have played a part in Bransfield’s ability to act with impunity for so long, they were deemed a “distraction” by Lori.
This information only came to light when an unredacted version of the investigation’s findings was leaked to the Washington Post, and its publication led to an apology from Lori and a series of bishops returning the gifts to the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston.
But examples like these notwithstanding, many would concede Piacenza’s point about the legitimate goods served by some measure of secrecy. Confidentiality is an essential part of any credible investigative process. Similarly, many would accept Piacenza’s point about the potentially permanent damage to a person’s reputation that can be done by circulating unproven allegations. Victims, too, have a clear right to confidentiality and protection from the public gaze while they seek justice.
But demands for greater transparency by the Church rarely focus on the details of individual acts of wrongdoing; more often they pertain to wider patterns of abuse of privilege and office, typified by McCarrick and Bransfield. Many Catholics are not, and will not be satisfied by knowing that the individual at the center of the scandal has been removed – they want to see proof that enablers and protectors have been dealt with.
Piacenza proposes that tensions between those seeking answers and those guarding information should be calmed and steered by the “Golden Rule” and a spirit of “fraternal charity.” The cardinal, like many in the hierarchy, is asking the faithful to trust. Following a dramatic loss of episcopal credibility in the face of scandal, most Catholics now want to verify.
While Piacenza’s call for prudence and respect for confidentiality is not without merit, in the current climate many of the faithful will continue to insist that the salvation of souls demands a far greater “need to know” than perhaps he and the hierarchy in Rome are willing to concede.
[…]
By 
Had to refresh my memory.
Yes. In 1917, some former members of the Pontifical Academy for Life set up the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family.
“maintain a dialogue with universities”: weak but better than nothing. The rest of Msgr. Pegaoraro’s remarks were fine. I keep looking for leadership and I keep finding “dialog”.
On the subject of leadership, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” How do you induce someone to drink?
Dialogue…says the Vatican. I have discovered that the Pachamama, brought to the Vatican under the auspices of Pope Francis, is a Peruvian deity, the land where the present Pope was for years. It accepted children as sacrifice:
“How Was Pachamama Worshipped?
Understandably then, avoiding earthquakes was a priority among the ancient Incas. To ensure that Pachamama would smile upon them, the ancient Incas made regular offerings to her. These ceremonies were known as pago a la tierra, or payment to the Earth. Traditional items offered to her consisted of coca leaves, chicha (a corn beer), and huayruro seeds.
There were occasions when the price of Pachamama’s favor was dire. Sometimes her smile came at the cost of sacrificing animals like guinea pigs or llamas. Other times she demanded sacrifices as valuable as the lives of children in a ritual known as Capacocha.
One of the most well-known documented instances of this ritual was the discovery of a 15-year-old Inca girl who was sacrificed more than 500 years ago on the top of a 22,000-foot volcano in Northern Argentina.
Her body was discovered in 1999 and is now on display in a museum in Argentina. She was apparently left to freeze to death. She was given coca leaves and alcohol—evidently to ease her passing. Modern readers have a difficult time understanding why the most advanced, accomplished, and sophisticated culture of the New World would bring such a fate upon their children.
https://www.tourinperu.com/blog/the-incas-and-pachamama
A very useful comment, Oscar
Excellent idea: “a dialogue about abortion!”
But how, exactly, does one recognize a voice in the dialogue from such stakeholders (!) as each child terminated in each act of abortion/fetal infanticide?
A short life ended; and a long life not lived. Maybe what is meant is still only a ventriloquist’s monologue, or maybe an administrators’ synod(!)—-intent on deflecting attention from our culture’s schizophrenic and moral blindness (morality!) toward what cannot be reframed as simply a need to “stress more the ethical and some social aspects, not immediately only the legal aspect of the problem.” (Say what?)
The “problem?” Convince the reader that Monsignor Renzo Pegoraro is not wandering in a fog carried over from parts of the past thirteen years. Some might even say Pope Paul VI’s detection that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” Or, instead, as recently as last Sunday’s Gospel (Mt 5:37): “Let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your ‘no’ be no [….]”
“Debate,” what debate is that? The optics of word salad.
About “the debate,” perhaps red faces under red hats could “dialogue” the meaning of Ex Corde Ecclesiae (St. Jonn Paul II, August 15, 1990)—as compared to, say, the 1967 Land O’ Lakes Declaration of academic “autonomy,” or as compared to the hijacking of Catholic university classes by the Administrative Class?
“What is at stake is the very meaning of scientific and technological research, of social life and of culture, but, on an even more profound level, what is at stake is ‘the very meaning of the human person’[italics]” (Ex Corde Ecclesia, n.7).
In the Catholic Church abortion has always been strictly forbidden, is now and will remain so.
Q: Do Catholic Universities have a responsibility to uphold Church teaching on unborn life?
A: Yes, and yet – there arises the need for ‘dialogue’.
With all due respect – Monsignor Pegararo seems to be a bit of a ‘yada yada yada’ type.
Dialogue? With a supposedly “Catholic” institution that should know better?
.
This is why I can’t get upset that this or that politician (say, Trump or Vance) isn’t 100% on board with “pro-life.” Heck, the Vatican isn’t 100% on it.
It really is quite bizarre if you think about it. My sense is the call to “dialogue” is actually nothing more than a manipulative attempt to avoid taking a clear stand to defend and protect life. It’s not as if the issue isn’t crystal clear. Why church leaders feel the need to accommodate evil is puzzling, to say the least. Could it be that their moral compasses are so broken that they cannot even tell the difference between good and evil anymore? A frightening prospect.
MrsHess: So true.
Dialogue? Right. Why didn’t I think of that?
The controversial ND professor has denounced crisis pregnancy centers in print. She doesn’t appear to be interested in offering women alternatives to abortion, just free access. So what the proint of “dialog” with people holding such views?
I think dialogue/ looking for any common ground is fine. Hiring is not.
My Catholic Church has gone “woke” in oh so many dioceses.
Let me put it this way: If your diocese is not growing in measureable and meaningful ways, your diocese is dying.
As for Notre Dame University, I would have to say that the faith is dying on that campus. They are simply breathing the fumes of the Catholic faith left over from yesteryear. Notre Dame is more notable in 2026 for its football teams than for its adherence to the Catholic faith. Pity.
Terence above (4:47 p.m.) – “yada, yada, yada” – See my earlier comment.
And the contingency plan should /when Notre Dame stand their ground promoting and sustaining abortion?
I don’t remember the part in the Bible where Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Suggestions and calmly set them down and had an espresso while he texted those worshipping the golden calf that he’d like to start a dialogue with them about anything whatsoever.
My recollection is that he pretty clearly drew a line in the sand such that there was nothing to synodal about!
Apart from Moses and consulting the more recent sacred scriptures of American writer Mark Twain, we have the following….Even Twain’s oracle, runaway-slave Jim, understood what was self-evident in the “debate” about babies as set before Solomon:
“De’ spute warn’t ’bout a half a chile, de ’spute was ’bout a whole chile; en de man dat think he kin settle a ’spute bout a whole chile wid a half a chile, doan’ know enough to come in out’n de rain” (“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” 1884 ).
Monsignor Pegoraro stated and quoting the article, “it is the responsibility of not only individuals but also of society to help women and couples ‘avoid the idea that abortion could be a solution to a difficult pregnancy or a problem.’” No, this putting one’s feet on sand. The Church has clearly taught the sanctity of life. Our objective is to continue to support true doctrine without compromise. Perspective is everything in this debate and it is imperative that the Church does not move away from the conversation in and about the inherent sanctity of life.
Ah yes, the Vatican’s “need for dialogue” response. They will dialogue with China’s diabolical organ-harvesting, totalitarian regime. They will dialogue with the soul-destroying advocates of sodomy, like James Martin. They will dialogue with the agnostic German bishops. They will dialogue with the fanatical Muslims of Arabia, Africa and Europe. They will dialogue with the communists of Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. And above all, they will dialogue with “catholics” who reject all Church teaching, even to the point of advocating infanticide. In short, they will dialogue with anyone who hates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But for believing, practicing, faithful Catholics, the Vatican will only issue threats and demands for obedience to modernist “reforms.” The Church hierarchy has lost all credibility, especially with Catholics.
Very good William. Pope Francis dialogued in the Vatican with the Pachamama, a goddess of the Indigenous People of Peru that accepted children as sacrifice to her. I just learned that even John Paull II dialogued with Aztec dancers at a mass in Mexico. There is a video in youotube of John Paul and the Aztec dancers dancing a traditional Aztec religious dance. Francis later did the same. The Aztecs, too, sacrificed children, as did the Maya. But we have to be nice, inclusive and inculturated, even with demons.
I would so welcome a bishop who says, “we are clear what Catholics believe — and don’t.” Nobody would have a “dialogue” with a racist, in the remote event he managed to get a job at Notre Dame. Why with an advocate of child killing? Neither “position,” after all, is directly relevant to running a Far Eastern studies institute, but I suspect we know which position would nevertheless be disqualifying — and which wouldn’t — to the UND leadership. The only thing missing is ex-President Fr Jenkins putting on a concerned look.
Amen. How did so many of the Church’s prelates become sycophants of the modernization? How did the Church bow before the alter of racism – being so deathly afraid of it – and so easily accept that abortion is not so bad as long as the activist takes communion (standing up, definitely in their hand, and never thinking for a moment of who is found in the host in their filthy palms.
Yes, I recognize how harsh that is, but the Vatican has forgotten who they are. Some draw nigh to the Him with their lips, but their hearts are far from the Holy One of Israel.
Even if a person does not believe that “growth” is a person, it’s hard to fathom the lack of respect for the sheer potential of that life.