From lockyert@mweb.co.za Sun May 19 10:34:31 2002 Received: from mailscan2.cac.washington.edu (mailscan2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.16]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with SMTP id g4JHYTw3057216 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 10:34:30 -0700 Received: FROM mxu3.u.washington.edu BY mailscan2.cac.washington.edu ; Sun May 19 10:34:29 2002 -0700 Received: from kknd.mweb.co.za (kknd.mweb.co.za [196.2.45.79]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.01) with ESMTP id g4JHYQ9n009951 for ; Sun, 19 May 2002 10:34:28 -0700 Received: from vic-dial-196-31-176-223.mweb.co.za ([196.31.176.223] helo=al40) by kknd.mweb.co.za with smtp (Exim 4.01) id 179UWO-0007L1-00 for classics@u.washington.edu; Sun, 19 May 2002 19:31:08 +0200 Message-ID: <002e01c1ff5b$4bb144a0$dfb01fc4@al40> From: "Terrence Lockyer" To: "Classics List" Subject: TAN (practically BURN): Canon law Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:25:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 >From an older British glossary of legal terms (incorporated in The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary [London 1964], pp. 1158-9): "canon law. Body of ecclesiastical law sanctioned by the Church of Rome. (Engl[and].) Since 1533 followed by the Church of England unless repugnant to the law of the land or the Sovereign's prerogative; only the clergy are bound by it, unless the laws are authorized by Parliament or declared old custom. (Sc[otland].) Rejected in consequence of the Reformation, it has nevertheless strongly influenced the law of marriage, legitimacy, and succession." Phillip Snider's 'Christian perspective' (of which there appear to be so many) looks to be the right explanation of the quote, but it does, as he says, leave open the question of complicity. One element in this is, as I understand it, that of the confidentiality of confessions (although how this would apply if a report is received from a victim or third party seems less than immediately self-evident). The Catholic hierarchy in this country has admitted the existence of cases here, but taken the standard line that it is the responsibility of victims to report cases to secular authorities, and that the church itself cannot because that would violate this confidentiality, although the church will undertake its own investigation (possibly ultimately allowing even offenders to continue in their roles, which has, understandably, not been well received). This seems to me to be contradictory. If a confession cannot be disclosed by a priest, this presumably holds with regard also to other officials and members of the church, which seems to mean that the church will investigate only those who consent to be investigated. Juvenal comes to mind. Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa .