“it is possible to classify a delict of ‘spiritual abuse,’ avoiding the overly broad and ambiguous expression of ‘false mysticism’.”
Exactly backward! False mysticism is a narrowly defined concept describing a class of manipulative tactics. Spiritual abuse is an undefinable catch-all term for whatever the judge, prosecutor, or accuser thinks is bad.
If you can’t pin ‘em on a real crime, just call it spiritual abuse. It’s the perfect way to throw people under the bus! Do you hear that? That’s the sound of trust in the bishops plummeting even further. Good grief.
I'm confused as to whether "spiritual abuse" is something they'd punish a Rupnik or Principi type for when they've decided that their actual sex abuse crimes aren't punishable for some weird reason, or alternatively something they'd use against priests who allegedly have mystical experiences, like when the next Padre Pio comes along.
If this is actually all about sex crimes or cult control then just punish the sex crimes or the cult and don't make up a new, super-vague offense.
Would such a law apply retrospectively to actions taken before it came into force? Most legislatures reject such retrospective application of legislation, on the grounds that it is unjust to expect people to obey a law which was not known to them at the time of their actions. Would that be the case here?
Excellent article that raises several questions. "Spiritual abuse" in the Church has so many different faces. Spiritual abuse need not have anything to do with sexuality or mysticism to be genuine spiritual abuse which raises the real question in my mind; Is the effort to codify "spiritual abuse" really something the Church needs to be addressing at the present moment in time?
// For some canonists and Vatican observers, the move could be seen as opportune — if not overdue. //
To other observers, it seems likely that bureaucrats just can't get enough laws. The more laws, the more legal text to interpret to bludgeon dissenters from the party line.
I wonder if it'd be a sword that cut most deeply against clerics who support preconciliar spiritual and cultural norms.
DDF: "Father Pastor, you've been found guilty of 'spiritual abuse' by fostering a love of the Extraordinary Form. As you know, it's a crime against synodality by advocating a moral framework inconsistent with the authoritative teachings of the German bishops' conference. You are therefore sentenced to a retreat in St. Gallen, to be rehabilitated of this delict."
It is indeed spiritual abuse if the rad traddie uses the EF as a weapon to destroy the validity of the OF and also discredit the Magisterium and the love and loyalty to the Holy Father.
Out of curiosity, would you also consider it spiritual abuse if a pastor actively marginalized parishioners for being “rigid and unwelcoming” when they asked for unauthorized deviations from the current Missal to be curtailed?
There are practical solutions for a healthy Church first that would make much more sense than a law:
1) Clarification to Canon 518. People who are being manipulated are often told that they have to stay at their territorial parish. And in my experiences in Virginia, I was told by several well-meaning priests to go back to my territorial parish after I wanted to escape.
2) A sign in the confessional: "If at any point you decide you are not ready to make an act of contrition, you are free to excuse yourself."
3) Domestic violence awareness. I think women need to have good parish women to confide in. We've lost A LOT of women in the Church because of poor training in the confessional where the priest didn't quite "get it."
If we were to try to adjudicate spiritual abuse, we could never create a law broad enough without casting suspicion on priests. It's possible that it even provides a shield for abuse because no law can comprehend the creativity of abusers. I've met with more than 200 individuals one on one in the DC area (more than half on the Virginia side) who have had adverse experiences in the Church. My goal is to listen and to help them find a safe place to a sacramental home, which often takes years. No two stories are alike and many are simply just a matter of not finding a "home" in a parish. But if you're a masculine presenting male who is gay and is eager to have the approval of priests, it's just a matter of time before you stumble into a confession that goes really sideways. Confession is the sacrament where the bad stuff starts. Where people share their secrets and there is a mutual benefit to keeping secrets.
I think a big danger is also the Pope is on record saying the spirituality of those he disagrees with IS INHERENTLY ABUSIVE. He'll be dead soon, but one has to be careful that someone with a differing view on which spirituality is inherently abusive comes to power, and then we have parts where Church authorities use abuse as another front in a weaponized war against their ideological foes, rather than a genuine sense of justice for abuse victims, something which I think it can be credibly accused Francis is already doing.
For a law that doesn't account for how it can be abused in light of recent examples is just bad law.
While using “spirituality” as a guise to commit sexual (or financial, mind you) abuse is heinous, it’s hard to see how that can be parsed out properly as its own separate crime with its own statutes. Ought conviction on sexual crimes be enough to respond juridically to abusers? The “spirituality” angle is just the excuse to commit the crime; would a sexual abuser’s conviction be significantly different if the excuses used by the abuser were non-spiritual?
This might create more problems than it would solve. I know of two fiascos involving monastic communities where postulants claim “spiritual abuse” without sexual crimes, but in reality the matter was that the person was not suited for the rigors demanded if the cloister life. If “spiritual abuse” can simply mean “I wasn’t allowed to write or send letters during my postulancy/novitiate,” then maybe it isn’t abuse - but that doesn’t matter when a disgruntled former postulant who wasn’t prepared to actually endure the separation of the monastic cloister can petition for an investigation on “spiritual abuse” crimes.
If you read Mother Angelica’s biography, the discipline meted out by her mother superior when she first entered religious life in Cleveland would be considered, by today’s interpretation, spiritual abuse. But that’s more of an indictment of the idea of criminalizing such a concept than n indictment of Sister Angelica’s community.
The article links the proposed delict to other forms of abuse, as a precursor for example. However, my first thought was that it was inspired by some of the questioned activities associated with the Medjugorje or other apparitions.
I affirm the closing words "it is that it is far easier to change a law on paper than it is to make that law a reality in the Church’s life". As a parent I can sympathize, as I was not consistent in responding to household "delicts" by my children. :-)
Perhaps the solution is to clarify ‘spiritual abuse’ as an aggravating factor to already defined crimes. Eg, soliciting in the confessional is that much worse than a car because of the spiritual dimension and the perversion of a sacrament that is supposed to heal, not harm.
The messy part is catching spiritual manipulation that hasn’t escalated to a physical manifestation yet. Perhaps legally it could be similar to ‘coercive control’ legislation that is being deployed as a crime itself to combat domestic violence. It’s both a crime in of itself and an aggravating factor to other crimes. It also gets messy with apostolates, institutes, movements and orders. Where’s the line between a charismatic founder or leader being inspiring and disciplined versus manipulative and abusive? Which communal charisms are features and from God and which are bugs that are not?
Plenty of poorly remnumerated work for canon lawyers… that’s for sure.
It's good that the DDF is recognising the problem and trying to do something about it.
I pray that the Holy Spirit guide and inspire those selected to come up with a suitable solution to this very difficult question.
Spiritual abuse can be present in very subtle ways. Part of the solution could be to teach the topic to the laity and catechumens, so they know how to identify possible problems and evade or avoid getting sucked in by a charismatic leader.
At the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at the Universty of Notre Dame there are multi pane windows facing the priest hearing Confession. Anyone passing by can see what he is doing. Which probably isn't necessary but undoubtedly removes most inclinations to misbehavior if there were any on the priest's part.
Long overdue. A fierce and apparently intractable addiction to false and/or unapproved apparitions, locutions, messages, visions etc. -- all of which contain the poison of disobedience and contempt for the Magisterium - is a type of spiritual brown rot afflicting "devout" Catholics.
These people are typically completely uninterested in adult catechesis; encyclicals, letters, notes issuing from the Holy See, but will pinion innocent passersby in the nave to deliver the latest declaration, usually purporting to be from Our Lady, from one of a whole gaggle of charlatans,
Your purveyor of this kind of scandalous spiritual gossip will immediately fire up with anger if you dare to respond with the negative opinion of the Ordinary concerned or even an official dictum from Rome, or from a well-reasoned and clear denouncement by an orthodox theologian.
A revealing mark of these false profits [sic] is they never mention Fatima or Lourdes or Guadalupe. Or the five Saturday devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
It's a widespread and serious spiritual illness, mainly because the "messages" make Our Lady look like a boring and misguided fool, and they infect the devotee with a firm conviction that the authority of the Church is not be be trusted, let alone obeyed or even listened to. All success of Satan, who can assume any cloak of piety or humility, but never obedience.
“it is possible to classify a delict of ‘spiritual abuse,’ avoiding the overly broad and ambiguous expression of ‘false mysticism’.”
Exactly backward! False mysticism is a narrowly defined concept describing a class of manipulative tactics. Spiritual abuse is an undefinable catch-all term for whatever the judge, prosecutor, or accuser thinks is bad.
If you can’t pin ‘em on a real crime, just call it spiritual abuse. It’s the perfect way to throw people under the bus! Do you hear that? That’s the sound of trust in the bishops plummeting even further. Good grief.
I think you meant to write “personnel crunch,” not personal.
But it can get very personal.
I'm confused as to whether "spiritual abuse" is something they'd punish a Rupnik or Principi type for when they've decided that their actual sex abuse crimes aren't punishable for some weird reason, or alternatively something they'd use against priests who allegedly have mystical experiences, like when the next Padre Pio comes along.
If this is actually all about sex crimes or cult control then just punish the sex crimes or the cult and don't make up a new, super-vague offense.
Would such a law apply retrospectively to actions taken before it came into force? Most legislatures reject such retrospective application of legislation, on the grounds that it is unjust to expect people to obey a law which was not known to them at the time of their actions. Would that be the case here?
Excellent article that raises several questions. "Spiritual abuse" in the Church has so many different faces. Spiritual abuse need not have anything to do with sexuality or mysticism to be genuine spiritual abuse which raises the real question in my mind; Is the effort to codify "spiritual abuse" really something the Church needs to be addressing at the present moment in time?
// For some canonists and Vatican observers, the move could be seen as opportune — if not overdue. //
To other observers, it seems likely that bureaucrats just can't get enough laws. The more laws, the more legal text to interpret to bludgeon dissenters from the party line.
I wonder if it'd be a sword that cut most deeply against clerics who support preconciliar spiritual and cultural norms.
DDF: "Father Pastor, you've been found guilty of 'spiritual abuse' by fostering a love of the Extraordinary Form. As you know, it's a crime against synodality by advocating a moral framework inconsistent with the authoritative teachings of the German bishops' conference. You are therefore sentenced to a retreat in St. Gallen, to be rehabilitated of this delict."
It is indeed spiritual abuse if the rad traddie uses the EF as a weapon to destroy the validity of the OF and also discredit the Magisterium and the love and loyalty to the Holy Father.
Out of curiosity, would you also consider it spiritual abuse if a pastor actively marginalized parishioners for being “rigid and unwelcoming” when they asked for unauthorized deviations from the current Missal to be curtailed?
Absolutely. I am encountering such hatred for reporting a gross deformation of the Mass to the Ordinary.
Umm... Why do we need new laws if they're not going to enforce existing laws? Or if some people are above the law.
There are practical solutions for a healthy Church first that would make much more sense than a law:
1) Clarification to Canon 518. People who are being manipulated are often told that they have to stay at their territorial parish. And in my experiences in Virginia, I was told by several well-meaning priests to go back to my territorial parish after I wanted to escape.
2) A sign in the confessional: "If at any point you decide you are not ready to make an act of contrition, you are free to excuse yourself."
3) Domestic violence awareness. I think women need to have good parish women to confide in. We've lost A LOT of women in the Church because of poor training in the confessional where the priest didn't quite "get it."
If we were to try to adjudicate spiritual abuse, we could never create a law broad enough without casting suspicion on priests. It's possible that it even provides a shield for abuse because no law can comprehend the creativity of abusers. I've met with more than 200 individuals one on one in the DC area (more than half on the Virginia side) who have had adverse experiences in the Church. My goal is to listen and to help them find a safe place to a sacramental home, which often takes years. No two stories are alike and many are simply just a matter of not finding a "home" in a parish. But if you're a masculine presenting male who is gay and is eager to have the approval of priests, it's just a matter of time before you stumble into a confession that goes really sideways. Confession is the sacrament where the bad stuff starts. Where people share their secrets and there is a mutual benefit to keeping secrets.
I think a big danger is also the Pope is on record saying the spirituality of those he disagrees with IS INHERENTLY ABUSIVE. He'll be dead soon, but one has to be careful that someone with a differing view on which spirituality is inherently abusive comes to power, and then we have parts where Church authorities use abuse as another front in a weaponized war against their ideological foes, rather than a genuine sense of justice for abuse victims, something which I think it can be credibly accused Francis is already doing.
For a law that doesn't account for how it can be abused in light of recent examples is just bad law.
While using “spirituality” as a guise to commit sexual (or financial, mind you) abuse is heinous, it’s hard to see how that can be parsed out properly as its own separate crime with its own statutes. Ought conviction on sexual crimes be enough to respond juridically to abusers? The “spirituality” angle is just the excuse to commit the crime; would a sexual abuser’s conviction be significantly different if the excuses used by the abuser were non-spiritual?
This might create more problems than it would solve. I know of two fiascos involving monastic communities where postulants claim “spiritual abuse” without sexual crimes, but in reality the matter was that the person was not suited for the rigors demanded if the cloister life. If “spiritual abuse” can simply mean “I wasn’t allowed to write or send letters during my postulancy/novitiate,” then maybe it isn’t abuse - but that doesn’t matter when a disgruntled former postulant who wasn’t prepared to actually endure the separation of the monastic cloister can petition for an investigation on “spiritual abuse” crimes.
If you read Mother Angelica’s biography, the discipline meted out by her mother superior when she first entered religious life in Cleveland would be considered, by today’s interpretation, spiritual abuse. But that’s more of an indictment of the idea of criminalizing such a concept than n indictment of Sister Angelica’s community.
The article links the proposed delict to other forms of abuse, as a precursor for example. However, my first thought was that it was inspired by some of the questioned activities associated with the Medjugorje or other apparitions.
For example, from https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-approves-nihil-obstat-declaration: 'The DDF also “strongly advised” that “pilgrimages are not made to meet with alleged visionaries but to have an encounter with Mary, the Queen of Peace.”'
I affirm the closing words "it is that it is far easier to change a law on paper than it is to make that law a reality in the Church’s life". As a parent I can sympathize, as I was not consistent in responding to household "delicts" by my children. :-)
Perhaps the solution is to clarify ‘spiritual abuse’ as an aggravating factor to already defined crimes. Eg, soliciting in the confessional is that much worse than a car because of the spiritual dimension and the perversion of a sacrament that is supposed to heal, not harm.
The messy part is catching spiritual manipulation that hasn’t escalated to a physical manifestation yet. Perhaps legally it could be similar to ‘coercive control’ legislation that is being deployed as a crime itself to combat domestic violence. It’s both a crime in of itself and an aggravating factor to other crimes. It also gets messy with apostolates, institutes, movements and orders. Where’s the line between a charismatic founder or leader being inspiring and disciplined versus manipulative and abusive? Which communal charisms are features and from God and which are bugs that are not?
Plenty of poorly remnumerated work for canon lawyers… that’s for sure.
It's good that the DDF is recognising the problem and trying to do something about it.
I pray that the Holy Spirit guide and inspire those selected to come up with a suitable solution to this very difficult question.
Spiritual abuse can be present in very subtle ways. Part of the solution could be to teach the topic to the laity and catechumens, so they know how to identify possible problems and evade or avoid getting sucked in by a charismatic leader.
At the Basilica of the Sacred Heart at the Universty of Notre Dame there are multi pane windows facing the priest hearing Confession. Anyone passing by can see what he is doing. Which probably isn't necessary but undoubtedly removes most inclinations to misbehavior if there were any on the priest's part.
Long overdue. A fierce and apparently intractable addiction to false and/or unapproved apparitions, locutions, messages, visions etc. -- all of which contain the poison of disobedience and contempt for the Magisterium - is a type of spiritual brown rot afflicting "devout" Catholics.
These people are typically completely uninterested in adult catechesis; encyclicals, letters, notes issuing from the Holy See, but will pinion innocent passersby in the nave to deliver the latest declaration, usually purporting to be from Our Lady, from one of a whole gaggle of charlatans,
Your purveyor of this kind of scandalous spiritual gossip will immediately fire up with anger if you dare to respond with the negative opinion of the Ordinary concerned or even an official dictum from Rome, or from a well-reasoned and clear denouncement by an orthodox theologian.
A revealing mark of these false profits [sic] is they never mention Fatima or Lourdes or Guadalupe. Or the five Saturday devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
It's a widespread and serious spiritual illness, mainly because the "messages" make Our Lady look like a boring and misguided fool, and they infect the devotee with a firm conviction that the authority of the Church is not be be trusted, let alone obeyed or even listened to. All success of Satan, who can assume any cloak of piety or humility, but never obedience.