Posted on 08/18/2011 7:18:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
So why is the seal of confession inviolable? Why does the seal bind under such a grave obligation that the Church excommunicates any confessor who directly violates it? (See: The seal of confession: some basics)
There are two principal reasons why the priest must preserve the seal: the virtue of justice and the virtue of religion. The motive of justice is evident because the penitent, by the very fact of entering the confessional, or asking the priest to hear his confession (we’ll deal with “reconciliation rooms” another day) rightly expects that the priest will observe the seal. This is a contract entered into by the fact of the priest agreeing to hear a person’s confession. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the celebration of the sacrament of Penance.
Much more grave than the obligation of justice towards the penitent is the obligation of religion due to the sacrament. The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives a brief explanation of the virtue of religion which essentially summarises the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. (Summa Theologica 2a 2ae q.81) Religion is a moral virtue by which we give to God what is His due; it is, as St Thomas says, a part of justice. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, instituted by Christ, Fr Felix Cappello explains things well [my translation]:
By the very fact that Christ permitted, nay ordered, that all baptised sinners should use the sacrament and consequently make a secret confession, he granted an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, to use this remedy. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after the communication made in confession, remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and that by a power altogether sacred, which no contrary human law can strike out, since every human law is of an inferior order: whence this right cannot be taken away or overridden by any means, or any pretext, or any motive.
The penitent confesses his sins to God through the priest. If the seal were to be broken under some circumstances, it would put people off the sacrament and thereby prevent them from receiving the grace that they need in order to repent and amend their lives. It would also, and far more importantly, obstruct the will of God for sinners to make use of the sacrament of Penance and thereby enjoy eternal life. The grace of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for anyone who commits a mortal sin. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the practice of the Catholic faith. Some secular commentators have spoken of the seal of confession as being somehow a right or privilege of the priest. That is a preposterous misrepresentation: it is a sacred and inviolable duty that the priest must fulfil for the sake of the penitent and for the sake of God's will to redeem sinners.
A possibly misleading phrase in this context is where theologians say that the penitent is confessing his sins as if to God "ut Deo." (You can easily imagine secularists deriding the idea that the priest makes himself to be a god etc.) In truth, the penitent is confessing his sins before God. The priest acts as the minister of Christ in a sacred trust which he may not violate for any cause - precisely because he is not in fact God. By virtue of the penitent’s confession ut Deo, the priest absolves the penitent and, if mortal sin is involved, thereby readmits him to Holy Communion.
There will be more to follow on the sacrament of confession. As I mentioned in my previous post, this series is not intended as a guide for making a devout confession but rather as an introduction to some canonical and theological questions regarding the sacrament which have become important recently. (For a leaflet on how to make a good confession, see my parish website.)
I have been told that the threat in Ireland to introduce a law compelling priests to violate the seal of confession has been withdrawn, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, I will continue with these posts because I think that the Irish proposal will be picked up by other secularists and may pose a problem for us. Further posts will look at the proper place, time and vesture for hearing confessions, one or two more particular crimes in canon law, the question of jurisdiction and the much misused expression “Ecclesia supplet”, and, of course, what to do if the civil authority tries to compel a priest to break the seal.
Perhaps he has the faith of the Centurion. (Matt. 8:5-14)
By the *this* I am presuming that you are referring to the exercising of faith, correct?
I think your initial statement would lead through this. I wouldn't want to limit the question to it, unless it were in order to keep the discussion to something manageable in this medium.
It could also involve how you do (or can) know you have truly (or sufficiently) "honored God by taking Him at His word."
Belief and faith are more qualitative, difficult to quantify, and are, for us, subjectively known and measured to whatever extent they can be measured..
I think your full response is on track with my question.
I don't know that stfassisi is a prophet. But then I think I could almost agree with those arrayed against the Catholic Church when they say I am spiritually blind.
My thinking was like this: certainly there are plenty of sick Catholics, including people who can't handle gluten.
And, as caww pointed out, one of the clearest examples of God’s answering a prayer with a “No,” was to an unquestionably spiritual guy who was, by our reckoning if not by yours, a Catholic.
So stfassisi couldn't have meant to say that being a full-bore Catholic heals all ills.
So all that's left, as I figure it, is that stfassisi had a "special" word about metmom.
And as to our not knowing, well, that's not SO remarkable, is it?
Paul was a Catholic?
No, Jesus told me, but thanks for playing.
Look, I know you think it ludicrous, but it follows from our thinking that the fullness of the Church subsists in those particular churches in communion with the See of Rome that we would say that Paul was a Catholic.
Besides, we papists have secret information that his full name was Paul O’Flanahan Kowslowski Gomez Gambino. So what else could he be?
You gotta think these things through.
Good Dawg, but not quite, you said:
But, I suggest, His word does not return to Him empty but prospers in that for which He sent it. It may start out with our being put in the sheep pen, not because we are particularly sheepish, but by an alien grace (Starring Sigourny Weaver). But as time passes, again by grace, we begin acting sheepish, and developing sheepy habits.
Bkaycee said it correctly, IMHO. We already are sheep (by grace through faith) so that is why he places us in the sheep herd and pen. We become more sheeplike the more his grace works upon us conforming us to the image of Christ. Like the paragraph I posted by Scofield, the prince grows more prince-like, but he was still born a prince.
The difference I see is you seem to be saying the closer we get to actually looking like and behaving like sheep, the closer we get to actually BEING sheep as opposed to goats. I see it like Bkaycee expressed it, we ARE sheep, or become his sheep, when we respond to his call by faith. He places us in the sheepfold and is our shepherd. As we grow in our faith we exhibit more good and mature sheepishness. As a sheepherder in your former life, I doubt you EVER saw a sheep turn into a goat or vice versa. Did you???
He'll always be Rocky to me.
LOL! Seriously, LOL! Thanks! smvoice
Actually, Paul was a celibate Catholic priest.
Are you now the prophet of God? Did you get the gift of healing all of a sudden? Unbelievable that someone would use such a thing as a sort of enticement to join their church! Metmom cares more for her spiritual health than her physical health.
You claim you were once a Protestant, do you ever consider yourself a "failed" Protestant?
Anyone who says that "God speaks to me and I will tell you what he says" is taking the Lords name in vain. This includes Street Preachers, Televangelists, Popes, the Bishops of Nicene, Saints and even some authors of the Gospels who were not eye witnesses.
-- Natural Law, December 1 2004
How about a recovering Protestant?
An amazing debate - most are not on topic - well tangentially so, I suppose.
On topic - Suppose one simply needs a lawyer or a doctor to trust with their confidences.
HIPPA laws, etc. are required.
On a secular basis alone one must at least hope for confidentiality.
So - why not in the confessional?
The issue got lost in the raging debate, (I think)
The issue did get lost. And you made an interesting about it.
Near miraculous on these types of threads.
:)
Do you believe your tag line? Is that tag line true for every Christian? If so, then why isn’t mm healed? YOU said “FULL RESPONSIBILITY.” Is mm a failed protestant?
Not even in context or germane. But keep trying, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. (Nice to see your guardian angel is still at your command)
I agree! That is EXACTLY what God meant by rending the three-foot thick curtain from top to bottom. Before that, only the high priest (not just any ol' priest) could enter that area of the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle called the "Holy of Holies". It contained the Ark of the Covenant of which the top was called the "Mercy Seat". The high priest, even, could only enter once a year at Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The blood of a bull and goat was sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat and was an act of expiation for the sins of all the people. The people prepared for the observance by prayers, fasting and consideration of their sins for which the blood offering covered.
When the veil/curtain was torn, God was announcing that there was no more a need for the acts of the high priest. That the blood offerings of animals - that were only as a covering - were no longer needed because God himself made propitiation for all our sins. Sin was no longer just covered, but completely removed, taken away. And you are so right, the Mercy Seat of the Throne of God can now be accessed by all those who have received and trusted in Jesus Christ who IS the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Glory and hallelujah to his holy name!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.