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.
I agree,however there's one critical thing we must do,take hold of what we have been given.
Beg to differ here.
You have to be baptized, have to take communion, have to go to confession, have to do penance, have to, have to, have to, and the best any Catholic I've ever met, including myself, can hope for is purgatory.
It's works based simply because of all the restrictions the church puts on one in order to receive *grace*. There's a lot thrown back on the person that they are responsible for when Jesus says just to believe.
So yeah, people have to do something. They have to believe to activate that salvation, but they don't have to do something to earn forgiveness for their sins. or make up for the past.
I"m done with keeping a laundry list of do's and don't's hoping against hope that I didn't miss anything.
The only image of God I left the RCC with was one of a harsh, condemning, judgmental, capricious, God who is ready to zap me for the slightest infraction, one who you have to access through Mary because she was the only one who had compassion on us and God couldn't deny her what she asked. All of which led me into fear and bondage instead of the freedom Jesus offers. I too used to hope that if I died, it would be right after confession or that I wouldn't sin before taking communion the next day, which would give me a few more hours and increase my chances of making it.
Jesus tells me and shows me I'm loved and accepted and still His, even when I do sin. He is the good shepherd.
When I stamp my feet and say *Do it myself!* and mess things up, God lets me. It's like a preacher I heard say, as a parent he would sometimes let his four year old *Do it himself*, thinking, well, it's not going to be pretty, but when you're done, I'll be here and pick you up and dust you off and get back on the right track.
But that father doesn't disown the child for petulance. The child wasn't written out of the will or disowned for the temper tantrum.
And isn't sent to hell for it as punishment.
Assenting to be saved is critical, but sometimes the person can’t even manage that much.
However, I would grab the line myself if it was in my power to do so, even if my holding on is not necessary.
My kids are lifeguards and do waterfront lifeguarding and practice rescues all the time. The easiest people to rescue are those who let themselves be rescued, aside from the simple cases where you just throw someone a life preserver and drag them in.
If lifeguards are rescuing you, they don’t WANT you to do anything unless they tell you, and then only what they tell you.
And isn't sent to hell for it as punishment
Where does it say Catholics think they are?
You have to be baptized, have to take communion, have to go to confession, have to do penance, have to, have to, have to, and the best any Catholic I've ever met, including myself, can hope for is purgatory.
Where does it say that?
It’s a blessing and a grace that the Cathplic Church does not teach works based salvation.Would you say it's Faith and Works?
Maybe God doesn't want us to worry about tomorrow.
We all know of at least two sorts of loving. There's the kind that says, "We will live happily ever after." But there's the kind that doesn't think about future or past but only about the beloved.
Trying to establish one's own righteousness is, like all bootstrap operations, futile and exhausting. But, strictly speaking, that does not imply that the only alternative is to tell oneself things about one's future.
“”Are you now the prophet of God?””
Understanding and witnessing the many healing and miracles I have seen by people coming back into communion with Catholic/Orthodox Church and at Adoration,including healing of my own life,does not make me a prophet in my eyes.
Ever since I started praying for metmom I have always believed that her illness can be healed by attending Adoration and returning to Catholicism
This is what I believe and I’m not afraid to say this
It’s a blessing and a grace that the Cathplic Church does not teach works based salvation.It appears that biggest negative reaction to Salvation by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone is the charge of antinomianism, or that those who have faith can now do anything they want without loss of salvation!Beg to differ here.
You have to be baptized, have to take communion, have to go to confession, have to do penance, have to, have to, have to, and the best any Catholic I've ever met, including myself, can hope for is purgatory.
IMHO, if the Gospel you preach does not bring up this charge, please examine the "gospel" you preach for others also brought the SAME charge to Paul!
That SAME charge of antinomianism was made against Apostle Paul who replied with Romans chapt 6.
Rom 6;1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ..... 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
"What I believe is what Scripture teaches." ...but only as interpreted by the oracle in the mirror.Let me ask a question. Did Timothy understand the letters written to him by Paul?
Were the Corinthians able to read and understand the letters written to them, Theophilus understand Luke?
Yes. You said that. Come to think of it, I said that.
Okay, YOUR catholic church teaches whatever you want it to teach and to have taught.
The Church I go to teaches no such thing, though a number of her members do.
Funniest thing: Protestants are all up in our grill for "vain repetition," and yet their attacks on us and the Church simply reek of repetition.
Before I came into full communion I prayed, read the Bible, read theologians, both Catholic and Protestant. I never had the last bit of trouble distinguishing the nobility of Roger Williams from the misdeeds of Baptists. There's a lot to like about Menno Sims, yet I cannot expunge from my mind the the image of a Mennonite inflicting a soul killing (if such were possible) guilt trip on her precious four year old girl, but I don't confuse the abuses of Mennonite clergy and laity with the teaching of their group.
When I want to understand a subject, I don't go to the unqualified. I look for the best sources i can find. If I want to understand Catholic teaching, I go to Augustine, Aquinas, Dante.
Since, for example, I REALLY doubt homeopathy, I don't go to some ditzy airhead for the theory and practice. And when I get a book by some hotshot homeopathist I don't cherry pick quotes to confirm the prejudices I bring to the inquiry.
Autre gens, autres moeurs, comme je dit toujours.
Perhaps Paul should have told Timothy to attend Adoration and return to Catholicism?
Or perhaps "My grace is sufficient for thee." 2 Cor. 12:9. Knowing that there is no magic wand to wave or a magical drop of the tears of a saint that will entice God to heal a person. He heals who He heals and He strengthens who He strengthens. Whether He chooses to heal or chooses to use our infirmities to His glory, it is His choice. Not some Adoration, statue, magic water, or vision in the skies. The mortality rate of the Catholic Church is still 100%, isn't it?
Very good analogy...That’s it exactly and never attainable....
Either he was the most poorly catechized man who ever lived on this earth, or he warned us against the very things you value so highly. A Catholic priest? Hardly.
Only if I wanted to get strung up! :-)
I REALLY like what seems too me to be the idea in Ephesians as informed by the great line at the end of everybody's favorite part of Philippians.
I mean that life in Christ involves walking in works that God has prepared for us to do and that He is at work in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
The more I read Paul the more I think the Faith v Works controversy is a snare and a delusion. And the more I live my life, the clearer it is to me experientially that if a good work (or reasonable facsimile thereof) should happen to take place in my vicinity, it sho' wasn't me -- at least not at its origin. "Every good and perfect gift is from above....," and while,on the one hand, the distinction between Paul's teaching and antinomianism needs always to be made and made clear, on the other hand, it sure would be nice if those who argue against us would not the intrinsically mysterious and challenging idea in our frequently calling merit a gift.
[At the end of the Rosary Dominicans often say the following:]I LOVE that formulation because it acknowledges concepts of will, work, choice, merit, blah, blah, while asking that Mary add her prayers to ours so that we may be GRANTED MERIT.
Leader -- Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God,
Response -- that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
[And most Catholics say something similar.]
Now that there is a dynamic and unstable concept. One would THINK (well, at least this one, namely moi, would think) that merit can only be earned, that that's what the word MEANS.
But here, in what a lot of non-Catholics would consider the very nadir of Catholic Idolatry and works-based piety, is a frank plea that implies that we cannot merit anything of ourselves.
But saying this is like throwing a grain of gold dust into an ocean. No one will notice and within minutes it will be suggested or implied that the Church teaches and I think AND HAVE EVEN SAID one can earn one's way to the Beatific Vision.
Tra la.It is my part to receive the grace of obedience, and God's part to prosper my handiwork or not as seems good to Him.
And we are never heard! Somebody says, as though it were a brand new idea, "Peter was a dope!" and we say, "Really? You THINK? What was your first clue?"
And Paul's participation in the Jerusalem Council and his writings in the NT canon make as clear as can be to anyone whose eyes are not screwed tightly shut that it is logically meaningless to oppose the Magisterium as Catholics intend the word to him.
If I defined priest as some seem to do, then I would say Paul wasn't one. And if I defined man as a featherless biped, a plucked chicken would be a man.
And I note that now "poorly catechized" is being used meaninglessly in an apparent attempt to vitiate the notion that someone could be a Catholic a long time and remain ignorant of the true teaching of the Church. It is all too typical to try to trash a concept not with reasoned discourse but with mockery.
I wonder what is intended by these conversations and this sort of participation.
Great satire - loved it!!
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
God seems to hate formulas in HIS RELATIONSHIPS with His kids.
And I’m still waiting for an explanation of how coming back to the Catholic church will result in my healing when being born and raised into it didn’t keep me from this condition in the first place.
That charge is always leveled by someone who doesn’t understand a Spirit filled Christian. A truly Spirit filled Christian abhors going against the laws of God. Even making a comment like “oh, so you can do anything you want and still be saved” shows ignorance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. To a Spirit filled Christian the struggle against the flesh comes from the inside, not from an external law or rule.
Bottom line is that if a person willingly continues in sin it’s an indication of not having true, heartfelt belief in Jesus as the only Lord and Savior. The laws of God are written in the heart of a believer they long to follow them, they are not forced adherence to an external law. All who think otherwise should pray for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, we learned in Matthew that Peter was married, but only know of the existence of his mother in law from the Gospel. This suggests that his wife may have already been dead by the time Jesus began His ministry. Do you doubt that Peter was celibate?
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.