The Seal of Confession and The Virtue of Religion

The Hermeneutic of Continuity ^ | 8/17/11 | Fr. Tim Finnigan

[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.

[Mad Dawg]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't this where a stale matzoh is placed in a fancy gold device and held aloft.

Nope.

What a thing IS is not the same as what it is made of.

And not all monstrances are gold, nor is the monstrance held up for adoration so-called. For Benediction, yes; but for adoration the monstrance stands on the altar or on a stand places on the altar.

So nope to the esseand nope to the details.

[Mad Dawg]

When you find the relevant passage in the Textus Receptus, please share it.

[Mad Dawg]

The problem is just not as simple as you seem to make it. Here many non-Catholics have said things like Anyone truly in Tome that sounds like a preparation and disposition by the "action of one's own will" ... Others have said that one must "receive" the grace.

Note that it does not say by "one's own will" acting without grace.

Aquinas, IIRC, says that it is grace first in every instance. It is grace which enables the freedom of the will and which directs it.

And since the will is "ordered toward" freedom and the good, as the intellect is "ordered toward" truth, when their proper order is restored by grace, then grace directs the will not with reins, but as the beloved directs the sight of her lover's eyes.

If you want to criticize our words, I think you have to read them as we read them.

[Iscool]

G3011

λειτουργὸν leitourgon. Although Strong’s is not infallible it translates this as (3011) “a minister, servant, of an official character; of priests and Levites”. Barnes Notes on the Bible has this to say about it:

I don't know where you got that from but here is the real strongs 3011...And it's a different word than you have...

Minister
λειτουργός
leitourgos
li-toorg-os'
From a derivative of G2992 and G2041; a public servant, that is, a functionary in the Temple or Gospel, or (generally) a worshipper (of God) or benefactor (of man): - minister (-ed).

Doesn't say anything at all about priests or Levites...But that's interesting...If you are right, which of course you are not, Catholic priests are required to be Levites...

So your Catholic priesthood is illegitimate whether I'm right, or you are right...

Minister is NEVER translated as priest in the NT...But back to verse 16...

“This is not the word which is commonly translated "minister" διάκονος diakonos. This word is properly appropriated to those who minister in public offices or the affairs of the state. In the New Testament it is applied mainly to the Levitical priesthood, who ministered and served at the altar; Hebrews 11:11

What??? Here's Hebrews 11:11...

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

There's nothing there about a Levitical priesthood or serving at an altar...You just making stuff up???

Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

So that verse is wrong??? Paul was made a Levitical priest, according to the gift of grace??? HaHa...These hip boots ain't high enough...I need a ladder...

Eph 3:7 WhereofG3739 I was madeG1096 a minister,G1249 accordingG2596 to theG3588 giftG1431 of theG3588 graceG5485 of GodG2316 givenG1325 unto meG3427 byG2596 theG3588 effectual workingG1753 of hisG846 power.G1411

Minister
G1249

διάκονος
diakonos dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

There is no Levitical priesthood in diakonos...

“Ministering - ἱερουργοῦντα hierourgounta. Performing the function of a priest in respect to the gospel of God.” The office of a "priest" was to offer sacrifice. Paul here retains the "language"”.

That's not what it says and I have a feeling you know it...

Ministering
ἱερουργέω
hierourgeō
hee-er-oorg-eh'-o
From a compound of G2411 and the base of G2041; to be a temple worker, that is, officiate as a priest (figuratively): - minister.

A minister is not a priest...But when a minister is ministering, he officiates as did a Jewish priest in the Synagogue...And that's miles from where you are trying to take us...

[Mad Dawg]

Let me try this again: I blipped out several words and miss-aimed the post of which this is a correction.

---

The problem is just not as simple as you seem to make it. Here many non-Catholics have said things like Anyone truly in the Spirit will abhor going against God’s law. To me that sounds like at least a disposition by the “action of one’s own will” ... Others have said that one must “receive” the grace offered.

Note that the line from Trent does not say by “one’s own will” acting without grace.

Aquinas, IIRC, says that it is grace first in every instance. It is grace which enables the freedom of the will and which directs it.

And since the will is “ordered toward” freedom and the good, as the intellect is “ordered toward” truth, when their proper order is restored by grace, then grace directs the will not with reins, but as the beloved directs the sight of her lover’s eyes.

If you want to criticize our words, I think you have to read them as we read them.

[Iscool]

You could jut barely justify the artifical KJV usage if you HAD to. But if you come to the words without an agenda, you get something else.

Naw...You guys moved the punctuation in the sentence to attempt to mean something else...

[Iscool]

Great Testimony...

[Iscool]

How do you or anyone know that you "hath the witness in himself."?

All I can add is that if you have it, you'll know it...When metmon and boatbums say they have the witness, I believe them...I know exactly what they are talking about...

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Iscool]

I have given my life completely to the Lord; I ask Him daily to guide me in all I think, say and do, and I believe Him when He said “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of time”.

Interesting...Most Catholics who show up on these threads claim that verse is directed at your Church...

We Protestants know that THAT is a personal promise to Christians...Apparently a few of you do as well...

[boatbums]

This is not what an authentic, faithful Catholic believes, though it is so often presented as such. We know that-—as we pray these words at Mass: “all life and all holiness comes from You by the working of the Holy Spirit”. Life in God means Gift and Response, not a contract. More of us believe that than it seems to be presented by some here.

Thank you, dear ROE, I accept that this is your true faith and your true feelings about the Lord and I rejoice with you in that. I guess what gets to me when we get in these sometimes "tense" dialogs is that saying it doesn't always equal out to believing it. I honestly do thank the Lord that you have found peace and blessings with him about your life. The few details you have shared about your life have not been ignored nor callously tossed aside. I really DO praise the Lord that you have the heart relationship with him right.

When you say, "Life in God means Gift and Response, not a contract.", I see the truth in that, but I am confused by those who seem to think they will get the "response" part right but they're not so sure that God will get the "gift" part done. When I say I KNOW I have eternal life, I say that trusting in God's gift and I trust him because he made a promise, a contract so to speak. If we believe/trust/receive he is faithful to forgive, cleanse, purify and justify us in Jesus Christ. Not a one of us would ever say we are relying upon our own merit or that we deserve heaven - quite the contrary. We can be saved ONLY by the unmerited grace of God.

So when you say an "authentic" Catholic does not obey God's and the Church's commandments and laws in order to avoid condemnation, then if they are doing so as you are simply out of love and surrendering to God's mercy, then why the constant heaping on of those of us who also obey God with the same motives? Why the darts of anger and denial whenever I voice my assurance of eternal security in Christ? I don't understand this. Do you?

[Iscool]

You are funny. There was no England or English in the 2nd and 3rd century. The King James Bible was produced by a committee in the 17th century in a process not unlike Justin's Vulgate on which they drew as a reference and which it sought to replace. It must be noted that although it is widely accepted today, the King james Version was rejected and criticized by many Protestant scholars at the time of it's introduction.

Funny, me??? I thought it was Jerome that produced your Vulgate, not Justin...

But no, the KJV translators did not borrow anything from Jerome's Vulgate...You're a lot light on your research...

[Mad Dawg]

In Col 1:24? What punctuation?

[Judith Anne]

You honor God by staying true to him throughout all the negative and heartbreaking problems of this life, because that is the true test of faith - when the going gets tough. I hope you see how much God loves you and that even when we walk through the valley of death -

I'm sorry, that is too shallow for me to take seriously. I hope you never learn what you're talking about.

[Running On Empty]

I don’t understand or like “darts of anger”.

I think they harm Christians of all denominations.

Anger -—especially “darts” of it, since darts are used to target— is not the way the Lord wants us to be with one another.

We may not see all things the same, but we are first and foremost told by the Lord to love one another-—the hardest thing He may have asked us human beings to do. We are to—as it says in 1Peter:17 ( I believe—no time to look it up to be totally sure) to “respect the person of every man”.
Do we do that? It’s a Biblical imperative for all of us who profess to know Him.

You wrote: “I trust him because he made a promise, a contract so to speak”

I understand what you are saying, but I would say it a little differently; He has made a COVENANT with us. It’s so important to realize the covenants God made with his people from the beginning of time, and that this last Covenant is new and eternal. He told us so.

In closing I would like to mention 3 things: first, thanks from my heart for your gracious post to me. Second, all the learned and scholarly parts of these discussions sometimes really do weary me. And in those moments I remember with pleasure my cute little grand-niece, who is the daughter of my Baptist niece who said—in all innocence: “I love Jesus, yes I do, ‘cause the Bible tells me to.” A slight little reversal of the original :-) And thirdly-—as long as we are doing Christmas Carols In August here one of my top favorites:

“How silently
how silently
His wondrous gifts are given
For God imparts
to human hearts the wonders
of his heaven

No ear may hear His coming
but in this world of sin
where meek souls will
receive Him still
the dear Lord enters in.

(O Little Town of Bethlehem)

May God bless us all

ROE

[metmom]

bb:You honor God by staying true to him throughout all the negative and heartbreaking problems of this life, because that is the true test of faith - when the going gets tough. I hope you see how much God loves you and that even when we walk through the valley of death -

JA: I'm sorry, that is too shallow for me to take seriously.

Just wow. Total, unbridled commitment to Christ in any and every situation even when facing death is too shallow for you?

Do you also think wedding vows are too shallow to take seriously? You know, "For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to death do us part"?

[Iscool]

If you want to criticize our words, I think you have to read them as we read them.

I don't think so...We can read them just as well as you can read them...None of them require a spiritual discernment...

Aquinas, IIRC, says that it is grace first in every instance. It is grace which enables the freedom of the will and which directs it.

Aquinas was wrong...Learn what God says...

Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

And since the will is “ordered toward” freedom and the good, as the intellect is “ordered toward” truth, when their proper order is restored by grace, then grace directs the will not with reins, but as the beloved directs the sight of her lover’s eyes.

Sounds like pure, unbiblical philosophy...

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Jesus already covered this conversation...

[Uri’el-2012]

Uri'el-2012>Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't this where a stale matzoh is placed in a fancy gold device and held aloft.

Nope.

What a thing IS is not the same as what it is made of.

And not all monstrances are gold, nor is the monstrance held up for adoration so-called. For Benediction, yes; but for adoration the monstrance stands on the altar or on a stand places on the altar.

So nope to the esseand nope to the details.

But it is still the adoration of a stale Matzoh.

Some have described seeing the face of "god" in the Matzoh.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Judith Anne]

I hope you never learn what you are talking about.

[Amerikan_Samurai]

Hagin and Copeland are both in the same camp. All their doctrine is unbiblical. I don’t take anything these guys say as Biblical truth.