There is no 'try'. There is only 'do'. Or 'not do'.
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.
Sorry, Quix, there is a huge difference between someone’s theology being pristine and someone saying that Jesus death on the cross wasn’t sufficient, that He had to burn in hell for three days to complete redemption.
Jesus said, on the cross, “It is finished”
That stand of his alone is enough to DQ him in my book.
Your’s is a Perfectly Reasonable perspective.
And, it may be that time will show that I’ve extended more Grace about such things than God would/does.
I just know that I need lots of Grace and am happy to extend it.
And I know that if I had to have 100% of my pontifications scrutinized 24/7/365 by even the herd of naysayers on FR, I’d never survive intact—if they had any say about it.
Sooner or later, all of us say some outright stupid, dumb, outrageous things. And, the more thick-headed, arrogant of us can do so fairly persistently for a long time before the heavenly 4 X 4 hits us upside the head and wakes us up.
One of my best pastors ever once wrote a book about babies in hell—because of unsaved parents. The AoG leaders made him retract it but he hasn’t changed his opinions. He just doesn’t teach it. I think he’s off the wall about it.
But he has a good heart toward God and man and the vast bulk of his theology is quite Biblical.
Thankfully, God knows how to sort all that out.
Thankfully, it’s above my pay grade.
Thankfully, God looks on the heart. For some, that’s a blessing, for others, a curse.
Seems to me that Hagin’s heart was persistently toward God and man . . . much more so than the hearts of many of his detractors.
The verse has nothing to do with temporal power given to the church! Those who believe in JESUS love Him more than family. Non Christians hate the Gospel, they think it foolishness.
John 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; YOUR WORD IS TRUTH. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Non Christians do not KNOW the Gospel, they teach for truth the doctrines of men. Another Jesus, another spirit, another gospel. Which includes giving power and authority to an earthly organization. Why would it surprise anyone that they think it is foolishness to believe the simplicity that in Christ?
A rhetorical question if you wish but even if you say yes the brevity of time available to a person to implement even good ideas negates those efforts. And who knows what a successor will do?
While there have been a few excellent religious rulers, it is true that most theocrats fail at good governance. It is often because of the conflicts between temporal and Christian (or other religious - Calvinists in both the Old World and the New, as well as Islamic come to mind) demands - and the number is few that have been trained to bridge that gap, and even fewer who can.
Your point about BXVI's successor is well taken.
Which explains why I've never thought the Reformation was really a reforming as much as a struggle for power. As the fellow in “The Patriot” says about prefering one tyrant far away to having three hundred close at hand.(or something similar).
I see that we have similar thoughts about both subjects.
Cheers!
Make mine a Guinness!!!!
Doesn't say anything about Protestant rock star preachers, altar calls, tent revivals, handling snakes, the Pass the Loot Club, megachurches, or even the Sunday Day of the Lord. No doubt you repudiate all of these as well as the practice of meeting in roofed and air conditioned buildings wearing shirts and pants and shoes and socks. Let us know how that is working out for you.
By default I don’t trust a single televangelist, *miracles* notwithstanding.
Matthew 7:15-23
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
I understand your perspective.
I TRY to avoid blackwashing any group based on simplistic terms and criteria.
I would not appreciate others doing it to me and I try to avoid doing it to others.
Your continuous maligning of the "Vatican Cult" is evidence that this statement is a complete confabulation.
Which word did you not understand?
I stand 100% behind the assertion:
“I TRY to avoid blackwashing any group based on simplistic terms and criteria.”
There is no 'try'. There is only 'do'. Or 'not do'.
You’re a woman with great discernment!
Soli De Gloria
Thanks. To me is seems like a no brainer.
Discernment is shockingly NOT possessed by a whole lot of Christians. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “We all need an education in the obvious.”
Yeah, reflecting on it, I’d have to say that you’re right.
I know a lot of well meaning Christians whose theology doesn’t exactly line up with Scripture and they seem singularly unaware of it.
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.