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.

[metmom]

Scripture doesn’t disagree with itself.

If someone sees an apparent contradiction, the first thing they should question is their interpretation of the passages, NOT the validity or authority of the Scripture passages themselves.

Good grief. No wonder so many people are so confused.

[boatbums]

You're wrong...These people didn't belong to Jesus in the first place...They didn't lose something they never had... Lots of people talk about Jesus who don't belong to him...

That's right. Jesus said that he NEVER knew them.

Yes, Jesus said he NEVER knew them PLUS these were religious people who were doing all the things they thought would earn their salvation. They were fully confident in their good deeds - not evil deeds - to save them, and the fact that Jesus said he never knew them means that they had NEVER come to him in faith. All those who do accept him by faith will NEVER perish. (John 10:28)

[johngrace]

Hi Boatbums- Amen! That was years ago I moved out of the area. I am in the south now. I have not heard much but he married the other girl. I do pray for him. Either way good point. God bless you for your true Christian Heart! Thanks for caring!

[smvoice]

I would like to pass on just a little observation of this "hierarchy" you speak of.

"But I certify you, brethren, the THE GOSPEL WHICH WAS PREACHED OF ME IS NOT AFTER MAN. For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." Gal. 1:11,12.

Meaning that Paul did not receive nor was he taught the Gospel he preached from Peter or the 11. He received it directly from Jesus Christ from Heaven.

Why does this matter? Here are just few things we LOSE without the Revelations of Jesus Christ to Paul:

1. The Body of Christ: Eph. 3:3-6.

2. The Dispensation of Grace: Eph. 3:1,2.

3. The Gospel of Grace: Acts 20:24, I Cor. 15:3,4.

4. The temporary setting aside of Israel: Rom. 11:11,25.

5. The "no difference between Jew and Gentile status: Rom. 10:11, Eph. 2:13-18.

6. The "One Baptism:" Eph. 4:5, I Cor. 12:13.

7. A commission you can fulfill: II Cor. 5:14-20, Eph. 3:1-9.

And these are just a few items. There is the sealing of the Holy Spirit for believers, the coming of the Lord in the air for the believers to escape the wrath of God being poured out, the reconciling of God through the blood of Christ on an undeserving world.

Without Paul's commission, you would be left with Christ in Heaven awaiting God's wrath to be poured out, enduring to the end to be saved into the Kingdom, and Peter and the 11 sitting on 12 thrones judging THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

Still nothing on the Roman Catholic Church. Unless you believe you are spiritual Israel..that is..But wait a minute, as I'm thinking about this, the Bible without Paul's commission by the Risen Lord is exactly what the RCC teaches. Oh, they throw in some of his Epistles, when it suits them, but the minute he speaks of the Mystery, the Grace of God, the Dispensation that was committed to him, the free gift of God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, then..it..all..becomes some kind of hierarchy debate, and suddenly...poof...

[boatbums]

‘Fruit’... by the Spirit in the Life of a Christian: The Christian should resemble a fruit-tree, not a Christmas tree!.... For the gaudy decorations of a Christmas tree are only *tied* on,... whereas fruit *grows* on a fruit-tree.

In other words, Christian holiness is not an artificial human accretion, but a natural process of fruit-bearing by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks! I like that it is so demonstrably true. When the "holidays" (holy days) are over and the pretty tree wilts and the ornaments crack and fade, the lights die out and the tinsel breaks, how fruitful is the tree? Whereas, a good tree bears real fruit that comes from within and does not need to be added on to make it appealing. An extra thought I get from this is that fruit must ripen to be edible. Our good works that come from a heart change directed by the presence of the Holy Spirit are the kinds of fruits that nourish and produce seeds so that other trees may grow. Just like when we lead another to Christ, we are helping to plant another good tree so that more fruit is produced. I love the parables of our Lord and the sometimes endless analogies we can glean from them.

[metmom]

Luke 18:9-14 9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' 13But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Nothing we can add to faith can help. It didn't help the Pharisee. He sure enough believed in God, but his trust was in his works and good deeds, which he added to his faith.

The tax collector threw himself on the mercy of the court and went away pardoned.

That's what God wants us to do. Recognize that we CAN'T do it ourselves and that there's nothing we can add. He wants total dependence on Him and that means giving up any idea that we can contribute or help.

He wants to clothe us in fine linen, the righteousness of Christ and here men come along with all their righteous deeds which are as filthy rags in His sight, thinking that it's going to somehow help.

How ludicrous.

[metmom]

Psalm 1

1Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

3He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.

[metmom]

The hierarchy of the Revealed Word? And the Gospel of Jesus? Please just tell me what the Gospel of Jesus is.

Hierarchy of the word?

The words of Jesus do not rate above the OT Scripture. Jesus Himself said that He came to fulfill that very Scripture.

When tempted by Satan in the wilderness and challenged by the Pharisees, He QUOTED the OT to back Himself up. He took up "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" and settled the issue with *IT IS WRITTEN.....*

Obviously Jesus didn't think that the OT writings were somehow inferior. He validated it all Himself.

[Mad Dawg]

Every once in a while, my brother in the Lord, you totally rock!

This may be the least important aspect of confession, but it’s meaningful to me:

We SAY the Lord has paid all the price of our sin. We claim to put all our trust in Him and to despise the deceits of the world.

But then we balk at confessing our sins to one or more human beings?

For me to tell a priest about that embarrassing incident in the hotel in Khartoum, the one with the hooker, the goat, and the iguana ... That’s a pretty comfortable way of proving to myself that I believe Christ’s forgiveness totally trumps the disapproval of man. For me, stepping into the confessional is a witness to my trust in Jesus.

[boatbums]

My children are my children regardless of what they do and nothing will ever keep me from loving them or cause me to disown them. They may break my heart some day by their behavior but I will not disown them.

And even if they did do something that, you in your humanness, caused you to disown them, they can never become unborn to you. They will always share your DNA and will forever be your biological offspring. With God, we are born into his family when we trust in Jesus Christ and receive him as our savior. We are indwelt with "spiritual DNA", his Holy Spirit, whereby we are sealed until the day we are redeemed in Heaven with him. There is nothing we CAN do to become unborn again.

Those who insist that we can wiggle out of his hand - the hand that Jesus said no one can pluck us out of or that he will never cast us out of - completely miss the point that he is holding onto us, we are not holding onto him. If we are born again/from above, then we cannot lose that condition and, if we could, then there would have to be reborn agains, re-reborn agains, re-re-reborn agains, etc. and there is nothing Scripturally that even comes close to saying that can happen. We can have the assurance of our salvation because that is how God INTENDS for us to live, not as scared step-kids or adoptees who can never be sure they will be kept in the family, but as true sons and daughters of the Most High, heirs of God and joint heirs of Jesus Christ - based on HIS grace and not of ourselves.

[Iscool]

St. Jerome was a master of the Latin and Greek. His native tongue was Illyrian which I would assume is a Greek dialect. Old Latin - meaning? The saint was versed in real Greek. The Hebrew scriptures went first to the Greek and then to the Latin via Jerome. This man suffered and he knew the languages. Of course “Marty” used Jerome’s Vulgate - that was all there was!!! and I repeat - Marty was a failed Augustinian. Do you suggest that 1 1500’s Martin Luther was more in tune than a 300’s scholar who was much closer to the texts and a language expert?? No logic to that premise.

Nope...There were copies made into the Syriac language as well as the Old Latin...If I remember correctly, the Orthodox church still has some of these old Latin Bibles laying around...

Jerome translated the Old Latin into his new Latin, the Latin Vulgate...

[Iscool]

Of course “Marty” used Jerome’s Vulgate - that was all there was!!!

Of course that's not all there was...

[boatbums]

The Luther Bible is a German Bible translation by Martin Luther, first printed with both testaments in 1534. This translation is considered to be important to the evolution of the modern German language.

"The task of translating the Bible which he thus assumed was to absorb him until the end of his life."[1] While he was sequestered in the Wartburg Castle (1521–1522) Luther began to translate the New Testament into German in order to make it more accessible to all the people of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation." He used Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus. Luther didn’t use the Vulgate which is the official Latin translation used by the Catholic Church. Both Erasmus and Luther learned their first Greek at the latin schools led by the Brethren of the Common Life (respectively in Deventer (Netherlands) and in Magdeburg). These laybrothers added late 15th century Greek as a new subject to their curriculum. Greek was seldom used and taught at universities in those days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

[Iscool]

Yet another affirmation of your Paulian heresy and a reason you are not actually a Christian.

Likely I'm not what you are...So if you are a Christian, I'll have to use another name...

I'm a bible believin', born again sinner saved by grace who has become a disciple of Jesus Christ...

I guess we're not Christians any more, if you are a Christian...

I didn't realize the Catholic bible has James showing up right after Luke but I should have guessed it...

[metmom]

Preach it, sister!!!!!!!!!

[caww]

Fabulous post Boatbums....What a Savior we have indeed! Blessed assurnace...nothing can compare to that certainty.

[metmom]

I like the term I’ve heard one pastor use.

“Christ follower”

Since the term *Christian* has essentially lost all meaning, having been watered down to mean nothing more than not Jewish or Muslim, Christ-follower is more descriptive.

[boatbums]

That's a good question because Catholicism does not teach the certainty of being saved from hell. I've yet to meet a Catholic who isn't sure where they're going to end up. Obviously neither the church nor Jesus are saving them from anything, much less hell. If that's the case, just what are they being saved from? There's nothing else.

It is really heartbreaking to see my Mother, as she is near to the end of her life (not sick, but old), saying her rosary with the sisters of TV, going to Mass every week, going to confession every so often, giving her meager Social Security offerings weekly, saying "her prayers" at night, being as good as she can be, yet NEVER able to say anything more than, "I hope I will go to Heaven.". I don't see her living a victorious life, living for Christ with gratitude rather than fear, having the blessed assurance that comes from knowing Jesus is hers.

I have prayed for her since I can remember, that God opens her eyes to the truth about grace. I can only leave it in his hands. I talk to her about the Lord and I drive her to her church and pick her up because I pray that, in the reading of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit opens her eyes to grace just like he did to Martin Luther when the words, "The just shall live by faith." stuck in his mind until he finally understood its glorious truth. It is in his hands and he knows those that are his. He loves her more than I ever could. We can only speak the truth in love and pray for understanding.

[Quix]

I can understand your reasoning on that.

Thanks for your kind words.

AS you know, I TRY to note TRUE Biblical things regardless of where the chips fall.

LUB BRO.

[Iscool]

“Christ follower”

That works for me...