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.
What? As cooler weather approaches we start up the wars of religion?
In Madrid the gathering of the Church’s youth brings out protestors waving condoms and screaming at nuns.
Where I live, as the friars walk between our church and their house, among those who drive by are those who think a Dominican habit justifies obscene abuse.
And here on FR an article about “the seal” is met almost immediately with strange accusations.
Good. God brings these people before us so that we know for whom it is that we must pray. Our call is clear.
They don't fit...You can't make them fit without seriously perverting them, as you guys do...
And BTW, which Gospel are you referring to??? Are you calling the 4 Gospels the Gospel??? The entire bible, is that the Gospel for you???
I know we all have family members like this. My Dad is the same way and even has dementia. My daughters are in the same boat I was in during my teens and early 20's. We cannot project our life experiences onto them. They need their own encounters with the risen Lord. Even with our family on FR we can discern those who believe in Christ and those who only know of him.
I can only leave it in his hands.
This is the answer, GOD IS GRACIOUS! Let's say we worry about their destiny, Is this what Jesus tells us to do?
In my experience when I try to talk people into faith it sometimes causes problems if I need them to agree with me. With my kids God provides golden moments to say something if His Spirit wants me to speak.
I am always amazed that you guys will post what your religion has told you to be fact when a little bit of research has it all blowing up in your face...
And then you guys move right along with the same tactic for the next topic...
You want to disagree with me and claim that Jerome translated from the 'original' Greek and 'original' Hebrew to make his Latin Vulgate...
You would be wise to do a google search on the Old Latin bibles...
But, even there, you will get Catholic versions of this history as well as non Catholic versions...
There is a problem — well, more than one. (I have no idea what “half a grapefruit” refers to.)
You insist that the vestments and ceremonies are about the person, the individual. Maybe they are for you, but you are not a Catholic. So it’s not so clear how your reaction could be an argument against Catholicism.
Personally, I find it completely natural and reasonable to distinguish between the individual and the function. I don’t care so very much about the person of the guy who cuts my grass or takes out my appendix. My recourse to both of them is centered on their function, their “office”.
I am not unaware of them personally, but it is psychologically easy to separate their function from themselves.
Likewise when Fr. So and so hears my confession (and sometimes I will choose a confessor precisely because I don’t know him) or celebrates the Mass, my mind is not on him but on Jesus.
So your report of what gets your attention at Mass has no connection with what gets my attention at Mass, and simply does not apply to our statements on the topic.
Oh, you mean the condoms that the Vatican refused to acknowledge for the people down in Africa, the ones getting all the AIDS...
Quite a controversy but I don't see that trying to keep people alive while you are trying to bring them to Jesus Christ is such a sin...
Perhaps they don't need your prayer...
Well I don't know...If your pope showed up in your parish wearing a 3 piece suit, are you saying no one would kneel down or bring their babies up for him to kiss??? Would anyone blasphemously call him the 'Holy Father'???
BTW, his hat looks like half of a grapefruit...Maybe he should wear a beret' instead...And get rid of those feminine red shoes...
When you are interested in facts and reasoned argument get back to me.
The whole focus of Paul’s letters are about being IN CHRIST.
Anyone who doesn’t see that, doesn’t really understand where Paul is coming from and anyone who thinks that Paul is contradicting Christ doesn’t understand Scripture.
Scripture CANNOT contradict itself, because God can’t contradict Himself.
“Scripture CANNOT contradict itself, because God can’t contradict Himself.”
Well said! All that chatter about Paul vs. the Gospels, Paul vs. Christ, Paulines...whatever...that cuts right through it.
Well said.
Actually, while chastening Protestants for interpreting Scripture apart from Rome, by “private revelation” (2Pt. 1:20, but which interpretation itself is wrong, as this text is not speaking about interpreting Scripture apart from an infallible magisterium, but about how prophecy was written [cf. 1Pt. 1:11]), Rome “infallibly” teaches that Catholics can know by “special revelation” that they are assuredly in the number of the predestinate [Trent, The Sixth Session, CHAPTER XII, http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html]
Meanwhile, as the Abrahamic type faith that is counted for righteousness is a kind of faith that characteristically manifests things which accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9; Jn. 10:27,28; 2Ths. 1:3,4) there are verses which warn of believers denying the faith, (1Tim. 5:8,11-13; 2Tim. 2:12; 2Pt. 2:1) and casting away faith (by doctrine or in deeds) and forfeiting what is appropriated, drawing back into perdition, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-39) and the necessity of continuing in the faith, which works obedience, by God’s grace. (Heb. 3:6,14; 5:9; 1Cor. 15:2)
I think he was generalizing, and referring to RCs in general for whom Biblical literacy was overall historically hindered until recent times (while the NAB note will lead them astray). http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Supplementary
What is being missed here is the underlying controversy as to how much this secrecy enabled the homosexual (mostly) priestly abuse to continue. http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/roman-catholic-church-obstruction-of-justice/
But the focus on Ja. 5:16 is apt, and as God has set our secret sins in the light of His countenance, (Ps. 90:2) so even if our sins are not of the magnitude of the above, the church needs to encourage this confession, and the trust that enables it, but which i think we (i) much lack.
They don't read Paul's letters...In fact, they even call the NT sans Paul's epistles the Catholic epistles...
INDEED.
I'm not so sure it's missing on this thread as much as it's not possible to open for discussion until catholics recognize and accept the facts instead of defending the churches obvious enabling this to continue for years.
Many remain in denial of the pervasive infilitration of homosexuals into the Priesthood. To acknowledge such requires an outcry all the way to the Vatican. Few who have the courage to do so I think....which I think can discourage those who are fighting to hault this.
According to this statement. Catholics seem to believe that without a Priest/Confessional they have no hope of forgiveness and would be doomed spiritually without it.
So then it would appear clear they rely on the Confessional and the Priests for their very Salvation.....which in doing so upsurps the rightful place of Christ.
Therefore reagrdless of the "abuse" by the Priests during confession and or for the matter of confession enabling the Priests to continue their behavior.... they remain unwilling to seriously look at why there is their Priesthood in the first place....rather they use scripture to sustain it. Catch twenty-two.
OK - mea culpa. However Martin Luther knew the Vulgate inside and out from his Augustinian formation.
It doesn’t change the fact that in the 370’s Jerome went to the desert to learn Hebrew. He was much closer to the original sources than Martin Luther was - just given the time frames.
Martin Luther randomly omitted 2 Maccabees because 12:44-46 specifically refers to praying for atonement for the dead.
Martin Luther made it too easy and that is why he had such a following - “Faith Alone” is much easier than faith plus works and being judged on those works. Phil 2:12; Mt 7:21; Jam 2:14 -24..
You do not even understand the true meaning of the text. It is about Christ's feelings on what he has to go through for all humanity. Outright slaughter for us. If he did not do it we would be in trouble to say the least. He saw the ernormity of it all but did it for our sake.
So you use this conversation in the garden as an example to me. This is your answer from someone who asks Jesus in his name for guidence in this World and then trusting God for the answer.
Hello!!
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.