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 went to all the catechism classes the church gave, went to a week long VBS type thing one summer.
All of it done by the nuns, in habits in those days, just about the time the mass was changed from Latin, etc. through the early 70’s.
It’s the church’s responsibility to make sure the adherents are properly catechized. I know what I was taught and had no reason to suspect that it would be considered inadequate by some later in life. You are raised to NOT question the authority or pronouncements of the clergy or nuns. You just don’t do it.
So how is someone supposed to know whether they are being *poorly* catechized or not and pursue it on their own? There is no room for thinking for yourself in Catholicism. You believe what they tell you under threat of eternal damnation. That doesn’t leave a lot of room or freedom for questioning.
Actually I have addressed this question before. So we can conclude that I am not enlightened.
How can this be the norm if the Roman church is the ONE.
Let's avoid over-simplification. In our view, there is one Church. If you were baptized with water in the name of the Trinity and with the intention to baptize, you're a member of the one Church. So let's not misstate what we claim, please.
Preaching the saving Gospel of Grace thru Faith is what SHOULD BE heard every Sunday, or else whats the point?
Short answer: Sacraments. The Church's work depends on the continual/eternal gift of God, not on the words of men.
Sometimes I think that just as priests need to be given special faculties (I THINK this is true, but I might have this wrong) to hear confessions, maybe there ought to be faculties for teaching and preaching as well.
I've been VERY blessed because our local Dominicans and the pastor of my former parish were solid preachers. It was on vacations at Masses and other churches that I heard sermons that left me sputtering in my pew.....
But it is certainly true that in our following of Peter, we often follow the homily he preached in the hours after the Last Supper: Jesus? Never 'eard of 'im!
We are earthen vessel central.
I’m gonna have to look. “Locution” is not a word that has, um, crossed my desk. Let me get back to you. Busy time right now.
There's a seam from one paragraph to the next. In your environment maybe there was no room for thinking for yourself. In mine I have found little else! Seriously. I mean, we're playing for the same team, but I have gone up against a couple of friars (usually I get my butt kicked, but they play fair) on Trinitarian and Christological issues as well as justice issues.
I remember at one RCIA class, Fr. Dominic giving one 5 minute answer and saying, "Is that okay?" and the guy next to me, already a Catholic, was there as a sponsor, saying,"NO!"
So we all laughed, and Fr. Dominic kind of did a mock slump of disappointment, and then we went into it further.
Of course, this IS a university parish, and the life of the mind is kind of a big deal here.
And to say "it's the Church's responsibility" is, koff koff, another example of poor catechesis! (I'm kidding a little.)
Do the word "subsidiarity" mean anything to you? Or the word "member"? The Church is not "they". The Church is "we". It's OUR responsibility to provide good catechesis.
Specifically, it is the parents' responsibility, first. And they draw on their pastor and their parish for "subsidium", and so on up the line.
If your parents taught you to knuckle under to the bully nuns, shame on them. IF there were no devotions and no conversations in your house about God 'n Jesus 'n stuff, shame on them!
I am not at all saying the clergy and religious are guilt free. But the surest defense against over-weening clergy and religious is responsibility.
I know that plenty of people including plenty of Catholic clergy and religious encourage dependency relationships. But evidently they got a lot of cooperation from people who were content to be dependent if it wasn't too much work.
I wonder if your parents read, say, Cardinal Newman's Apologia or "The Idea of a University" or the social encyclicals, or engaged their minds in their faith at all.
I don't mean to give offense. But I was reading philosophy and theology in my teens, mostly simple stuff, because I wanted to KNOW, not just to accept. And clearly there are survivors of Catholic education who came out Catholic but informed and inquisitive.
So I do wonder about home environments and the culture of inquiry and piety.
To me this is stunning and terribly sad.
Did no one mention saints? The Little Flower? Anthony of Padua? Rose of Lima or Martin de Porres?
Wow, some Catholic Educators are doing serious Purgatory time, I'm guessing. Or maybe that's "Evil Me" just hoping for vengeance.
Right now we are in the "pre-RCIA" period. I'm doing a monthly get-together, brief remarks and long conversation, thing for people who want some idea of what it would be like to be "inquirers." And I'm ALWAYS yapping about a personal encounter with Jesus and a life of on-going conversion.
Oh well. I have to go construct the illusion of productivity.
When you get there use the browser FIND function to find "locution."
Is this the kind of thing we're discussing?
Never did I recall hearing of a personal relationship with Jesus. Rarely did I ever see anyone who modeled that relationship. My Parish in the North East was cold and lifeless. I knew of no other local Catholics who's experience was any different. If there Faith meant anything to them it was mostly an expression of relunctantly having to go to Mass.Certainly, the saints were mentioned, however, mostly in terms of praying to them. That is a big part of the problem IMO. There was not much talk about Jesus as Savior, other than the rote prayers and rote masses. I wondered why Jesus was called the Savior, when I was doing quite a bit of the work myself?To me this is stunning and terribly sad.
Did no one mention saints? The Little Flower? Anthony of Padua? Rose of Lima or Martin de Porres?
LOL!
That line needs to be inscribed at the head of every book of Christian education the world round!
My point is to try to build up the experiential relationship of the body with Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I just skimmed the document it does seem to have a lot of experiences.
You know as well as I know we want to be in the Spirit not in the flesh.
Thank you for your well considered reply. Please no ad hominem - you decided for me that I evidence a lack of knowledge - I am ready to admit my lack of knowledge -
Once saved, always saved is not how it works - I have come to this conclusion on my own, through logic. I do read a lot- including the saints - I have read St. Augustine’s Confessions, Newman, Chesterton, Belloc - etc.
Historically, that's the way it's always been in that religion...Martin Luther of course changed all that but still that religion survived...
It's interesting that the Catholic church has never come out with a little booklet explaining the doctrines and rules of the Catholic religion...Right up front...Cut and dried...
As I see it, they don't want you to know...And they certainly don't want you to search the scriptures to find out for yourself what God says...
I wonder what they call the sufficiently catechized priests who leave their religion...
Appears they get their wisdom from secular or pagan philosophers and they spend their time studying the philosophies and commentaries of St. Augustine’s Confessions, Newman, Chesterton, Belloc - etc., and ignore the words of God in the Scriptures...
So we get to talk to highly educated people who know a lot about their religion but practically nothing about God, or his word...
Heretics?
That’s it in a nutshell. They are WORLDLY ‘religious’ and so invested in it that they are blinded and they, deliberately, dug that pompous deceptive hole for themselves.
That no doubt explains why reading the Bible is an "indulgenced" activity. We Catholics are so stupid that we always reward what we want to discourage.
It also, no doubt, explains why we give bibles to everyone in the RCIA (enquirers) class. "Here's a free Bible. Now don't let us catch you reading it."
Does truth matter to you all at ALL? I mean, facts about the Catholic Church are not as important as many facts, but to gratuitously get things wrong and then claim to worship Him who calls himself the Truth strikes me as, well, interesting.
It also, no doubt, explains why we give bibles to everyone in the RCIA (enquirers) class. "Here's a free Bible. Now don't let us catch you reading it."
Every Catholic I've talked to on FR says you can't read and understand the bible...It 'must' be translated first by your church...So what good does a free bible do for any Catholic???
I'm sure some Catholics read some scriptures...It's interesting to read the historical accounts...But are they forewarned not to believe anything that sounds unusual, like the crossing of the Red Sea, and Jonah living in a whale???
What I said is that you guys don't want them 'searching the scriptures', on their own...Getting those goofy ideas that bible believing Protestants get...
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.