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.

[boatbums]

Now, now! Let’s not be snippeting Paul or anything. ;o)

[annie laurie]

You’re welcome; glad it helped.

I really love the keyword feature; I use it when I know that I’ll want to find a thread again ... the keywords allow me to find it quickly, even if I can’t remember the exact wording in the thread title. Much easier than adding a ton of bookmarks to my browser!

[caww]

And when was the last mass you attended?

Why do you ask? Some ask that question not because they want to know...but just to give a snarky remark in question form.

[D-fendr]

Because either way, it sounds like you are admitting that the "one, true, only Church" Christ supposedly commissioned at Pentecost and promised that the "gates of hell will not prevail against" it DID fail.

Calling the reformation the gates of hell is a bit too much, IMHO.

:)

[Judith Anne]

Ainw you stated, regarding the mass: "I disagree.....it's centered on the Priest and his actions as he goes thru the rituals. Most everything is tailored and starched....repetition abounds."

I asked you when the last mass you attended was, because that statement is manifestly untrue.

[Mad Dawg]

Actually I think this is similar to the problem of explaining what the Rosary IS to Protestants whose materialism and empiricism puts them at the mercy of mere appearances.

The most important aspect of the Rosary, internal and “mental” prayer, is invisible. So for most of them that means it is “only a state of mind”, unimportant, and probably nonexistent.

Similarly, despising the advice of the Scriptures to which they claim to give ultimate allegiance and obedience, they do not look through or past the appearances of the Mass to the state of the faithful worshipper. With the solipsism which lies at the heart of their “roll-your-own” religion they conclude that since THEIR attention and mind is drawn to the more superficial aspects of our worship therefore everyone else must be similarly shallow. They are distracted by shiny objects, they conclude that everyone else is and so they blame beauty for their own disability.

Look at recent exchanges here! “Heaven is a place just as the Holiday Inn is,” they say. “A physical place.”. But woe betide him who asks what “place” or “physical” means.

At the core of the Divine Name is the concept of being, yet to raise that idea brings down accusations of Buddhism (which actually speaks of NON-being) on the heads of the thoughtful.

When pressed to explain themselves, they claim a secret and incommunicable knowledge given by the Holy Spirit while at the same time denying the obvious and self-inflating (see I Cor 13: “Knowledge puffs up, ...”) gnosticism of their position.

Dante speaks of the souls in Hell as the “poor people who have lost the good of the intellect.”. What my favorite poet may have missed is that they didn't lose it, they considered it trash and threw it overboard deliberately. Now they consider ignorance a virtue, incoherence an attainment, and bluster an ornament.

---

Well! THAT was fun. What topic shall we mangle today and on which Catholic's face shall we tread?

[caww]

What would being in mass last Sunday have to do with my statement of how I saw it?...."centered on the Priest and his actions as he goes thru the rituals. Most everything is tailored and starched....repetition abounds."

One would not have to attend a mass to know what it consists of....in fact one needs to research either beforehand or after exactly what's going on to understand mass. Getting various opinions of what that is you go to find out then yourself...and more than on occassion.

I stand with my statement from being among those attending mass...as well as researching about it. ..and that more than a few churches reflects the same.

[MarkBsnr]

I said state of being, not state of mind. The words are plain, yet you post a different description than what I posted. I would ask if it were intentional or inadvertent.

HaHaHa...So you are tying pagan philosophy and Eastern mysticism together to try to gain some sort of understanding of heaven...Sounds like you'd be happy in a Buddhist temple...

Are you trying to claim that you misstating what I said means that I am akin to Buddhist? How does you wrongly claiming what I said make me Buddhist or Eastern mystic or pagan?

If you were a loudmouth, insolent, boring, insignificant and useless piece of flesh, that would be a state of being... But while being all of the above you thought of yourself as a gentle, kind, loving Christian, that would be a state of mind...

Put down the Jack and move away, slowly.

And neither one has got the least little thing to do with heaven...You guys really need to put down the philosophy books and read some bible...

Exactly none of your prose is Biblical.

[MarkBsnr]

Sadly, they are. It is not a victory to identify our departed brothers' failings. Rather, it is a failure on our part because we allowed the Reformation to occur. The Church will answer to Almighty God for that

What, God's going to punish you because you didn't murder all the reformers???

No.

[MarkBsnr]

We were speaking of heaven as being a real place. Not that Christ cannot be worked into every post I give, but, the subject was HEAVEN. And Paul (sorry, not Peter) WAS caught up to the third heaven, of which we were speaking. Why do you have a seemingly knee-jerk reaction to this? When Christ is the subject, Christ is spoken of in great lengths. This was not one of those times. Your post just made no sense to the subject that was being discussed.

The whole point is that Christ is never spoken of in great lengths by Protestants except through the epistles of Paul. I posted a link to a website recently (I think it was to boatbums) which carefully and completely hammered home the point that it is the Epistles (implied of Paul) that are the epitome of the Bible and everything else is subordinate to them.

I will ask you to look at this or any other thread and see the proofs and Scriptural quotations by Protestants. I will ask you to estimate the Pauline (versus Gospel) quotes in relative magnitude to Gospel quotes. I will again remind you that Paulianity was condemned in the first millennium as heresy.

[MarkBsnr]

Are you saying the Roman Catholic Church failed God by "allowing the Reformation to occur" or because the Roman Catholic Church was so corrupt that there had to be a Reformation?

The Church failed because the Reformation occurred. If the Church had been completely effectual, then the Reformation would not have occurred.

Because either way, it sounds like you are admitting that the "one, true, only Church" Christ supposedly commissioned at Pentecost and promised that the "gates of hell will not prevail against" it DID fail.

The Reformation is not the gates of hell, although it tries in many ways.

Wow, quite an admission! Maybe all this time on the Free Republic Religion Forum is starting to sink in.

I understood that long before I joined FR.

[metmom]

What would being in mass last Sunday have to do with my statement of how I saw it?...."centered on the Priest and his actions as he goes thru the rituals. Most everything is tailored and starched....repetition abounds."

WOW. The mass has changed THAT much in the last few years?

Silly me. I thought that what the priest did in it's particular order, exactly in such and such a manner, with all the right words and gestures and moving from place to place was critical to the mass being .... effective... shall we say in transforming the eucharist into the literal body and blood of Christ. That the priest dare not miss one step of the procedure.

Going to mass is like going to McDonalds. No matter what church you go to and when you go, you know what you're going to get. I can still recite parts of the mass by rote when I go to a funeral or wedding.

[Iscool]

Look at recent exchanges here! “Heaven is a place just as the Holiday Inn is,” they say. “A physical place.”. But woe betide him who asks what “place” or “physical” means.

At the core of the Divine Name is the concept of being, yet to raise that idea brings down accusations of Buddhism (which actually speaks of NON-being) on the heads of the thoughtful.

All philosophy...No bible...

Dante speaks of the souls in Hell as the “poor people who have lost the good of the intellect.”. What my favorite poet may have missed is that they didn't lose it, they considered it trash and threw it overboard deliberately. Now they consider ignorance a virtue, incoherence an attainment, and bluster an ornament.

Who's Dante??? Why would anyone care what Dante says...I'll stick with what God says...

Has Dante professed a New Birth in Jesus Christ??? If he has not, what could possibly equip Dante to know any thing spiritual, or even comment on it...Intellect??? HaHa...

There are plenty of intellectual people who read and believe the scriptures who don't have to ask what God means when he say a 'place', or physical...

So apparently then there are two kinds of people who understand the scriptures...Intellectuals , and the ignorants who accept what the intellectuals pose to them as truth...

Here's the Apostle Paul's take on your Dante and the rest of the intellectual who apparently steer your thinking...

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Do I need to ask you what that means??? Naw...There's plenty of intellectual folks who believe what God says...If I need to ask anything, I'll ask them...

[stfassisi]

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.

Sounds like you're mother is a very humble holy person- perhaps you should be thankful because the Rosaries she prays and the sacrifices she has given may save your soul,dear sister

It is obvious to me that your mother possesses such great love

[Mad Dawg]

Going to mass is like going to McDonalds. No matter what church you go to and when you go, you know what you're going to get. I can still recite parts of the mass by rote when I go to a funeral or wedding.

I say, "I love you," to my daughter (and she says she loves me) by rote too. Neither she nor I need me to come up with new words, because we both know I"m not saying it to entertain her or to bring her to some sort of experience but to convey a happy truth.

If what you got at MacDonald's was Jesus himself, wouldn't it be a positive that you always knew what you were going to get?

The Mass is not about entertainment. It is not about providing a kind of experience, some kind of emotional trip. It's not about hearing some great man upon whom the congregation places the responsibility for, for, who knows what? The Protestants who belittle the office of the clergy yet rely on their clergy far more than Catholics do.

It's another facet of the materialism and empiricism of some Protestants. "I'm not 'blessed' by a service unless I have a certain kind of experience," seems to be the idea.

From a subjective point of view, what 'rote' worship provides is an opportunity to practice freeing myself from appearances and devoting myself attentively to God. "Exciting" worship is a distraction and teaches me to rely NOT on God but on whoever organizes and leads the worship.

I'm not saying Protestants are superficial. On the contrary. But the kind of worship some Protestants think normative relies almost entirely on superficial things.

[D-fendr]

I feel quite certain that our Final Judgement is not a theology exam; and, that one can be quite Christian without too great a depth of theological knowledge beyond the basics.

I certainly respect those who do not wish to engage in theological discussion at all for whatever reason

However, if one chooses to engage in adult theological discussion such as the location or attributes of the deity, theological knowledge is a requirement to approach some semblance of accuracy and coherency - and avoid gross error. Something beyond, say, “God is to the North of me.”

Positing false theology and then pooh-poohing the entire category of study is not a credible approach. If, again, one chooses to engage in the discussion to begin with.

[marbren]

I think Paul and those around Our Lord Jesus Christ were amazed about the power of the Resurrection. It was something new for them. We tend to take it for granted 2000 years later. When Jesus rose one of life's mysteries was answered. What happens when we die? Before this event it was all only speculation.

[marbren]

Big mystery here. Our Father God turned his back on Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can never ever imagine the horror of that. By God’s Grace we will never experience it.

[Iscool]

I will again remind you that Paulianity was condemned in the first millennium as heresy.

Yes it was...

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul was called a heretic for believing the scriptures...We still have that today, don't we...

The whole point is that Christ is never spoken of in great lengths by Protestants except through the epistles of Paul. I posted a link to a website recently (I think it was to boatbums) which carefully and completely hammered home the point that it is the Epistles (implied of Paul) that are the epitome of the Bible and everything else is subordinate to them.

We speak more probably of the Holy Spirit...Jesus is not here nor does he get sucked into a cracker every time a Catholic priest waves a magic wand and says a few precise words...

Jesus is in heaven...HE SENT the Holy Spirit to take his place here one earth...

The Holy Spirit indwells and works in the hearts of believers, the church...And where do we find this knowledge and instruction about the Holy Spirit and the church??? In the Gospels??? NOPE...In the Pauline epistles...

And what does the Holy Spirt lead us to??? The teachings of Jesus in the Gospels...Spend a little time in a Protestant church service and you will hear plenty of what Jesus taught...

Paul was given the job of revealing the adoption of Gentiles into the church that Jesus created...

That's me...

You guys are still on the backside of the Cross, before the workings of the church was revealed...Are you adopted into the church, or is that too 'Paulian' for you???

I will ask you to look at this or any other thread and see the proofs and Scriptural quotations by Protestants. I will ask you to estimate the Pauline (versus Gospel) quotes in relative magnitude to Gospel quotes.

I will again remind you that Paulianity was condemned in the first millennium as heresy.

That would be Gospels quotes, not Gospel quotes...Paul taught of the Gospel of the Grace of God, which you will not find in the Gospels...

Most of the conversations we have are directed at the church...The church, although spoken of by Jesus, was a mystery...A mystery that Jesus chose to reveal to and thru his Apostle Paul...

Jesus said he would build his church but he didn't give hardly any details...And when Jesus talked about his church, there were no Gentiles invited, at that time...And that would be you and me...

Jesus taught mostly about the Kingdom...It was given to Paul by Jesus to teach about the church...

Born again Christians who are inclined to study the scriptures, study the scriptures...Why you Catholics have so much disdain for the Pauline epistles may not be such a mystery...There's plenty in those epistles that condemn your religion...

[Iscool]

However, if one chooses to engage in adult theological discussion such as the location or attributes of the deity, theological knowledge is a requirement to approach some semblance of accuracy and coherency - and avoid gross error.

You wanna show me that in scripture??? You guys are just full of yourselves...If you don't approach the scriptures with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a believing heart, God won't show you anything at all...

Something beyond, say, “God is to the North of me.”

I am not so much into theological discussion as you are obviously not much into bible discussion...

I believe the bible is the inerrant, inspired words of God...What men educated in philosophy think about it is completely irrelevant to me, and to God, I'm sure...

You guys just keep moving, straight ahead...Onward, thru the fog...