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 (well 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 persons 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 penitents 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.
No, I did not expect you to say anything that would confirm the authority of someone to teach anything of value. BTW is it ok for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays again? Just wondering what is being authoritatively taught about that now.
Okay. If you saw nothing else, and were recently at a mass, then I will pray for you. But didn't the readings have any message for you? The OT, the Epistle, the Gospel? You didn't get anything from that? or the responsorial psalm? Surely Holy Scripture counts for something? If not, again, my prayers for your conversion. If the mass is empty, for you, then I don't want to quarrel, I want to weep. That is truly sad...
PS, where is your quote from?
No, it isn't okay. Fridays are still days of abstinence.
I suspect you are playing some sort of silly game, here. Remember in the gospels (did you read them?) how the Pharisees used to try to trip up Christ Jesus by asking loaded questions?
Well, it's possible that you think that the meat on Fridays question is loaded. If my mother spends all day making a roast beef for my dinner on Friday, I will not offend charity and refuse to eat it, I will choose another penance to make that Friday a day of remembrance of Christ's sacrifice for my sins.
So, do you think that's funny? Something to ridicule? Just wondering...
The whole point was not the experience of the participant but rather that the length of time since someone last went to mass being irrelevant because the mass doesn’t change.
OH NO, Judith Anne. I find nothing funny about God’s Word. There is nothing to ridicule found there. But I am having trouble finding abstinence of meat on Fridays being a Biblical command. Or being able to choose another penance in case of accidental eating of meat. Perhaps you could steer (ooops, no pun intended) me to the Scriptures that teach the magisterium to teach that. Just wondering...
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
So all of the Protestants are responsible for the keywords that they didn't see and have no knowledge of because they didn't speak of that which they didn't know when only one person did it?
Are you presuming then, that all of us Protestants have knowledge of who put up inflammatory keywords?
What a joke.
It’s not any kind of logic, much less God ordained.
Friday is the day in Catholic tradition that Christ was crucified for our sins. I am nearly certain that you already knew that, but just in case you are as ignorant as you pretend to be:
In love and gratitude, and as a weekly remembrance, the Church abstains from the eating of flesh meat on Fridays. If you look for that in the Bible, you will not find it. If you look for it in your heart, you may. Alternatively, you may decide that if it is not in the Bible, you can ignore it, laugh at it, mock those who observe the tradition, ridicule traditions that don’t match yours, whatever.
Are you calling me ignorant? Because I would hate to mash that abuse button that is so often mashed by so few. That is not found in the Bible, but I can read between Scriptures, too, if need be, and “Love one another” is one of those that could be turned into ‘do not call one another ignorant’ by those in teaching authority.
Sure. ha ha. It is kind of amusing that the guilty party is letting all of you be tarred with his brush. Because, knowing all of you from the RF, I could easily see any of you doing it. But apparently he is too ashamed of what he did to confess. Which is what this thread is about. Interesting, no?
Romans 14
1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Colossians 2
18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22( referring to things that all perish as they are used)according to human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
You two are the ones cheering at our imminent demise. You two are the ones claiming to such enlightenment by the spirit that mere words and reason cannot possibly convey the depth of your insight. And you are asking ME a question?
Did I call you ignorant? If you feel you have been abused, perhaps you should complain. However, these open threads are no place for thin-skinned people, as I have been reminded many times.
Because I would hate to mash that abuse button that is so often mashed by so few.
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you are just itchin to do it....
Can’t he just find a priest and confess to him? It will be up to the priest to retain or remit his mishap. A little penance, then no harm no foul. Is that how it works?
Amen and great Scriptures!
Well, Catholic tradition is wrong. Jesus died on a Wednesday.
Jesus Himself said He would be in the earth for three days and three nights. Catholic tradition claiming otherwise makes that a lie, therefore Jesus did not fulfill His own prophecy.
However, a little knowledge of the Bible is a good thing. You should try it some time.
The Good Friday-Easter Sunday Question
It is a nonsensical approach.
Guess that depends on what the meaning of is; is, or the meaning of theology...
Reading and believing the bible is not theology...
Your religion's theology is steeped in philosophy...Like questioning what does place, and physical mean??? Like heaven is a state of being...
Atheists have a theology as well...
Yep, you are definitely mistaken. Definitely.
Metmom has already hinted that she thinks that a Catholic did it. Let the guilty party confess, then we will all know. Alternately, let the guilty party remain silent, and I will continue to believe that ANY of you could have and would have done it, and now think it's humorous to trash a man who is dead and cannot defend himself, and vandalize caucus threads for the fun 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.