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.
My patron, Dominic, wept at the fate of sinners. We all know the name of the angel who delights in their fall.
Nope. I can’t spend all day here. You go on, have fun. But you DID hint around that a Catholic inserted that filthy keyword, I recall the post. By the time I find it, the thread will have advanced through Catholic theology to the Immaculate Conception, and no one will care, so pfffft! So I’m not going to bother. But, I WILL pray for you. I don’t want anyone going to hell.
I wanna be Spartacus TOO. Mommie, can a girl be Spartacus? That's not FAY-ur!
The conclusion that it is even a participant in these threads who is putting up that juvenile tag strikesme as based on a false assumption. The Church is so well-hated that it might well be someone who thinks all Christians are nuts, it might be an atheist. It's not reasonable to think that it would be one of those who profess delight in our doom.
So, tra la, sez me.
Shouldn’t fasting, as with any *religious* (for lack of a better term) practice, be self motivated, of one’s own free will to really mean anything?
What good is it when it’s just a religious duty assigned to one under threat of judgment (of sinning) condemnation (of going to hell or at least purgatory) if not confessed to a priest?
Sacrifice out of love is far more meaningful that *sacrifice* out of obligation under threat of punishment.
Yup. That’s what I thought........
LOL!
FWIW, keyword spamming is incredibly immature. For the most part, I don’t even notice them. I only put in keywords to find threads I want to see later or when I post a thread.
LOL!
FWIW, keyword spamming is incredibly immature. For the most part, I don’t even notice them. I only put in keywords to find threads I want to see later or when I post a thread.
Okay this may be needless repetition for the sake of clarity. What Judith described was choosing to abandon one little act of love and to substitute another because her mother had prepared meat and not to eat it might hurt her mother's feelings.
What’s a penance if it’s not based on a teaching?
Why should a penance be based on a teaching? I mean, other than the general idea that we should love Him who loves us? It is all very well to talk about dedicating one's life to Jesus, but for many of us, that intention is bolstered by little acts through the day or week. When I'm on the road and drive up to MacDonald's for the nasty filet-o-something-fishy-about-this, it's always a happy time of prayer for me.
Alternately, if you really care, you could ask Alex Murphy to find your lost posts for you. Because unless he only keeps track of mine, he’s got access to old stuff, he’s demonstrated that.
Hint: next time you agree with me, agree with something i said rather than re-writing it into something else. To say that you agree with me while you change my words bears an interesting relationship to telling the truth.
I do note that my question hasn't been answered. Are you claiming the charism of teaching?
I’m not doing your work for you. If you make the accusation, you need to back it up.
My conscience is clear unless proved otherwise but I am NOT doing someone else’s work. If they don’t care after all, I don’t.
Q.E.D.
Yes.
What good is it when it’s just a religious duty assigned to one under threat of judgment (of sinning) condemnation (of going to hell or at least purgatory) if not confessed to a priest?
I'm not sure it's much 'good' even if not done in fear. I have always had as a standard little acts of self-denial. (Far TOO little, I fear.) I love Jesus, I love his Body, I love my fellow Catholics (well, at least in principle, but many in practice) so it is a delight to me to join in an insignificant act of self-denial with them and I DO think it would be a defect in love if I did not do so. And I'd like to be a better lover (um, let me rephrase that) so it seems natural to bring my failings in that area to my confessor.
Let me make a guess: Sister Mary Sadistica and her sisters, maybe your parents, maybe other people in you church upbringing brought you up in the climate of fear. Everything was motivation by current guilt and by threats of future damnation.
If so, then I think it entirely understandable that you left the full communion of the Church, and I think they are all going to have a few awkward moments (at least a few) before the judgment seat, because of their damnable (literally) presentation of the Gospel of the Love of God in Christ.
But, having said -- and meant -- that, I want also to say that your sort of case is not limited to Catholicism. I've seen many among families in many of the various Protestant strands.
So, in YOUR home,it was eat fish or God is going to mash you and as a foretaste he is going to make you humiliate yourself, you naughty little girl, before Father Sean Patrick Gambino.
In my home religion, such as it was, was mostly about morality. My mother explicitly argued against Paul and Justification by Grace through Faith. She demonstrated her mistrust in Love by saying that without the threat of punishment and the enticement of reward people wouldn't try to avoid evil and do good. It was shallow and pathetic.
But, koff koff, by the grace of God I am what I am (Popeye the Sailor Man) and that's a guy who likes to have fun with his homies and sometimes is soothed, far more than he could ever deserve, by consolations from a God who knows how weak I am and how I would founder and sink if he did not console me at every turn.
So, I find that even though I didn't make the rule, I eagerly follow it with an entirely free will. So it is out of love, and enjoyment, and happiness, and though suggested by another it is self-motivated.
And we're told that we have precious little Christ in our Christianity. Go figure.
My conscience is clear unless proved otherwise
Just saving these little gems... PS, did you ever have a beautiful fawn mastiff that wanted to play with you? Who, when he saw you turn back to your keyboard, laid down his head and sighed? Who looked at the "treat cabinet" and gave a nearly inaudible whine? Who, when you got up to refill your coffee, bounded to his feet and hurled his 225 pounds toward the door, leash in mouth? Who cried when he saw you sit back down? I think I will leave you, and you can call me chicken if you want to.
Is it in the power of man to save man? Do you really think that? That's interesting. We Catholics think it is up to God, though he uses men as instruments.
Dominic did what he could, (and between him and Francis the whole approach of the Church to evangelism was changed) but he is said to have prayed late into the night, often in tears, over those whom he sought to evangelize. He was relying on God, not on himself.
... no matter what intimidation tactic you use.
"Intimidation tactic"? WHAT "intimidation tactic" am I using?
Hallelujah!! SOMEONE FINALLY GETS IT!!!!!!!!!!
That's what I've been saying and people keep arguing with me.
If so, then I think it entirely understandable that you left the full communion of the Church,
Wouldn't you?
But, having said -- and meant -- that, I want also to say that your sort of case is not limited to Catholicism. I've seen many among families in many of the various Protestant strands.
You'll get no argument out of me there. I think the biggest impediment to people becoming Christians is the church, or rather what I call *churchianity*.
So, in YOUR home,it was eat fish or God is going to mash you and as a foretaste he is going to make you humiliate yourself, you naughty little girl, before Father Sean Patrick Gambino.
It was pretty much the same for every Catholic I ever knew. I knew precious few who seemed to love God for Himself instead of obeying out of fear of the consequences.
She demonstrated her mistrust in Love by saying that without the threat of punishment and the enticement of reward people wouldn't try to avoid evil and do good. It was shallow and pathetic.
To some extent she was right. But if one really understands Love Himself, then that isn't going to be the motivation. It will be out of gratitude and thanksgiving. But really, even Jesus warned people to flee from the coming wrath and warned of the consequences of not coming to Him. So, yes, I think many come to Him out of fear initially, but God meets us where we are and that comes to a point of obedience out of love and gratitude.
So, I find that even though I didn't make the rule, I eagerly follow it with an entirely free will. So it is out of love, and enjoyment, and happiness, and though suggested by another it is self-motivated.
It is my opinion that not a one of us can ever have completely pure motives for anything, so corrupted by sin are we. But God is good and gracious and understands and takes us as we are.
Which is good, because if it depended on me, I'd be in a world of hurt.
Ping to 657. Mad Dswg has been charged with using intimidation tactics, LOL!
You big meanie! :)
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.