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.
ROFL!!!!
There are some very strange people on this forum.
I almost made a new thread out of it.
We shall call you Shirley Spartacus from this day forward..:)
We will never know what you privately communicated, but we can see the public actions. Did you condemn the practice and the offender or did you giggle quietly and give tacit approval?
ORIGIN late Middle English (originally applying only to Christianity): from French théologie, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from theos ‘god’ + -logia. "The study of the nature of God and religious belief."
Reading and believing the bible is not theology...
The beliefs you have about the nature of God and Christian beliefs are your theology. You are posting your theology and critiquing other's theology. As you say, atheists have a theology, and so do you.
Your religion's theology is steeped in philosophy...Like questioning what does place, and physical mean?
Philosophy is usually limited to the sphere of reason and logic. Theology encompasses philosophy and transcends it. It also encompasses and transcends physics (hence metaphysics).
And like the others in this discussion - and atheists too - you also have a philosophy.
For example, physics would study the nature of cause and effect for material objects; philosophy would discuss, for example, the First Cause Argument; theology would discuss the nature and attributes of the First Cause.
"Reading and believing the Bible" has resulted over the centuries in a variety of differing beliefs - all from reading the same Bible. This is to be expected. No two people get the same thing from reading anything of any depth. They bring themselves to it, they bring their influences and the judgement of those they believe to have authority or credence into it also.
Discussing those differences necessarily means discussing differences in theology, philosophy and sometimes even physics; each sphere encompassing and transcending the smaller spheres.
BEAST
God was kind to me. If I had been abandoned to klutzes such as you had, who knows where I'd be?
Um, Don’t call me SURELY?
You and yer alligators made a nice post. Thanks.
We all got it a long time ago. The difference is, we didn't blame the Church for the sins of its members. Is that really your problem? You think that because the Church is composed of fallible people who offended your precious self, you should just walk away in a huff?
It was my evil twin, I SWEAR!
I think, just for that, I'll refuse to ever attend a protestand church again. Obviously, they don't believe the Bible, or they'd know better.
Maybe they just didn't let play Mary in the Christmas play or maybe the Priest didn't let her edit the homily every week or rewrite the Catechism.......
Nope...I think that gift and the others are recognized by other Christians...If I had the gift of teaching, many others would confirm it...
I just read a little bible and pass on what I read...
Whatever Sister Mary Sadistica did to her, she deserved it. Spitwads spread disease.
BTW, an evangelical Christian lady in the grocery store told me, last Saturday, that the reason I wasn’t healed of rheumatoid arthritis was because I didn’t want to be. (former friend). She told me that if I believed the Bible, I would throw away my cane. She was serious. Fortunately, I am adult enough to know that she isn’t typical of evangelical Christians. Most are much worse.
I didn't approve nor did I giggle...I chuckled a little tho...
I think this was much more than "offense," and I think all who love Jesus and his Church are wounded when such perversions of the Gospel and of Life in Christ take place.
In, gosh, ALL my adult life I have met with people who were seriously wounded by abusive Christians. I think they are one of the enemy's most effective weapons.
It's not just non-Catholics, it's non-Christians or atheists. It is UNBELIEVABLY hard to persuade someone who saw spousal abuse justified by perverted interpretations of scripture that there could possible be a NON-perverted way to read the Bible.
It's incredibly difficult even to gain a hearing with people who have had a twisted pseudo-Gospel inflicted on them. The well has been effectively poisoned, and I don't know where to find Elisha's salt to make it sweet for them again.
Do I wish metmom had stayed with us? Of course! But I am glad she goes to any church at all, that she loves Jesus and seeks to live in that love.
When I hung out more with Buddhists I knew many who had been through similar experiences and, as a result, they renounced Christianity and wouldn't hear a word about it.
It was we, in our brethren, who hurt metmom. I will not rebuke her for being hurt.
Not me. I'm glad she's not Catholic. To think, I might have to work with her in the kitchen, feeding the poor people at our Wednesday luncheons. All that "poor precious me" might throw someone into a diabetic coma.
I am hurt by this! Maybe I’m a wuss, but this is painful.
Metmom suffered at the hands of those who had a divine call to preach the Gospel of Love to her. That’s a terrible thing. Our Lord saved his harshest words for those who caused his little ones to stumble.
Parents who use Jesus as a threat or a guilt machine, clergy and religious who are abusive and cruel and who only care about the behavior, not the souls, of the children in their care ...
I am the only Christian among my parent’s 5 children. It was entirely by God’s grace, mediated by one priest and maybe three lay-people that I never could turn my back on Jesus. It’s not so much my Dad’s fault because he didn’t profess Christianity for the first decade of my life. But my mother was a devout worshipper of the demanding God of English Christian Socialism and love didn’t really figure too much in her theology.
I will not participate in piling on someone victimized by those who presented themselves as authoritative Christians.
That’s so compassionate of you.
Thanks again for reinforcing my conviction that walking away was the right thing to do.
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.