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 love you to pieces, but sometimes you just make me tired. I get what you’re saying, with serious reservations.
No doubt God is retaining you as supervising architect.
Hey, Jesus said it
You wouldn't mind sharing the email, would you?
I believe him
The question is what you actually believe and attribute to Him versus what He has actually taught.
I'm on Jesus' side
From your posts, I'd say that you are on Iscool's side. Jesus is a lucky charm to invoke like a rabbit's foot. I'm surprised that between Church of Iscool and misinterpretations of Paul you even need Jesus at all.
Who's side are you on then??? Who do you believe???
I believe in the Faith handed down to us from the Apostles who received it from Jesus. I do not elevate myself to the level of Creator and say that I give direction to Him.
I also don't have the arrogance to claim that Jesus is building me a personal mansion.
John 14:2 "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
Hardly a copout.
If you acknowledge no authority in interpreting Scripture, all that happens is what happened here - dueling verses.
What was written above the head of Jesus on the Cross? What were the events of Paul’s conversion? Did his companions hear anything or not?
Oh my.
I’m supposed to be doing stuff so I can’t give this the book-length answer it deserves.
I think the Catholic position is more nuanced than your presentation of it.
For one thing, I think your side tends to overwork the accounting/book-keeping metaphor. I think my side has also done that somewhat.
Have I done my Purgatory :: Physical Therapy analogy lately? It refines, I think, the idea of Purgatory and of what being “worthy” of heaven might mean. AND, a friar at first resisted my presenting it in last year’s RCIA, but I prevailed. Once he heard it he pronounced it good. So it’s not TOO far off base.
Vague notion: The word Paul uses which is generally translated “impute” is logizomai. God slaps the word “righteous” on us.
But, I suggest, His word does not return to Him empty but prospers in that for which He sent it. It may start out with our being put in the sheep pen, not because we are particularly sheepish, but by an alien grace (Starring Sigourny Weaver). But as time passes, again by grace, we begin acting sheepish, and developing sheepy habits.
You understand this is just an almost facetious sketch. The real explanation is in the Summa ... maybe.
As a friend says, summa this and summa that!
Hey, I'm having a hard time with this but it is interesting to see how secular philosophers try to justify things spiritual that they have no knowledge of...
I picked a paragraph to comment on...
In St. Paul we find a more technical phraseology employed with great consistency. Psyche is now appropriated to the purely natural life; pneuma to the life of supernatural religion, the principle of which is the Holy Spirit, dwelling and operating in the heart. The opposition of flesh and spirit is accentuated afresh (Romans 1:18, etc.).
This Pauline system, presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi-Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers — the doctrine of the Trichotomy.
According to this, man, perfect man (teleios) consists of three parts: body, soul, spirit (soma, psyche, pneuma).
Body and soul come by natural generation; spirit is given to the regenerate Christian alone.
Thus, the "newness of life", of which St. Paul speaks, was conceived by some as a superadded entity, a kind of oversoul sublimating the "natural man" into a higher species. This doctrine was variously distorted in the different Gnostic systems. The Gnostics divided man into three classes:
pneumatici or spiritual,
psychici or animal,
choici or earthy.
Body and soul come by natural generation; spirit is given to the regenerate Christian alone.
This is not a teaching of God, or Paul...
What Paul teaches is that the Holy Spirit is given to regenerate Christians alone...
How these guys can distort what Paul teaches and then spend page after page decrying the teaching makes one question their motive...
Paul as well as God teaches that all men have a body, a soul, and a spirit...
That’s okay. Sometimes I make ME tired.
That's rich.
So now you tell us...You guys think heaven is in New Jersey...No wonder you think heaven is on earth...
Was that stuff in the link I gave you? I thought I was linking to the Summa.
LOL! and in New Jersey no less!
Oh! Extremely well played!
The Greek that you have is NOT the Original Greek as you previously claimed...
Since I don't post lies, your question has no meaning.
Is that coming from the right or the left side of your mouth...
Sorry, but you have already been caught, again...
In my father's house are many double-wides.
Ha...Indirectly...Many of the words that are used in the piece are linked to another page...
So when your summa used the word 'soul' it had a link to another page where I could see what was meant in the summa by the word soul...
What I posted is some of what I got...
Just as in the opening paragraphs where it's said that our intellect (or the intellect of some) will allow us to see the essence of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit when we get to heaven...I'll have to do a little more reading on that to determine if they are in line with the scriptures...
HaHaHa...Mabye I should set my sights a little lower...Mansion does sound a little ritzy for me...
Maybe there just wasn't room on the license plate for "THE GARDEN OF EDEN STATE".
I think the Catholic position is more nuanced than your presentation of it.Offcourse, analogies are'nt perfect, there.... analogies. :)
Vague notion: The word Paul uses which is generally translated “impute” is logizomai. God slaps the word “righteous” on us.Oh My. You sound down right "protestant" ;)
But, I suggest, His word does not return to Him empty but prospers in that for which He sent it. It may start out with our being put in the sheep pen, not because we are particularly sheepish, but by an alien grace (Starring Sigourny Weaver). But as time passes, again by grace, we begin acting sheepish, and developing sheepy habits.Offourse, we grow in Grace (sanctification). We are in the sheep pen because He has placed us there (alien righteousness/justification), not because we have grown in Grace to the point where our sheepy habits make us sheep.
“The first problem with your statement is that wasn’t what Jesus said. The translators have the tenses off and that changes the whole meaning.”
That’s what my King James says.
“I shall give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
“Translation issues aside, even if that was the case, the apostles are all dead now.”
As Jesus also says, “that the gates of hell shall not prevail” Does that sound to you that the keys were given to Peter to keep for himself, or to be passed down.
Keys represent an office, founded by Christ, with Peter as the first.
“And tell me, since no other Catholic has, that since Jesus also said *freely you have received, freely give*, what kind of man would refuse to forgive someone who came to him and confessed his sins?”
We are to forgive our brothers and sisters who commit sins against us who repent and ask for forgiveness.
However, the Apostles were given by Christ the power not only to forgive, but to absolve all sins committed.
“And what about 1 John 1:9 where John says, “9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
What about John? Has anyone here stated otherwise? I just stated, Christ gave this power to the Apostles, if he could not forgive sins, then he could not pass this power on. John must be assumed to be true if Christ could pass it on to the Apostles.
“And some priest is going to override God?”
Why would he not act in accordance to God’s wishes? Your argument as it boils down to, is that Christ gave this power to the Apostles, and the Apostles only. Why would he do that?
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.