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.

[stfassisi]

“”Thinking that Israel has been replaced gives rise to multiple problems doesn’t it””

Thinking that Israel is Divine leads to worse

Here is a good example of that from
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html
Today a new kind of persecution of the Church is going on, and it’s rooted in the fallacy of Dispensationalism. This fallacy leads to the worst form of anti-Catholicism, as is evidenced by the volumes of anti-Catholic writings produced by Dispensationalist authors. While in some cases, Dispensationalism actually causes Christians to support some very unChristian things - such as Zionism and Judaizing for example. Let’s not beat around the bush here. Dispensational theology is physically harming Christians! How? This is how it works. Dispensationalism leads Christians to support Zionism. Zionism in turn leads to the blind support of the Nation of Israel and all it’s policies, regardless of their effect. Many of those policies are directed against the Palestinian people, regardless of their religion, and many of those Palestinian people are Christians. Those Palestinian Christians suffer poverty and physical infirmity because of those policies. The strange irony of our time is that many Christians in the West, (mainly Evangelical Dispensationalists), are blindly supporting a regime that is directly persecuting their Christian brethren (Palestinian Christians) in the very homeland of Jesus Christ, and they do this thinking Jesus somehow approves. The strange irony is that while St. Paul instructed Western Christians to take up collections to help Palestinian Christians during his time, Dispensationalist pastors actively take up collections to support a regime that persecutes them in our time. Dispensationalism is a fallacy that must be resisted, but this can only be effectively done by knowing and understanding the place of the Church as the new “Israel of God.” This is what the New Testament teaches. It is not “replacement theology” as some have incorrectly labeled it. This is authentic “olive tree ecclesiology”

[metmom]

There is lots of typology on this along with writings from Church Fathers

If it's not clearly spelled out in Scripture, it's meaningless.

I don't care what the opinion pieces of those the Catholic church calls church fathers says.

If it's not God breathed Scripture, it's integrity is up for grabs and no one is obligated to accept it as truth.

[D-fendr]

Godwin's Law²

I'll pass on the bait.

[bkaycee]

Have you no shame? You have posted this nonsense before, but since it seems to satisfy your biases you apparently haven't bothered to actually research the issue or even fact check that one faulty website you keep trotting out.

Sorry, your not quite aware of your own Church's history.

You can read more or less a recap of the SAME info at the web site you recommended.

This information is certainly not advertized by the RCC, but it still is Factual and historical!

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=352&letter=R&search=ghetto%20rome#1015

[stfassisi]

it's not clearly spelled out in Scripture, it's meaningless.

It's clear to me and has 2000 plus years of writings by Saints and Martyrs to back it up

Dear Sister, the last time I checked you have not answered yes that you believe Jesus is God.This is clearly spelled out in Scriptures per the majority of the protestants you back pat with here in FR to trash Catholicism.

Amazing you both agree on solo Scripture but disagree on this MAJOR teaching of the Christian faith

[Uri’el-2012]

Uri'el-2012>I have noticed that you are breathtakingly ignorant...

Warning! The objects in the mirror may be stupider than they appear.

Nicia(SIC) does not and never did equate to the feminine version of Nikolaos. Most historians attribute the name of Nicea to being named by Lysimachus one of Alexander the Great officers after after Nikaia, a city in Illyria, Greece.

Laodicea does not and never did mean "the people decide". We've gone over this before. Laodicea is a city on the Lycos River was built by Seleucid King Antiochus II Theos, between 261-253 BC, in honor of his wife Laodice.

You might have the yokels lapping up your version of history, but don't try that stuff on educated people.

I know you will not find the answer in the Roman "church"'s catechism.

Most followers of the Christ use Strong"s for exegesis of Greek and/or Hebrew.

I assume vincible ignorance on your part of this tool.

Strong's G2993 - Laodikeia
Laodicea = "justice of the people" or the people decide.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Natural Law]

Having lived and worked in Israel I can attest to the absolute prejudice and bias present in segments of the Israeli society. Within Israel there exists a caste system that has the following hierarchy:

1) Holocaust Survivors
2) Veterans of the War of Independence
3) Indigenous and middle eastern Jews
4) Eastern European Jews
5) American and Western European Jews
6) Russian Jews
7) Jews who have married non-Jews
8) Americans and non-German European Christians.
9) Arab Christians
10) tie - Ethiopian Jews and German Christians

[presently no screen name]

Apostolic,and we have the writings(church fathers) in succession of those who knew the Apostles to prove it

LOL!

[Natural Law]

"Most followers of the Christ use Strong"s for exegesis of Greek and/or Hebrew."

It's a completely buffoonish position to assume that Strong's Concordance is infallible. Note that both Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary corroborate the naming of Laodicea after queen Laodice. It is however, quite useful for eisegesis.

[presently no screen name]

You might have the yokels lapping up your version of history, but don't try that stuff on educated people.

LOL!!

How rich is that since the RCC has it's own version of God's Word - their catechism.
Educated? Wonder if 'deceived' means 'educated' in pig Latin.

[Quix]

Terminally WRONG AGAIN.

It is not Israel per se that is Divine.

It is GOD’S CHOOSING OF ISRAEL AS HIS PARTICULARLY CHOSEN INHERITANCE

THAT IS BY DEFINITION

DIVINE.

Disagree?

Take it up with Almighty God.

HE has indicated that as long as there are sun, moon, stars, HIS CHERISHING ISRAEL WILL NOT CEASE.

[CynicalBear]

Deuteronomy 7:6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

What does everlasting mean to the replacementatians? It must mean everlasting unless …… blah blah blah.

Does Israel have a right to the land?

Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

1 Chronicles 16:14-18 "He is The Lord our God; His judgments are in all the earth. He is mindful of His covenant for ever, of the word that He commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, His sworn promise to Isaac, which He confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, as your portion for an inheritance."

Rom 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Separating the fate of Israel and the Gentiles. (ie the church) A distinct difference of peoples.

Ezek 39:28 "Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind."

The Gentile church did not replace the people of Israel. God is not gathering the church back to “their own land”.

Even when the Israelites disobeyed God (as they very often did), and He punished them for it by sometimes sending them into exile, they always came back, according to God's Will, whether it was in the ancient time of the return from the Babylonian exile, or the establishment of the modern-day state of Israel (primarily by the people of Judah, one of the twelve tribes) in 1948 or the yet future greater return. And, every time, the same warning applied, and applies - God commanded the Israelites to take what was theirs, the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not the land of "Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael”), all of it (no "West Banks" or "East Jerusalems" etc.), without compromise, or suffer terrorist attacks and political mayhem within their own God-commanded borders from people who had no God-given lawful right to be there.

Replacementarians somehow want us to believe that God Himself got a divorce from Israel.

[CynicalBear]

>> Amazing you both agree on solo Scripture but disagree on this MAJOR teaching of the Christian faith<<

So you not know the difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura?

[metmom]

If heaven is a state of being or a state of mind, doesn’t that mean the New Jerusalem is also a state of being or a state of mind?

[stfassisi]

The Gentile church did not replace the people of Israel

The Catholic Church is the "Universal Church"(not just gentile) and it replaces Israel to include Salvation for ALL established by Christ Himself to include all- including Jews who love unconditionally.

To deny this is to deny Christ's Authority

"Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [ And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18

[smvoice]

So, stfassisi, when does the Vatican plan on digging up Peter and moving to Jerusalem? Because when Christ returns, his place of return is the Mount of Olives. Which certainly isn't in Rome. And just where is the new Vatican going to be built? I'm guessing the Western wall is one marker, followed by a strangely familiar-looking Temple...Let me guess the address: 666 Temple Avenue.

This is the height and depth of Replacement theology.

But maybe you can provide me with Scripture to back up your claims.

[marbren]

Thinking that Israel is Divine leads to worse

Israel is not divine. God's Word is divine.

[stfassisi]

So you not know the difference between Solo and Sola Scriptura?

Does this mean you're admitting metmom is in error,or do you believe Christ is not eternal also?

[metmom]

If all else fails, derail the thread.

[CynicalBear]

In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.

In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.

If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

You Catholics must be smarter then God or blasphemus.

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

The Rock certainly isn’t Peter there.

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

That tells me that the church is built on Christ.

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

Pretty clear there who the Rock was.

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."