|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 16, 2021 9:45:47 GMT
And that was precisely the point I was trying to make when I discussed this over on CAF. For some reason, they didn't like that.
They thought that confession needed to be some kind of "sinkhole" where the fundamental demands of justice and restitution didn't apply. Or maybe I just wasn't explaining it right.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 19, 2021 3:54:55 GMT
In regards to the hypothetical nursery school situation, days later this remains a numbing assertion...
Is The Church, who claims moral authority, willing to sacrifice the life, the most basic and fundamental human right, of others for the sake of sacramental form and discipline? If so, where does one turn for the justification of such a position/teaching/dogma?
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 19, 2021 17:11:46 GMT
Also, I might add, the priest always implored the person committing a criminal act to TURN THEMSELVES IN.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 1:20:17 GMT
Also, I might add, the priest always implored the person committing a criminal act to TURN THEMSELVES IN. I would advocate not just imploring, but telling the penitent that turning themselves in, is part of the restitution process (at least where the rights of another person have been violated), and without the resolution to make restitution, they are showing themselves as not willing to make amends for the sin. What good is confession where you still have the goods of the person from whom you stole, or worse yet, you have taken someone's life and not allowed their loved ones (and society in general) to know who did it, or if there is no body (I'm sorry, I know that's dark), where their loved one is?
And one other thing I am prompted to ask by an earlier reply --- precisely what kind of sin, if any, is involved if a person other than the confessor (especially if that person is a layman or laywoman) overhears the confession and reveals it? I know the seal of confession applies to them, but what happens if they break it (as in the case of a layperson hearing someone confess a murder) and go to the authorities, telling what they heard? They can't have faculties taken away --- they're laypeople, they don't have any faculties to take away in the first place. Could they be excommunicated? And what then? It looks to me that this would be a situation where there is a canon law in search of a penalty for someone having broken it.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 20, 2021 2:12:14 GMT
Laypersons may be placed under interdict, either ipso facto or by formal declaration of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. Somewhat interestingly clerics are permitted only to act upon formally declared interdicts even if they are fully aware a person has incurred ipso facto interdict (cases of which have been widely reported and speculated upon).
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 3:25:36 GMT
Laypersons may be placed under interdict, either ipso facto or by formal declaration of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. Somewhat interestingly clerics are permitted only to act upon formally declared interdicts even if they are fully aware a person has incurred ipso facto interdict (cases of which have been widely reported and speculated upon). Okay, so then the question would be "does an interdict have any consequences for one's salvation (or does it even involve so much as venial sin, which alone is to be avoided even if the destruction of the world were at hand), or is it merely a juridical penalty?".
If it were only the latter, then I think I could kneel (not stand) before Almighty God, and say "yes, I broke canon law, to save someone's life, or the lives of several persons who were at risk of dying a violent death, so if Your Church has to interdict me, so be it, I'm not a priest bound by confessional seal, I'd rather be interdicted, than to stay silent and have people die, hey, if I have to stay interdicted the rest of my life, I can live with that more easily than I could live with the alternative".
And there are very few people on the face of the earth, who would have any issue whatsoever with me.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 20, 2021 3:25:54 GMT
Also, I might add, the priest always implored the person committing a criminal act to TURN THEMSELVES IN. I would advocate not just imploring, but telling the penitent that turning themselves in, is part of the restitution process (at least where the rights of another person have been violated), and without the resolution to make restitution, they are showing themselves as not willing to make amends for the sin. What good is confession where you still have the goods of the person from whom you stole, or worse yet, you have taken someone's life and not allowed their loved ones (and society in general) to know who did it, or if there is no body (I'm sorry, I know that's dark), where their loved one is?
And one other thing I am prompted to ask by an earlier reply --- precisely what kind of sin, if any, is involved if a person other than the confessor (especially if that person is a layman or laywoman) overhears the confession and reveals it? I know the seal of confession applies to them, but what happens if they break it (as in the case of a layperson hearing someone confess a murder) and go to the authorities, telling what they heard? They can't have faculties taken away --- they're laypeople, they don't have any faculties to take away in the first place. Could they be excommunicated? And what then? It looks to me that this would be a situation where there is a canon law in search of a penalty for someone having broken it.
Any ideas?
More particularly...note section 2: Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict. §2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication. Section 2 covers the overhearing layperson. The ‘then what’ would be covered by a release from the penalty/censure/interdict by the competent authority through the ascribed procedure or the cessation of a penalty/censure/interdict proscribed for a certain amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 20, 2021 3:37:44 GMT
Laypersons may be placed under interdict, either ipso facto or by formal declaration of the appropriate ecclesiastical authority. Somewhat interestingly clerics are permitted only to act upon formally declared interdicts even if they are fully aware a person has incurred ipso facto interdict (cases of which have been widely reported and speculated upon). Okay, so then the question would be "does an interdict have any consequences for one's salvation (or does it even involve so much as venial sin, which alone is to be avoided even if the destruction of the world were at hand), or is it merely a juridical penalty?".
If it were only the latter, then I think I could kneel (not stand) before Almighty God, and say "yes, I broke canon law, to save someone's life, or the lives of several persons who were at risk of dying a violent death, so if Your Church has to interdict me, so be it, I'm not a priest bound by confessional seal, I'd rather be interdicted, than to stay silent and have people die, hey, if I have to stay interdicted the rest of my life, I can live with that more easily than I could live with the alternative".
And there are very few people on the face of the earth, who would have any issue whatsoever with me.
Apologies for the nearly simultaneous post. An interdict does not necessarily have salvific consequences. Excommunication does not necessarily mean one is guilty of mortal sin endangering one’s own salvation. Even if this is the case, one can make a ‘perfect act of contrition’ and thus have no need of sacramental confession. Interdicts can and have been imposed upon members of the faithful unjustly. Persons of good conscience can surely consider the exact case proposed; intervening in cases of potential death or grave injury. These persons may or may not be ordained. Clerics seem to incur excommunication for direct revelation and some ‘just penalty’ for indirect revelation. Reportedly the past two bishops of Rome have made a practice of imposing excommunication even in the case of indirect revelation. This would, generally speaking, prevent the clerics participating in ministerial sacramental roles. Eg...no presiding, no lectoring, no baptisms, no confessions, etc. Perhaps exceptions may be made in the case of danger of death...
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 4:07:50 GMT
Okay, so then the question would be "does an interdict have any consequences for one's salvation (or does it even involve so much as venial sin, which alone is to be avoided even if the destruction of the world were at hand), or is it merely a juridical penalty?".
If it were only the latter, then I think I could kneel (not stand) before Almighty God, and say "yes, I broke canon law, to save someone's life, or the lives of several persons who were at risk of dying a violent death, so if Your Church has to interdict me, so be it, I'm not a priest bound by confessional seal, I'd rather be interdicted, than to stay silent and have people die, hey, if I have to stay interdicted the rest of my life, I can live with that more easily than I could live with the alternative".
And there are very few people on the face of the earth, who would have any issue whatsoever with me.
Apologies for the nearly simultaneous post. An interdict does not necessarily have salvific consequences. Excommunication does not necessarily mean one is guilty of mortal sin endangering one’s own salvation. Even if this is the case, one can make a ‘perfect act of contrition’ and thus have no need of sacramental confession. Interdicts can and have been imposed upon members of the faithful unjustly. Persons of good conscience can surely consider the exact case proposed; intervening in cases of potential death or grave injury. These persons may or may not be ordained. Clerics seem to incur excommunication for direct revelation and some ‘just penalty’ for indirect revelation. Reportedly the past two bishops of Rome have made a practice of imposing excommunication even in the case of indirect revelation. This would, generally speaking, prevent the clerics participating in ministerial sacramental roles. Eg...no presiding, no lectoring, no baptisms, no confessions, etc. Perhaps exceptions may be made in the case of danger of death... And a layperson would not have the loss of such faculties to worry about.
To expand upon what I said above, and as I see, excommunication is always a possibility, I would then have to ask myself (sorry for the dark imagery) "okay, I just heard someone tell the priest in confession that they had a device that would blow up a crowded theater and kill everyone in it, do I tell law enforcement and get excommunicated, or do I keep my mouth shut, let it happen, and say 'that's a terrible tragedy, but at least I didn't break canon law, and I've still got my sacraments' "?
As anyone who reads my pathetic little chicken scratchings either here, or in other forums in which I have participated in the past (CAF et al), I am no fan of invoking "conscience" in the face of either the teaching magisterium, nor in the face of the Church's disciplinary authority --- as I always say, "conscience" can either be Newman's "aboriginal vicar of Christ", or she can be, to paraphrase Luther, "Frau Jezebel" --- but not being a priest, I could make the decision to break canon law, and have ecclesiastical penalties laid upon me, more easily than I could make the decision to let thousands die. And even though this is a ludicrous hypothetical --- who ever goes in a confessional and describes their plans to do such things? --- I think this present Pope would be more than happy to lift my excommunication, possibly with the admonition not to stand so close to the confessional anymore, when someone else is in there confessing.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 20, 2021 4:33:32 GMT
Apologies for the nearly simultaneous post. An interdict does not necessarily have salvific consequences. Excommunication does not necessarily mean one is guilty of mortal sin endangering one’s own salvation. Even if this is the case, one can make a ‘perfect act of contrition’ and thus have no need of sacramental confession. Interdicts can and have been imposed upon members of the faithful unjustly. Persons of good conscience can surely consider the exact case proposed; intervening in cases of potential death or grave injury. These persons may or may not be ordained. Clerics seem to incur excommunication for direct revelation and some ‘just penalty’ for indirect revelation. Reportedly the past two bishops of Rome have made a practice of imposing excommunication even in the case of indirect revelation. This would, generally speaking, prevent the clerics participating in ministerial sacramental roles. Eg...no presiding, no lectoring, no baptisms, no confessions, etc. Perhaps exceptions may be made in the case of danger of death... And a layperson would not have the loss of such faculties to worry about.
To expand upon what I said above, and as I see, excommunication is always a possibility, I would then have to ask myself (sorry for the dark imagery) "okay, I just heard someone tell the priest in confession that they had a device that would blow up a crowded theater and kill everyone in it, do I tell law enforcement and get excommunicated, or do I keep my mouth shut, let it happen, and say 'that's a terrible tragedy, but at least I didn't break canon law, and I've still got my sacraments' "?
As anyone who reads my pathetic little chicken scratchings either here, or in other forums in which I have participated in the past (CAF et al), I am no fan of invoking "conscience" in the face of either the teaching magisterium, nor in the face of the Church's disciplinary authority --- as I always say, "conscience" can either be Newman's "aboriginal vicar of Christ", or she can be, to paraphrase Luther, "Frau Jezebel" --- but not being a priest, I could make the decision to break canon law, and have ecclesiastical penalties laid upon me, more easily than I could make the decision to let thousands die. And even though this is a ludicrous hypothetical --- who ever goes in a confessional and describes their plans to do such things? --- I think this present Pope would be more than happy to lift my excommunication, possibly with the admonition not to stand so close to the confessional anymore, when someone else is in there confessing. Many of good conscience may agree here. Perhaps the local ordinary or other ecclesial authority would be perfectly happy to lift any penalty/censure/interdict. The idea of waiting to see the event on the evening news seems rather abhorrent. Perhaps it is not so ludicrous to think such a situation may arise, particularly with perpetrators intending to end their own life. It is also worth noting this ‘seal of the confessional’ continues after the death of this ‘penitent.’ So, seemingly: penitent may reveal an imminent, ongoing uncompleted evil act, end their own life, and all persons, cleric or lay, are prohibited from revealing this information.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 20, 2021 15:58:52 GMT
Here's the thing: Almost no one who commits a heinous crime rushes to a confessional. Such people are sociopaths. Not exactly faithful Christians practicing their faith. Many non-Catholics do go to confession and only disclose their faith affiliation much later in the process. My pastor (who is a canonist) says that the sins he hears are mostly the same ONE over and over again, and it's quite dull. Overhearing is to be avoided and embarrassing of course. But I doubt someone like a mass murderer seeks forgiveness in this way.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 16:03:04 GMT
And a layperson would not have the loss of such faculties to worry about.
To expand upon what I said above, and as I see, excommunication is always a possibility, I would then have to ask myself (sorry for the dark imagery) "okay, I just heard someone tell the priest in confession that they had a device that would blow up a crowded theater and kill everyone in it, do I tell law enforcement and get excommunicated, or do I keep my mouth shut, let it happen, and say 'that's a terrible tragedy, but at least I didn't break canon law, and I've still got my sacraments' "?
As anyone who reads my pathetic little chicken scratchings either here, or in other forums in which I have participated in the past (CAF et al), I am no fan of invoking "conscience" in the face of either the teaching magisterium, nor in the face of the Church's disciplinary authority --- as I always say, "conscience" can either be Newman's "aboriginal vicar of Christ", or she can be, to paraphrase Luther, "Frau Jezebel" --- but not being a priest, I could make the decision to break canon law, and have ecclesiastical penalties laid upon me, more easily than I could make the decision to let thousands die. And even though this is a ludicrous hypothetical --- who ever goes in a confessional and describes their plans to do such things? --- I think this present Pope would be more than happy to lift my excommunication, possibly with the admonition not to stand so close to the confessional anymore, when someone else is in there confessing. Many of good conscience may agree here. Perhaps the local ordinary or other ecclesial authority would be perfectly happy to lift any penalty/censure/interdict. The idea of waiting to see the event on the evening news seems rather abhorrent. Perhaps it is not so ludicrous to think such a situation may arise, particularly with perpetrators intending to end their own life. It is also worth noting this ‘seal of the confessional’ continues after the death of this ‘penitent.’ So, seemingly: penitent may reveal an imminent, ongoing uncompleted evil act, end their own life, and all persons, cleric or lay, are prohibited from revealing this information. And one other thing that comes to bear here (and which we are presently discussing in another thread) --- why are penitents (and sometimes even priests) speaking so loudly that they can be heard in the first place? Have people never heard of such a thing as one's "indoor voice"?
I may just be interpreting this too malignantly, but it seems that so many people today are extremely obtuse and "solipsated" (if I have to coin a word) when it comes to speech, and do not comprehend such things as being too loud, having their speech to be annoying to others, or speaking in inappropriate circumstances. You need look no further than the horribly ugly habit of people who chatter incessantly on smartphones in public places, especially enclosed spaces such as grocery stores and other retailers. It is as though they want to be anyplace else other than where they actually are, and that nothing in their immediate presence could possibly be as important as that precious telephone call. Does no one ever live in the present moment, in their immediate circumstances anymore? Could everyone always be so pressed for time, that they have to keep a constant stream of business going on while they're going about tasks such as grocery shopping or filling their cars up with gas? I call kudos upon those places of business --- I once visited a sandwich shop where they did this --- that require you to get off your smartphone while you're placing an order.
And then there are all the people who feel like they have to take "selfies" in every conceivable circumstance. Selfies at Auschwitz? Really? Yet people do it. I am entirely confident that if the Second Coming were to take place today, as He returns in clouds of glory, you would have many, many people taking selfies! Callow and trivial beyond words.
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 20, 2021 16:13:19 GMT
I have no idea, but as a former Catholic school teacher a choir Director and RCIA instructor. I can tell you it's very hard to turn off that "speaking in public " voice. Priests have it becuase of their job, and likely do not realize they are being loud. Many times the faithful call the office or approach the priest and bitterly complain that they can't make out what the priest says. Not really offering this as an excuse, but it kind of come with the job.
And to another point, I get what you are saying, the whole selfie phenomenon is over the top most of the time. But I do recall we hosted a group of women who had been in a halfway house for women of questionable integrity run by another denomination. They did a presentation at the parish of a play they wrote themselves about conversion. They noticed the large statue of St Jude, asked who he was, heard the story and immediately asked if they could get a picture with "him". Seems they wanted to show their family and friends that they had turned a corner in their lives, and their little church had nothing of a "holy" nature in their church. They were agog at the many spiritual and sacred images we take for granted. Was actually quite moving to see. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 20, 2021 18:33:21 GMT
Many of good conscience may agree here. Perhaps the local ordinary or other ecclesial authority would be perfectly happy to lift any penalty/censure/interdict. The idea of waiting to see the event on the evening news seems rather abhorrent. Perhaps it is not so ludicrous to think such a situation may arise, particularly with perpetrators intending to end their own life. It is also worth noting this ‘seal of the confessional’ continues after the death of this ‘penitent.’ So, seemingly: penitent may reveal an imminent, ongoing uncompleted evil act, end their own life, and all persons, cleric or lay, are prohibited from revealing this information. And one other thing that comes to bear here (and which we are presently discussing in another thread) --- why are penitents (and sometimes even priests) speaking so loudly that they can be heard in the first place? Have people never heard of such a thing as one's "indoor voice"?
I may just be interpreting this too malignantly, but it seems that so many people today are extremely obtuse and "solipsated" (if I have to coin a word) when it comes to speech, and do not comprehend such things as being too loud, having their speech to be annoying to others, or speaking in inappropriate circumstances. You need look no further than the horribly ugly habit of people who chatter incessantly on smartphones in public places, especially enclosed spaces such as grocery stores and other retailers. It is as though they want to be anyplace else other than where they actually are, and that nothing in their immediate presence could possibly be as important as that precious telephone call. Does no one ever live in the present moment, in their immediate circumstances anymore? Could everyone always be so pressed for time, that they have to keep a constant stream of business going on while they're going about tasks such as grocery shopping or filling their cars up with gas? I call kudos upon those places of business --- I once visited a sandwich shop where they did this --- that require you to get off your smartphone while you're placing an order.
And then there are all the people who feel like they have to take "selfies" in every conceivable circumstance. Selfies at Auschwitz? Really? Yet people do it. I am entirely confident that if the Second Coming were to take place today, as He returns in clouds of glory, you would have many, many people taking selfies! Callow and trivial beyond words.
The ability to engage beyond ones own immediate and present circumstance has become easier and more widespread through the amplification of technology. In different times one could do so through, smoke signals, the tolling of bells, the use of shouting towers and criers, viewing artwork, writing and receiving letters, reading books, sending/receiving telegrams, reading newspapers, talking on the telephone, watching television, etc. Some person have the ability to use these in a potentially socially annoying ways. Some people feel free to loudly crinkle and work through newspapers in quite settings, some spread their newspapers into others personal space, some talk loudly in conversation, some speak loudly on the phone. Disinterested adolescents have been known to read books during family outings/dinners. Some are happy to answer the phone or text away during an in-person conversation A shocking revelation is to see a group of young persons only engaging with each other to show others what they have been viewing on their phone. It may be worth noting readers and posters here have turned their attention from immediate and present circumstances to engage with an ‘online discussion.’ The case of the sandwich shop does not necessarily seem to be an indictment of the particular technology, but perhaps an effort to recognize the personhood of those providing the service. Taking selfie’s at Auschwitz seems rather distasteful; is it objectively wrong? Is the objection to photographing at all or does the objection hinge on the photographer’s presence in the same photo? Does the disposition of the person in the photograph contribute to the objectionable nature of such a photograph? Solemn places such as Auschwitz, cemeteries, battlefields, etc have long been photographed, sketches, or painted. Would the presence of an artists own image in a sketch or painting also be objectionable? The ability for a photographer to be in the same photo has been made easier without the necessity to set up a free standing camera with a timer.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 18:48:41 GMT
Here's the thing: Almost no one who commits a heinous crime rushes to a confessional. Such people are sociopaths. Not exactly faithful Christians practicing their faith. Many non-Catholics do go to confession and only disclose their faith affiliation much later in the process. My pastor (who is a canonist) says that the sins he hears are mostly the same ONE over and over again, and it's quite dull. Overhearing is to be avoided and embarrassing of course. But I doubt someone like a mass murderer seeks forgiveness in this way. These days, when very few people go to confession --- have people quit sinning, or what? --- yet practically everybody goes to communion (at least in Anglo culture, I have noticed at Spanish Masses that only about half of the people go to communion, maybe they have a sharper sense of sin, and if so, good for them!), I have to think that confession is actually frequented by those who don't really have all that much to confess, IOW, saints in the making who are seeking even greater sanctity. In those cases, it would indeed be like what the priest said about hearing nuns' confessions, "like being stoned to death with popcorn".
Quite right, it borders on a ludicrous hypothetical, to think that you're going to be standing in the confessional line at Saint Expedite's at 3 pm on a Saturday afternoon and hear a sociopath talking about his plans (or, God forbid, the completed deed) to commit mass murder and mayhem. Just doesn't happen.
|
|