|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 18:58:35 GMT
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. No, it's not "objectively wrong", I just associate selfie-taking with being a youth of a certain age for whom online life is "more real than life itself", and wants to take a picture "oh, wow, look, here I am at Auschwitz". I'd put that in a little different category than solemnly photographing or sketching the site of a great tragedy for one's own use or memorialization. I suppose I was raised in a time and place where anything you do --- talking too loudly, crinkling paper, invading inappropriate space --- was promptly met with disapproval by others, and you learned not to do it. And as far as readers and posters here, it is relatively rare for one's "immediate and present circumstances" to include sharing perspectives with people who are passionate about the Faith, and creating content that others who are seeking and searching might read and profit therefrom. When I write about something like this, I am thinking also of the random seeker who might say "wow... I never thought about selfies at sites of tragedy as being inappropriate... you know, that guy's right, I won't do that anymore".
And as was mentioned in another post, the ladies in rehab wanting to take pictures of themselves with a statue of St Jude, not a problem in the world with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Mar 20, 2021 22:22:46 GMT
It was an amusing mental gymnastic though, LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2021 23:26:12 GMT
It was an amusing mental gymnastic though, LOL That it was, but it is also the kind of thinking that we constantly need to sharpen among ourselves as Catholics.
The rest of the world would simply say "well, of course you have to tell, if you overhear (or are told, if you are the priest hearing the confession) something that indicates someone has done, or is about to do, something that will result in grave harm to someone else, especially if it involves the taking of someone's life, or the abuse of children or the weak". The larger society hates the concept of sacramentally privileged secrets about behavior that threatens the life or limb of others. To tell the truth, the natural man in me doesn't much like it either, but it is part of our Faith that anything you say in the confessional is privileged information, never to be divulged in any way by the priest. Counter-cultural, but then again, so is our Faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 21, 2021 3:01:54 GMT
It was an amusing mental gymnastic though, LOL That it was, but it is also the kind of thinking that we constantly need to sharpen among ourselves as Catholics.
The rest of the world would simply say "well, of course you have to tell, if you overhear (or are told, if you are the priest hearing the confession) something that indicates someone has done, or is about to do, something that will result in grave harm to someone else, especially if it involves the taking of someone's life, or the abuse of children or the weak". The larger society hates the concept of sacramentally privileged secrets about behavior that threatens the life or limb of others. To tell the truth, the natural man in me doesn't much like it either, but it is part of our Faith that anything you say in the confessional is privileged information, never to be divulged in any way by the priest. Counter-cultural, but then again, so is our Faith.
Indeed! Considering one’s own positions, sharpening the same positions, and questions the same positions are a worthwhile exercise. As pointed out, this is a forum to do so, which is unlike many posters/readers present and immediate circumstances. No person ‘has to do’ anything; persons only must understand they will incur the repercussions of their actions, or lack thereof. The concept of discussing one’s own faith, and the corresponding laws of the same faith, in a manner recognizing seekers and persons outside The Faith may be peering in seems quite a salient point and responsible approach. The questioning of sacramental privilege over already complete evil acts seems to differ from the questioning of sacramental privilege over uncompleted evil acts already set in motion. This seems to leave the following question: are the faithful, including readers/posters here, comfortable with The Faith legislating juridical action against those, lay or ordained, taking actions which contradict the particular legislation in such a situation? It seems to have been demonstrated at minimum two of the faithful/posters, inclusive of this particular poster, would be willing to act in such a way. How does this appear/read to seekers presently outside The Faith? Is this a misapplication of The Law? If not, ought this legislation be put to further scrutiny? |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 21, 2021 3:45:08 GMT
That it was, but it is also the kind of thinking that we constantly need to sharpen among ourselves as Catholics.
The rest of the world would simply say "well, of course you have to tell, if you overhear (or are told, if you are the priest hearing the confession) something that indicates someone has done, or is about to do, something that will result in grave harm to someone else, especially if it involves the taking of someone's life, or the abuse of children or the weak". The larger society hates the concept of sacramentally privileged secrets about behavior that threatens the life or limb of others. To tell the truth, the natural man in me doesn't much like it either, but it is part of our Faith that anything you say in the confessional is privileged information, never to be divulged in any way by the priest. Counter-cultural, but then again, so is our Faith.
Indeed! Considering one’s own positions, sharpening the same positions, and questions the same positions are a worthwhile exercise. As pointed out, this is a forum to do so, which is unlike many posters/readers present and immediate circumstances. No person ‘has to do’ anything; persons only must understand they will incur the repercussions of their actions, or lack thereof. The concept of discussing one’s own faith, and the corresponding laws of the same faith, in a manner recognizing seekers and persons outside The Faith may be peering in seems quite a salient point and responsible approach. The questioning of sacramental privilege over already complete evil acts seems to differ from the questioning of sacramental privilege over uncompleted evil acts already set in motion. This seems to leave the following question: are the faithful, including readers/posters here, comfortable with The Faith legislating juridical action against those, lay or ordained, taking actions which contradict the particular legislation in such a situation? It seems to have been demonstrated at minimum two of the faithful/posters, inclusive of this particular poster, would be willing to act in such a way. How does this appear/read to seekers presently outside The Faith? Is this a misapplication of The Law? If not, ought this legislation be put to further scrutiny? I'm not totally clear what you're getting at here, but I'll give it a try:
"Seekers and persons outside the Faith" need to understand that they are getting in on a conversation among faithful Catholics, who in this case are trying to solve a problem where (at least as I see it) there is a moral problem either way, more simply put, "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Now the question is, is it a sin for a layperson, for an exceedingly grave reason, to disclose something they overheard in a confession, "exceedingly grave reason" being something like murder or the abuse of a helpless person such as a child or an invalid? More to the point, is it a sin to disclose this to parties (such as the police or Social Services) who are in a position to do something about it? Obviously it is a sin for a priest, but what about a layperson who is not actually entrusted with hearing the confession --- they just heard it by accident, nobody intended for them to hear it. There are penalties to be sure, all the way up to interdict and/or excommunication, but are those just juridical, or is there sin involved? We may never sin, not even venially, for the gravest of reasons. So if it were a sin, our hands would be tied. But if the only consequences are juridical, temporal ones, then that is a horse of a different color. You say "ought this legislation be put to further scrutiny?". I think you can make a case for that --- something along the lines of "exceedingly grave reason", where there is well-nigh a moral obligation to "do the right thing" and disclose the information obtained sub rosa, dissolving the obligation to keep an overheard confession secret. In this country at least, some people, such as schoolteachers, are "mandated reporters" --- what if one of those "mandated reporters" is standing in line for confession, and hears a penitent say "I've been beating my child" or "I'm planning to abuse a child sexually"? Must that mandated reporter say "uh-oh, I heard what I heard, but it was a confession, and I saw the person go into the confessional, so I know who it was, but I can't call Social Services because it was a confession, and not some other kind of overheard conversation".
I have even wondered if the Church might create a new canon, something to the effect of "confession of any sins that are also grave crimes against the civil law, felonies and their equivalent, especially where they involve grave harm to an innocent person, constitutes an ipso facto repudiation by the penitent of the inviolable seal of the confessional", and have this made known in no uncertain terms to all the faithful, so that no one can claim ignorance of it.
|
|
