<p>I understand wanting to know about the rationale for confession as it is practiced by Catholics. I have no problem with asking for clarification about many aspects of this practice. I find much of this to be interesting as well as educational.</p>
<p>But now it seems as if we are getting to the point of asking Catholics to defend this practice and almost arguing that they are “wrong.” I have a problem with that and will probably give up on the thread if it becomes a Catholic bashing thread or an “I don’t need to do this so you shouldn’t either” debate.</p>
<p>Regarding the secular protection of confession under the law, I believe the law protects a variety of religious practices in our society. </p>
<p>My understanding is that the “seal of the confessional” , in law, applies to any religious counseling- let’s say between a Protestant and their minister or a Muslim and their imam, not just Catholics and their priests. </p>
<p>Further- the law would protect such things as serving alcohol to minors, as many Christian traditions do, using the feathers of endangered species, as Native Americans do, the sanctity of burial, etc. </p>
<p>I’m not sure anyone would want to go down a path of trying to regulate what religious practices and traditions are allowed- that would be un-Constitutional. </p>
<p>And I’m with Nrdsb4- we don’t need to go down the “my religion is better than your religion” path here.</p>
<p>Haven’t read the whole thread, so don’t know if this has been said already, but here are some places where forgiveness of sins/confession/reconciliation are mentioned in the Bible</p>
<p>2 Corinthians 5:18-20
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting peoples sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christs ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christs behalf: Be reconciled to God. </p>
<p>James 5:14-16
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. </p>
<p>I John 1: 8-9
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.</p>
<p>BalconyBoy (and curious others), No there is not specific biblical institution of the sacarament of Penance/Reconciliation/Confession (variously called, in the Catholic Church). There is specific allusion to confession made by Jesus in the statement, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven,” etc., but in early Christianity there was no formal practice of a rite of penitential confession (as opposed to the sense of “confession” as a profession of faith). The rite/sacrament was adopted later, but considered having been implied by Jesus in those words just quoted above from the Gospel of John (and merely being formalized later). Originally (once it became a practice) very serious sins were confessed publicly and a period of public penance enforced. :eek:</p>
<p>What Baelor is referring to, in reference to the Holy Spirit, is the belief by Catholics that, through apostolic succession, the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in the forgiveness of sins, and in the direction of the Church) was promised by Jesus to the apostles and their successors (church governance through the eras). Thus, while not originally biblical in form, the same divine permission/support for such form existed when instituted, and still exists.</p>
<p>I have never heard of an identical level of confidentiality in any other religious environment. I have heard of confidentiality in the looser sense I used it much earlier on this thread, – applying equally to “normally confidential” conversations in religious counseling (any religion). But that normalcy is void once imminent danger becomes at issue. Since such a situation would be rare, then for all intents and purposes, spiritual counseling in religious environments (including Spiritual Direction in Catholicism, outside of Confession) remains confidential. But theoretically speaking, that level of confidentiality is relative, whereas the Catholic Seal of the Confessional is absolute (and, as far as I know, unique).</p>
<p>I love this thread! Okay, so I have two questions. Can priests be married? If so, hypothetically, a man makes a confession of kidnapping and planning to kill a local girl named Rachel. He goes into several details about the location where he is keeping her. The priest goes home that night and discovers his daughter has been kidnapped–and her name is Rachel. Of course, he would report it to the police. If they had no leads, however, would he be able to discuss the man’s confession with the police?</p>
<p>(1) No, priests cannot marry at present. Anglican priests have been accepted into the Catholic priesthood and are allowed to keep their wives and families, however. (Major inequity which I think the Church will have to address later if not sooner.) It is speculated that if the discipline of priestly celibacy is ever relaxed (for example, made optional for diocesan Catholic priests), it will become an optional decision before ordination, not after. Priests who are in religious orders take permanent religious vows which bind them to chastity; therefore release from celibacy<a href=“the%20single,%20chaste%20life”>/u</a> could never be an option for vowed priests.</p>
<p>(2) No, not even for the safety of one’s own immeidate family can the Seal of Confession be broken. There are no exceptions. Again, as I said earlier on this thread, should the penitent later approach him and disclose how troubled he still felt, a wise priest would counsel the penitent to reconcile with the civil authorities for the perp’s own peace of mind, but the priest could not require the person to do so, because that would be requiring the penitent to break the seal.</p>
<p>If such a criminal/penitent were to make a separate appointment with the priest to disclose similar or identical information out of confession that he also disclosed in confession, the extra-confessional conversation could be, yes, shared with authorities, to the limit disclosed and no further. </p>
<p>In the movie I Confess, the criminal who confessed keeps approaching the priest, after the confession, to follow him and make sure he is not divulging anything. The criminal makes references to the priest remaining silent, etc., but does not re-confess the crime to Montgomery Clift’s character in this outside environment. Therefore, the priest in the movie remains bound.</p>
<p>The Anglican church has a rite of confession. The “Seal” is there too and it can be private (aka screened). I am not sure, but probably any baptised Christian would be welcome. It is rather rare - might be hard to find a church that offers it. Look for ‘Anglo-Catholic’ churches.</p>
<p>Not a Catholic expert, but I think the wild query posted in post 152 could be stretched to be considered if, for example, a widower with a child then became a priest.
I think then, there would be no church conflicts with the example.</p>
<p>^ I don’t think that is a big stretch at all. And I would be extremely suprised and amazed if he didn’t the the authorities what he knew. And apparently there are always exceptions!</p>
<p>In the Roman Catholic rite, the example you mention would be an impediment if the child were still a minor. The paternal responsibliity would be an encumbrance which would eliminate his qualification for the priesthood, which is burdensome and requires, to say the least, undistracted attention. The children have to be considered truly independent and not requiring his oversight. The major practical aspect of celibacy is to free the priest to devote his attention to the entire people of God, who become, for all intents and purposes, his family. There is a spiritual/theological dimension to this which would carry the thread further off to go into at present.</p>
<p>Note, of course, that his previous non-celibate state would not in any way reduce his requirement to embrace now the celibate state, which he would, yes, be allowed to step into if his children were self-sufficient. If you have a dependent of any kind (including an elder dependent) you are not a fit candidate for the spiritual and practical requirements of religious life or clerical life, male or female.</p>
<p>Okay BB. Let’s question the validity of that post. Since it contained only statements describing what the Church believes, any invalidity must be due exclusively to statements about Church belief that conflict with Church belief. What would those be? Enlighten us.</p>
<p>^ This from a person whose statements about Catholicism on this thread are largely conjectures. Versus my statements, which are based on being both a cradle Catholic and trained in theology.</p>
<p>Here is the source, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.</p>
<p>By the way, lingering responsbilties also include financial responsibilities. One cannot enter a monastery, seminary, or convent to avoid paying debts, nor bring signficant debt with him or her. Not everything and every circumstance (marital, parental, family, financial) will be spelled out publicly, but in addition to the above document, I also know from experience that Superiors of an order or seminary use their discretion when accepting into formation individuals with prior family responsibilities, and the practice is to disallow anyone with conflicting responsibilities. Roman Catholicism very much differs from other religions in this regard. You would be able, naturally, to maintain normal relationships with your blood relatives (just as celibate priests retain ties with immediate and extended families, routinely and frequently communicating & visiting, etc.).</p>