Apparently, if a man confesses to a priest that he has committed or will commit a murder, the priest is duty bound under the constraints of Catholic doctrine, to take that information to the grave.
Which begs the question:
What is the purpose of offering penance and forgiveness to someone who can escape taking actual responsibility for a crime, under the shield of confession? And if an innocent man goes to jail for the crime, while the "holy father" in the know keeps his lips sealed, is all still forgiven in the eyes of God?
Does anyone still have a question why so many people (including myself) can no longer reconcile their faith with their common sense and morality?
I live in a system of morality where I suffer consequences for my actions, in the here and now. But the Catholic religion puts your consequences off into a distant afterlife and offers absolution and forgiveness now, no matter how heinous the act.
It is a despicable permission under the guise of a higher morality and is one of the main reasons I chose to leave my faith behind me.
Barring the skies opening and a lightning bolt coming down, striking me and a booming voice saying" Wrong", all matters of faith have that human error factor built in. Kind of like that kids game where you wisper something to the person next to you in a circle and have it passed on until it comes back as something completely different. All religions suffer from this interperative variances. Man is not infallable. some things get lost in the translation, intentially or otherwise.
My bottom line is that I believe what I think and feel in my heart and mind is right.
Posted by: Texas Canuck | June 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I will comment (you probably knew I would, didn't you? ;-))
You are absolutely right about your view, if accurate, of the rules of confession. If Catholicism were truly representative of the church Christ founded, I probably would follow right after you out the door, but you need to know that following Christ doesn't have to mean leaving common sense (and your brain) at the door.
In my church (which I think is representative of most Evangelical Protestant churches) we practice confession to one another, since the Bible is pretty clear on the concept of the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9 being a good example). The purpose of this confession one to another (which is also prescribed in the Bible - James 5:16) is to encourage each other to stop doing those things that are wrong, and focus on doing good, and to encourage each other to take responsibility for one's actions. In other words, if my brother confesses to me a murder, I would advise him to immediately take responsibility for his actions, and explain that he will not be right before God until he does. You can't be absolved of your sin unless you truly repent (to use church jargon) - that means hating and despising your wrong behaviour, and making amends for it to the best of your ability.
It isn't about my consent or non-consent to silence, but it is about an all-knowing, holy, just God dealing with a child who refuses to take responsibility for his actions.
And yes, ultimately, I would report him if he didn't take it upon himself to report. But first I would work hard to encourage him to do it himself.
Texas Canuck, I'll just quickly comment on your last statement. The murderer probably thought and felt that he was right too. Internal feelings and thoughts are a very scary guide to morality when considered in a sociological light.
Posted by: Shane | June 18, 2009 at 03:25 PM
The idea of a human being empowered to extend forgiveness for the misdeed of another human on behalf of God certainly defies common sense when such practicalities as you described are observed, and is also contrary to Biblical teaching. The Christian religion, of course, was never meant to bear the responsibility to see to it that lawbreakers are punished in this mortal coil. That Islam does so is one of my biggest objections to that religion.
BTW, the very term "Holy Father" was never to be used to describe or address a human being.
Religion has always had a hard time trying to reconcile eternal judgement with our need for mortal law enforcement and justice, and most people today conflate the two as well.
I wonder how many murderers, rapists, etc., have escaped mortal punishment by confessing to a priest who is prohibited from disclosing the information. This troubles me as much as the wrongly punished who suffer because the priest cannot disclose the confession.
On the other hand, without the doctrine of priestly forgiveness through confession, as well as confessional confidentiality, there would be no such confessions in the first place.
Posted by: Monnie | June 18, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Sorry WW, but you and your commenters have it wrong:
First, a priest does not "forgive" sins; he has authority to ABSOLVE the temporal punishment due to sin. His authority to do so is found in Matthew 16:19. In hearing confessions the priest is at once both judge and healer, and constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honour of God and the salvation of souls.
Second, a priest is not concerned with civil justice - a highly imperfect and everchanging regime. Perfect justice will all come our way eventually, and his role is not to act as a police agent.
Third, the act of confessing does NOT mean that the sinner doesn't still have to account for his actions or make it right to other persons wronged by the sin, but these things are (rightly) beyond the scope of confession.
For the general edification of your readers, the actual rules surrounding confession are here:
"The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.
"An interpreter, if there is one, is also obliged to observe this secret, as are all others who in any way whatever have come to a knowledge of sins from a confession.
"The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.
"A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purpose of external governance, use knowledge about sins which has at any time come to him from the hearing of confession."
Posted by: Allan | June 19, 2009 at 08:32 AM
Hi WW. The rules of RC confession, as with most things RC, reflect political decisions made long ago, by fallible people, for reasons which no doubt seemed important at the time.
It doesn't fit well with the circumstances described in the link, which is why the priest there seems to be rules lawyering pretty fiercely.
I've never been an RC member, but like you, I decided the United Church of Canada wasn't getting it done for me.
A church more hip and with-it than thou one cannot find, and still not a lick of sense, to my mind anyway. To them the killer is a misunderstood yout'. He needs a nice government social program to fix him up.
Not my style. So, I just bumble along on my own, trying to behave and make sure I don't put out anything that's going to crush my dumb self coming back.
So far so good.
Posted by: The Phantom | June 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM