I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18009
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:00 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:Why don't you take a minute and work your way through a basic primer first? There's a lot out there on this. Otherwise, you're just going to summon Del.
Why not try to explain, addressing it to my specific point? Is my assumption off base?
tuttle wrote:As of now, my assumption is that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to divulge anything that was confessed, most likely (again, assuming) because once it is confessed the priest can pronounce forgiveness to the one confessing, thus divulging what was confessed more or less tramples upon said forgiveness offered(?) rendering a sacramental conflict: namely that the man left unforgiven/uncleansed (or was lied to/betrayed). Is that close to the mark?
Take it away, Hugo. :wink:






FWIW, I'm ready to jump-in, if my neurons jump-start.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:06 am

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:All I'm saying is that a priest should come forward to the proper authorities if a crime has been committed, a crime against both God's law and the State's. In this particular example, pedophilia within the Church. If a priest reveals in confession illegal acts to another priest/bishop, then I'm having a hard time distinguishing what wos said, that the choice between staying silent about it or revealing that information to the proper authorities is a 'false choice'. Seems to me the choice is simple, even if the implicated priest is deemed repentant. Again, I say this not being fully aware of how the Church has directed the priest in these matters.
And what wos is trying to say is that a priest cannot and will not divulge anything Confessed to him. It is a sacrament, after all.

i.e. there is no "choice" to make.
Ok. Thanks. If that's the case, I get it. Still doesn't change what I mentioned earlier. If the result of the silence is inaction, leaving the victim(s) to be on their own, then the silent priest is an accomplice. That's the same kind of thing that resulted in pesky prophets saying "Thus sayeth the LORD" to the priests who performed ritually perfect sacrifices but ignored justice.
Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. And the matter being settled, making haste, Jesus calleth back the scribes and the Pharisees and bid them to regather unto themselves their rocks and their pebbles. And opening his mouth, turning to the woman saying: Now, prepare thyself to be stoned.
wow. really? Jesus had harsher words for those in power over others and used that power for abuse. He called them a brood of vipers, who laid unnecessary burdens upon the backs of the people. He taught that if anyone causes a little one to sin it would be better for them to have a millstone flung around their neck and be done off mob style. He taught that if anyone has sinned against another, to leave the altar and go reconcile. You know, own up to the one you sinned against. A good priest who heard such a confession of the sin of pedophilia from another priest ought to remind his brother of such things, telling him plainly that he should step down from the ministry, and turn himself in, in order to best be reconciled to his victim(s). And for the protection of the flock (the shepherd imagery and titles ain't for nothin') he ought to warn him that if the disqualified priest doesn't do so, he will be forced to take action and turn him in, in order to protect the flock and other innocents.

Such an action is not the same as stoning a woman caught in adultery, an action of two sinners that is not the same dynamic as a predator/victim. It is simultaneously caring for your brother and looking out for the flock. And as I've said, the Church's reputation, not just from the perspective of the world, but the reputation even from within the Church itself, has been tarnished because of the coverups. If this was not an epidemic then perhaps your way would have some merit. But it is frankly not the case whatsoever. There are wolves who are masquerading as shepherds and they need to be killed (figuratively) by other shepherds. To keep silent about it and hope the sheep do something is the reason the Church has a problem in the first place. Shepherds kill wolves. Sheep need their protection, especially the lambs.
Everything you write has a certain validity. That is, except for the bolded text.
Indeed. I think tuttle might not understand the sacrament of confession, though. Take it away, Wosbald.
That very well could be the case. See my comment above to wos as I stumble through my assumption. I'll grant that I could be missing something that would make me pause and reconsider my position, but I'll also put out there that (right or wrong) I'm probably going to be a bit biased if someone tells me that their sacramental duty forbids them to help the abused victims the pass on the side of the road, even if it is not that common of an occurrence.
Why don't you take a minute and work your way through a basic primer first? There's a lot out there on this. Otherwise, you're just going to summon Del.
Why not try to explain, addressing it to my specific point? Is my assumption off base?
tuttle wrote:As of now, my assumption is that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to divulge anything that was confessed, most likely (again, assuming) because once it is confessed the priest can pronounce forgiveness to the one confessing, thus divulging what was confessed more or less tramples upon said forgiveness offered(?) rendering a sacramental conflict: namely that the man left unforgiven/uncleansed (or was lied to/betrayed). Is that close to the mark?
Because I don't speak for the Church and don't feel adequate to speak as an Apologist on the subject. Nothing is as simple as people want it to be and, rather than be lectured by a know-it-all, I think your mind (which really is first rate), once you get a good grasp, will realize that there are ways around the Seal without breaking it. Also, you've used some language, probably unintentionally, that kinda made me want to go all St. Nicholas on your beak, so I'm backing off for a minute. I like chatting with you and want to keep, hopefully, the feeling mutual.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:22 am

hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:
infidel wrote:[quote="tuttle"]All I'm saying is that a priest should come forward to the proper authorities if a crime has been committed, a crime against both God's law and the State's. In this particular example, pedophilia within the Church. If a priest reveals in confession illegal acts to another priest/bishop, then I'm having a hard time distinguishing what wos said, that the choice between staying silent about it or revealing that information to the proper authorities is a 'false choice'. Seems to me the choice is simple, even if the implicated priest is deemed repentant. Again, I say this not being fully aware of how the Church has directed the priest in these matters.
And what wos is trying to say is that a priest cannot and will not divulge anything Confessed to him. It is a sacrament, after all.

i.e. there is no "choice" to make.
Ok. Thanks. If that's the case, I get it. Still doesn't change what I mentioned earlier. If the result of the silence is inaction, leaving the victim(s) to be on their own, then the silent priest is an accomplice. That's the same kind of thing that resulted in pesky prophets saying "Thus sayeth the LORD" to the priests who performed ritually perfect sacrifices but ignored justice.
Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. And the matter being settled, making haste, Jesus calleth back the scribes and the Pharisees and bid them to regather unto themselves their rocks and their pebbles. And opening his mouth, turning to the woman saying: Now, prepare thyself to be stoned.
wow. really? Jesus had harsher words for those in power over others and used that power for abuse. He called them a brood of vipers, who laid unnecessary burdens upon the backs of the people. He taught that if anyone causes a little one to sin it would be better for them to have a millstone flung around their neck and be done off mob style. He taught that if anyone has sinned against another, to leave the altar and go reconcile. You know, own up to the one you sinned against. A good priest who heard such a confession of the sin of pedophilia from another priest ought to remind his brother of such things, telling him plainly that he should step down from the ministry, and turn himself in, in order to best be reconciled to his victim(s). And for the protection of the flock (the shepherd imagery and titles ain't for nothin') he ought to warn him that if the disqualified priest doesn't do so, he will be forced to take action and turn him in, in order to protect the flock and other innocents.

Such an action is not the same as stoning a woman caught in adultery, an action of two sinners that is not the same dynamic as a predator/victim. It is simultaneously caring for your brother and looking out for the flock. And as I've said, the Church's reputation, not just from the perspective of the world, but the reputation even from within the Church itself, has been tarnished because of the coverups. If this was not an epidemic then perhaps your way would have some merit. But it is frankly not the case whatsoever. There are wolves who are masquerading as shepherds and they need to be killed (figuratively) by other shepherds. To keep silent about it and hope the sheep do something is the reason the Church has a problem in the first place. Shepherds kill wolves. Sheep need their protection, especially the lambs.
Everything you write has a certain validity. That is, except for the bolded text.
Indeed. I think tuttle might not understand the sacrament of confession, though. Take it away, Wosbald.
That very well could be the case. See my comment above to wos as I stumble through my assumption. I'll grant that I could be missing something that would make me pause and reconsider my position, but I'll also put out there that (right or wrong) I'm probably going to be a bit biased if someone tells me that their sacramental duty forbids them to help the abused victims the pass on the side of the road, even if it is not that common of an occurrence.
Why don't you take a minute and work your way through a basic primer first? There's a lot out there on this. Otherwise, you're just going to summon Del.
Why not try to explain, addressing it to my specific point? Is my assumption off base?
tuttle wrote:As of now, my assumption is that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow priests to divulge anything that was confessed, most likely (again, assuming) because once it is confessed the priest can pronounce forgiveness to the one confessing, thus divulging what was confessed more or less tramples upon said forgiveness offered(?) rendering a sacramental conflict: namely that the man left unforgiven/uncleansed (or was lied to/betrayed). Is that close to the mark?
Because I don't speak for the Church and don't feel adequate to speak as an Apologist on the subject. Nothing is as simple as people want it to be and, rather than be lectured by a know-it-all, I think your mind (which really is first rate), once you get a good grasp, will realize that there are ways around the Seal without breaking it. Also, you've used some language, probably unintentionally, that kinda made me want to go all St. Nicholas on your beak, so I'm backing off for a minute. I like chatting with you and want to keep, hopefully, the feeling mutual.[/quote]

The feeling is absolutely mutual or otherwise I'd just ignore you fools. :D

But you do bring up exactly what I was trying to wrap my mind around. You say there are ways around the Seal without breaking it. That's what I was trying to figure out was possible. Wos seemed to indicate a priest contacting the authorities based on any kind of knowledge gained from his position during Confession was an absolute no no. I was just drawing a line from here to there, stretching it to see if it holds, and trying to figure out why it seems to break from my vantage point, while you all say it only bends. If you have any pointers I'd be grateful. I don't hate the Catholic Church, nor do I think her priests are de facto predators or predators in waiting, or any other sort of bad guy, etc. (Just wanted that out in the open in case it sounds otherwise)
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18009
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:34 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Wos seemed to indicate a priest contacting the authorities based on any kind of knowledge gained from his position during Confession was an absolute no no.
Tru dat.

Jesus ain't no fink. His Kingdom's not of this this world. Right?

OTOH, in regard to ways that priests might reconcile the absolute demands of the Seal with the relative demands of temporal affairs, Chesteron wrote some kind of story about that. I'm sure Del's got all the details.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:38 am

True, a priest can never divulge. But he doesn't have to absolve, either. He can also make conditions precedent to absolution.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32407
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:40 am

hugodrax wrote:True, a priest can never divulge. But he doesn't have to absolve, either. He can also make conditions precedent to absolution.
Is the priest legally compelled to report if he thinks a crime is imminent?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:00 am

UncleBob wrote:
hugodrax wrote:True, a priest can never divulge. But he doesn't have to absolve, either. He can also make conditions precedent to absolution.
Is the priest legally compelled to report if he thinks a crime is imminent?
No. But a Priest is a mandatory reporter unless the knowledge was obtained within the confessional.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18009
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:14 am

+JMJ+

It just struck me that the Confessional Seal is the true Safe-Space for which the university safe-space is merely an unfulfilled yearning.



Thanx, guys. This thread's hittin' pay dirt. :chili:




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:35 am

I found this which deals pretty much with the discussion at hand: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/12/04/ ... onfession/

It does clarify wos' position to me, and unfortunately it doesn't change my mind. I do feel immensely sorry for the good priest caught in such a position, though. There is a very real situation that could occur where the choice is either not protecting the most innocent of the flock or excommunication. I'm not at all saying I think such a situation is the norm...but this one small possibility seems rather like a gaping hole in the wall, and one that has no doubt contributed to (or perhaps, failed to curtail) the sad abuses that have occurred.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:00 pm

I'm glad you looked at it, sir. I think it helps not to have to absolutely rely on any of us as a source of information. Better to be a source of interpretation of the law than a source for the law itself.

Do you really think the confessional is the reason for the problem? Looks pretty simplistic as a reason to me. I don't view the idea of refusing to breach the confessional as the cause of what's happened, but rather the damned fool reactions of the parishes and dioceses.

Let's think for a moment. I'm a bishop, the priest confesses to me, and I send him to answer telephones for the Discalced Carnelites. That would be a choice. He'll never be seen again. Now I can't use this against him, right?

But then, people complain about him. His old parishioners begin to speak out. People don't keep silence about this stuff.

Now, I can cause an internal investigation without violating the seal of the confessional. I can turn over the complaint to the police and assist in the investigation with all my resources. The only thing I cannot do is use knowledge I gained in the confessional to harm the penitent. BUT that doesn't mean I can't testify to what I was told by the parishioners or give access to telephonic records or anything else.

But that wasnt what happened. Instead, I chose to move him to another parish, to ignore the first parishioners and to transfer the priest again when the second parishioners came forward. I decided to obfuscate any inquiries.

In that scenario, there's a special circle of hell for me with my name on it and it has nothing to do with the Seal of the Confessional.

That's my hope for "zero tolerance." Start investigations of every complaint. That alone is showing compassion to the victim. Reach out. Be open with the police. Let the secular arm have him. Don't betray him, mind, but don't shelter him, either.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 12020
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by tuttle » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:20 pm

hugodrax wrote:I'm glad you looked at it, sir. I think it helps not to have to absolutely rely on any of us as a source of information. Better to be a source of interpretation of the law than a source for the law itself.

Do you really think the confessional is the reason for the problem? Looks pretty simplistic as a reason to me. I don't view the idea of refusing to breach the confessional as the cause of what's happened, but rather the damned fool reactions of the parishes and dioceses.

Let's think for a moment. I'm a bishop, the priest confesses to me, and I send him to answer telephones for the Discalced Carnelites. That would be a choice. He'll never be seen again. Now I can't use this against him, right?

But then, people complain about him. His old parishioners begin to speak out. People don't keep silence about this stuff.

Now, I can cause an internal investigation without violating the seal of the confessional. I can turn over the complaint to the police and assist in the investigation with all my resources. The only thing I cannot do is use knowledge I gained in the confessional to harm the penitent. BUT that doesn't mean I can't testify to what I was told by the parishioners or give access to telephonic records or anything else.

But that wasnt what happened. Instead, I chose to move him to another parish, to ignore the first parishioners and to transfer the priest again when the second parishioners came forward. I decided to obfuscate any inquiries.

In that scenario, there's a special circle of hell for me with my name on it and it has nothing to do with the Seal of the Confessional.

That's my hope for "zero tolerance." Start investigations of every complaint. That alone is showing compassion to the victim. Reach out. Be open with the police. Let the secular arm have him. Don't betray him, mind, but don't shelter him, either.
I'm not saying I believed it was the cause or the reason, nor should my comments be taken to mean that I'm not on board with those in the RCC trying to do whatever they can to stop it (and I believe the majority of everyone in the RCC, priests included, want to see abuse stopped immediately) nor do I think an idea like zero tolerance is meaningless, etc.

I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32407
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by UncleBob » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:33 pm

hugodrax wrote:I'm glad you looked at it, sir. I think it helps not to have to absolutely rely on any of us as a source of information. Better to be a source of interpretation of the law than a source for the law itself.

Do you really think the confessional is the reason for the problem? Looks pretty simplistic as a reason to me. I don't view the idea of refusing to breach the confessional as the cause of what's happened, but rather the damned fool reactions of the parishes and dioceses.

Let's think for a moment. I'm a bishop, the priest confesses to me, and I send him to answer telephones for the Discalced Carnelites. That would be a choice. He'll never be seen again. Now I can't use this against him, right?

But then, people complain about him. His old parishioners begin to speak out. People don't keep silence about this stuff.

Now, I can cause an internal investigation without violating the seal of the confessional. I can turn over the complaint to the police and assist in the investigation with all my resources. The only thing I cannot do is use knowledge I gained in the confessional to harm the penitent. BUT that doesn't mean I can't testify to what I was told by the parishioners or give access to telephonic records or anything else.

But that wasnt what happened. Instead, I chose to move him to another parish, to ignore the first parishioners and to transfer the priest again when the second parishioners came forward. I decided to obfuscate any inquiries.

In that scenario, there's a special circle of hell for me with my name on it and it has nothing to do with the Seal of the Confessional.

That's my hope for "zero tolerance." Start investigations of every complaint. That alone is showing compassion to the victim. Reach out. Be open with the police. Let the secular arm have him. Don't betray him, mind, but don't shelter him, either.
That seems reasonable.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:48 pm

tuttle wrote:
hugodrax wrote:I'm glad you looked at it, sir. I think it helps not to have to absolutely rely on any of us as a source of information. Better to be a source of interpretation of the law than a source for the law itself.

Do you really think the confessional is the reason for the problem? Looks pretty simplistic as a reason to me. I don't view the idea of refusing to breach the confessional as the cause of what's happened, but rather the damned fool reactions of the parishes and dioceses.

Let's think for a moment. I'm a bishop, the priest confesses to me, and I send him to answer telephones for the Discalced Carnelites. That would be a choice. He'll never be seen again. Now I can't use this against him, right?

But then, people complain about him. His old parishioners begin to speak out. People don't keep silence about this stuff.

Now, I can cause an internal investigation without violating the seal of the confessional. I can turn over the complaint to the police and assist in the investigation with all my resources. The only thing I cannot do is use knowledge I gained in the confessional to harm the penitent. BUT that doesn't mean I can't testify to what I was told by the parishioners or give access to telephonic records or anything else.

But that wasnt what happened. Instead, I chose to move him to another parish, to ignore the first parishioners and to transfer the priest again when the second parishioners came forward. I decided to obfuscate any inquiries.

In that scenario, there's a special circle of hell for me with my name on it and it has nothing to do with the Seal of the Confessional.

That's my hope for "zero tolerance." Start investigations of every complaint. That alone is showing compassion to the victim. Reach out. Be open with the police. Let the secular arm have him. Don't betray him, mind, but don't shelter him, either.
I'm not saying I believed it was the cause or the reason, nor should my comments be taken to mean that I'm not on board with those in the RCC trying to do whatever they can to stop it (and I believe the majority of everyone in the RCC, priests included, want to see abuse stopped immediately) nor do I think an idea like zero tolerance is meaningless, etc.

I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Not at all. I struggle with the same thing.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6180
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by infidel » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:01 pm

There is entirely too much reasonableness and agreement in this thread.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18009
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:37 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:39 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35714
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by Del » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:13 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:Wos seemed to indicate a priest contacting the authorities based on any kind of knowledge gained from his position during Confession was an absolute no no.
Tru dat.

Jesus ain't no fink. His Kingdom's not of this this world. Right?

OTOH, in regard to ways that priests might reconcile the absolute demands of the Seal with the relative demands of temporal affairs, Chesteron wrote some kind of story about that. I'm sure Del's got all the details.
You might be thinking of this movie by Alfred Hitchcock:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Confess_(film)

Fr. Brown had a knack for persuading criminals to repent of their crimes, and sometimes to turn themselves in to the police. But if the criminal was a faithless atheist, he just might kill himself instead.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18009
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by wosbald » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:14 pm

+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWddZlEXzs




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14871
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by hugodrax » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:37 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
hugodrax wrote:
wosbald wrote:
tuttle wrote:I do, however, view it as a weak link. I view it as an opportunity for a shepherd to do his job (protect the flock) and the hierarchy of shepherds at one point in time had made a law (a good one!) that has unfortunately in this scenario tied his hands behind his back. I don't think it was the cause, I do think it was/is a hindrance that is antithetical (in this situation) to his job as a shepherd and I think the Scriptures adequately address situations like this; justice being overlooked on account of religious rules. I'll likely not back down on that stance so long as I'm not Roman Catholic, which shouldn't surprise anyone, but it probably means we are at a point that we can't go much farther beyond. For what it's worth, I can see from your pov why you'd think I might sound rather combustible :D
Why would anyone even go to a priest — indeed, what possible benefit could possibly be derived? — if the priest was nothing more than an arm of the worldly Powers, whether of the Church or the State? The priest must be Christ (in persona Christi/alter Christus). The priest must be He who can't be coopted or controlled by any earthly Power.

This goes to the heart of just what Sacramentalism is and why it can't compute to those whose raison d'être rejects this Sacramental faith.

The Confessional Seal is not a law made "at one point in time". It's Tradition and not tradition. Which is why the Powers can legislate vis-à-vis the Sacrament. For example, canon law could conceivably remove the prescription of excommunication (whether this would be prudent move or not is a secondary consideration). Or civil law could, in an anti-Catholic gambit, legislate that priests rat-out the privileged info of suspicious penitents. But neither can remove the fundamental Sacramental obligation of the Seal.
Well, yes. Of course, even. But poor tuttle. You just made his head explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWddZlEXzs
Ok. I definitely laughed.

I must, simply must meet you. Life is stern and life is earnest, but we live 90 miles apart. Find us a mutually acceptable pilgrimage. We'll tease some Lutherans on the way back, I promise.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
durangopipe
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Southwest Colorado

Re: I'm Starting to Like This Pope

Post by durangopipe » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:45 pm

hugodrax wrote:I'm glad you looked at it, sir. I think it helps not to have to absolutely rely on any of us as a source of information. Better to be a source of interpretation of the law than a source for the law itself.

Do you really think the confessional is the reason for the problem? Looks pretty simplistic as a reason to me. I don't view the idea of refusing to breach the confessional as the cause of what's happened, but rather the damned fool reactions of the parishes and dioceses.

Let's think for a moment. I'm a bishop, the priest confesses to me, and I send him to answer telephones for the Discalced Carnelites. That would be a choice. He'll never be seen again. Now I can't use this against him, right?

But then, people complain about him. His old parishioners begin to speak out. People don't keep silence about this stuff.

Now, I can cause an internal investigation without violating the seal of the confessional. I can turn over the complaint to the police and assist in the investigation with all my resources. The only thing I cannot do is use knowledge I gained in the confessional to harm the penitent. BUT that doesn't mean I can't testify to what I was told by the parishioners or give access to telephonic records or anything else.

But that wasnt what happened. Instead, I chose to move him to another parish, to ignore the first parishioners and to transfer the priest again when the second parishioners came forward. I decided to obfuscate any inquiries.

In that scenario, there's a special circle of hell for me with my name on it and it has nothing to do with the Seal of the Confessional.

That's my hope for "zero tolerance." Start investigations of every complaint. That alone is showing compassion to the victim. Reach out. Be open with the police. Let the secular arm have him. Don't betray him, mind, but don't shelter him, either.
This might be the best contribution to this ages old and also timely conversation I've ever read/heard. You humbly began by saying that you do not and cannot speak for the church, but you do speak as a devout Catholic who is also hugely well informed by your profession regarding the criminal justice system.

Thank you for taking the time to write this post, hugodrax.
The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.

J.R.R. Tolkien



Wherever we go in the world we find other men speaking the same language...dreaming the same dreams. And one of the big four - brownie, or brookie, cutthroat or rainbow - is the cause of it all.

Roderick Haig-Brown

Post Reply