Anyone know what this means?

[js_cat3391]

books.google.com/books?id=jGOwt7y0kTgC&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q&f=false

I came across this (link above) and was wondering if anyone new what “prejudicial to a third person”, meant?

“Let you confession be plain, entire, and prudent; neither obscuring your faults nor concealing any thing wilfully, nor saying what would be prejudicial to a third person”

Also, on the same page (225), a couple of sentences above, it says, “…there number, their enormity, &c.”

What does the “&c” mean?

 

[Softly]

The “&c” means “etcetera”.

 

[MarkThompson]

books.google.com/books?id=jGOwt7y0kTgC&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q&f=false

I came across this (link above) and was wondering if anyone new what “prejudicial to a third person”, meant?

“Let you confession be plain, entire, and prudent; neither obscuring your faults nor concealing any thing wilfully, nor saying what would be prejudicial to a third person”

It would mean “harmful to somebody else,” except to the extent necessary to make your own confession.
Right: I helped distract the storekeeper while somebody shoplifted candy.
Wrong: I helped distract the storekeeper while Tommy Burns shoplifted candy.
Edited to add: somehow I didn’t see (name removed by moderator)'s reply above before writing mine; funny that I should have come up with virtually the same thing. I will also remark, in case it wasn’t clear, that this use of the word “prejudicial” has nothing to do with the way it is used in phrases like “racial prejudice.”

Also, on the same page (225), a couple of sentences above, it says, “…there number, their enormity, &c.”

What does the “&c” mean?

As pointed out, it means “et cetera.” The ampersand ("&") is actually formed from smooshing together the letters “e” and “t” from the Latin word “et” (and). This is clearer in some fonts than others.

 

[js_cat3391]

Is sound like you are saying, it means identifying people by name such as “Jim Smith”, and/or by position such as “my brother” or “my father”, when doing so identifies them to the priest who might know Jim or who my know your brother or father, and you would in essence be revealing the sins of someone else to who the priest knows?

So it is not to reveal the identity and sins of someone the priest knows?

Vs.

Is it not to confess other people’s sin at all.

Vs.

Is it not to confess other peoples’ involvement in your sin.

 

[MarkThompson]

The idea, simply, is not to say something harmful to somebody else. It doesn’t have to be a sin; anything embarrassing or hurtful would fall under the heading of “prejudicial.”

 

[js_cat3391]

The idea, simply, is not to say something harmful to somebody else. It doesn’t have to be a sin; anything embarrassing or hurtful would fall under the heading of “prejudicial.”

Let’s say you had to confess being accessory to someone else’s sin, and the person happened to be a family member like your brother.

Is the fact that he is one’s blood relative something that should be mentioned? Like isn’t it worse to be an accessory to your own brother’s sin?

Or should you just say “someone.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Let’s say you had to confess being accessory to someone else’s sin, and the person happened to be a family member like your brother.

Is the fact that he is one’s blood relative something that should be mentioned? Like isn’t it worse to be an accessory to your own brother’s sin?

Or should you just say “someone.”

That is properly a question for the Moral Theology forum. My own view would be that if you think it makes the sin worse for it to have been your brother, then that would be a sufficient justification for saying so, unless the point can be equivalently conveyed by saying “a relative” or “one of my siblings” (if you have more than one).