Boston Legal

[pnewton]

It is being challenged in Ireland - of all the places. Isn’t life ironic?

Understand the challenge is just in the civil law, not the Church. Nothing can come of such a challenge except for imprisoning priests and restricting free exercise of religion. Persecution is nothing new to the Church. Tyrants of all types have done it for centuries. You do not have to believe this at all. You are not a Catholic and more to the point, not a priest. However, you have no right to challenge the faith of another, especially one that is millennia older than you. At the end of the day, that is what is at stake here. Do people have the legal right to believe in God and practice their faith, or do they have to practice a faith that conforms to the majority?

Your challenge is a direct challenge to the First Amendment and basic human rights. The best accolade I can give for this thread is that it does show the price of conscience can be high. I cannot fault the question. It does make one think.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Proof of Heaven and Hell? Is this a joke?

Not exactly. Though it would be nice to have a proof of heaven and hell, but the question was different. It was about the claim that breaking the seal of confession will put the confessor’s soul into hell. I don’t see any proof or evidence for that.

You miss the point. The priest has a job of getting souls to Heaven. As important as protecting the innocent is, it pales in comparison to the greater task.

The priest CANNOT get any soul into heaven. It is way above his “pay-grade”. And protecting the criminals and criminals-to-be cannot save them anyhow. All it does is to encourage them to commit crime AND confess, knowing that the confessor’s hands are tied.

All you did here is to express your value-system - which is fine, of course. In our secular societies the protection of the victims is MUCH MORE important than the nebulous “protect the penitent, even if he expresses to commit the crime in the future”. In my - definitely biased - opinion to protect the penitent at the expense of the victim is a very twisted view of “morality”. Protect the innocent trumps protecting the guilty any day of the week… at least in my opinion - which is shared by most of rational people.

 

[Wesrock]

Wait, do you think the priest would grant absolution just because someone came to confession? The priest can choose to withhold absolution.

The priest’s job IS to shepherd people to attain heaven. He can’t make it happen, but that is his job.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is unique. The sanctity of it is paramount. It only works (not in terms of whether God acts or not, but as a practice) if what is said in Confession is inviolate. The system falls apart if it isn’t. And people essentially wouldn’t use it for grave matters to begin with if it wasn’t inviolate, meaning it’s not like this situation would ever really come up if the priest could give out the information. It’s not like this would still happen (a rational criminal telling a priest about an active crime because he knows the priest cannot say anything) if the seal of confession weren’t inviolate. You remove the seal, and the criminal just won’t tell the priest to begin with.

What goes on I’m the confessional is not a service. It’s literally an act of God.

 

[e_c]

That Confession is of divine origin is dogma; it cannot be changed.

The Seal, however, is not; it’s a discipline, and it CAN be changed or lifted, or even repealed. It is, however, one of our strictest laws. It will NOT be changed, whether for this or anything else.

“Dogma” is a word with a very specific meaning. What is going on here is rather doctrine that produces an inescapable conclusion in morals.

Unless the nature of the Sacrament of Penance changes, then violating the seal profanes the Sacrament. Violating the seal is a grave sacrilege in itself, for this reason. So no, it can’t “change” as you are suggesting. It could be dropped from canon law, but it remains a Divine Law which will be held to those who violate it.

 

[pnewton]

Not exactly. Though it would be nice to have a proof of heaven and hell, but the question was different. It was about the claim that breaking the seal of confession will put the confessor’s soul into hell. I don’t see any proof or evidence for that.

Protect the innocent trumps protecting the guilty any day of the week… at least in my opinion - which is shared by most of rational people.

Let me clarify. I was not referring to the soul of the priest, but that of the penitent. Forgiveness of sins is not above his pay grade. And no, I do not think protecting the temporal life of the innocent “trumps” protecting the immortal soul of even the vilest of sinner. I believe this to also be the divine view.

Now, does absolution guarantee Heaven? Absolutely not. However, the seal of confession likewise does not doom the life of the innocent. The priest’s job is to forgive the penitent. The police’s job is to protect the crime victim.

I just looked up a little info on Boston Legal. Apparently the Catholic Church was one of their punching bags. They even represented a woman who sued the Church because she can not be a priest. I think it time to let this go and let the fantasy world answer its own questions. I do not blame anti-Catholics for being anti-Catholics, but no law or court action will ever save a child. It will only persecute the holiest of men. In this day of liberal hypocrisy, I should have seen this earlier. I would suggest if there are any more questions, just read Dan Brown. A fictional answer is best for fictional questions.

 

[Corki]

That Confession is of divine origin is dogma; it cannot be changed.

The Seal, however, is not; it’s a discipline, and it CAN be changed or lifted, or even repealed. It is, however, one of our strictest laws. It will NOT be changed, whether for this or anything else.

The Seal, I believe, would be considered doctrine rather than a discipline. The penalty for breaking the seal is a discipline.

 

[pnewton]

The Seal, I believe, would be considered doctrine rather than a discipline. The penalty for breaking the seal is a discipline.

Reconciliation started as a public affair for the penitent.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let me clarify. I was not referring to the soul of the priest, but that of the penitent.

I don’t understand. If the confessor breaks the seal, how does that put the penitent’s soul into jeopardy?

Forgiveness of sins is not above his pay grade. And no, I do not think protecting the temporal life of the innocent “trumps” protecting the immortal soul of even the vilest of sinner. I believe this to also be the divine view.

We have absolutely NO information about the “divine view”. We only have information about the actual state of affairs, which goes like this:

1. Confessor hears from the penitent that he already committed a kidnapping.
2. Confessor is aware of the location where the victim is being held.
3. Confessor also knows that no rape and no murder has happened YET.
4. Maybe penitent does not even seek absolution, only wants to share his act with the confessor for some sick reason. Or maybe he does, it does not matter.

Now you tell me that prevention of rape and murder does not trump the “sanctity” of the confessional?

By the way, I also heard that it is not the confessor who gives the absolution, it is God, who uses the confessor as his “tool”. And if the confessor gives out information about the hiding place of the penitent, how does that act invalidate the “absolution” previously given?

I just looked up a little info on Boston Legal. Apparently the Catholic Church was one of their punching bags.

During the 100 episodes they had a lot of “punching bags”. They liked to present controversial cases - no doubt because they are more interesting than the everyday, ho-hum problems. But the cases all come from real life, condensed into 40 minute scenarios. The question I presented does not originate from the TV series. It is a real life question.

Sorry for the delayed post. I wish the original would have been left in the proper forum.

 

[ShanPO]

This reply deserves not contempt, but admiration for its honesty. That being said, I have a few comments to make.

First, there is no indication that the practice of confession is anything but a human concoction. It is a human invention, and its artificial rules. But that could be accepted, except for the following reasons.

If someone committed (past tense!) a deed, goes to a priest, repents and asks for absolution, the seal of confessional COULD be defended. Not really, because it prevents closure for the relatives of the victim (if there are any). But if someone confesses to an ONGOING set of acts, or - even worse - admits that he intends to commit an act in the FUTURE, then the “seal” is simply criminal. It is aiding and abetting a crime.

You said: “If that sounds cold to you, then so be it.” Well its not just “cold”, it is unloving. There is the penitent and there is the victim. To put the penitent ahead the victim is definitely NOT a loving act.

Yes, we - who have compassion - do get emotional about it. What is wrong with emotions? Emotion is the first step toward love.

I’ve said this before in this thread, and I’ll repeat it. You don’t understand much about the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Future sins aren’t forgiven, and technically, they can’t be. And if someone confesses to something that’s ongoing, and has no plans on stopping, those sins aren’t forgiven. The priest will try his best to get that person to stop those actions, so that true redemption can take place.

Consider a man who cheats on his wife. He goes to confession and tells the priest that he’s been having an affair and that he has no plans on stopping. The priest will tell him he can’t absolve those sins until he stops the behavior. So maybe he decides to stop cheating and goes to confession and truly repents. Great, but he asks the priest, “Hey, maybe in a few years I’ma meet a sweet young thang and then well…ya know, can I get a little absolution for that?” No, because the priest doesn’t know if it’s going to happen, nor does our turd blossom husband.

I would also argue that emotion is not the first step towards love. Fear is an emotion, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side. That’s why we have to keep emotions in check when discussing things like this. Of course no one here wants harm to come to a child, but we’re thinking about things on a different plane. The eternal reward of a human being means more to us than the temporal situation we currently find ourselves in.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t understand. If the confessor breaks the seal, how does that put the penitent’s soul into jeopardy?

Simple. If confessional privacy was not 100% many would not seek forgiveness of sin in this Sacrament.

We have absolutely NO information about the “divine view”.

Do not include me in this. This is your error and it is foundation. If you know nothing of God and what he is like, then this topic would be like trying to discuss calculus upon completion of addition and subtraction, but before one learned of multiplication.

It is a real life question.

Sorry for the delayed post. I wish the original would have been left in the proper forum.

It is not real life. It was a television drama. That is why we are discussing this “As seen on TV,” as opposed to a news story. Active criminals do not stop by the confessional, then go off to finish their crime, leaving police enough information to jack up the priest, yet nothing else to go on if the priest doesn’t help.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I’ve said this before in this thread, and I’ll repeat it. You don’t understand much about the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

This thread is NOT about any sacrament. It is about the procedure which does not allow the confessor to help to PREVENT a crime.

Of course no one here wants harm to come to a child…

You do not care ENOUGH to prevent it, even if you can.

The eternal reward of a human being means more to us than the temporal situation we currently find ourselves in.

Especially if it is someone else who suffers here.

Simple. If confessional privacy was not 100% many would not seek forgiveness of sin in this Sacrament.

Do you mean that IF it became widely known that the confessor broke the seal, THEN others MIGHT not seek absolution? But why should it become public knowledge? The confessor could send an anonymous tip to the police saying: “look at this address and you will find the kidnapped victim”.

Do not include me in this. This is your error and it is foundation.

If you believe that you are privy to God’s thoughts, then you are mistaken. No one can claim that they “know” God’s thoughts.

It is not real life. It was a television drama.

And like many other episodes, it is based on real life. But enough of this. I presented the dilemma in my previous post. I will repeat it here:

1. Confessor hears from the penitent that he already committed a kidnapping.
2. Confessor is aware of the location where the victim is being held.
3. Confessor also knows that no rape and no murder has happened YET.
4. Maybe penitent does not even seek absolution, only wants to share his act with the confessor for some sick reason. Or maybe he does, it does not matter.

Now you tell me that prevention of rape and murder does not trump the “sanctity” of the confessional?

 

[ShanPO]

This thread is NOT about any sacrament. It is about the procedure which does not allow the confessor to help to PREVENT a crime.

You do not care ENOUGH to prevent it, even if you can.

Especially if it is someone else who suffers here.

Do you mean that IF it became widely known that the confessor broke the seal, THEN others MIGHT not seek absolution? But why should it become public knowledge? The confessor could send an anonymous tip to the police saying: “look at this address and you will find the kidnapped victim”.

If you believe that you are privy to God’s thoughts, then you are mistaken. No one can claim that they “know” God’s thoughts.

And like many other episodes, it is based on real life. But enough of this. I presented the dilemma in my previous post. I will repeat it here:

1. Confessor hears from the penitent that he already committed a kidnapping.
2. Confessor is aware of the location where the victim is being held.
3. Confessor also knows that no rape and no murder has happened YET.
4. Maybe penitent does not even seek absolution, only wants to share his act with the confessor for some sick reason. Or maybe he does, it does not matter.

Now you tell me that prevention of rape and murder does not trump the “sanctity” of the confessional?

The fact that you create a post about the Sacrament of Reconciliation and then say the thread isn’t about a sacrament shows your ignorance of what takes place. I’m done here.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that you create a post about the Sacrament of Reconciliation and then say the thread isn’t about a sacrament shows your ignorance of what takes place. I’m done here.

That was my thought. Every argument ends with a circular denial of our faith. The answer to the original quote is found in intellectual honesty.

 

[pnewton]

And like many other episodes, it is based on real life. But enough of this.

Then link the news story where this happened. Enough fantasy.

You do not care ENOUGH to prevent it, even if you can.

I don’t care at all what happens to that child, or any other fictional character. It is fiction!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Then link the news story where this happened. Enough fantasy.

“War and peace” is fantasy. “Crime and punishment” is fantasy. Most of the Bible is “fantasy”. We can learn more from fantasy, then from real life. It is called “thought experiment”.

I don’t care at all what happens to that child, or any other fictional character. It is fiction!

Based upon your attitude I doubt that you would care about that child even if you were the confessor. I suspect your objection will be: “But I am not the confessor, so it is just fantasy! And I don’t care about fantasy!”

 

[Angela_Tate]

Asked and answered. Thank you for participating in the discssion.