Delaware judge: priest-penitent privilege may be unconstitutional [CWN]

[JimR-OCDS]

otjm;

Actually, that is incorrect - it is not a heresy; it is the teaching of the Church.

Telling people that they can not go to God directly for forgiveness of their sins, is heretical.

The Sacrament of Confession reconciles us with the Church, the body of Christ. However, it doesn’t exclude God’s mercy and forgiveness if we do not get to Confession. To teach this would be heretical.

No one here is saying that priests, instead of God, forgive sins.

Then you haven’t been following the conversation.

To put it another way, we are bound by the sacraments, but God is not bound.

Exactly what I’m saying.

God is not prevented from forgiving a person of their sins because we have not accessed confession.

Again, what I’ve posted.

However, we are bound by confession because God chose to bind us in that way. That does not mean that in rare circumstances, God cannot forgive a person their sins if they could not get to confession.

It doesn’t require a rare circumstance for God to refuse to forgive a person of their sins, who repents, but has not made it to confession.

But neither does that mean that one should presume that God is forgiving one’s sins if one makes a “mental confession”. One is putting themselves at risk in purposely avoiding the means that God gave us for forgiveness.

So, this is placing a limit on God. We can’t presume that he forgives the sin of a repentant sinner who turns to Him and asks for forgiveness. I disagree and so does the Church. Again, the Catechism states, “Only God Forgives Sin.”

None of that has anything to do with Protestants, or Hindus, or anyone else out there; that is God’s problem, and God is a God of mercy.

Correct, God is a God of mercy, not limited by conditions placed by humans.

He is also a God of justice; and when we refuse to go to confession (and I seriously doubt there are too many Catholics who do not know we have confession), we tempt that justice at our own immortal peril.

God is a God of restorative justice, not retributive justice. When you understand the former over the latter, you begin to understand God’s mercy is to bring us to Himself, not drive us away.

The problem is not people knowing about confession. The problem is that all too many Catholics have been secularized, and the secular world doesn’t believe in mortal sin - it believes people make “mistakes”.

There is a division between those Catholics who are as you call it, secularized, and those who are rigid fanatics, who view God and sinners in dualistic notions.

See the thread where Pope Francis says we’re all children of God, and the gnashing and grinding of teeth over that idea.

A sin is a choice; a choice to do evil and/or avoid the good.

Its one of the conditions for a sin to be mortal, but its not infallible, its a guideline.

When we use the true meaning for sin, i.e. “to miss the mark,” or as an analogy, “like an archer aiming for his target, but missing it,” we get a different perspective of what sin is.

And as I said, if one commits adultery, one needs to do a whole lot more than just make a mental apology to one’s spouse. There needs to be a metanoia, a turning around, an acknowledgement of the wrong done, and a rectification.

I don’t know where you’re going with this, but mortal sin, needs to be confessed. No argument about this. However, the repentant sinner must first turn to God, for without faith in God, they’re just practicing religion, not growing toward union with God, which is the ultimate goal.

For Catholics, there needs to be an aural confession - we need to actually stop, and acknowledge our sinful acts, and part of that is actually orally admitting them.

Who created us? God. Who knows our psychology, down to the finest detail? God. Who set up confession? God.

God, allowed repentance of sin long before the Church began private the practice of private confession.

Jim

Just possibly, God had a clue or two about how well we lie to ourselves. Confession means confronting our own sinfulness, and that is far better done using the method God gave us than tempting his justice and mercy by avoiding it

 

[otjm]

otjm;

Telling people that they can not go to God directly for forgiveness of their sins, is heretical.

The Sacrament of Confession reconciles us with the Church, the body of Christ. However, it doesn’t exclude God’s mercy and forgiveness if we do not get to Confession. To teach this would be heretical.

It doesn’t require a rare circumstance for God to refuse to forgive a person of their sins, who repents, but has not made it to confession.Citation,l please, from the Catechism.

So, this is placing a limit on God. We can’t presume that he forgives the sin of a repentant sinner who turns to Him and asks for forgiveness. I disagree and so does the Church. Again, the Catechism states, “Only God Forgives Sin.”

Again, speaking of Catholics, we are bound by the Church rules, The exceptions don’t include committing a mortal sin on Saturday night, making your mental confession, and then going to Communion on Sunday.

God is a God of restorative justice, not retributive justice. When you understand the former over the latter, you begin to understand God’s mercy is to bring us to Himself, not drive us away.

This sounds like someone who does not like what the Church teaches. And nothing I ahve said militates against this position; but the Church requires someone who is Catholic, and has committed a mortal sin, to go to confession before Communion.

There is a division between those Catholics who are as you call it, secularized, and those who are rigid fanatics, who view God and sinners in dualistic notions.

See the thread where Pope Francis says we’re all children of God, and the gnashing and grinding of teeth over that idea.

Its one of the conditions for a sin to be mortal, but its not infallible, its a guideline.

Guideline? I didn’t say it is the only condition. I am speaking to the lack of understanding of all too many poorly catechized Catholics, who basically shrug off what the Church says are objectively mortal sins, as if it was all a “mistake”. What they are doing is not a mistake; it is a choice. Quit trying to spin what I am saying.

When we use the true meaning for sin, i.e. “to miss the mark,” or as an analogy, “like an archer aiming for his target, but missing it,” we get a different perspective of what sin is.

I am well aware of the Hebrew statement. Committing adultery is not “missing the mark”. Having an abortion is not “missing the mark”.

I don’t know where you’re going with this, but mortal sin, needs to be confessed. No argument about this. However, the repentant sinner must first turn to God, for without faith in God, they’re just practicing religion, not growing toward union with God, which is the ultimate goal.

That goes without saying. I have been following the discussion.

God, allowed repentance of sin long before the Church began private the practice of private confession.

And the Church, which he founded, has said that one needs to confess mortal sins before approaching Communion.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

documentcloud.org/documents/2700877-Kingdom-Hall-Decision-20160126122537.html

and

delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/harry-themal/2016/02/26/state-sues-over-nonreport-child-abuse/80981834/

In the first of the conversations, the boy isn’t there to confess a sin, i.e isn’t a penitent, and in the second, he isn’t even there.

A bad judge in Louisiana has ruled exactly the opposite: when the victims complained to their clergy, the clergy were deemed justified in protecting the perpetrators.

It’s only the latter type of abuse of the provision, that the Delaware judge has ruled unconstitutional.

 

[mdgspencer]

see www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/31327724/judge-priest-does-not-have-to-disclose-alleged-abuse-disclosed-during-confession
The Louisiana Supreme Court had ruled some months ago that a priest in an ongoing case can be required to reveal what he heard in confession. However, the priest had correctly testified that if he did this, he would be automatically excommunicated. His diocese said, then, that “a fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for thousands of years mandates that the seal of confession is absolute and inviolable.”
The law had required the priest to reveal what he heard even in confession in such a case, when the girl revealed there that she had been sexually abused by a man, now deceased. After U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take on the priest’s case, his case returned to the trial judge, who just now has ruled that the law is unconstitutional and the priest was not required to report what he heard in confession to the police. The attempt was being made to make the priest himself liable for a crime for not revealing to the police what the girl had told him in confession.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Please see further:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13702805#post13702805

 

[marbleartist]

I know this priest personally and he is a wonderful man and an honorable priest. I’m so happy to hear that the ruling was in his favor!

 

[ChristianDude]

I hope it is not ruled unconstitutional.

 

[vz71]

I hope it is not ruled unconstitutional.

Why should we care?
God does not need the approval of men.

 

[ChristianDude]

Why should we care?
God does not need the approval of men.

Good point.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Here’s a little more on the Louisiana case:

nwaonline.com/news/2016/feb/28/state-can-t-make-priests-tell-of-confes/?news-national

 

[slMike]

Great decision, but let’s make it clear: not on account of the judge but the Church stands the reason why the Priest may not reveal a penitent’s sin.

Mike

 

[mikekle]

Thats says a lot about the police and prosecutors who took this to court in the first place too?