Gene Fadness, ex-Mormon, on Catholic Answers

[Catholic20064]

Last night Gene Fadness, an exMormon who converted to Catholicism, was on Catholic Answers. The show can be accessed here:

catholic.com/radio/calendar.php

It is the show for October 19. Ironically, yesterday was the 35th anniversary of the beginning of my Mormon mission in 1974.

catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=10&year=2009

 

[twopekinguys]

I think it was a great interview.

I especially like the Q & A at about 42:30, talking about the temple, and the veil, etc.

Thanks for giving us the link.

 

[Catholic20064]

I think it was a great interview.

I especially like the Q & A at about 42:30, talking about the temple, and the veil, etc.

Thanks for giving us the link.

You’re welcome. Catholic Answers does a great service through its efforts to expose the Mormon fraud.

 

[Catholic20064]

I must admit I am a little disappointed with Fadness. His Facebook page indicated he supports pro-choice candidates for office. He complained on the show that Mormons weren’t really pro-life, but his own choice of candidates confirms that he is hypocritical on the issue of abortion. Even though Mormons have exceptions in their abortion policy, they generally support pro-life candidates.

 

[dianaiad]

You’re welcome. Catholic Answers does a great service through its efforts to expose the Mormon fraud.

I was going to check his program out…but he truly discusses the Temple ceremony?

Why would anyone trust someone who would do that?

There have been a few Catholic priests who converted to Mormonism…and they were NOT considered free to divulge things said to them in Confession as a result of the religion change. This sort of thing is important. Why would anyone trust someone who would break a sacred promise?

 

[Techno2000]

I was going to check his program out…but he truly discusses the Temple ceremony?

Why would anyone trust someone who would do that?

There have been a few Catholic priests who converted to Mormonism…and they were NOT considered free to divulge things said to them in Confession as a result of the religion change. This sort of thing is important. Why would anyone trust someone who would break a sacred promise?

Catholic priest can talk about everything in the Catholic faith… just personal Confessions they are prohibited from.

 

[dianaiad]

Catholic priest can talk about everything in the Catholic faith… just personal Confessions they are prohibited from.

that’s what I said.

They are prohibited from divulging what is said in the confessional; it is a sacred promise that WE expect them to keep, even if they leave the Catholic priesthood and join the LDS church. We believe that such promises are rather important…and given that Catholics (who require such promises from priests in the first place) obviously agree with the sacred nature of such promises, why would you trust anyone who would break such a promise?

…and I don’t have a clue whether Mr. Fadness has done that. I was asking a question.

 

[PaulDupre]

that’s what I said.

They are prohibited from divulging what is said in the confessional; it is a sacred promise that WE expect them to keep, even if they leave the Catholic priesthood and join the LDS church. We believe that such promises are rather important…and given that Catholics (who require such promises from priests in the first place) obviously agree with the sacred nature of such promises, why would you trust anyone who would break such a promise?

…and I don’t have a clue whether Mr. Fadness has done that. I was asking a question.

A confession is an extremely personal confidence that is protected under law (like the doctor-patient confidence).

The temple endowment is merely a ceremony - a pastiche of the freemason initiations - that is a matter of federal public record and available all over the internet. Therefore you have no reasonable expectation of privacy with the endowment. There is no comparison.

 

[dianaiad]

A confession is an extremely personal confidence that is protected under law (like the doctor-patient confidence).

The temple endowment is merely a ceremony - a pastiche of the freemason initiations - that is a matter of federal public record and available all over the internet. Therefore you have no reasonable expectation of privacy with the endowment. There is no comparison.

A confession is protected by law in the USA. It’s not protected by law everywhere, nor has it been protected by law at all times. Being protected by law makes it easier for a priest to keep his promise–but the promise wasn’t made to the law. It was made to God. If the law changed, so that a penitant no longer had a legal 'reasonable expectation of privacy," the priest would still keep his promise of confidence, wouldn’t he? Isn’t that the nature of that promise?

It is entirely apart from any help the law gives him in keeping it.

Our promise not to discuss the Temple ceremony outside Temple walls is also apart from any legal matter–or even your opinion of the ceremony and its origins. It is our promise, and not subject to your disaproval.

I do not believe that a Catholic priest has the authority to grant absolution for sins. The confessional may make the sinner feel better, and may well be a necessary step on a road to repentance, but I don’t believe that a sinner leaves the confessional in a state of grace as a result of the priest’s actions or words. I don’t believe that everything Catholics believe about God is correct.

I still expect the priest to keep his promise, in spite of my opinion; whether I agree with the idea of the confessional or not, or with his beliefs about God or not, he still made that promise to God.

I respect that.

So…is it that only Catholics can make binding promises to God? Is that it?

 

[Anna_Scott]

A confession is protected by law in the USA. It’s not protected by law everywhere, nor has it been protected by law at all times. Being protected by law makes it easier for a priest to keep his promise–but the promise wasn’t made to the law. It was made to God. If the law changed, so that a penitant no longer had a legal 'reasonable expectation of privacy," the priest would still keep his promise of confidence, wouldn’t he? Isn’t that the nature of that promise?

It is entirely apart from any help the law gives him in keeping it.

Our promise not to discuss the Temple ceremony outside Temple walls is also apart from any legal matter–or even your opinion of the ceremony and its origins. It is our promise, and not subject to your disaproval.

I do not believe that a Catholic priest has the authority to grant absolution for sins. The confessional may make the sinner feel better, and may well be a necessary step on a road to repentance, but I don’t believe that a sinner leaves the confessional in a state of grace as a result of the priest’s actions or words. I don’t believe that everything Catholics believe about God is correct.

I still expect the priest to keep his promise, in spite of my opinion; whether I agree with the idea of the confessional or not, or with his beliefs about God or not, he still made that promise to God.

I respect that.

So…is it that only Catholics can make binding promises to God? Is that it?

Confessions of one’s sins to a priest or a therapist, for that matter, is protected by law.

Revealing a personal confession is entirely different from revealing religious ceremonies or rituals.

What does Mormonism have to hide?

 

[Ghosty]

To put it rather bluntly, we don’t believe that Mormons have made “sacred promises”, any more than Masons have made “sacred promises”. Promises, yes, but certainly not Sacred ones.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dianaiad]

Confessions of one’s sins to a priest or a therapist, for that matter, is protected by law.

Not, as I said, everywhere or at any time. The promise the priest makes to keep that confidence is made to God, not to some judge somewhere, and he is expected to keep it even in the face of legal pressure, even prison (and some have.) Having this be protected by law is nice…but it has nothing at all to do with the promise made to God.

Revealing a personal confession is entirely different from revealing religious ceremonies or rituals.

Only to you, because you do not respect, or agree with, those religious ceremonies or rituals, and actually have contempt for them. The fact is, though, that it doesn’t matter WHAT the promise is made about; it’s a promise made to God.

As well, it looks as if your claim that it’s about the confession, not the religious ceremony or ritual, is not quite correct. According to the Encyclopedia of Catholicism, there is a question: “But what if the person confessing consents to its being revealds, bacause, perchance, he calls the Confessor as a witness?” The answer to that is…that he can do this, ONLY if the person confessing gives the priests hints about what the substance of the testimony is to be, so that the priest can say to the judge that he knew of this outside the confession. “For he is bound to conceal the confession for two reasons, vez., on a ccount of the sacrament, because it is almost of the essence of the sacrament to conceal the confession (quia auasi de essntia Sacramenti est celary Confessionesm): likewise for reason of the scandal–” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13649b.htm

I repeat: “It is almost of the essence of the sacrament to conceal the confession…” It IS about the 'religious ceremony [and] ritual."

What does Mormonism have to hide?

Not a thing. I’m not certain that you are the one who mentioned this, but WE put the text of the ceremony in the Congressional Record. We are not suing or objecting to having that script online or available to view if you want to go see it. Go knock yourself out. The situation here isn’t about us trying to keep anything secret; there’s nothing secret about it.

It IS, however, sacred–as is the promise we make to respect what happens in the Temple just as you respect what happens in the confessional. I would not respect a priest who broke his promise about confidances recieved in Confession, and YOU should not respect any Mormon (or ex-Mormon) who discusses the Temple ceremony outside Temple walls. Both things represent a very serious breach of a promise one makes to God.

…and it doesn’t matter that you have nothing but contempt for what we promise. WE consider this promise to be every inch as binding as that of the confessional, and any Mormon who has made that promise knows this. Therefore, any person who willfully breaks it knows exactly what he or she is doing; and is dishonorable.

…back to the object of MY question; I have absolutely no idea whether Mr Fadness has done so. I simply ask if he has, because if he has, I would be breaking MY promise to read his stuff. If he has not, I would be interested in what he had to say.

 

[dianaiad]

To put it rather bluntly, we don’t believe that Mormons have made “sacred promises”, any more than Masons have made “sacred promises”. Promises, yes, but certainly not Sacred ones.

Peace and God bless!

Wow. “Peacs and God bless” after THAT?

As it happens, whether you believe we have made Sacred Promises or not, WE do, and you should expect us to keep them.

 

[Ghosty]

Wow. “Peacs and God bless” after THAT?

As it happens, whether you believe we have made Sacred Promises or not, WE do, and you should expect us to keep them.

I expect you to keep them, certainly, but not an ex-Mormon. You are bound by your conscience to keep such promises, but someone who has rejected Mormonism certainly wouldn’t be. Since we don’t believe the Mormon religion is Sacred, a Catholic convert from Mormonism isn’t necessarily going to feel bound to such promises (perhaps they might, but they certainly wouldn’t be expected to).

The promises are subjectively grave and binding, based on the conscience and the belief of Mormons who make them (if we do something we truly believe to be a sin, even if it isn’t actually a sin, we are still sinning), but they are not objectively binding since they don’t pertain to actually Sacred things from our perspective. I realize this is hard to hear, but it is the fact of the matter from the perspective of the Catholic Church; I’m not inclined to cover it up.

I still wish you peace, and God’s blessings, as such wishes don’t depend on me believing your religion.

 

[Arandur]

Dianaiad, priesthood also requires vows to God, I think in both of our religions but certainly among Catholics.

So is it similarly violating a promise to God to break those vows by leaving the office and the faith?

If the Temple ceremony is a matter of public record, why can’t it be discussed?

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is far different because it involves confession of sins in confidence to God through His High Priest, Christ (the priest is only a proxy, a part of the Body; it is only by Christ’s power that anything happens in that Sacrament or any other). The Sacrament is entered into by many under this understanding. Furthermore, there could be no possible reason I can think of why anything confessed in the Sacrament should be discussed. It has no bearing on understanding of God or the faith.

Further, the full forms of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are openly and happily discussed.

The Mormon temple ceremony, on the other hand, is more like the forms of the Sacrament that I just spoke of in that it’s not about matters of personal confidence between an individual and God, a subject can have no possible bearing on the public, but rather is about rituals meant to reflect truth. In that capacity, they do have bearing on understanding of God or the faith taught by the religion.

 

[dianaiad]

I expect you to keep them, certainly, but not an ex-Mormon. You are bound by your conscience to keep such promises, but someone who has rejected Mormonism certainly wouldn’t be. Since we don’t believe the Mormon religion is Sacred, a Catholic convert from Mormonism isn’t necessarily going to feel bound to such promises (perhaps they might, but they certainly wouldn’t be expected to).

Would you expect a Catholic priest who leaves Catholicism to keep his vows respecting the confessional?

The promises are subjectively grave and binding, based on the conscience and the belief of Mormons who make them (if we do something we truly believe to be a sin, even if it isn’t actually a sin, we are still sinning), but they are not objectively binding since they don’t pertain to actually Sacred things from our perspective. I realize this is hard to hear, but it is the fact of the matter from the perspective of the Catholic Church; I’m not inclined to cover it up.

I still wish you peace, and God’s blessings, as such wishes don’t depend on me believing your religion.

I understand your beliefs. I understand that you do not respect mine. However, what makes you think that someone who breaks a promise made to God (even regarding a religion you don’t respect) would not break one made in relationship to Catholicism?

 

[Jay53]

Would you expect a Catholic priest who leaves Catholicism to keep his vows respecting the confessional?

I understand your beliefs. I understand that you do not respect mine. However, what makes you think that someone who breaks a promise made to God (even regarding a religion you don’t respect) would not break one made in relationship to Catholicism?

I’m just curious, what exactly is the promise that everyone is talking about with regard to this man? What did he promise to do or not do specifically?

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, priesthood also requires vows to God, I think in both of our religions but certainly among Catholics.

So is it similarly violating a promise to God to break those vows by leaving the office and the faith?

Most priests, I understand, don’t simply walk away; they resign and are released according to the rules of the order they were members of. Being released from those promises isn’t quite the same thing as breaking them, is it?

However, when a priest is released from his vows (of, say, celebacy, etc., ) he is NOT released from the vows he made regarding the confessional. In just such a way, a Mormon who leaves the church (and perhaps is excommunicated) may be released from all sorts of things, but not from the vow he made to respect the Temple ceremony.

If the Temple ceremony is a matter of public record, why can’t it be discussed?[/qoute] Because we believe it is sacred. I know myself pretty well…and I’m not unique; if I allowed myself to discuss what happens in the Temple with folks who disparage, disdain and mock my faith, it’s like dragging my faith through the mud; when I go into the Temple, I want that to be a place that has NO memory of conflict or mockery. I want there to be peace. If I argue with people about it out here, that peace is sullied.

Sacred, not secret.
Arandur;5865556:

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is far different because it involves confession of sins in confidence to God through His High Priest, Christ (the priest is only a proxy, a part of the Body; it is only by Christ’s power that anything happens in that Sacrament or any other). The Sacrament is entered into by many under this understanding. Furthermore, there could be no possible reason I can think of why anything confessed in the Sacrament should be discussed. It has no bearing on understanding of God or the faith.

This is true only because you think it is.*** I ***do not think it is. I don’t agree with you that the Sacrament of Reconciliation does anything at all for the sinner except make him or her feel better. I do not believe that there is anything there except for one sinner confessing everything to another one; there is no priesthood authority there that makes it any different from my daughter telling her guilty secrets to her best friend.

Yet you seem to think that I should see the confessional as something special in and of itself; worthy of the sort of promise that the priest makes. Well, it isn’t and I don’t. I have no more belief in what your priests do than you do in what we do in the Temples.

What I do have respect for is this: those priests believe in the sacred nature of what they do, and it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what they think, and what God thinks, and I believe that God expects us to keep such promises. Even though I do not believe that a Catholic priest has the authority to do what he does, I believe that the promise he makes to God is binding upon him. I expect a priest to keep that promise while he is a priest, and I expect him to keep it if he converts to another religion. I expect him to keep it if he loses his faith altogether and comes to believe that the whole thing is mummery, out of respect for those who still do believe.

To expect less is to show extreme disrespect to Catholics and Catholicism. It is saying to you…“well, it’s all stupid anyway; I don’t believe in your religion, so you don’t have to keep any promise you made.” It is declaring that the faith of all the people who made promises like that, and who rely on those promises, is worthless, stupid, and unworthy of any respect–and that the people are worthless, stupid and unworthy of respect, too.

Further, the full forms of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are openly and happily discussed.

So? The important stuff is not.

The Mormon temple ceremony, on the other hand, is more like the forms of the Sacrament that I just spoke of in that it’s not about matters of personal confidence between an individual and God, a subject can have no possible bearing on the public, but rather is about rituals meant to reflect truth. In that capacity, they do have bearing on understanding of God or the faith taught by the religion.

And that part is discussed. What we teach is discussed. The scripts are online and freely available to anyone who has NOT made a promise not to discuss them. There isn’t a teaching in the Temple that cannot be discussed, and is not discussed. The script and ceremony–precisely what we do and how we do it–that is sacred to me and I will not discuss them. Nor will I put myself in a situation where I might have to do that. It’s important to me.

It should be important to everybody. It’s a matter of…credibility, I suppose. Someone who will break that promise simply because he no longer believes entirely in the context will break a promise/confidence of anything or anybody, because if he doesn’t hold a promise like that sacred, then he holds nothing at all to be sacred, in the long run.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m just curious, what exactly is the promise that everyone is talking about with regard to this man? What did he promise to do or not do specifically?

When he went to the Temple, he promised never to speak of Temple matters outside Temple walls. That is, he promised not to discuss the ceremony or script.

I have NO idea whether he broke that promise or not, but that’s the promise he made.

 

[Catholic20064]

Most priests, I understand, don’t simply walk away; they resign and are released according to the rules of the order they were members of. Being released from those promises isn’t quite the same thing as breaking them, is it?

However, when a priest is released from his vows (of, say, celebacy, etc., ) he is NOT released from the vows he made regarding the confessional. In just such a way, a Mormon who leaves the church (and perhaps is excommunicated) may be released from all sorts of things, but not from the vow he made to respect the Temple ceremony.
Arandur;5865556:

If the Temple ceremony is a matter of public record, why can’t it be discussed?[/qoute] Because we believe it is sacred. I know myself pretty well…and I’m not unique; if I allowed myself to discuss what happens in the Temple with folks who disparage, disdain and mock my faith, it’s like dragging my faith through the mud; when I go into the Temple, I want that to be a place that has NO memory of conflict or mockery. I want there to be peace. If I argue with people about it out here, that peace is sullied.

Sacred, not secret.

This is true only because you think it is.*** I ***

do not think it is. I don’t agree with you that the Sacrament of Reconciliation does anything at all for the sinner except make him or her feel better. I do not believe that there is anything there except for one sinner confessing everything to another one; there is no priesthood authority there that makes it any different from my daughter telling her guilty secrets to her best friend.

Yet you seem to think that I should see the confessional as something special in and of itself; worthy of the sort of promise that the priest makes. Well, it isn’t and I don’t. I have no more belief in what your priests do than you do in what we do in the Temples.

What I do have respect for is this: those priests believe in the sacred nature of what they do, and it doesn’t matter what I think. It only matters what they think, and what God thinks, and I believe that God expects us to keep such promises. Even though I do not believe that a Catholic priest has the authority to do what he does, I believe that the promise he makes to God is binding upon him. I expect a priest to keep that promise while he is a priest, and I expect him to keep it if he converts to another religion. I expect him to keep it if he loses his faith altogether and comes to believe that the whole thing is mummery, out of respect for those who still do believe.

To expect less is to show extreme disrespect to Catholics and Catholicism. It is saying to you…“well, it’s all stupid anyway; I don’t believe in your religion, so you don’t have to keep any promise you made.” It is declaring that the faith of all the people who made promises like that, and who rely on those promises, is worthless, stupid, and unworthy of any respect–and that the people are worthless, stupid and unworthy of respect, too.

So? The important stuff is not.

And that part is discussed. What we teach is discussed. The scripts are online and freely available to anyone who has NOT made a promise not to discuss them. There isn’t a teaching in the Temple that cannot be discussed, and is not discussed. The script and ceremony–precisely what we do and how we do it–that is sacred to me and I will not discuss them. Nor will I put myself in a situation where I might have to do that. It’s important to me.

It should be important to everybody. It’s a matter of…credibility, I suppose. Someone who will break that promise simply because he no longer believes entirely in the context will break a promise/confidence of anything or anybody, because if he doesn’t hold a promise like that sacred, then he holds nothing at all to be sacred, in the long run.

I don’t have any problem discussing the temple ceremony now that I am no longer Mormon. I don’t consider it a sacred trust at all. This is much different than a priest and confession in which the intimate details of a person’s life and reputation are on the line. Two very different things that you can’t compare. The Mormon Church’s pretense that the temple ceremony is sacred and must not be discussed is made under the false pretense from the point of view of Mormonism that the temple ceremony is “true.”