No confessions by phone, please Probable invalidity of the absolution

[Margaret_Ann]

And in the case of the Orthodox, a letter could be far more easily intercepted and opened, than anything discussed here.

IIRC, in the Latin Church there are some sins which are “reserved” so the priest can’t absolve the penitent until he gets permission from Rome. Maybe Fr. @edward_george1 can help?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

What if the person is going behind the screen instead of face to face? The priest doesn’t know the penitent from Adam in that case.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What if the person is going behind the screen instead of face to face? The priest doesn’t know the penitent from Adam in that case.

Exactly, and this is why all these mandated-reporter-for-confession laws are not going to have much effect.

To the extent that a person decides to confess some felony crime, including sexual abuse of a minor or a vulnerable person, they’re highly likely to go anonymously. And as anyone who has had anything to do with child sexual abuse knows, these folks probably aren’t going to be bringing that stuff up in confession because they either know it’s a huge risk to tell so they keep it hidden, or else they are in denial that they did anything wrong, or both.

 

[Elf01]

What if the person is going behind the screen instead of face to face? The priest doesn’t know the penitent from Adam in that case.

Depends, some priests would recognize my voice, and I can see the priest through some screens.

 

[TomH1]

The medical professionals who run hospitals think otherwise. Or, are you saying that you know how to safely run a hospital during a pandemic better than they do?

That is not a logical argument. Doctors do not have some secret code of knowledge that we do not have. I am a professional biologist and have friends who are medical practitioners with whom I have discussed COVID-19. Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and not having direct physical contact with a patient would make it safely possibly for a priest to administer the last rites. So I am not saying I know better than they do but I do know things as well. Plus people who work in hospitals have no special way of not getting a disease so if they can work there and not catch COVID-19 so can other people go in and not catch COVID-19 by taking appropriate precautions.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Yep, that’s the issue. “Privacy”, but… not.

I know. It’s tough to defend. But for the sake of the sacrament, repugnant as I find having to defend secrecy in those circumstances, I have to.

Hang on a second, though. It’s only “repugnant”, so to speak, to the extent that we conflate “human jurisprudence” with “divine justice”. That is, we feel that someone is “getting away with it” when we don’t subject someone to human justice. And yet, human justice is less “just” than divine justice. So, when a person approaches confession, he receives divine justice, in the form of forgiveness.

And so, since the penitent approaches the confessor in the context of justice that’s divine, not human, there’s no “repugnance” in the fact that the priest does not act as an agent of the state.

Know what I mean?

 

[Gorgias]

That is not a logical argument. Doctors do not have some secret code of knowledge that we do not have.

This is a question of responsibility, not knowledge. They’re the ones responsible for keeping patients and staff safe… not you. So, you don’t get to tell them how to do it. (Just as I don’t have the right to tell you how to run your household.)

I am a professional biologist and have friends who are medical practitioners with whom I have discussed COVID-19.

This is starting to sound like one of those commercials in which the actor says “I stayed at such-and-such hotel last night, and…”

Wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and not having direct physical contact with a patient would make it safely possibly for a priest to administer the last rites. So I am not saying I know better than they do but I do know things as well.

Now you’re an expert on the administration of the sacraments? OK, then: you’ve thought about how to safely distribute Eucharist? How about how to impose holy oils? C’mon, now… let’s see what you’ve got!

Plus people who work in hospitals have no special way of not getting a disease so if they can work there and not catch COVID-19 so can other people go in and not catch COVID-19 by taking appropriate precautions.

Hospital staff not only do this day-in and day-out, but they (who come into contact with patients) themselves are health professionals. Someone who isn’t a health professional, well… isn’t.

Notice, too, that a priest wouldn’t come in, do one administration of the sacraments, and walk out. Typically, he visits multiple patients and spends a non-trivial amount of time at the hospital. (Starting to see the problem?). “Appropriate precautions” begins to become excessive.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Depends, some priests would recognize my voice, and I can see the priest through some screens.

I think the presence of a screen (through which the priest is generally not looking because he faces away from it) and mere possible voice recognition creates a lot of “reasonable doubt” for making an identification. It would not hold up in court. They’d have to prove that the priest saw and heard you face to face either in confession, or maybe just before you went in, like he said, “Hello Elf, step this way and I’ll hear your confession”.

 

[Gorgias]

IIRC, in the Latin Church there are some sins which are “reserved” so the priest can’t absolve the penitent until he gets permission from Rome

The typical example is abortion, which incurs an excommunication. The priest would advise the penitent that he has to take that step, and would inform the penitent later that the excommunication had been lifted by the bishop.

(A couple of important notes:

• it is not that case that every abortion incurs an excommunication. But when it is incurred, it is incurred “automatically”, without any other process needed.
• Many bishops delegated the ability to lift the excommunication to their priest confessors. In that case, the priest can both lift the penalty and absolve sins, all in one trip.
• In the context of the “Year of Mercy”, Pope Francis allowed this delegation to all priests. So, at this point, the question of excommunication due to abortion is moot, and only useful as a historical example.

)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Gorgias:

Yep, that’s the issue. “Privacy”, but… not.

I know. It’s tough to defend. But for the sake of the sacrament, repugnant as I find having to defend secrecy in those circumstances, I have to.

Hang on a second, though. It’s only “repugnant”, so to speak, to the extent that we conflate “human jurisprudence” with “divine justice”. That is, we feel that someone is “getting away with it” when we don’t subject someone to human justice. And yet, human justice is less “just” than divine justice. So, when a person approaches confession, he receives divine justice, in the form of forgiveness.

And so, since the penitent approaches the confessor in the context of justice that’s divine, not human, there’s no “repugnance” in the fact that the priest does not act as an agent of the state.

Know what I mean?

No, the “repugnant” part is the thought that another person — the priest — knows that someone has molested a child, is thinking about molesting a child, is grooming a child to be molested, or what have you, and cannot tell anyone. (And though the possibility is remote, what if it were the priest’s child? Some priests are married and have children — Ordinariate converts, Eastern Rite priests, et al. I know a priest who has grandchildren — he was ordained as a widower. Let that soak in.) It has nothing to do with “human jurisprudence”, “divine justice”, or “getting away with it”. It has to do with protecting children.

Our society has a real issue with failing to do that, and rightly so. Secular society does not get everything wrong. It’s just too bad that they can’t extend their vigilance to children in utero whose presence there poses challenges to others. I’m sure my own ex utero presence has “posed a challenge” to my parents on the odd adolescent occasion, but they didn’t try to kill me over it.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Gorgias]

No, the “repugnant” part is the thought that another person — the priest — knows that someone has molested a child, is thinking about molesting a child, is grooming a child to be molested, or what have you, and cannot tell anyone.

“Has molested”? Sure. “Is thinking about”, “is grooming”? That’s not part of the sacrament. And, in fact, if the priest gives absolution, it’s because he’s convinced that the person is resolved not to commit this sin again.

So, your notions about the future don’t really hold, in this case.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

No, the “repugnant” part is the thought that another person — the priest — knows that someone has molested a child, is thinking about molesting a child, is grooming a child to be molested, or what have you, and cannot tell anyone.

“Has molested”? Sure. “Is thinking about”, “is grooming”? That’s not part of the sacrament. And, in fact, if the priest gives absolution, it’s because he’s convinced that the person is resolved not to commit this sin again.

So, your notions about the future don’t really hold, in this case.

I think they do. It is entirely possible that someone could talk about such things in the confessional, have absolution withheld due to lack of repentance (“no, Father, I’ve got my mind made up, I’m going to do this, I’m compelled to, I can’t not do it”), and the confessional seal would not hold. Unless I’m missing something in the theology of the sacrament, withholding of absolution doesn’t vitiate the seal of confession.

Again, if Rome would go for it, I’d be in favor of having a notice posted in the confessional to the effect of “if you speak of having committed Crimes XYZ, or planning to, or even wanting to, be aware that you will be forfeiting the seal of confession, as the priest is a mandated reporter per the laws of this jurisdiction”. That’s not so different from mental health professionals making a similar warning to their patients prior to counseling.

 

[TomH1]

You are making an argument from a logical fallacy.

I am not walking down silly street any longer.

 

[Gorgias]

I think they do. It is entirely possible that someone could talk about such things in the confessional, have absolution withheld due to lack of repentance (“no, Father, I’ve got my mind made up, I’m going to do this, I’m compelled to, I can’t not do it”), and the confessional seal would not hold. Unless I’m missing something in the theology of the sacrament, withholding of absolution doesn’t vitiate the seal of confession.

I’m confused. On one hand, you’re saying “the confessional seal would not hold” and on the other “no vitiation of the seal.”

In any case, my understanding is that the seal holds, period.

be aware that you will be forfeiting the seal of confession, as the priest is a mandated reporter per the laws of this jurisdiction”. That’s not so different from mental health professionals making a similar warning to their patients prior to counseling.

That’s the whole point: the priest doesn’t represent the state. He represents Jesus. In that role, he isn’t bound by the laws of the state, as such.

You are making an argument from a logical fallacy.

Certainly I am not. You’re not even willing to attempt to assert your rationale. So much for “silly street”; it seems to be where you’re coming from.

 

[JimG]

If confession involved using any kind of electronic or wireless device, the Chinese government may be listening in.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

That’s what the Soviets did too. If you went to confession and said something like: “Bless me Father for I have sinned; I hate the Party chairman (Stalin)”, you’d end up in the gulag.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I think they do. It is entirely possible that someone could talk about such things in the confessional, have absolution withheld due to lack of repentance (“no, Father, I’ve got my mind made up, I’m going to do this, I’m compelled to, I can’t not do it”), and the confessional seal would not hold. Unless I’m missing something in the theology of the sacrament, withholding of absolution doesn’t vitiate the seal of confession.

I’m confused. On one hand, you’re saying “the confessional seal would not hold” and on the other “no vitiation of the seal.”

In any case, my understanding is that the seal holds, period.

Sorry I haven’t been able to reply until now. Got a lot going on this weekend and am only now able to sit down and read this. I meant to say “the confessional seal WOULD hold” — don’t know why I said “would not” — and the fact that absolution was not granted, would not “make it into not a confession anymore, with no seal attached to it”. So far as I am aware, once anyone — including someone not even a Catholic or Christian (I can well foresee that someone of any religion, or none, could go into a confessional, especially in an urban area where people are coming and going constantly, and seek spiritual advice or solace) — goes into a confessional, unless they specifically state otherwise (e.g., need to talk to the priest about something else not related to confession of sins, such as a matter of business), the seal holds from that moment forward.

The CAF software (Discourse?) won’t allow me to go in and revise my original verbiage. There seems to be some kind of window on doing that.

 

[edward_george1]

Notice, too, that a priest wouldn’t come in, do one administration of the sacraments, and walk out. Typically, he visits multiple patients and spends a non-trivial amount of time at the hospital. (Starting to see the problem?). “Appropriate precautions” begins to become excessive.

A chaplain might, but not just a parish priest on call from the local parish. Most of the time when I make hospital visits, it’s for one person. So “appropriate precautions” are reasonable. Even if I were visiting multiple patients and having to take “appropriate precautions,” I would rather endure a little annoyance in terms of having to wash up, gown up, and mask up, and get screened before being let in, than to let people go without the sacraments.

 

[JMMJ]

This article and the ideas in it are just silly. God is able to do anything, and he knows our hearts.

 

[edward_george1]

God can do anything, but we cannot. We are bound by the sacraments as the ordinary means of receiving God’s grace. We cannot presume to administer the sacraments in a way that God and the authority of his Church have ruled is not valid.