I’m going to step aside from the debate for a moment and ask you to reexamine the charitability of your posts. I have read the entire thread; the problem here is that you appear to lack a clear understanding of what we’re trying to say. Perhaps we haven’t been clear; perhaps you haven’t listened; I don’t know. But try to give out a little benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, we’re sincere about what we’re saying.
Let’s see… I stated that there are objective standards for what constitutes a sacrament, an attempt at a sacrament, and a mere simulation of a sacrament…
You came back with “so it’s all the decision of the priest”… that is not remotely what I said, so when I said that you’re either misreading or misrepresenting, that is not a lack of charity… it is a statement of fact. In fact, you say the exact same thing in this post.
I don’t doubt you’re sincere… that isn’t the issue. The issue is that your sincere beliefs are locking you out from seeing the truth of what I said, and thus you misrepresent it when you respond.
As to the other post, spam posting multiple times in a row (rather than reading the thread and making a comprehensive response) is against forum rules. Hence, I asked the poster to stop. I consider that to be a little more charitable than reporting him, since I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t doing it maliciously.
So perhaps while I’m reconsidering the charitability of my posts, you could reconsider your rash judgement of my “lack of charity”…
How is your description any different than mine? The priest is the one breaking the seal, yes? So it’s his decision whether to conclude that the penitent wasn’t really a penitent. Ergo, it’s the priest’s call. And no one can call him on it.
What I am saying is that there are objective standards for what constitutes a sacrament, an attempt at a sacrament, and an abusive simulation of a sacrament.
If a priest, for example, mutters the words of consecration over a ciborium full of fruit snacks, he may CHOOSE to distribute them as the Eucharist, but we can easily discern that this was a completely invalid simulation of the sacrament by objective standard.
So what I’m saying is that the seal of confession is dependent on that objective distinction. Whether or not the priest chooses to honor the seal, or even stay quiet in the face of no seal (in the case of an abusive simulation of the sacrament), is immaterial to the objective question of whether or not the seal applies.
In other words, no, the priest does not get to decide if the seal applies, though he might successfully discern those times when it does not.
Too bad the Pope disagrees with you.
Your quote has everything to do with a person actually confessing sins rather than an intent to sin, where contrition is certainly dubious rather than known to be false. The two situations are not analogous at all.
Which makes sense – unless you believe that everyone who is denied absolution for lack of contrition is always, automatically, deprived of the seal of the confessional. In which case, yeah; you’ve missed the point of the seal.
I think I’ve addressed this statement multiple times already, but I’ll highlight it again since you don’t like when I ask you not to misrepresent what I say…
Denial of absolution does not render the seal null, since absolution is part of a valid attempt at confession. An abusive simulation of confession, however, is an entirely different thing than when the priest doubts someones contrition and therefore denies absolution.
Apparently I wasn’t clear. I was saying that anyone who asks for confession (and gets something to the effect of “Okay” in response from the priest) has invoked the seal of the confessional.
You changed what you said… this is very different than saying that when someone walks into the confessional the seal applies.
But let’s take this new statement then:
from what authoritative source do you derive this statement?
Nope; sorry, I’m still participating in good faith.
Your argument appears to be that anyone who lacks contrition (or at least attrition) – that is, the intent to reform – is not a penitent.
No, my argument is that a person who is not confessing a sin, but rather relating an intent to sin with no intent to reform is not confession at all, but rather an abusive simulation of confession.
I have stated this repeatedly in this thread. How many times do I have to retype the same thing? (this is what I meant when I said that these threads tend towards shouting down anyone who actually sees the moral problem with applying the seal to these hypotheticals… we end up having to type the same point over and over again).
Well, be fair here. What you really mean is where the priest SECURELY BELIEVES the person has no intention to reform, right? Because the priest doesn’t actually KNOW it
Nope, what I really mean is what I said: when a person walks into the confessional and says “Father, forgive me for I have sin, I am addicted to pornography and can’t bring myself to throw away my stash”, that introduces real and rational doubt about whether or not the person is contrite. In that case, this is an attempt at confession.
When a person walks in and says “Father, tomorrow I am going to plant a nuclear device in NYC, nothing can stop me or change my mind”, the priest doesn’t have to doubt contrition… the “penitent”, who hasn’t confessed a sin at all, but rather an intent to commit atrocity, is NOT contrite. They even SAID they have no intention to amend their actions.
(to be continued… sorry Moderators, I had to try to respond to three posts in one!)
