What IS Privacy of Confession?

[Reader_Arsenios]

As for employing someone he knows to be a child molester - of course employment is never, in any situation, simply about qualifications on paper, and no employer is forced to hire anyone based on such. I have some experience in employment law, so I know this to be true.

Yet he cannot, indeed MUST NOT, allow the confession of child molestation to have any impact whatsoever on his employing of the man as a parish preschool teacher. And this by Canon law with the force of excommunication behind it, yes?

And public confession - my understanding of the Orthodox is that you don’t practice confession in the way you’ve described either. If you can see the difficulties inherent in it, then so can we!

Yet that is precisely where it began, and the difficulties began with the ‘legalization’ of the Church, so that from there it became necessary to have fairly private confessions… Although the Russians confess at the front of the congregation, and upon completion, they bow three times in apology to the entire congregation before departing the dais…

And Orthodox priests have no injunctive to use their utter discretion in running the parish, with the confessional as a part of their basis for doing so - Not revealing anything from the confessions, but not ignoring anything either - This is why they are in charge, because they know more, and can make wiser decisions, even if the people do not understand why a decision was made, yet they receive it as having come from God, and through someone more privy to what is best for the parish…

And a child molester would be kept well clear of ALL temptations within the sphere of the life of the Church, and would be monitored with weekly, if not daily, confessions… And being taken out of Communion for periods of time is fairly common as well… Confession does not give any automatic guarantee of communicability on the basis of sincerity of remorse…

Arsenios

 

[LilyM]

Arsenios, I ask again, what penance did the paralysed man perform, either before or after Jesus pronounced forgiveness of his sins? Or the woman caught in adultery (who may or may not have been Mary Magdalene)?

Neither of them did anything special. Sure he told her to sin no more - that’s what we all promise to do when we go to confession! It’s part of the prayers we pray in the confessional.

Jesus said ‘whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven’, not ‘whose sins you forgive - and who perform penance’. So forgiveness happens upon absolution. The purpose of penance is to help repair the damage our sins have caused to our own souls and our relationship with God.

Let me put it this way - if you as a child broke a window in your house would your mother forgive you and let you eat dinner with the family as soon as you confessed and said sorry? Or would she make you wait days, weeks or months until you’d paid off the cost of repairing the window? Absolution and penance are two different functions.

 

[Margita]

Confession does not give any automatic guarantee of communicability on the basis of sincerity of remorse…
Arsenios

That is not its purpose either. The only thing a good confession guarantees is that the penitent can participate in the sacramental life of the Church from the moment he is absolved.

And what the seal of secrecy guarantees is that nothing said in the confessional gets outside it. BTW, penitents are bound by secrecy as well - you are not supposed to tell others what has passed between you and a particular priest in the confessional.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

NO.

The power to bind or to losen has been given to the clergy. They absolve penitents by the power given to them by the Holy Spirit.

I was not questioning the aspect of forgiveness, but that of healing of the soul of the one confessing…

And why do you make a distinction between the thief, the paralysed man, and the adulterous woman?

Because they are very distinctive…

The only difference is, the thief was not simply “forgiven” but also promised to go to heaven which was not promised to the other two.

If you think that the only difference is that of promises, we will have to disagree… There are differences in every story of salvation…

Exorcism is not the same as confession and cannot be compared to it either.

I was not comparing… Exorcism and healing of wounds are neither of them confession… Why do you think the early Christian Canons prescribed many long years of being taken out of Communion for serious sins?

Why do I have the feeling that you have a point to prove and your questions are formulated in a way to serve your purpose?

Because you are a sensitive and suspicious person!

I am working around to Church governance…

It would be friendlier to let us know what the game is.

It would be friendlier of you to not call this inquiry a game based only upon your suspicions…

I am an Orthodox reader who is trying to understand the secrecy of the Roman confessional, which I see as excessive… So I am probing into it on this thread which I initiated…

Can you be OK with that??

Arsenios

 

[THurifer2]

I am an Orthodox reader who is trying to understand the secrecy of the Roman confessional, which I see as excessive… So I am probing into it on this thread which I initiated…

Can you be OK with that??

Arsenios

Yes, I understand you question…but do not agree…You mentioned healing of the soul…Remember though confession in the RCC primarily eliminates the “eternal” effects of sin. A child rapist will likely not walk out of the confessional and have a straight away ticket to heaven. I am certain that you can liken it to the confession being the surgery removing the cancer…but the bigger the sin the bigger the surgery and the bigger the surgery the longer the recovery time. And for one to recover…one must have the food for the recovery…The Eucharist. In fact the penitent benefits from this food…the sooner the better.

Now as far as “excessive”?

Personally I think the orthodox church’s Liberalization of Contraception is “excessive”.

 

[Margita]

I was not questioning the aspect of forgiveness, but that of healing of the soul of the one confessing…

It is not a psychiatric treatment, but a sacrament.

Because they are very distinctive…

On what grounds?

If you think that the only difference is that of promises, we will have to disagree… There are differences in every story of salvation…

What I meant was that to forgive someone their sins and to actually promise them a sure place in heaven are different things. It is not about promises but what is promised that makes the difference.

Why do you think the early Christian Canons prescribed many long years of being taken out of Communion for serious sins?

see article in Catholic Encyclopedia. The early Church had a number of (practical) reasons for this policy. Certainly not the signing of applications. Lots of other rites (including baptism) were different in the early Church, the fact that those things are run differently today does not mean they are worse or less effective today.

Because you are a sensitive and suspicious person!

Perhaps I am. Mea culpa.

[QUTE]It would be friendlier of you to not call this inquiry a game based only upon your suspicions…
Sorry for the offence if you feel offended.

I am an Orthodox reader who is trying to understand the secrecy of the Roman confessional, which I see as excessive… So I am probing into it on this thread which I initiated…
Can you be OK with that??
Arsenios

Absolutely.
But why didn’t you state in your first post that you actually had an opinion about the Roman confessional (excessive)? I thought you knew very little about it, and thus did not yet form an opinion about it. I thought I was giving information only. Then I had the feeling that I am actually arguing against something which I have not been allowed to hear. It made me uncomfortable (been in similar situations before and have grown wary).
Again, I apologize if I have offended you, and I hope there is no ill-feeling between us.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Arsenios, I ask again, what penance did the paralysed man perform, either before or after Jesus pronounced forgiveness of his sins? Or the woman caught in adultery (who may or may not have been Mary Magdalene)?

Again???

I am not here selling penances… Nor have I said any of them was performing any penance… When Christ Himself forgives you your sins, you get with it the healing of the infirmity that birthed the sin to boot!

BUT…

When one’s local parish priest gives one remission, there is obviously no such healing…

Neither of them did anything special.

The Wise Thief did a HUGE thing that was VERY special - He came to be in paradise BEFORE all the prophets, before the Mother of God, and before anyone else ever on earth…

Christ had been abandoned by everyone else on earth, you see, Peter denying Him thrice, John with the Theotokos afar off, and he was alone on the Cross between two thieves, forsaken by all… Until the Wise Thief came to repentance, and confessed Him as Christ, and rebuked the other thief… Sharing the same fate as our Lord, He confessed Him…

And THAT was pretty special, by my sinful standards!

Sure he told her to sin no more -

Thats right, He gave her an obedience, AND the means to DO it… And it is that second part that we are NOT getting in our local priest’s confessional, right?

that’s what we all promise to do when we go to confession! It’s part of the prayers we pray in the confessional.

So you think it is the same as when Christ was walking the earth??

Jesus said ‘whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven’, not ‘whose sins you forgive - and who perform penance’. So forgiveness happens upon absolution. The purpose of penance is to help repair the damage our sins have caused to our own souls and our relationship with God.

Well good - So it is a matter of soul damage that penance is given… And yet you think that Communion is NOT a matter of soul damage??

Let me put it this way - if you as a child broke a window in your house would your mother forgive you and let you eat dinner with the family as soon as you confessed and said sorry? Or would she make you wait days, weeks or months until you’d paid off the cost of repairing the window?

This is but the mere infraction of a rule by a child, and not the commission of a serious sin by one of the Faithful…

Absolution and penance are two different functions.

Good again… And do you think that only one of these is needed for Communion? We are talking about serious sins here… Smallish sins can be confessed and forgiven with a promise to do better, but serious sins require a lot more than mere confession, remorse, and forgiveness and a promise to repair the damage caused to the soul…

And you SEEM to be saying that the damage to the soul is not important, but that only the remission matters…

Am I making more sense to you? I am not here trolling… I am trying to make sure that I have ‘got’ the Roman understanding firmly in my brain, and I am doing it in a kind of challenging and somewhat adversarial way… Please forgive me for not having more grace…

Arsenios

 

[Margita]

Now as far as “excessive”?

Personally I think the orthodox church’s Liberalization of Contraception is “excessive”.

You see, that is what I was afraid of. Let us not turn this thread into a fight.
Are you OK with that?

:bowdown2:

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Now as far as “excessive”?

Personally I think the orthodox church’s Liberalization of Contraception is “excessive”.

Roger THAT!

A.

 

[Margita]

When Christ Himself forgives you your sins, you get with it the healing of the infirmity that birthed the sin to boot!

BUT…

When one’s local parish priest gives one remission, there is obviously no such healing…

Arsenios, Christ does not take away man’s free will to go and sin again. You are still infirm and fallible - whether being forgiven by Christ personally (2000 years ago) or being absolved by a priest.

Thats right, He gave her an obedience, AND the means to DO it… And it is that second part that we are NOT getting in our local priest’s confessional, right?

Wrong. It is absolutely necessary to make a confession valid to have a firm will to do the obedience. You must promise in the confessional to abstain from sin snad the near occasion of sin in the future. Without this intention, your confession is not valid, for it annulls the purpose of confession which is conversion.

So you think it is the same as when Christ was walking the earth??

Since the bridegroom is now taken from us, a priest must do for us.

Well good - So it is a matter of soul damage that penance is given… And yet you think that Communion is NOT a matter of soul damage??

I do not understand this.

Good again… And do you think that only one of these is needed for Communion? We are talking about serious sins here…

Smallish sins can be confessed and forgiven with a promise to do better, but serious sins require a lot more than mere confession, remorse, and forgiveness and a promise to repair the damage caused to the soul…

By “smallish” and “serious” do you mean venial, mortal sins, or sins against the Holy Spirit, or the Capital Sins? “Mere confession” is not quite so simple as you think - it involves thorough preparation, true contrition, and a firm resolve never to sin again. Not so easy as some (even Catholics, even myself) would have it sometimes.
The Church has a separate policy for absolving penitents from the sin of abortion and other truly grave sins - please check the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Am I making more sense to you? I am not here trolling… I am trying to make sure that I have ‘got’ the Roman understanding firmly in my brain, and I am doing it in a kind of challenging and somewhat adversarial way… Please forgive me for not having more grace…
Arsenios

You’re welcome. But if you really want the Roman understanding firmly in your brain, perusing the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the Canon Law, or a handbook on theology would be your best bet.
You see, as my Protestant father used to say, I was taught to live my faith not argue about it - I am not good at controversy, and I panic when I can smell a situation tending towards that.
Please forgive me. I do not think you are a troll, certainly.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

It is not a psychiatric treatment, but a sacrament.

That’s the point - Kinda… Although the Orthodox see very little healing of the soul in the practice of psychiatry… Nor do some of the Roman Catholics I know… They see all of the psychological sciences as pretty much psycho-babble… And heavy on the PSYCHO! Healing comes from the movement of the Holy Spirit within the soul, and some elders can do this spiritually, and most priests cannot…

What I meant was that to forgive someone their sins and to actually promise them a sure place in heaven are different things. It is not about promises but what is promised that makes the difference.

Forgiveness and promises of eternal life are not at issue - The issue I am addressing is the one of the healing of the soul…

see article in Catholic Encyclopedia. The early Church had a number of (practical) reasons for this policy. Certainly not the signing of applications. Lots of other rites (including baptism) were different in the early Church, the fact that those things are run differently today does not mean they are worse or less effective today.

Yet the early Church Canons prescribed that a person be taken out of Communion commonly for 12 to 25 years, or for life, only to receive Communion one last time when they are dying… And then, if they recover, to be taken back out until the next approach to repose…

And the issue of why has nothing to do with “a lot of things”, but with the concern for the penitent’s soul, that he find healing and salvation… eg The practice was not punitive, but repentive and healing for the one undergoing it, to be followed at the end by being received back into Communion with the Church.

Perhaps I am. Mea culpa.

Me too - Takes one to know one!

Sorry for the offence if you feel offended.

Well, you called it a ‘game’ because you did not think I was being straight with you… So no offence… But the reprimand had fingers pointing back at the reprimander!! [And for my part, I am ALWAYS guilty of ANYTHING I accuse anyone else of!]

But why didn’t you state in your first post that you actually had an opinion about the Roman confessional (excessive)?

The opinion you think I have is actually more along the lines of an hypothesis I wanted to test… And besides, this is my very first thread here… And you all have been very gracious…

I thought you knew very little about it, and thus did not yet form an opinion about it.

I DO know very little about it, yet had my own suspicions … So I wanted to find out directly…

I thought I was giving information only. Then I had the feeling that I am actually arguing against something which I have not been allowed to hear.

Yup - You see - I KNEW you were sensitive and perceptive! It was both…

It made me uncomfortable (been in similar situations before and have grown wary).

So you can see why I am not offended…

I hope there is no ill-feeling between us.

By the time I get done with you, you are going to find that you actually LIKE my sorriness! But I am tough is some ways that have to do with what goes on in the Church… And this sissy-footing around secrecy issues in the confessional is responsible for a lot of serious, meaning soul destroying, ills that could be avoided by a less legalistic approach, so I am headed there with the thread, God willing…

Arsenios

 

[Margita]

T Although the Orthodox see very little healing of the soul in the practice of psychiatry… Nor do some of the Roman Catholics I know… They see all of the psychological sciences as pretty much psycho-babble… And heavy on the PSYCHO! Healing comes from the movement of the Holy Spirit within the soul, and some elders can do this spiritually, and most priests cannot…

During absolution, the priest performs epiclesis which is the invoking of the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is involved in the business, it is not just the priest personally…
An aside on psycho-babble: as a practising RC who has gone through some hard times, I have much to be grateful for to modern psychology. Including medication. Enough said…

this is my very first thread here…

I have never started one yet, so you’re ahead of me

By the time I get done with you, you are going to find that you actually LIKE my sorriness! But I am tough is some ways that have to do with what goes on in the Church… And this sissy-footing around secrecy issues in the confessional is responsible for a lot of serious, meaning soul destroying, ills that could be avoided by a less legalistic approach, so I am headed there with the thread, God willing…
Arsenios

I think we’re both concerned about what goes on in the Church - but on different footings. I am much attached to the sacrament of penance as I know it, it means much to me as it is - the more something is to you the harder it is to argue about it, especially if it is as significant as religion. The whole privacy-issue has an entirely different dimension for me - I don’t look upon it as an impediment to healing, that is all.

Well, let’s see how we end up liking each other…! But PLEASE, no Hundred Posts’ War, esp. at 11:18 pm!
Good night now.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

Arsenios, Christ does not take away man’s free will to go and sin again. You are still infirm and fallible - whether being forgiven by Christ personally (2000 years ago) or being absolved by a priest.

That is the idea I am challenging… When Christ forgave you your sins 2000 years ago, He also gave you the MEANS to remain apart from sinning… He did not leave you weak and sin-prone, but healed your infirmities that had made you a slave to sin, and make you instead truly free, so that yes, you COULD sin again, but more importantly, you were now free to NOT sin again… And this because He healed the soul of the sinner whom He forgave…

And this is not happening in the confessional today, is it?

Wrong. It is absolutely necessary to make a confession valid to have a firm will to do the obedience. You must promise in the confessional to abstain from sins and the near occasion of sin in the future. Without this intention, your confession is not valid, for it annuls the purpose of confession which is conversion.

Well, the issue was whether we are receiving the MEANS to desist from and overcome confessed sins from within the confessional in which they are confessed… And if not, then what are we doing Communing? The early Church held people OUT of Communion so as to bring them to true repentance from their sins that were serious - eg virtually all sexual sins, murder, and on and on - I can get you a very long list… All requiring LONG periods, and in many years, of being witheld from Communion… And now, we just hand out the forgiveness and give Communion the same day? On the presumption that because they showed up for confession, they are prima facia sincere, barring contrary indications?

I do not understand this.

Well, you seem to have expressed the idea that a damaged soul needs communion in order to heal… So that soul damage is not a condition that contra-indicates partaking in the Holy Mysteries… Yet the entire first thousand years of the Church indeed DID withold Communion from those confessing serious sins… And for many years, you see…

The Church has a separate policy for absolving penitents from the sin of abortion and other truly grave sins - please check the Catholic Encyclopedia.

How about masturbation, sodomy, adultery, and bestiality?

Abortion is tough… Do you withdraw such a person from Communion?

I was taught to live my faith not argue about it -

Glory to God!

I am not good at controversy, and I panic when I can smell a situation tending towards that.

Well, maybe I can be more conversational, and less confrontive… I tend to look to crisp up differences between Rome and the EO Communion… But knowing I am not a troll may help you see through my graceless style…

I do not think you are a troll, certainly.

Cool - I am just an old guy with a big beard and an ego to match!

Arsenios

 

[cor]

I understand that on the one hand, there can be no telling of the details of one’s confession on the part of the confessor… And especially, by way of gossip with parishoners… Yet how about between the priest and another priest [say in the interest of pastoral concern and consistency]?

If a confessor is faced with a penitent in an unusual situation that he has little experience with or knowledge about, I’m not sure whether he is permitted to consult with another priest (without betraying the identity of the penitent) so as to better minister to the penitent. Does anyone know?

The issue of whether a penitent is bound to secrecy was brought up. Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it:

“Even the penitent, according to some theologians, is bound to secrecy; but the more general opinion leaves him free; as he can authorize the confessor to speak of what he has confessed, he can also, of his own accord, speak to others. But he is obliged to take care that what he reveals shall cast no blame or suspicion on the confessor, since the latter cannot defend himself. In a word, it is more in keeping with the intention of the Church and with the reverence due to the sacrament that the penitent himself should refrain from speaking of his confession.”

The CE also mentions this decree of the Holy Office (AFAIK, it’s not superseded or abrogated by the Code of Canon Law 1983):

“Furthermore, by a decree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in confession that would displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him greater displeasure.”

Remember that a “confessor” is the priest – some people are confused by the term.

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Arsenios, the Church’s concern in holding so highly the seal of the confessional is to make sure there is nothing that discourages sinners from seeking God’s mercy. Just as God loves all, including the worse of sinners, indeed especially the worst of sinners, so also does the Church take care to minister to all and to not let anyone be discouraged from the sacrament. That’s why she also has regulations on what a priest is allowed to give as a penance (I’m sorry but I’m not aware of what the regulations are but I know that they exist)

 

[THurifer2]

Roger THAT!

A.

Sorry…I will refrain from tossing verbal molitov cocktails across the tiber. Forgive me.

 

[Margita]

yes, you COULD sin again, but more importantly, you were now free to NOT sin again… And this because He healed the soul of the sinner whom He forgave…

And this is not happening in the confessional today, is it?

Look, everybody was free to NOT sin again even before Christ. Man’s will has been free since Adam first breathed. That means we can sin or not to our pleasure. Christ does not take away the possibility to sin, He does not heal you in a way to prevent you from sinning again. (As I have daily proof…)
He healed the soul of the sinner whom he forgave, yes - but the sinner has the freedom to make himself ill again. Healing does not mean immunization. Sorry.
And yes, this is happening in confession: you are restored into God’s sanctifying grace, you are “healed” - alas, your free will is not taken away…

Well, the issue was whether we are receiving the MEANS to desist from and overcome confessed sins from within the confessional in which they are confessed…

People do go and confess the same sins over and over again, but not because their previous confession was useless in preventing them from falling into the same sin again, but because they have chosen to commit the same sin again.

The early Church held people OUT of Communion so as to bring them to true repentance from their sins that were serious - All requiring LONG periods, and in many years, of being witheld from Communion…

The difference between this policy and today’s policy is that the early Chruch required the penitent to give full satisfaction for their sins which were a scandal to the Church. This had nothing to do with the seal of secrecy as we know it today!!! It had to do with the requirement of satisfaction and penance. To be held out of communion was not a punishment or a penance!! It was simply the notion that your absolvation is not complete until you have done your penance and given satisfaction. And you could not, naturally, receive the Eucharist until the sacrament of reconcilition was completed.

And now, we just hand out the forgiveness and give Communion the same day? On the presumption that because they showed up for confession, they are prima facia sincere, barring contrary indications?

Confession does not work according to the rules of secular jusrisdiction. You are not put on a period of “probation.” What would contrary indication be?? Granted, the priest can refuse to give absolution if he has reasonable doubts concerning the completeness of the penitents repentance, honesty, or will to abstain from sin in the future.
But Communion is not a reward for being sinless, but a medicine, a remedy to help the penitent in his battle against sin.

Yet the entire first thousand years of the Church indeed DID withold Communion from those confessing serious sins… And for many years, you see…

I have answered that. Withholding Communion was not a penitence: you simply were not absolved until your required penance was incomplete. And you could not take Communion because you were not absolved.
But being wittheld Communion was no guarantee that the penitent would not sin again.

How about masturbation, sodomy, adultery, and bestiality?

These are all mortal sins, and you have to confess them. Believe me, no priest will let you get away with three Ave Marias for sodomy!!! But Communion is necessary to help the penitent to conversion. You cannot deny it from anybody after the absolution was given. In the early Church, it was deferring the absolution until full penance was given which deferred receiving the Eucharist. But full penance did not mean not receiving for a period of time!

Abortion is tough… Do you withdraw such a person from Communion?

To absolve someone from the sin of getting an abortion or collaborating in it in any form, the priest needs a special permission from the bishop. But after the penitent is absolved, he or she can go to Communion. However, absolution in this case is not as promptly and easily given. I do not know tha particulars, perhaps you should look it up in the CC.

Glory to God!

…and peace to His people on Earth.

Cool - I am just an old guy with a big beard and an ego to match!

I can see that… but beware, an “ego to match” could lure you into the sin of pride… (I speak from experience. )

Peace.

 

[Trelow]

If confession was not totally confidential, then many souls would be lost because of fear. If one were guilty of a particularly heinous act, they would be weary of approaching the priest for confession.

In regards to your question of the hypothetical teacher who abused his daughter, his eternal state is more important than her temporal state. Salvation of the soul is always of more importance.

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

"Arsenios:

Roger THAT!

Sorry…I will refrain from tossing verbal molitov cocktails across the tiber. Forgive me.

I was agreeing with you - It was and is a sorry mess we have managed to get sticking to our sandals… I have a suspicion that the Orthodox tend to be very worried, as immigrants coming from great persecutions, so as to “fit in” with American culture, and not to rock any boats - The Greeks, for instance, have put pews in their Churches, and even organs for organ music… But I am native born and a convert, and suffer not at all from these shynesses… And especially on matters of birth control… Used to be the case that poor and large families were seen as great blessings, but now in the west, in the worship of science, we seek a zero population growth of 1.41 children per household, instead of thanking God for each precious baby He is entrusting us with…

So trying to get along and fit in with a culture that worships self and kills its own children in the womb, and prevents them from even getting conceived, so that the parents can live lives filled with careers and hobbies, is crackers…

My brother, I am WITH you all the way on your Molotov cocktails into that sorry issue [birth control]… The Orthodox blew that one… But not ALL of us did - Just a few leaders, and as you know, we do not idolate our leaders, unless they are truly humble, saintly, and God bearing… And then, not to their face…

Arsenios

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

I was notified off list by PM that this forum is NOT for the kind of discussion we have been having, but is more oriented for the pastoral concerns of the Roman Catholic faithful, and that my issues here are better addressed in the Apologetics forum…

So I would like to thank each of you who has been kind enough to find room in your hearts for replying to me, and I will withdraw the inquiry from this forum, with my apologies… I will hopefully be able to raise the issues more appropriately in a more appropriate forum…

Thank-you again, and God be with you all…

Arsenios