Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

emmaverybo

(8,147 posts)
41. Yes to some of what you say.
Wed Jun 12, 2019, 03:11 PM
Jun 2019

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, the penitent must show contrition, and does so in the words he or she says to the priest in the confessional, “father......” I am sorry for my sins and will sin no more. The priest can ask are you truly sorry, but confessing comes with a presumption that the person confessing is indeed sorry. Go and sin no more says the priest, but he does not follow the person around.
The priest can try to ascertain that a person is not actively continuing a sin. Let’s say not still having an affair. The priest can deny absolution if he pursues an avowal of contrition with “but are you continuing the affair? “ and the person says yes. Also if a person refuses to say Father I am sorry for my sins or when Father says Go forth and sin no more says oh, I am going back to the bank to rob it again.
This denial of absolution upon proof-seeking is rare because again there is presumption of being sincere and a recognition of imperfect contrition, that we grow to fuller, more perfect contrition as we grow in faith and redemptive actions.
As to conditions to confess to civil authority, no. Nothing in Catholic literature, on the books so to speak, makes any condition but that the confessing party is contrite, will sin no more, and presumably do the penance suggested. It is not a case of you see the police first, come back to the box with proof you did, and I will absolve you.
If an individual priest is conducting confession with this condition, then that behavior is not according to church doctrine, but perhaps a course of action decided upon within a parish, perhaps in dealing with priest to priest situations.
Doubtful though, since the Vatican has stipulated that if clergy suspects abuse they must report it only to church authorities, not to law enforcement. And this new guidance is not a stipulation applying to what is heard under seal of the confessional.
,














Not a chance this bill is constitutional SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #1
Did you go to Upstairs Hollywood Law School, too? Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #8
No, I got my Law Degree SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #10
You should be aware attorney-client privilege has limits... Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #13
Similar bills are already in effect in numerous states Major Nikon Jun 2019 #11
My statement was not based on what I favor SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #14
Gotta call bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2019 #20
I don't have time or interest to argue this SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #38
And yet you replied to the OP doing exactly that Major Nikon Jun 2019 #44
It is not true that the priest can put conditions on absolution. He must absolve regardless of the emmaverybo Jun 2019 #33
This is completely wrong SCantiGOP Jun 2019 #39
Yes to some of what you say. emmaverybo Jun 2019 #41
The people we are talking about are priests themselves Major Nikon Jun 2019 #45
Many Bills are proposed, and passed, that are determined to be unConstitutional. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #2
That is indeed so. MineralMan Jun 2019 #3
Good argument. NT emmaverybo Jun 2019 #34
Yeah like the bill that guaranteed birth control coverage in healthcare plans. trotsky Jun 2019 #6
5-4 decision Major Nikon Jun 2019 #17
Because for them, religious privilege is more important than political consistency. trotsky Jun 2019 #19
Yeah, kinda funny how that works Major Nikon Jun 2019 #22
Your free exercise of religion ends where religious people hide child rape behind the curtain of AtheistCrusader Jun 2019 #36
Might be better to 'chip away' at this, like they do to our side with abortion mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #4
I once used an ax to chip away at a log I needed to cut in half. MineralMan Jun 2019 #5
Your proverbial log had no advocates, nor ostensible 1A rights ... just sayin (nt) mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #7
Well, it certainly resisted being cut in half with an ax. MineralMan Jun 2019 #9
I don't disagree with any of this, but I'm not sure it'll pass Constitutional Muster mr_lebowski Jun 2019 #15
Que the child rape apologia Major Nikon Jun 2019 #12
What's the Bible verse supporting the church's position? Cartoonist Jun 2019 #16
No, that definitely isn't it. MineralMan Jun 2019 #18
See the Code of Canon Law, Sinistrous Jun 2019 #24
Such a law is irrelevant: Sinistrous Jun 2019 #21
You know every priest on the planet? MineralMan Jun 2019 #23
Church law is absolutely clear on this point. Sinistrous Jun 2019 #25
Does church law say anything about raping kids and covering up crimes? Major Nikon Jun 2019 #27
Not specifically, but ... Mariana Jun 2019 #42
Numerous priests have raped children IN the confessional Major Nikon Jun 2019 #26
And go to jail they would. Sinistrous Jun 2019 #31
That's where conspirators and accessories to child rape belong. Mariana Jun 2019 #43
Well it will zipplewrath Jun 2019 #28
Your last sentence summarizes the situation perfectly. Sinistrous Jun 2019 #29
So far, no court has ruled that a priest must break the seal of the confessional. To do so emmaverybo Jun 2019 #30
Thank you for expressing the issue so clearly. Sinistrous Jun 2019 #32
And yet they don't excommunicate child raping priests Major Nikon Jun 2019 #35
They confess when law enforcement has something on them. Your point about the pull of absolution emmaverybo Jun 2019 #37
Today they can confess and nothing happens. trotsky Jun 2019 #40
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Catholic Church Fights Bi...»Reply #41