What do you think about the sacraments?

[The Liturgist]

Regarding your fighting women, it sounds like you handled that well @Paidiske . I have never heard people cussing at each other in a church in America although I am sure it happens, but such an act strikes me as being profoundly sacrilegious. It had to take enormous calm to deal with them the way you did; if that happened in my church I don’t know what I would do, but it would take extreme effort not to call MetroPD and have them trespassed.

 

[Philip_B]

Regarding your fighting women, it sounds like you handled that well @Paidiske . I have never heard people cussing at each other in a church in America although I am sure it happens, but such an act strikes me as being profoundly sacrilegious. It had to take enormous calm to deal with them the way you did; if that happened in my church I don’t know what I would do, but it would take extreme effort not to call MetroPD and have them trespassed.

It has good historic precedent, and is certainly not limited to Australia.

 

[Paidiske]

It’s not for me a question of defending paedophiles, but rather preserving the integrity of the seal of sacramental question.

Well, given that a) my church doesn't regard reconciliation as a sacrament, and b) Anglicanism has historically allowed for exceptions to the "seal," and c) new situations sometimes require flexible thinking (that is, the folks who first articulated the idea of the "seal" never thought it would become a way for paedophiles to prolong their offending), I'm not seeing any reason why we should see this as some sort of immutable absolute.

Note: I am not advocating that what is said in confession should become gossip fodder for all and sundry. But that sometimes, everyone needs to understand that the purpose of confession is not to avoid accountability. Indeed, true repentance would need to involve taking accountability seriously.

Now, demanding paedophiles confess their crimes to the police before absolving them, which you are implying is what is happening, is a completely different ballgame.

I'm telling you outright that that is what we are told is to be the practice. That said, I doubt it's actually happening, as I very much doubt that paedophiles whose crimes remain unreported are taking them to confession.

In the US, it is protected by law, within certain parameters.

Not everywhere. Your state laws vary, and some do not protect the "seal" of the confessional in this type of situation. (See eg. here: The seal of confession and mandatory reporting: a survey of state laws ).

 

[CleanSoul]

they will not be absolved without reporting, even in the Catholic church)

I don't believe that is right. The seal of confession is inviolable in the Catholic Church, even if the sin was something as bad as harming a child. We receive grace through confession which helps us to not do that sin again. Of course, we have to try, and pray, and use the grace we have been given. The thing is, it is unlikely someone like that would go to confession. Often, they do not think it is wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't believe that is right. The seal of confession is inviolable in the Catholic Church, even if the sin was something as bad as harming a child. We receive grace through confession which helps us to not do that sin again. Of course, we have to try, and pray, and use the grace we have been given. The thing is, it is unlikely someone like that would go to confession. Often, they do not think it is wrong.

The way that current Catholic practice was explained to me, is that absolution will not be given unless the penitent turns themselves in first, for this kind of case. That does not break the seal, because it is the penitent themselves doing the reporting.

The thing is that there have been many cases of paedophile priests, in particular, going to confession and then re-offending, for years and years. Both state and church have said that that kind of pattern cannot continue.

 

[CleanSoul]

To those who believe in the sacrament of confession, I confess that I have a problem with this practice. Plz explain to me why you practice this?

Because it was instituted by Jesus himself in John 20:20-23. Notice Jesus said, in John 20:21: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you." This was after He walked out of that tomb, and before He ascended to heaven. He gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins because He knew man was going to fall into serious sin for generations. Through Holy Orders, this authority has been passed on to the present day priests.

I usually go to private confession once a week either on Friday or Saturday afternoon, or Sunday morning at the latest before mass, whether I feel I "have to", or not. I clearly like confession. I do this after an examination of conscience, as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. The last thing I would want to do is to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord and Savior if I feel I have committed a mortal sin, which is a sin that breaks one of the Ten Commandments, and is done with full knowledge and consent. In other words, you know it is wrong according to the Ten Commandments, but you do it anyway, usually because of our own human weakness during a time of temptation.

Through this practice, and the sanctifying grace I receive, my sins have lessened, and the sins I commit are not anywhere near as bad as they used to be. Thanks be to God.

People may receive the Eucharist during mass if they have venial sins, because during mass, we ask for forgiveness of our sins, before we receive.

If the Eucharist were merely symbolic, why would it cause spiritual death if received in an unworthy manner? In the Catholic Church, due to transubstantiation, it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord and Savior, and it is also symbolic as far as the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It’s not for me a question of defending paedophiles, but rather preserving the integrity of the seal of sacramental question. Now, demanding paedophiles confess their crimes to the police before absolving them, which you are implying is what is happening, is a completely different ballgame. There are also other factors to consider from a mental health perspective which we as clergy are not supposed to deal with. But I do feel that the actual sacrament of reconciliation and what is said therein should be completely private and inviolable. In the US, it is protected by law, within certain parameters.

This^^

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Regarding your fighting women, it sounds like you handled that well @Paidiske . I have never heard people cussing at each other in a church in America although I am sure it happens, but such an act strikes me as being profoundly sacrilegious. It had to take enormous calm to deal with them the way you did; if that happened in my church I don’t know what I would do, but it would take extreme effort not to call MetroPD and have them trespassed.

Witnessed a food fight at a funeral once.

 

[The Liturgist]

Witnessed a food fight at a funeral once.

What were the circumstances? I am trying to figure out how I would deal with it. If the bereaved had dealt with their bereavement through the abuse of alcohol or other substances, for example.

 

[Paidiske]

I once had to say to one family member that they could not bring a hired security guard to prevent another family member attending a funeral.

I did also have to threaten one person with getting the police to remove them for trespassing; that was when I worked in the cathedral, and a tourist had wandered in during a funeral, and refused to desist from taking photographs, despite the prominent presence of coffin and mourners.

Some people really do just have no idea.

 

[CleanSoul]

absolution will not be given unless the penitent turns themselves in first, for this kind of case.

I could see forgiveness being retained if the priest believes the penitent, especially regarding the nature of this sin, does not have contrition, and fully intends to again commit this kind of sin. Any priest worth their salt would counsel the penitent, and discuss what course needs to be taken if the penitent truly is seeking to amend their ways through Jesus' mercy.

Ultimately, any sin is between the one confessing, and God, and confession has to be protected at all costs.

 

[Paidiske]

confession has to be protected at all costs.

I'm not sure if you realise that many people would read this as, It's fine for more children to be raped, as long as our religious privileges are not challenged.

 

[CleanSoul]

I'm not sure if you realise that many people would read this as, It's fine for more children to be raped, as long as our religious privileges are not challenged.

It was not my intent, but, yes, now that you mention it, the vast majority of people adopt the secular world view which is moving us away from the teachings of the church, and closer to relativism being accepted as the norm.

 

[The Liturgist]

I once had to say to one family member that they could not bring a hired security guard to prevent another family member attending a funeral.

I did also have to threaten one person with getting the police to remove them for trespassing; that was when I worked in the cathedral, and a tourist had wandered in during a funeral, and refused to desist from taking photographs, despite the prominent presence of coffin and mourners.

Some people really do just have no idea.

Good call.

Speaking of “high risk funerals” have you discovered the Internet rabbit hole of Jeremy DeWitte and his fake police department? Lots of legitimate security companies provide funeral escorts, but Jeremy Dewitte is a convicted paedophile and thus cannot get a security guard license in the state of Florida, so he and his younger brother, who is also a convicted paedophile (there had to be some tragic history of abuse in their family) ran up a company to do funeral escorts, with black and white patrol cars, lighting which could appear red and blue, a mixture of fake and real guns worn illegally by their different “officers” who they assigned military ranks to but claimed were independent contractors and not employees, and illegally pulled people over, and there are rumors they wrote citation using a mislaid ticket book. The videos of him speeding around funerals in the vicinity of Walt Disney World at 120 MPH are harrowing.

Have you ever had severe problems with funeral homes and their subcontractors?

I used to, in the UCC, but in my new ministry I decided from the start we would not do cremations and discourage embalming, expensive coffins and viewings, instead following EO funeral customs, for doctrinal reasons and also since Clark County provides free burials, except where the cremation was required by the state or performed in a distant location due to the high costs of shipping a body. This has dramatically reduced the scope for potential funeral home problems and actual problems as we have lost people in the past year, none due to covid but some elderly members who were also personal friends. I do have a tendency to shed tears during funerals and burials, which I think I mentioned to you before; I worry that people might think I doubt the Resurrection when that is not the case at all. This year I cried at every service from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday, for different reasons, that being the extreme beauty of the passion of our Lord, tears of thanksgiving. I do make an effort not to show it.

 

[Paidiske]

Have you ever had severe problems with funeral homes and their subcontractors?

Not what I would call severe problems, no. The most common issue is that here, it's usual for the clergyperson to prepare the funeral service booklet, but the funeral directors to print it. Typically I prepare the text and tell them if they wish to enhance the booklet with pictures, graphic design elements, etc, they are welcome to do so, but I expect the text to remain unchanged. That is not always respected, and that can cause problems with the service becoming confusing or difficult to follow.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What were the circumstances? I am trying to figure out how I would deal with it. If the bereaved had dealt with their bereavement through the abuse of alcohol or other substances, for example.

Arguing about who made the best sandwitches.

 

[zippy2006]

The way that current Catholic practice was explained to me, is that absolution will not be given unless the penitent turns themselves in first, for this kind of case. That does not break the seal, because it is the penitent themselves doing the reporting.

CleanSoul is correct. Catholic priests are not allowed to do what you have been told. That is, they cannot make reporting a condition of absolution. They can and should counsel the penitent to turn himself in, but they cannot withhold absolution in the way you claim.

In a purely logical, non-pastoral manner, the priest might be thought to say, "You should turn yourself in, and I strongly recommend that you do, but I cannot force you to do so, nor can I refuse absolution merely on the basis that you have not agreed to turn yourself in."

The thing is that there have been many cases of paedophile priests, in particular, going to confession and then re-offending, for years and years. Both state and church have said that that kind of pattern cannot continue.

There are paedophiles who go to confession and then reoffend, yes.

In general the Catholic Church is here choosing theological soundness over societal-political efficacy, and you are doing the opposite. To highlight the theological aspect, let's take the Church out of the picture. Do you think that God would never forgive a paedophile apart from the paedophile turning himself him?


Edit: I should say that some priests may convince themselves that contrition is tied to criminal justice, and that therefore the paedophile who does not turn themselves in is not contrite and therefore cannot receive absolution. I suppose this position may be possible, but I don't find it to be tenable at all. Everyone knows that very substantial degrees of contrition can be present among criminals who do not turn themselves in. I don't know of anything in Catholic theology that would support the notion that such contrition must necessarily be insufficient. But you are right that coercing a penitent to turn themselves in is only obliquely related to the seal.

 

[zippy2006]

The more difficult problem is when the penitent discloses that they have been the victim of abuse. This is more common than you might think, since many victims carry heavy burdens of (misplaced) guilt. What I am observing in my pastoral practice is that victims are now avoiding disclosing, because they know that mandatory reporting means they will not be able to make decisions about the speed and circumstances of official processes in response, and they wish to avoid the trauma of legal investigations etc. This has denied those victims appropriate pastoral care which could help them approach reporting over time. But that is a problem with mandatory reporting in general and not simply in the context of confession.

But you have subordinated grace to your social-political goals. The victim won't report to civil or church authorities, and for the same reason, but in the latter case they are denied grace. This is a quite serious theological problem that few Christians seem to understand. Mandatory reporting with respect to victims treats victims as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves, and when sacred ministers are the ones engaging in this behavior the victim actually begins to understand God as just another person who uses them as a means to an end. What mandatory reporting does is make reporters legally liable if they do not report. Thus the report is often seen as (and often is) more of a selfish act than anything else. The victim is coerced into publicizing their abuse simply because the reporter is afraid of the law or because the State wants to reduce a societal ill. They become a means to these ends. Practically speaking it leads to a culture where abuse is kept secret and no one can be trusted; theologically it is even worse.

Of course the same dynamics apply to the abusers, albeit in a much more subtle way. In general I think there are cases where abusers should be denied absolution, but to set up an across-the-board rule on this leads to the exact same theological problems that occur with respect to victims.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The example that was shared with us during Catechism Class was this:

During confession, a person revealed that they were guilty of murder; while another person had already been sentenced to hang for the same murder. The preson refused to turn themselves in to free the innocent person.

While absolution would be witheld, the Pastor is not free to turn the guilty person in to save the life of the innocent person. All the Pastor could do is to admonish the guilty person to turn themselves in.

The seal of the confessional must remain inviolate.

 

[fhansen]

Do you like them, do you oppose them? Share your opinion.

I came to better appreciate the sacraments now than earlier in life when they meant little to me. But the sacraments are "theology in action", so to speak, basic positions of the church set in stone. We have to understand that for most of the history of Christianity believers have been mainly simple, illiterate, and uneducated. So besides catechesis we have the sacraments by which a person can enter the fold and physically live out their faith in the most basic ways.

Baptism, known as the "sacrament of faith", brings us into God's family as the first formal public profession of that faith. It's the historical understanding of the means by which one is born again and communion with God is established.

The Eucharist or Holy communion is the expression of the need for continuously maintaining direct communion with Him and the regular nourishment that proceeds as we remain in and freely partake of God. Coupled with this is the biblical mandate that, "Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup" ( 1 Cor 1:28). In this way we're compelled to keep honest about ourselves and our relationship with Christ and keep it refreshed.

If we've compromised that relationship with sin, however, particularly sin so serious or grave that it tends to oppose love of God and neighbor by its nature while destroying love in ourselves, then we've already turned away from Him by our actions. But with His forgiveness always at hand, with a change of heart we can then know/experience that forgiveness via the sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession.

The other sacraments address man's relationship with God via basic vocations that He's instituted and provided for us and finally the end of his life and the beginning of the next.