Ask A Catholic IV

[NBAfan]

I have a question: How does a person confess his sins? I was recently watching an old TV show from the 50's, and in one of the episodes, it had shown a priest sitting behind a wall with a small sliding window that could open to show a persons face; however, the window was covered a translucent net so that the confessor was anonymous. The confessor would then confess his sins, then leave. Is that how confessing is really done?

Yes, it is done this way.

 

[_random_]

I wasn't really thinking of you at all when I put that in the OP Random, I was more concerned with certain unconstructive individuals who seemed fit to make snide commentary in answer to other peoples questions. That said a general notice is perhaps needed to restrain some of the more impulsive individuals on these forums

I typically tried to be careful not to answer questions where I contradict the Catholic position, but I'm really not familiar enough with the Catholic position to ensure that.

An Ask A Christian thread may be a good idea, but I would only say that tentatively in consideration that there will always be a multitude of opinions due to firstly the doctrinal differences between the various Churches and ecclesial communities represented on this forum, and secondly due to the fundamental relativism of protestantism (particularly although not exclusively liberal protestantism) in regards to non-doctrinal deductions on moral issues. These paradigms mean that there would be little point in asking for a 'christian' position, since such a unified position, on many if not the majority of issues simply would not manifest itself.

I was thinking something like this for rules:
Anybody identifying as a Christian may answer.
Questions pertaining specifically to Catholicism, Mormonism, or Evangelical Protestantism can go in their respective threads.
If a Christian disagrees with an answer, they're free to offer an alternative one, but their aim should be to answer the question, not to argue against somebody else's points.

Most people should understand that such a thread is going to invite a variety of answers by necessity, so they really shouldn't be surprised by the results. I mean, Roman Catholic doctrine is meticulously well-defined, and you, Takhisis and civ king still find minutia to argue over at times, so it's really just the nature of the internet beast. It would be nice to be able to redirect the more general questions that pop up here elsewhere I think.

 

[Jehoshua]

@NickyJ

-

As for the protocol of confession.

Usually you will go to the confessional (or meet the priest face to face if you so desire) and begin with the words

"Bless me father for I have sinned, it has been *such and such time* since my last confession"

you would then go through what your confessing in number and in kind, with the priest perhaps asking a few questions if need be. After that he may give some advice (although that is not integral) before giving you a penance to conduct and concluding with the words of absolution. Its fairly straightforward.

-

Theologically confession requires three things. Contrition, that the person confessing has a contrite heart and truly wishes to repent for his sins. Disclosure of sins (ergo confession of sins) and satisfaction, which is penance (doing something to make amends for your sin).

Furthermore one should keep in mind that you are not confessing to a mortal man, but to God. The priest serves as a minister of the sacrament in persona christi, in the person of Christ. He is there to ensure that the reality of what you a doing (confessing to Christ your sins) is explicitly clear in ones attitude due to the fact a person (the priest) is present, and to actually impart the absolution as an instrument of Christ. It is a different thing alltogether to confess when there is a person on the recieving end, then to confess in your mind, even to God without the tangible material presence of another person.

That said, it is possible to receive forgiveness from God outside of the sacrament. Its called perfect contrition. However this is something that is exceedingly difficult to achieve, which is the reason why Christ established the sacrament in the first place. (John 20:22-23)


---


@Random

-

Perhaps, but the fact remains in my mind that such a thread would be sort of pointless as it would simply reflect the ideological spread of society in general on moral points. In effect a person could go to that thread on moral issues, and pick and choose a "christian" answer for his problem based exactly on what he already believes, thus making the thread sort of redundant in getting people to consider why they hold their own views, and to contemplate others. In fact I am worried that such a thread would almost be an example of religious indifferentism, which is why my support for such a thread is only tentative, and not very favourable.

 

[Jehoshua]

Oh and in regards to linkmans hypothetical "how can I get excommunicated by my local ordinary if I was a Catholic" question

The answer is quite simple.

Heresy.

 

[civ_king]

When I said none of the it's against nature I meant blah blah blah homosexuality doesn't exist in nature which gets met with but animals screw other animals of the same sex which I meet with a horny animal will screw just about anything, including in some cases dogs raping people and other abominations which never gets anywhere and we will spend the rest of the time glaring at each other or something.

I will try to use natural law, but of course I'm not going to refer to it as such. my argument for it will be one, Mathematics is the language of nature. Two, Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. Three: If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns everywhere in nature, we call it natural law.

 

[Jehoshua]

If your going to use natural law their is no point obfuscating the fact your using it as a philosophical grounding for your argument. Just go right ahead and use it. Although might I suggest you familiarise yourself with the principles if you do use it.

Here are some sources

: http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[mayor]

Oh and in regards to linkmans hypothetical "how can I get excommunicated by my local ordinary if I was a Catholic" question

The answer is quite simple.

Heresy.

If a local ordinary excommunicate someone, I take it this will be investigated by higher authorities? Is it for instance possible for an excommunicated person to go into appeal?

If someone is excommunicated how can he return to the Catholic church?

 

[Jehoshua]

If you are excommunicated by the local ordinary for some offense, that act is not automatically investigated since he is the legitimate authority in his diocese, and thus its perfectly within his magisterium and authority to excommunicate you should you commit an excommunicable offense (such as heresy). However you can appeal to the ecclesiastial courts. If you were to make such an appeal, it would likely go to the Roman Rota, and then forward into the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura if you had questions on the rota's judgement. Although I add that I doubt that an excommunicant would in most cases get very far since people aren't excommunicated on a whim (God knows how long my Archbishop took to excommunicate a certain heretical priest) and its fairly clear that if your excommunicated there is a very good reason why that is. If however they found in your favour presumably someone with the faculties to do so will absolve you of your excommunicated state.

-

As to returning to the Catholic Church. Someone who is excommunicated is still Catholic with all the obligations of a Catholic. They cannot however participate in the sacraments or hold any governmental or ministerial authority in the Church. Normally for the excommunication to be lifted a declaration of repentance, profession of the creed (if it involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if relevant) is required for the censure to be lifted by a cleric who is empowered to do so. For more serious offences occasionaly faculties to restore full-standing to an excommunicant is reserved to the ordinary of your diocese, or sometimes even to the pope.

 

[El_Machinae]

What is the value of the 'ensoulment' concept, morally? What distinguishes it from sentience and sapience as moral concepts?

A lot of effort is spent on 'the soul', but since it's an ephemeral concept, what's the point? Biology doesn't seem capable of handling the idea of a 'ensoulment' as a timepoint, so I find it weird that people speak about the soul with such authority.

 

[Jehoshua]

The idea of ensoulment, which concerns itself with the moment a human being gains a soul is not really one thats relevant to the Catholic Church. The Church believes that human beings have a soul the moment they come into existence and that it is a direct creation of God, ergo they have a soul from conception. Thus as to the moral worth of the ensoulment concept, its completely worthless. A human being is human from his very beginnings and the idea of ensoulment perhaps in some quarters obfuscates that.

 

[Arakhor]

I think that Dr. Jacques Gaillot would say that you are failing to do your Christian duty by discriminating against others, be they homosexual or otherwise.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is that 'at conception' is not a robust beginning of a human being. There are many, many ways to create a new human that doesn't have a beginning 'at conception'.

Maybe it's more of a Protestant thing (which I am more familiar with). They seemed to very much care about the concept of 'a soul'. It was this undefinable thing that separated humans from animals, despite our biological mutability and common ancestry.

When does the moral onus towards a conceived person start? When does our onus to an embryo (assuming that it's "sick") end?

 

[Jehoshua]

@Arakhor

funny, I thought this thread was supposed to be for people to ask questions and for Catholics to answer. As you are not asking a question you are presumably answering a question. If you are, since you are not Catholic you should refrain. If you are not answering a question then you are simply making a non-constructive, and otherwise unnecessary comment divorced from the purpose of this thread and once more you should refrain.

Now in regards to your comment. Dr Jacques Gaillot, titular bishop of the former city of Partenia currently located in the deserts of Algeria is a person to whom good reason for excommunication does apply. However as of this time the Church refrains for God knows what reasons and he continues to cause scandal amongst the faithful through his heterodox opinions and his misperceptions of the nature of charity. Yes helping the poor is good, but not at the expense of the moral law and not when it supercedes the primary duty of the Church, to get souls to heaven.

 

[Jehoshua]

The problem is that 'at conception' is not a robust beginning of a human being. There are many, many ways to create a new human that doesn't have a beginning 'at conception'.

Maybe it's more of a Protestant thing (which I am more familiar with). They seemed to very much care about the concept of 'a soul'. It was this undefinable thing that separated humans from animals, despite our biological mutability and common ancestry.

When does the moral onus towards a conceived person start? When does our onus to an embryo (assuming that it's "sick") end?

Well it is in fact a robust beginning, the union of sperm an an egg, presto you have a human being from that moment. Whether it happens via immoral means does not matter.

As to the concept of a soul, Catholic teaching does teach that mankind has a spiritual component, the soul, from which the fundamental 'humanity' of the person emerges, such as sapience for example. However from there its not so much of a factor distinct from the moral obligations to one fellow man.

As to the moral onus towards the person starts, it starts from their conception and ends at the moment of their natural death.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, sorry, yes, it is a clear beginning (I agree). What I meant was that it was not the sole type of beginning, so it's not a robust definition.

I might be misunderstanding. Are you forwarding that sapience derives from the soul? Or is it one of the characteristics of humanity? (much like 'having a heart' is a characteristic of humanity, despite the fact that it's a shared feature)

Are you a Creationist, by the way?

 

[Jehoshua]

But it is the sole type of beginning that has relevance to one duty to ones fellow man. A human being comes into existence at conception, from that time forth until his natural death the obligations one has to his fellow humans apply to that person.

-

I am saying that the fundamental nature of human persons as distinct from other animals (which lack souls) derive from the fact that mankind has a soul, ergo his 'humanity' (in the sense of the differentiation from other animals) is a product of the fact that he has a soul. I was using sapience as an example of a fundamental aspect.

-

No I am not a creationist and do not believe in a seven earth-day creation of the universe. biblical hyperliteralism is primarily a protestant phenomenon and one that is fairly novel in christian theology, St Augustine for example held that the days in genesis are categorisation of didactic reasons within a singular instantaneous creation. Thus the creation account, fairly consistently amongst Catholic Christian theologians has been held non-literally, especially in the consideration that the act of creation itself is fundamentally a mystery of God, something that is unknowable to mankind save some divine revelation. (indeed to this day no one knows of the creation, we can only know theoretically what happened from a few seconds after it)

Oh and you might like to know that the idea of the big bang and the genesis of the dominant scientific theory as to the early history of the universe have their origin with a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître.

 

[El_Machinae]

I asked about you being a creationist because I gained the impression that you felt that 'natural evils' were explained by either the fall of man or the fall of Satan

 

[NedimNapoleon]

How fast can the popemobile go and does it have a machine gun in it?

 

[Jehoshua]

That has nothing to do with creationism whatsoever... The natural law in its self has nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. Indeed the origins of humanity have nothing to do with creationism either.

 

[Jehoshua]

How fast can the popemobile go and does it have a machine gun in it?

It goes as fast as a large, white armoured mercedes vehicle with a pope viewing platform on the back. No it does not have a machine gun on it.