A reader writes:
Jimmy –one point of correction if I may
You write" Breaking the seal of confession is one of the gravest crimes that
exists in ecclesiastical law. Any priest (or anyone else bound by the seal,
such as a translator or an eavesdropper) who violates the seal is
automatically excommunicated and this excommunication is reserved to the
Holy See."Regarding the translator or the eavesdropper — it is not automatic
excommunication. They are punished by a just penalty –and MAY be
excommunicated –but not automatically. See CIC below (and please note it
on the blog –there may be some out there that could get concerned)Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs
a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who
does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the
delict.§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in can. 983, §2 who violate
the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding
excommunication.
You’re correct!
My mistake. Sorry. Forgot about the second part of the canon. My memory that eavesdroppers, etc., are bound by the seal overrode my memory on their not being subject to the same automatic penalty.
This discussion is a wonderful example of how teaching and practice evolves, grows or changes within the Church. In the first half dozen or more centuries confession was PUBLIC and you could receive it only once. The penitent did PUBLIC penance for a long time until finally readmitted to communion. The good part was there were not a lot of sins that were considered mortal, basically, adultery, killing a human and apostasy.
Fortunately the Irish, God bless my ancestors, came to the rescue! They invented the practice of private confession in about the sixth century, I believe. They also drew up books listing the penance the priest had to give for specific sins, sort of like the US Sentencing Guidelines. They too were harsh. The Irish confession was roundly condemned by many bishops, but eventually it was accepted. The bad news is a lot more things came to be considered mortal sins then in the early Church, but the absolution was/is easy to come by.
In all seriousness:
It’s not hard at all to commit a mortal sin. Take masturbation, for example. Are we to believe that every Chistian of the early Church who masturbated had to confess this publicly, and do public penance for this?!?!?!
Wouldn’t this have been a de facto forbiddance of nearly all men from the early Church?
Or did the early Church not consider masturbation a mortal sin?
Then is it possible that the modern teaching on the subject is wrong?
Juust wondering . . .
On a matter more directly related to the topic:
What if someone commits, say, a murder, but knows that someone else (an innocent) is being tried for it. Would the real murderer’s confessor *then* have the right to tell said murderer that he has a duty to turn himself in, so that another not be executed or spend life in prison for a crime he did not commit?
Eric, that is part of the history of Theology. In many cases what was considered a serious sin centuries ago is not now and what we consider a serious sin now was not then. As we used to say when I was in the seminary* many years ago mutatis mutandis (changeable things change). It is not hard to commit a mortal sin today because absolution is available through baptism, confession and anointing of the sick. Masturbation would have not have been considered a sin requiring confession. Probably, if it was considered a sin, it was considered venial and as we all know venial sins are absolved by the receipt of the Eucharist.
* I left before ordination.
This discussion is a wonderful example of how teaching and practice evolves, grows or changes within the Church.
These posts have primarily been about disciplines regulating the practice of the sacrament rather than doctrines about the sacrament.
Take masturbation, for example. Are we to believe that every Chistian of the early Church who masturbated had to confess this publicly, and do public penance for this?!?!?!
Yes.
Wouldn’t this have been a de facto forbiddance of nearly all men from the early Church?
No.
Or did the early Church not consider masturbation a mortal sin?
Contrary to Patrick’s claim, lust and masturbation have always been considered grave matter. The Church Fathers went to great lengths to put their passions to death.
When combined with the practice of coitus interruptus, the penance for masturbation was the same as that for murder.
What if someone commits, say, a murder, but knows that someone else (an innocent) is being tried for it. Would the real murderer’s confessor *then* have the right to tell said murderer that he has a duty to turn himself in, so that another not be executed or spend life in prison for a crime he did not commit?
As I recommended on the other thread, get yourself a copy of Alfred Hitchcock’s I Confess. You won’t regret it.
Pha, my post was about the history and doctrine of the sacrament. Do you seriously think that the Church, who would allow a Christian only ONE opportunity to confess, would consider as mortal sin all of the things the Church considers as mortal sins (absent extenuating factors)?
The Church fathers talked a lot about lust and a lot of other things. They lived in a very different world with very different values, for example St. Anthony of the Desert skipped mass for months even years on end. Are you aware of any specific references the “self-abuse” in the Church Fathers? It is not an area I specialize it.
Patrick:
The good part was there were not a lot of sins that were considered mortal, basically, adultery, killing a human and apostasy.
Rewriting history? Or trying to justify some modern perversion under the guise of “Church teaching changes”? Development of doctrine and morals isn’t the same as the Church contradicting herself. She’s *never* done that.
Do you seriously think that the Church … the things the Church considers as mortal sins (absent extenuating factors)?
HUH? Perhaps you need to read the Catechism. You sound awfully confused.
italics off
Trying again to turn off italics. If this doesn’t work could a blog administrator please do so.
Italics. Off.
I respectfully suggest that you take a good course on Sacramental Theology, including its history. Be prepared for a lot of shocks and a deeper, richer faith experience. God bless.
Patrick:
You mean like the Catechism?
Since you’ve taken the course, please enlighten us.
In many cases what was considered a serious sin centuries ago is not now and what we consider a serious sin now was not then. As we used to say when I was in the seminary* many years ago mutatis mutandis (changeable things change).
Care to provide specific examples instead of hand waving?
Patrick-
Disciplines, like those requiring us to attend Mass once a week, have actually changed over the centuries, as the Church sees fit. On the other hand, while our understanding of the Chruch’s doctrines and moral teaching have deepened over time, those teachings themselves have not changed (nor, indeed, can they).
Masturbation, like lust, has always been considered grave matter in Catholic moral theology. It is impossible to read ancient patristic theologies and spiritual guides without recognizing this.
Yes, the Church Fathers do condemn masturbation, both explicitly (e.g. when St. Clement of Alexandria writes “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”) and implicitly (e.g. in their teachings on the nature and purpose of sex, etc.).
(BTW, it seems that part of your difficulty is confusing grave matter with mortal sin, which is a common mistake. Masturbation, lust, and murder, among other things, are always grave matter, but they are only mortal sins when all the conditions for mortal sin are met. See Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 1854-1864.)
Ashton, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. You agree that the Church doctrine has developed but say the Church has never “contradicted” itself. Do you mean that the Church never said something was moral and then later said it wasn’t? If it did that would be a contradiction. I suggest you read Brown’s “Concise History of the Catholic Church.” It is conservative and has the imprimatur so you should be comfortable with it.
Ashton, the most obvious are torture, slavery, charging of interest… or better still read or reread the Sylabus of Errors and see how much is still Church teaching.
There’s a difference between thinking something a mortal sin and requiring public penances.
Serious sins — adultery, murder, apostasy — did require such public penances, but other sins required others.
Mary, as with most things involving “penance” one has to state the specific time period and place. This sacrament took a long time to evolve to its persent state.
One of the conditions for absolution is a promise by the penitent not to engage in the conduct, which brought her or him into the confessional, going forward. Take adultery for example.
for a woman to cheat on her spouse on Friday, go to confession on Saturday, then commit adultery once more the next Friday, would render her first confession null and void.
This is a overlooked mistake of many who do not divest themselves of a sinful habit.
That is judgmental. Only God knows what was in her heart.
One of the conditions for absolution is a promise by the penitent not to engage in the conduct, which brought her or him into the confessional, going forward. Take adultery for example. for a woman to cheat on her spouse on Friday, go to confession on Saturday, then commit adultery once more the next Friday, would render her first confession null and void.
This is misleading.
It is true that contrition requires the penitent to resolve not to sin again. Contrition is lacking or false when a person actually intends or plans to commit the same sin again.
It is not true, however, that subsequent commission of the same sin indicates that the previous confession was insincere. Someone may be truly contrite and yet fall to the same temptations later.
Consider two men who have committed the sin of lust. Man #1 confesses the sin, resolving never to do it again. Man #2 confesses the sin, but has no real intention of never doing it again.
Man #1 truly receives the benefit of the sacrament, even if he falls to the same temptation later and needs to confess again. Man #2 does not receive the benefit of the sacrament, even if he does not fall to the same temptation later.
Patrick,
In the first half dozen or more centuries confession was PUBLIC and you could receive it only once. The penitent did PUBLIC penance for a long time until finally readmitted to communion.
This isn’t right. Trent says “If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.” (Canon 6 on Penance), and primary sources back the Council up:
“I also decree that that presumption against the apostolic regulation, which I recently learned is being committed by some through unlawful usurpation, be banished by all means.
With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful, is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession.” (Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter Magna indign., to the bishops of Campania, March 6, 459 AD)
Wouldn’t eavesdropping on someone else’s confession itself be a grave matter?
Patrick:
If we wanted to know John Noonan’s ideas about Church doctrine, we’d read Noonan’s books. But Noonan is a great judge, and a poor Church historian. His familiarity with theology is vague, with canon law just a touch better. Read some of Cardinal Avery Dulles’ refutations of the Noonan book you’ve obviously been reading.
Mary, as with most things involving “penance” one has to state the specific time period and place.
I was as specific as you were. I was alluding to the same times and places.
So what about masturnation?
We all know that the vast majority of men masturbate regularly; what happened to all these men of the early Christian Church who masturbated for, say, their second time? Would they have been denied absolution?
JD I don’t understand your statement to us/me:
“If we wanted to know John Noonan’s ideas about Church doctrine, we’d read Noonan’s books”
I never mentioned John Noonan, who is he?
Eric: You caught my point! If all the things we now consider mortal sins were always considered mortal sins then all those poor, pius people are in hell since there was only one crack at confession. That is why only a few things were considered to require confession: adultery, murder and apostasy. Finally remember as St Teresa said “I believe there is a hell, but I believe it is empty.”
“So what about masturnation (sic)?
We all know that the vast majority of men masturbate regularly;”
That may be so. We, however, as Christians, have the grace and the obligation to stand in relation to God and ourselves truthfully, to root out sin from our flesh and be joined to Christ.
The vast majority may masturbate, but, to borrow slightly, from Joshua, “as for me and my BODY, we will serve the LORD.”
Amen, J.D..
St. Teresa, to the best of my knowledge, did not say that she thought hell exists, but it is empty.
St. Teresaa of Avila actually saw hell, and she wrote about it. The book is called St. Teresa of Jesus, edited by John Burke, C.S.P. Burns and Oates .LTD, London, W. Imprimatur. Cardinal Farley NY, Nov,30, 1911.
She was only given a short tour, but it is a very chilling account.
One quote in the book, and there are hundreds that are far from what may be called polite by today standards, was that she did not like being around and could not love those whom she knew did not love Jesus.
As the account of hell, I doubt there could be a more frightening thing a person could read.
If someone was serious about combating a habitual sin in their life, I believe in most cases read the detailed account of hell offered by St. Teresa would be a help.
The person who said Hell may exist was Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J.
Sadly, there are thousands of priests, Bsihops and Cardinals, perhaps popes who have said the same thing and act as though the standards for heaven have been lowered.
The standards for heavens have not changed. The prosribed manner might be different Baptism vs Circumcision, and more helps might be available, Rosary etc… but it is still only the few who go to heaven.
anyone who thinks masturbation is not a grave and mortal sin, is sadly in error.
Spilling seed as it is referred to Gen 38:10 is a sin that God has punished with death, like homosexual acts.
I have been told by one of the holiest priests in America, that the reason God does not inflict more chastisements on America is because of the prayers of those here on earth. That makes sense to me.
One other saint who saw hell, and visited it, is St. John Bosco.
Reading the works of St. Teresa and St. John Bosco will do wonders for a person who is seeking the narrow path.
Sorry for the confusion. I should have given her more complete title which is St Teresa of the Little Flower.
Patrick, your claim that masturbation has not always been considered grave matter is patently false, as I noted above.
Masturbation, like lust, has always been considered grave matter in Catholic moral theology. It is impossible to read ancient patristic theologies and spiritual guides without recognizing this.
And yes, the Church Fathers do condemn masturbation, both explicitly (e.g. when St. Clement of Alexandria writes “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”) and implicitly (e.g. in their teachings on the nature and purpose of sex, etc.).
When combined with the practice of coitus interruptus, the ancient penance for masturbation was the same as the penance for murder.
Please post a refeence where St. Teresa said Hell may exist but might be empty.
This has been attributed to Fr. Karl Rahner S. J. and others, post Vatican II, but for a Catholic Saint to say this is beyond belief.
“Sorry for the confusion. I should have given her more complete title which is St Teresa of the Little Flower.”
It also helps to use the spelling Therese (of Liseux) to set her apart from Theresa (of Avila). The French spelling is cooler anyway.
Neocon, look it up yourself. The experience will be good for you!
I suppose some people would find the idea of an empty hell intolerable beyond imagining.
For myself, I try to give full assent every time I pray “Lead all souls to heaven…”.
I have several books about both of these saints,can you at least refer me to the book.
the quote is something I have not read.
anyone else ever seen it or read it?
NeoCon, I couldn’t help but notice that in a previous thread you accepted as authentic St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s writings endorsed baptism of desire (I’m not saying you accepted them as true, just that you accepted that he actually wrote that stuff). But now you say that it’s “beyond belief” that a saint could say that Hell is empty. Do you really mean that, or is it just hyperbole?
Wait– that other post was by “neoconspy.” Is that the same as “neocon”?
Since they both have the same email address, I would say yes.
“I suppose some people would find the idea of an empty hell intolerable beyond imagining.
For myself, I try to give full assent every time I pray ‘Lead all souls to heaven…’.”
I try to as well. To me the question is similar to that of individual hope. It would be presumptuous to think one knows for sure that Hell is empty, but it would also be despairing to believe that everyone cannot be saved. Our hope for the salvation of all souls must lie somewhere in between.
Or as Chesterton says, very much for elegantly than I:
“To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress. Our fighting and creative society ought rather to insist on the danger of everybody on the fact that every man is hanging by a thread or clinging to a precipice.
In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man “damned”: but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable. All Christianity concentrates on the man at the cross-roads.”
– Orthodoxy
Remember, we are NOT to judge. Leave that to God!
Good night and God bless everyone in the world, especially our enemies (or better those we think are our enemies).
Patrick:
the most obvious are torture, slavery, charging of interest
The Church has never changed her doctrine on any of those matters. Please don’t give me a general answer. Point out changes in doctrine about each of those and others you insinuate about.
Patrick,
In response to your email (I can’t send from my account, only receive):
I find the implied suggestion that your (unquoted) secondary sources ought to be given more weight than a primary one a little puzzling. Was solemn penance in the early Church public? Yes, of course. Was confession always public? No – as St. Leo points out, it was considered aberrant and against apostolic law to _require_ public confession of sins (although as Trent says, such public confession was sometimes permitted). Since St. Leo wrote in the fifth century, and you claimed that secret confession wasn’t invented till the sixth – never mind that the Greeks already had the same practice of secret confession and by the sixth century they certainly weren’t taking advice on the discipline of the Sacraments from the West – you are clearly wrong.
“The story of the lady whose sin and whose Penance are variously recorded by the historians Socrates and Sozomen shows the penitent making a confession privately to the priest, and making it kata meros, _particularly, in several detail_, very much, in fact, as a modern confession. It shows the priest assigning a penance which is not to be publicly performed in the congregation, but which consists of fasting and prayer, exercises which can be undertaken by the penitent without incurring observation. … It will be noted that the private character of the penance assigned by the priest penitentiary is a novel feature. The private confession was nothing new. Private confession is indicated as in use by S. Cyprian, by Origen, by the provisions of S. Basil for the adulteress, by those of S. Gregory of Nyssa for the thief. But in all these cases the penance, the exomologesis, has been a public experience. … the public exomologesis has passed away. The explanation appears to to be that after the Decian persecution it was found desirable to reconcile the lapsed with as little publicity as might be. …
At Rome the confession was certainly private. … the confession was made to the priest alone. The severe condemnation expressed by S. Leo for the exceptional local practice of public confession which had sprung up in Campania and Samnium has been noticed. He describes the normal process as ‘the accusation of conscience to the priests alone in secret confession.’ …
The procedure which was employed at Rome will be found to recur in its main feature throughout the West … Everywhere so far as appears the confession of the penitent is private. In Africa Augustine says that they who are seen doing public penance must have committed some grave offence. More is not known.” (Oskar D. Watkins, _A History of Penance: Being a Study of the Authorities_, vol. A: _For the whole Church to A.D. 450_, London: Longmans, 1920, pp. 477, 480-1)
I am not asking for a page number, a simple book title will do.
It is not for me to prove this is a false statment. It is to be considered false unless the one claiming it is true can support it.
I believe he is mistaken in whop said that.
The bible is very clear. FEW make it to heaven.
St. Alphuous, ,who many love to wuote, is on record as saying the daved are so few, if we knew how few, we would faint .
Various saints who have seen souls depart the earth, have told us in numbers how many are saved.
One victim soul saw the final destination of 30,000 souls which was the number that died all over the earth, in the one hour she witnessed this.
3 went to heaven and 4 to purgatory, the rest to hell.
based on the idea only Catholics can go to heaven, then we can say of those 30,000, perhaps 4,500. were baptized Catholic. So, 7 out of 4500 Catholics who died in one hour were saved.
I would say those are statistics that would cause most to faint.
As to the acceptance of slavery what could be more clear then the epistles of Paul, especially the deutero Pauline ones? As to torture, it was used by the Church or with the Church’s acquiesce for centuries. Try the inquisition for example.
J. D.:
Your cream-puff comments about grace (however true) have no bearing on the discussion about masturbation and the early Church; the fact is, if masturbation is and always has been recognized as a mortal sin by the Church; and if it is the case that penance was a sacrament offered only once per person in the early days of the Church; the question arises: what did the early Church do about men who masturbated?!
Think about it: Are we to believe that, once baptized, a Christian man who masturbated after doing his “public penance” was henceforth denied communion with the Church? Doesn’t this seem ludicrous?
Or is it more likely that masturbation was not believed to be a mortal sin in the early Church, and that therefore the modern teaching is, in actuality, a novelty?
I’m not saying this is the case; I’m simply playing devil’s advocate and asking something I see no logical answer to.
“As to the acceptance of slavery what could be more clear then(sic) the epistles of Paul?” You missed Philemon, huh?
Herbert Vorgrimler in “Sacramental Theology” published by Liturgical Press (1992) at page 207 says: “Up to the year 589 (Third Synod of Toledo) the Latin Church witnesses indicate that penance was possible only once after baptism.” See also the “Lapsed” by St. Cyprian and his letters (they are fascinating, seriously). It wasn’t nice, but it did happen. It could only work if there were the number of “mortal” sins were few.
Dear Bill912,
What miss the most fun letter in the NT? No! But in that great note Paul doesn’t condemn slavery merely “request” Philemon (“Useful”) be set free, in effect.
It seems to me that St.Paul was expressing an opinion against the institution of slavery, although he realized that he hadn’t the power to get rid of it, in his letter to Philemon(who was the slave owner; Onesimus–“Useful”–was the slave). Inability to get rid of an evil is not the same as acceptance.
Patrick:
It wasn’t nice, but it did happen. It could only work if there were the number of “mortal” sins were few.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that confession was public or that it was allowed only once. However, I don’t see how you jump to “well, things weren’t mortal what we now consider mortal”.
What of the Ten Commandments? I recall both the Jews and Jesus and the apostles identifying “Love God” and “Love neighbour” as the foundation of the moral life. Any thought, desire or action that violates those is grave matter. We have a list of sins in the NT and they’re the same as what we now have. Whether a sin is mortal or not depends on the conditions outlined in the Catechism:
a) grave matter
b) knowledge of a)
c) consent to a)
It doesn’t doesn’t follow that what is considered grave matter now wasn’t grave matter then. I agree that there are *new* things now that never existed then – like embryonic stem cell research. I don’t however think that things existing then which also exist now (like mastrubation in Eric’s example) were not grave matter in the past!
Dear Ashton,
If you are right then hell must have been getting its fill of Christians or God made them different then us.
Many Catholics see the Church and its doctrine as a living, developing, growing thing. It didn’t spring forth fully formed at Pentecost. See for example the Christological development from the time of the Resurrection to the sixth Century!
Patrick,
Assuming your post at 6:18:19 AM was a response to me: the quote proves nothing about your claim that confession in the Church before the sixth century was public. Since I never disputed the fact that several Western synods did prohibit the repetition of solemn penance, you don’t prove anything at all.
Want to explain how St. Leo was writing about secret confession in the fifth century when you say it wasn’t yet invented? Want to explain how fifth-century Greek Church historians Socrates and Sozomen write about secret confession when it hadn’t been invented, or how St. Basil, a Father of the fourth century, mentions that his own predecessors had permitted adulteresses to avoid public confession, i.e., confess secretly to a priest?
“The more evidence is required for the alleged practice of public confession in the face of the congregation anywhere except in the cases condemned by S. Leo, the more shadowy such alleged practice becomes.” (Oskar D. Watkins, _A History of Penance: Being a Study of the Authorities_, vol. A: _For the whole Church to A.D. 450_, London: Longmans, 1920, p. 352)
“Many Catholics see the Church and its doctrine as a living, developing, growing thing.”
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a young corn plant grow and develop into a mature stalk, Patrick. But if I saw it begin to grow into, say, a giant toad, I might begin to be alarmed.
Things grow according to their nature, they don’t mutate into forms alien to their nature.
“Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”.
Patrick,
That’s an excellent non-answer. But please try again. Just to let you know, repeating your conclusion without making explicit your reasoning or assumptions is the best way to end a dialogue.
Since I think you’re in error, in charity, I’ll try again:
If you are right then hell must have been getting its fill of Christians or God made them different then us.
What exactly is the relevance of this? How does it answer my question? Or rephrased, how does this, whatever it means, support your assertion that the Church changed its doctrines?
I just don’t see what you’re trying to say. Does anyone else here understand?
Regarding your second point, I completely agree. As Tim J. points out, the Church can’t in one age say “X is not evil” and then later say “X is evil” or vice-versa. That would imply that the Church, in one of those two times, must have been in error and teaching it. It would thus not be the Church that it claims to be – i.e. the Church set up by Jesus to teach the nations truth. Alternatively, Jesus would have failed in his promise to keep the Church from being overcome by the gates of Hell, i.e. by error.
Patrick:
The principle of development of doctrine which you highlight is agreed upon by all Catholics. What isn’t possible, and what you seem to be insinuating, is contradiction in doctrine.
Dear Patrick C,
As is often the case we are both correct but using the same word in two different senses. I was speaking of confession as the sacrament itself and all it involved. I believe you may have been thinking only of the admission of a particular sin.
In any case to make myself very clear let me quote from Bokenkotter “A Concise History of the Catholic Church” Image (1990), p. 44-45.
“A Christian guilty of a very grave sin, such as murder or apostasy, in some way made know his sin to the bishop, usually in private, or he was admonished as a public sinner to present himself in church. He was then publicaly excommunicated by the bishop and relegated to a specially reserved section at the rear. He could no longer receive Communion and was obligated to lead a life of utmost austerity – wearing coarse garments, keeping his hair cropped, abstaining from sexual relations, and curtailing other pleasures. Details would vary from province to province, but certain features were universal: Penance was always public; it was never administered more then once to the same person; if a sinner relapsed he was left totally to the mercy of God. Those penitents who had completed their penance were sacramentally reconciled with the church – on Holy Thursday, as a rule. They prostrated themselves before the bishop, who rised them up while placing his hands on them signifying their restoration to full communion with the Church….once enrolled in the ranks of the penitents, a person was condemned for life to an inferior status in the Church: He would never be admitted to the clerical state, run for office, or even have marital relations. Even after absolution he had to continue to live like a monk.”
Nothing more need be said.
Patrick-
Even if this passage, from this unreliable book, is true, it adds nothing to your case.
It says “A Christian guilty of very grave sin…” and lists some examples. It does NOT say that other mortal sins (say, those that did not involve public scandal, like murder or apostasy) did not have less severe and less public penances attached to them.
It also points out that details would vary from province to province. Can we therefore conclude that a mortal sin in one province was not mortal in another? If we follow your logic, we certainly could.
It’s so tiresome to hear these claims. If the Pope switches from oatmeal for breakfast to eggs and toast, this somehow proves that the church really has no fixed moral doctrine.
Dear Tim J.,
I am surprised that someone from somthing calling itself the “Catholic Exchange” would not recognize Bokenkotter’s “unreliable” book. I believe most of our bishops, priests and deacons used it as a textbook while they were in the seminary. But perhaps the Church authorities made a “mistake” using that book. By the way have you ever read it? In spite of the fact that I recommend it, it is quite good.
Catholic doctrine does not develop. That has been condemned. See Pascendi written by Piux X.
The heresy of the Development of Doctrine, well implanted intothe church by 1968, was seen in the revolt over humane vitae.
Few reading here recall the huge numbers of priestswho openly dissented, and the sit ins that were held in Washiington and other places by Catholic priests furious over this Encyclical.
It just adds further visible credence to what the saints have always said, most priests and bishops are not saved. Why.
They refuse to obey the divine law.
and if one is in a state mortal sin, all thier good works are worthless in the eyes of God. Something to keep in mind .
Yes, Patrick, I actually have read it.
To illustrate where Bokenkotter is coming from, I offer this quote (from the newly revised edition) on the pontificate of JP II:
Bokenkotter finds “one thing glaringly clear: The weight of the papacy has become impossible for one man to bear without adequate reforms.”
These reforms include a “more humble papacy,” which would not fear re-examining some of the positions currently “upheld so staunchly.”.
Anybody want to venture a guess at what positions those might be? Hmmmm?
On the Gospels, he states (Chapter 1 of the book):
“Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.”
His book should be titled “A Liberal at Play in the History of the Catholic Church”.
That you find it “quite good” is no great shock, nor is the fact that seminarians, priests and deacons have used it as a textbook. It is a very popular book, but then, so is Kevin Trudeau’s “Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About”. That tells us nothing about whether it is reliable.
Is it possible that Church authorities made a mistake? Oh, yes.
Dear Tim J.,
First of all I apologize for the sarcastic tone of my last post. It was uncalled for.
“Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus …”
The gospels record what was preached about Jesus at the time the gospels reached their final form. This is standard Catholic teaching as in middle of the road scholars and Papal Biblical Commission members like Brown, FitzMyer, et al.
Catholic doctrine needs to be translated into modern language. This is an awesome challenge, but not be avoided. [As to the difficulty, consider the use of the word “person” as applied to an understanding of the Trinity by Tertullian in Latin and then translated into Greek (using a word that did not have the same precise meaning)and adopted by the Church as dogma]
Bokenkotter is a middle of the road scholar and you seem to be on the right wing. Of course that means he is to your left.
is it more likely that masturbation was not believed to be a mortal sin in the early Church?
We know that’s not “more likely” because we know the ancient Church always regarded masturbation as grave matter.
I’m simply playing devil’s advocate
But ignoring all the contrary evidence, which is totally irrational.
Again: masturbation, like lust, has always been considered grave matter in Catholic moral theology. It is impossible to read ancient patristic theologies and spiritual guides without recognizing this.
The Church Fathers clearly condemn masturbation, both explicitly (e.g. when St. Clement of Alexandria writes “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”) and implicitly (e.g. in their teachings on the nature and purpose of sex, etc.).
When combined with the practice of coitus interruptus, the ancient penance for masturbation was the same as the penance for murder.
“The gospels record what was preached about Jesus at the time the gospels reached their final form. This is standard Catholic teaching…” This may be taught by some Catholics; it is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Bokenkotter is a middle of the road scholar
*ROTFL*
Bokenkotter is a middle of the road scholar
i.e. Getting run over by real historians. 😉
Patrick-
You might want to read a post I did a while back dealing with Historical Criticism and it’s proper place:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/hysterical_crit.html#comments
And you might want to look at the follow-up post here:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/hysterical_crit_1.html#comments
Oh, and don’t sweat the sarcasm. I hadn’t really noticed, and if I had wouldn’t be offended.
Any semi-pithy verbal attack on an opponents position might be taken as sarcasm.
I have enjoyed the exchange.
Dear Tim,
Excellent. It reminds me a cartoon I saw several years ago. The scene is a cotton field at harvest time. The poor slaves are picking cotton, half dead with the heat. A fat white overseer sits on his horse with a large whip and says to one of the slaves “Don’t worry, a hundred years from now some revisionist historian will prove that none of this never happened.”
If your blood pressure gets low try a little Crossan or Horsley. That will help you understand what I meant when I say Brown, etc. are middle of the road.
If the condemnation of masturbation was based on the story of Onan in Genesis, it would be mistaken. The fault was disobeying the commandment to raise up children for his brother, not the spilling of his “seed” as such. The moral of the story is: “There is a substantial penalty for early withdrawal.”
Har-har. That’s like the old Saturday Night Live sketch… “Severe penalty for not withdrawing from the West Bank”.
But two problems:
First, the condemnation of masturbation is not based on the story of Onan, but on constant and clear magisterial teaching, as well as natural law. There can’t be found any document remotely connected to official church teaching that accepts or condones masturbation, but a number of them condemn it.
The purpose of the story of Onan was not to convince the Jewish people that masturbation was wrong. They alrady knew that.
“The fault was disobeying the commandment to raise up children for his brother, not the spilling of his “seed” as such.”
The above statement presents a false either/or. God clearly could have been punishing Onan both for disobedience AND the “spilling of his seed”. You are reading your own interpretation into the text.
Why would anyone go to such great lengths to justify masturbation?
O-O-O-o-o-h-h-h… wait. Never mind.
We really are beating this issue to death. It is a bit much to think of the Hebrew people, pre-Egypt thinking in terms of natural law. There is simply no evidence for it. Hey, I am a lawyer I’ll defend anything, especially against the accuser*, if I can.
* Pop quiz, what is that in Hebrew?
Beating this issue to death…
Oh, Patrick… you and your puns!
Interesting I was looking for some answer and you gave them to me http://male-exam.xhostar.com