3DOP

But manol...in this case, no one, including Jesus, has suffered every single way of affliction that anyone has ever suffered. Surely, the intention of that Scripture is to say that Jesus was subject to potentially experience every kind of affliction that is common to both sexes? In Genesis, it is revealed that pain child bearing is unique to mothers. If a man suffered all the pains of child birth or even some of the discomforts mothers experience in nursing. It would be most unnatural. There are many ways to die. But Jesus didn't experience all of them. It seems more reasonable to hold that the Scripture you cite was saying that greatest and most universal of human afflictions, death, was certainly shared by our Lord. He surely experienced lesser afflictions of the body. Was the author of the passage you cited saying that Jesus necessarily had the mumps, a kidney stone, and multiple sclerosis? No way. Had he lived longer He would have experienced some, not all, of the ordinary age related health problems associated with our advancing date with mortality. Being non LDS, I would never suggest that the passage you cited was false because there was one or more kinds of suffering that the Lord Jesus didn't experience. He had suffering in his mind, body, and spirit. If I were LDS I would understand that those are some of the "kinds" of affliction that Christ endured as one who was fully human. There are a few kinds of affliction, and many specific ways of suffering that fall into different kinds, or categories if you will. I would suggest that is a more fit interpretation of "all kinds of affliction". He suffered all the kinds, but not all the ways of suffering.

Hey cal, He could have been injured and not healed. If he lost a finger in an accident, like all humans, it would not naturally grow back. Like all humans, God could perform a miracle of healing on Him. But His being like us would ordinarily exclude that kind of healing. If Jesus was physically incapable of losing a finger permanently, He would not have been "perfectly human".

When he scraped his knee, his blood clotted like ours would. He needed antibodies, like us, to heal and ward off common illnesses. Being perfectly like us means susceptibility to the physical, mental, and spiritual challenges that all of humans have in general. Nobody suffers every kind of affliction possible. That would not be perfectly human either. But He was susceptible. Humans do not have attributes that we admire in animals. Being two-legged we are given to losing our balance much more easily than the four legged animals. If Jesus had the balance of a cat while only having two legs, he would not have been perfectly human. I hope that is helpful in trying to explain what I think Chalcedon was trying to teach when it uses the expression "perfect in humanity."

Yes. Perfectly human. With all the infirmities that afflict all humans. Yes. It doesn't mean a superhuman. A normal, healthy human with afflictions that all humans of either sex can experience. It does not mean that during life he never suffered defects. We all have the potential to lose an eye or a limb. To be able to suffer that loss is part of what it means to be perfectly human.

Did you mean to ask about the possibility of His infertility? The presumption is that He was fully healthy, with all of His human parts working. As I said above, I have never heard of anyone denying the Lord's reproductive capacity, but maybe some Christians do. Catholic and Orthodox Christians adhere to the First Seven Ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon spoke definitively about Christ's human nature in 451 A.D. in response to a movement to try to diminish the humanity of Christ. "...we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin;" If there was a question about Christ being sterile, Catholics and Orthodox, would need to modify the definitive statement above to read "...like us in all respects except for sin and a faulty reproductive system." The whole point is that Christ is 100% human, except he is sinless. But for those who agree with Chalcedon, it says "perfect in humanity". The Lord Jesus had everything humans ordinarily have. He had all the parts and they were healthy parts. Perfectly human. The next century would see further attacks on Christ's human perfection, saying that He lacked a human will. That idea needed a council to settle the matter too. Admittedly, we do not have a Council to say specifically that Christ's sexual organs worked. But it seems to be inferred from what I have quoted. in the 6th Century, I could have seen the reasonableness of suggesting that Jesus could only have one will, and that it would be according to His divinity. But how easy it would be to obey the Father with only the same will as the Father. No. How could we imitate Him if He lacked a human will? No. He came to teach us how to live as fully human to conform our wills with God's will, as He did. To live a life of chastity, as He did, with all of the same natural urges, temptations, illnesses, hunger, weariness, and any other difficulty that can cause us to stumble. He prayed like us too. He shows us how to to offer up our bodies, a living sacrifice, our reasonable service. (Rom 12:1 and 2) He is our perfect Captain and Brother who has experienced everything that we have experienced, except for sin. We should already love Him for all of that. And then comes Gethsemane and beyond! What a glorious and beneficent Saviour. Praise Him. Rory

Infertility.

I cannot think of any Christian community that teaches that the Lord had such a human defect.

By the way...and maybe this is cleared up already. I need to read the rest of the thread. I figured that Ft. Luke Hanson was just a typo for Fr. (Father) Luke Hanson. Fort Luke Hanson? No big deal...but what else does "Ft." stand for?

I am late to this thread. I watched the whole video tonight in October. A thought or two...I liked the serene and thoughtful presentation. Hi cal. Dave Waltz doesn't look at this site much anymore (nor do I, I might point him to it. We talk.). But both of us think there is a lot of value in comparing Islamic and LDS and Catholic claims together. I am uncomfortable with comparisons to be characterized as ridiculous. There are significant ways in which we are closer to Islam. Creation ex nihilo is big, I have seen a lot of posts on this forum which characterize that as ridiculous. To be fair, I wonder if that fuels some of the apparent Catholic favortism towards Islam. I am at odds with what most devout Catholics think the Catholic Church teaches, for accepting every baptism that uses the correct form (the form is the words used) except for the LDS. Why be confident that my Baptist baptism from a man who would vehemently deny that a Catholic should accept it? (There are some good arguments). I am conditionally baptised, but think my original baptism was probably valid. I would suggest that these norms should also apply to LDS baptisms. I hold that more non-Catholics should be conditionally baptised upon being received into the Church. Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians aure. But most Catholics, incliuding the hierarchy seem pretty ignorant of the wacky stuff that is taught in some Evangelical circles. Still, we can't repeat baptism. So I say the same for LDS. To say that every LDS baptism seems difficult to support. I am glad to be conditionally baptised. But I would hesiatate to say I was never baptised. It seems like I would feel the same way as an LDS. I share my intellectual journey with hardly any living person except Dave. In the 90's, after our conversions, our kids and my wife would make remarks about "Daddy's Church", whenever we would pass an LDS....I don't even know what you call it, a Stake? It was a good joke. Anyway, one of your red brick buildings. Most of my fellow Catholics would think my interest in Islam in the early 90's coupled with an interest in your own faith would be ridiculous. I put out feelers rarely. I have one friend here in Kansas, a young fellow Catholic, under 40, who sees why I would have ever taken the LDS claims seriously. I think we need to be patient with our fellow religionists regarding their ignorance of other faith claims. I think very few of your fellow LDS are well-informed about Catholic thought. As I approach my "golden years", I have a little bit of envy toward my fellows who have never seemed called to wrestle with the issues that separate us. All the camps have good people who try to follow Christ, and who adore, and praise, and thank Him, even while being ignorant of the nuances of other ways of Christian beliefs. God save us and make us One in Him, as He prayed. Rory

Agreed Pyreaux. There seems to be an assumption on Christ's part that we have enemies, human enemies. For instance, by being politically liberal, I will have enemies. By being politically conservative, I will have enemies. An enemy is anyone who has ill will towards me. Our challenge, if we would love our enemies as the Lord instructs us, does not necessarily involve having great affection for them, but to wish them well. I know that I have been guilty of being glad when someone for whom I had an aversion, stumbled and fell, for example. I was unloving, unChristlike. I was his enemy at that point. He may never have been aware of it. If we would love our enemies, or those we don't like because they are constantly talking about murders and economic disaster, or other depressing news, we need to avoid malice towards them. It is very hard to feel affection towards them, and I have no guilt about having aversion to such persons. But if everyone is my brother or sister through Christ's coming in the flesh, uniting Himself with each of us, as my faith teaches, I must love them. To love only means to want the best for them for Christ's sake, which is to say for TRUTH'S sake. By God's grace we can love those who are naturally repulsive to us (for what might be good reasons), and especially if we detect that they have actual malice towards us. God tests us and tries to perfect us by placing these kinds of people in our lives. God is pleased when we wish well to those who treat us well. But He asks us for something more which does not come naturally. I do not believe I am capable of it on my own. I need help to do that which is beyond my nature. I need my faith and God's grace to be able to make real in my mind and will that He is only asking us to behave towards others, how He has behaved towards us. He wishes the best for everyone! That is the ultimate test of our Christian faith. What will we do or wish for those who make us disgusted, or hurt us and our loved ones? This is what it means to be perfect, because God is perfect. God is love.

If I understand correctly, it is definitely a good trait in Catholic spirituality to be skeptical about our own subjective experiences. Why else would the Church recommend that we observe rules for what is called in our lingo, "discerning of spirits"? On the other hand, I am seeing that the Church, through the Holy Spirit, is being guided more and more to seeing that modern man, more than before perhaps, needs an experience. An experience of Christ and His whole eternal history together with the Event; of His entry into out history as the Second Adam. I am saying that to properly live a life faithful to Catholic beliefs, the Catholic needs what in LDS lingo is called "a testimony". This testimony does not prove the faith, but it can demonstrate to individuals that faith is reasonable.

Navidad, hi. I avoid participating in the Evagelical-LDS discussions. But it is currently the only thing for me to read here. I could wish that you would hang around and "stir the pot"! I have missed your presence. You have understood my journey like no one else here, for reasons only you and I could well understand. I am glad to see you are active and doing well. God bless, Rory

All of us who claim to follow Christ have to recognize Him in everyone. He is one of us! We don't have to be loving our neighbors excusively through prisons and finding someone in rags. If we don't love our affluent neighbors, we are in trouble. We have to love our enemies we are told. This Christ event needs to be experienced in our hearts in such a way that we feel a communion toward the one who checks us out at the cash register, or the fellow who cut us off at an intersection. I am not a universalist. When I say that all men are our brothers and sisters, I admit that there are living members of Christ's Body. These have been made alive through baptism (regeneration) and faith. I do not see that Christ is saying that every prisoner and poor person is saved, merely because He identifies with them. But those who keep the second most important commandment, to love their neighbor, can be saved two ways. Either in ignorance of the theology, but having a good heart towards all through Him they do not know through no fault of their own. Or in eager obedience to Him they love, desire to see Him they love in every person that crosses their path in one way or another in all times and places. This is true religion, according to St. James, to visit the fatherless and widows. True religion can be practiced, without true theology. One more thing. I have been anti-communist all of my life. But this way of thinking makes me consider what I have in common with modern day Marxists (who identify with different political movements). It starts with social justice, seeking a better common good for all. Ultimately, I can never believe in a political utopia that does not crush the individual. Still, I try to see a way that I find unity with the communist because of the reality of the Man-Christ that Christians profess. To deny the use of political power, does not need to make me deny the good thing the communist wants. Truly Christian are those who promote this unity and love of the One who in a certain sense unites all humanity, as the only way to promote peace and unity among enemies, nations, and our obnoxious neighbors. The common good, a healthy society, depends on individuals living the reality of the One who was celebrated by the Angels near Bethlehem before shepherds who might have been theologically deficient. Heh. 3DOP PS: I forget my youth. I called myself an atheist and denied that countries existed. No borders. More of an anarchist, but I haven't always been "anti-communist" as I say above. Still journeying. Where is Bukowski? Rory

"If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?" When our Lord separates the sheep from the goats, of the goats He says that He never knew some who had thought they were serving Him, Why was that, it wasn't because of their lack of Christology, it was because they failed to clothe, feed, or help those who were in need. Jesus explains that He was identified with the least of them, and inasmuch as they didn't help their neighbours in need, they didn't help Him. Even more interesting are some of the sheep. Some are as surprised as the goats who thought they were serving Him. They ask, "When did we clothe, feed, or visit you in prison?" Same answer, in the sense that Jesus identifies Himself with the least of our neighbours. "When you gave that cup of cold water, you did it to Me." There is a lot of theology in explaining this way of division at the Judgment, about how and why Jesus answers both as He does. But without going any deeper, it seems obvious from this deep and mysterious passage, that we are not saved by theology! I am not among those non-Mormons who deny salvation to everyone who is separated from my Church or her doctrine. I would say it is a big help to belong to the true Church, with the true priestly Sacraments. But it is no guarantee. Also, my Church teaches that we cannot identify with certainty that any individual is suffering the loss of their salvation in Hell. That is another reason I am confident that I am on safe ground as a Catholic, denying that I will be saved if all I do is to merely continue to maintain orthodox theology through my Church. 3DOP

Ben, hi. I have engaged with your attempts to justify a useless, impractical state legislative bill. You have admitted that there is slight evidence that child predators of any religion avail themselves of the opportunity to confess their crimes to church or civic authorities. You advocate this proposed bill which infringes on a 1500 year old tradition of secrecy in the Confessional, which you uncharitably characterized as irrelevant. I see more contempt, and not much respect for my religion when you use that kind of language. Anyway, following are four ways you compare with this legislation where society protects itself by law from other forms of religious predation. Three are already in force, while you advocate violating the secrecy of the Confessional as a fourth: 1) Jews are prohibited from stoning people, curbing the practice of cherished Jewish beliefs? 2) Mormons are supposedly prohibited from committing polygamy, curbing what Mormons would like to do if it were lawful? 3) Child marriage is prohibited, curbing whose beliefs? Muslim maybe, or LDS? 4) The Catholic Sacrament of Confession should by law be violated because of the extremely remote possibility that it will enable law enforcement to apprehend a child abuser? Do you think Jews would stone people if not for the law, or Mormons resume polygamy? What religion in America feels oppressed because of state laws requiring that persons must meet a minimum age requirement to marry? My only opinion about your concern for society is that you seem to profess a great love for humanity as a whole, in the abstract. Your concern is focused on the safety of society and your desire for Rory to answer your questions about the relation of society to religion. If you want to find the answer, it is in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae, #7. In that paragraph anyone can read that religious rights cannot be used as a pretext for violating other natural rights, and that furthermore, "the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary." I do not believe anyone has met the criteria given above for when religious liberty should be curtailed in the matter under discussion. This law will have no practical effect even if passed in the far northwest corner of the United States. I came to this thread originally out of an interest in exposing the ignorant zeal with which those who have no knowledge or regard for my faith think this would be an aid in apprehending child abuse. But you Ben, are a different case. Unlike most of its supporters, you have admitted that the bill is practically useless. I accept your retraction where you seem to clarify and soften your earlier statement that "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." You favor a different law, but if that can't be passed, let's go this more draconian legislation? I think that is your position? Regardless of that, I find it disturbing that you have an attitude about this impractical law that you expressed as follows: "...quite frankly, I am not particularly concerned about whether or not feelings get hurt here. Hurt feelings are minor problems to the sometimes permanently damaging outcomes that are the result of (preventable) child abuse." There is a troubling tendency in our age to think we can love humanity as an abstract whole, while having contempt for individual humans, particularly if their ideas conflict with our own humanitarian political ideologies. I believe that you are my brother in Jesus Christ, that we are in a very important sense, united in Him. However, even if I agreed with you that this legislation should be passed, I would disagree with your ambivalence about hurting your neighbor that you have had discourse with, in favor of an abstract human society that would probably disagree with your ideology in large part anyway. There are two great commandents. You know them. Neither of the two urge us to love mankind as a whole, but rather God and our neighbor. There is an important distinction there. Mankind isn't somebody to know or love. Worse than feeling no guilt about hurting the feelings of your neighbor, you haven't even established the utility of this law to prevent child abuse! "Love of mankind" can perhaps result in noble endeavors, or in totalitarianism. Those who say they have conceived a love for mankind should also love each person he has contact with as individuals. I suspect you love most of your next door neighbors. It IS harder to love your internet neighbors, admittedly. But we still have that duty. I am not saying that you hate me. My feelings are fine, unscathed in fact, but it is a spiritually unhealthy state of mind for you not to care if I did have hurt feelings. I am happy to think that you were overemphasizing your understandable concerns. I even think you would help me, even if you knew it was me on the side of the road needing help! Heh. I fear you have misunderstood me, and perhaps I am to blame for that. Please accept my apologies for when I have been less than neighborly with you. Please believe me that I have no hard feelings towards you and would look forward to healthier discussions with you that may arise in the future. May God bless you and yours, Rory PS: For anyone interested in this fair recent psychological phenomenon (love of mankind, less love for neighbor), I would recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/0061253170

Calm, hey. Thanks for the support. I needed it at that moment. I didn't give you thumbs up at the time because I feared it might be seen as self-serving. I don't care how it is seen now. You have opposed me on a few occasions. I honor you because you have a skill that is so very lacking in our day, an understanding of the "art of disagreement". We need to see the good intentions of those with whom we disagree. Lacking that, our culture today views ideological opponents with contempt. I am guilty...trying to improve. But I see you as a model of moderate discourse who avoids belittling. It has been a pleasure to share the 21st Century with you on the internet. May God always bless and keep you and yours Rory

Ben, yes, let us review. Two hours ago you said: "I haven't said that I support this legislation." This is from your first post to me on Sunday at 7:44 PM about the legislation under discussion: "...the Catholic Church has a history that cannot be ignored - they have enabled predators to continue their evil actions. Their claim that confession is privileged and sacrosanct has regularly been invoked in a way that, at least in appearance, seeks to absolve themselves from any guild or responsibility for these actions. It is clear that there are instances where religious belief should not trump the public interests. We do not allow religions to kill. We don't allow Jews, for example, to stone the perpetrators of certain sins - even though such an act is spelled out in the Old Testament. I think that given the history of religious organizations in trying to provide their own judgement or leniency in these cases - as opposed to society as a whole - have proven to be untrustworthy. I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." In your final paragraph after you offer the reasoning which I will critique below you said: "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." The bold is mine of course. The discussion could have taken a different turn if you had said of the legislation which would require a Catholic priest to break the confessional seal, "I have a little problem with the law as enacted". Instead you said in unequivocal language: "I have absolutely no problem with the law as enacted." I think you need to take the blame yourself if you feel misunderstood. By accident, I appreciate the opportunity to reacquaint the board with your kooky comment about how the state prevents Jews from stoning people guilty of violating the Mosaic law as a reason for why you, (on Sunday at least), had "...absolutely no problem with the law as enacted". Jews can't stone Americans (as they would if they were not stopped by American laws?) because of American legislation, therefore, Catholic priests should be denied any claim that "confession is privileged and sacrosanct..."? Along with your explicit statement bolded above, your "argument" certainly gave me, and perhaps others, the impression on Sunday that you thought that the law should force the Catholic priest to break his vows and the confessional seal in the unlikely circumstance that he should learn who perpetrated a certain heinous crime. That raises another question. Why just the one heinous crime?

Benjamin. From the foregoing, I think it is accurate to say that you hold that requiring priests to break the confessional seal will be of minimal effect to aiding in apprehending child abusers. Agreeing with that assessment of yours, further reasons for approving this legislation seem merely vindictive. I read your latest post once. I admit I have lost any zeal I might have had to try to analyze your arguments and reason with you as a Catholic. You accuse me of misunderstanding you. "Get it right," you tell me. It is possible that I am ignorant and obtuse. I know I am not as "sharp" as I used to be. But perhaps there is someone else who holds to your premises (about the prospective ineffectiveness of the proposed legislation to curb child abuse). Maybe one of you could explain why Catholics should support this legislation in agreement with Mr. McGuire even as he says above that there is little evidence to show that child abusers confess their sins in any religious community? It could help to keep in mind that even if it is not specifically aimed at the Catholic priest in the Confessional, the proposed legislation would require the Washingtonian priest to commit what he believes to be a sin that could not be forgiven. Confessinal absolution requires the firm resolution to not commit the sin again. The Washingtonian priest who would be absolved must resolve never to break the confessional seal again, if he hears another confession about child abuse again in the state of Washington. Can a thoughtful and compassionate non-Catholic just wave that off as irrelevant because they think the priest shouldn't have such a concern? Thanks for your consideration. Rory

Ben. We have an amendment in the US Constitution which affirms the right to publish pornography. I assume you approve of that interpretation. But you appear to want legislation that goes even further, to say that a Catholic priest, who is under canonical law according to His faith, bound to silence, to be forced to speak. You are correct. I am not on the same side as you. You believe in freedom of speech, good for you. I believe in freedom to be silent under a single circumstance that grievously violates ancient Catholic custom. And I am according to you, irresponsible to my children and grandchildren because of my position? You say nothing about the admonition in our bulletins to report potential abuse to law enforcement BEFORE contacting church authorities. You already admitted that there is little evidence that child abusers are confessing to church authorities. It only appears to me that your motive is not out of love for my Catholic grandchildren, but rather to undermine a Catholic Sacrament. No secrecy for one sin today? What is the logic against maintaining the custom of silence for a host of other sins and crimes tomorrow? It may be a civic duty to report crimes, but I do not believe it should be passed into law that a priest now lacks the right to have the same freedoms to be silent that other citizens have.

REPORTING SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE If you suspect a child is being abused or neglected, make a report to the Kansas Department for Children and Families Protection Report Center by calling (800) 922-5330. Call law enforcement if the person is in immediate danger or injured. If you or someone you know has been abused by a cleric, employee, or volunteer of any archdiocesan parish, school, or agency--regardless of when the abuse occurred--call the archdiocesan confidential report line at (913) 647-3051 or the Victim Care Advocate at (913) 298-9244 *AFTER* calling local law enforcement. This is printed in every weekly bulletin at my parish. All emphases are from the bulletin. Ben, you talk about the church's responsibility to society. What about the state's responsibility to protect the common good of society? If the Catholic church needs to change her {ancient, though irrelevant) laws about a Sacrament, maybe the state has an obligation to reevaluate whatever (recent, though irrelevant) amendment that makes it necessary to allow pornography shops up and down all the interstates and all over the internet. What do you think contributes more to sexual abuse, the Catholic Church's secrecy in the Confessional, or legalized pornography?

Hello Ben...Please accept my apologies for not getting back to you on your remarks in the suffering thread. I have had some health and other issues. I am doing much better now though. ------------------------------------- In two previous posts I tried to outline why this law would be impossible to enforce, unlikely to apprehend any child abuser, and permit the abuse of the Sacrament by a vengeful party confessing to a crime in someone else's name. Instead of addressing those problems with the legislation, you compare the Catholic position to Jews who you apparently suspect of wanting to stone people but thankfully are prohibited by law from doing so. I appreciate that you are concerned about child abuse committed by Catholic priests. Do you think we parents and grandparents of Catholic children have been unaware and unconcerned about this problem of our generation? Maybe you should take our view of the matter a little more seriously. This law of the Church has now been in place for more than one thousand-five hundred years. In his epistle "Magna indign", of March 6, 459, Pope St. Leo the Great changed the former custom of the Church with regards to the secrecy of the Confessional: "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...since the sins of all are not such that those who ask for penance do not dread to publish them, so objectionable a custom should be abolished...For that confession is sufficient, which is first offered to God, then also to a priest, who serves as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents. For then, indeed, more will be able to be incited to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not exposed to the ears of the people." ---The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 13th edition, by Henry Denziger, trans. by Roy J. Deferarri, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO (1954) I tend to think that many non-Catholics believe that penitents get to go to the confessional, tell their sins, and walk out with the intention of doing the same thing again, and get to heaven just as long as they can quickly get to confession without dying before their next perverse and unholy acts against God's law and civil law. I have asked myself if these criminals even avail themselves of the confessional? Can they have the faith? Maybe you all think that two predator priests can agree to give each other absolution for committing the same sins? Is that it? It is a ridiculous scenario, but do you think that they would agree to report other because of a civil violation? We are very clearly instructed that without a firm intention of amendment, there is NO FORGIVENESS for sins. Anyway. the secrecy of the confessional is not a device designed to protect Catholic criminals from prosecution. It is designed to encourage sinners to truly repent and seek forgiveness. I do not think that knowledgeable Catholics would ever endorse overthrowing the venerable and merciful custom which comes from St. Leo the Great, 15 centuries ago, for a civil law that would be unenforceable, and doubtfully apprehend a single predator today, after all of these centuries where we didn't think our sins could be made public again. Likewise, I do not think that knowledgeable non-Catholics would wish for such a useless and possibly harmful civil law. I still honor and commend the good intentions of everyone here, Ben, including you, none of whom would defend child abuse.

Hi Robert. Good to see you. I know I take long absences sometimes. I had missed you a while back and I think asked about you in the Social Hall. The priest in such a circumstance could certainly not offer absolution. There was movie I saw long ago called I Confess, with Montgomery Clift as a priest and Lana Turner I think. Anyway, as I recall, the film presented a very difficult dilemma for the priest as to how he would deal with a confession in a circumstance I cannot remember. If a priest takes a vow before God to never violate the secrecy of the confessional, under any circumstance under pain of sin, then his decision is made. One never does wrong in order to do what seems to be right. I remember seeing an episode of the television series 24, starring Kiefer Sutherland, over a decade ago I suppose already. Anyway, the dilemma was that some kind of global catastrophe could be avoided by the murder of a particular innocent man. It was one of the most terrible (not poorly done, very poignantly and properly done, truly horror) scenes I have ever seen on television, of this innocent man seen from a distance, I think through the scope of a long range rifle, being shot dead to save mankind...supposedly. I decided that I do not live in a world where God would ever ask me to save humanity, my family, my church, or anything else by deliberately committing the least of sins. My God is omni-benevolent. My Father in heaven would NEVER ask me to do such a thing. He would expect me to trust that He does not need me to sin to accomplish His good designs. I would say the same thing about our theoretical priest who learns of a future crime being contemplated while hearing a confession. I do not know for sure if the priest vows to reveal NOTHING of what he has learned in the confessional. I suspect that everything heard is never to be repeated. In that event, a loving child (our priest) who is not privy to His Father's plans entrusts the situation to his loving Father, knowing that his good Father would never ask him to "help Him to do good" by disobeying Christ's Church, always a sin. As Tony UK noted above, it goes with whatsoever you (the apostles and their successors) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. If the Church should change her discipline for the confessional, as one of the legislators noted the Church can, it would be a completely different scenario. But a civil legislator's wishes for the Church are not ratified by God. The licitly promulgated law of the Church, even if it can change, IS the law of heaven, we are taught. And the God that Catholics should trust and believe in would never, under any circumstance whatever, ask one of her children to violate that law. Thanks for your always keen observations Robert. I hope I have contributed to unravelling a somewhat confusing situation, even sometime to those on the inside. It is understandably confusing to those on the outside, and we Catholics need to be patient with good civil servants, and others who are not advocating interference in someone else's religion. They have in mind the protection of the weakest among us, and we Catholics must honor them for that very good intention, and be of assistance as our faith allows us to. Catholics are instructed to report suspected child abuse in their parishes. We are on the same side against this horrific crime. Rory

I should clarify that anonymity is not necessary for a valid confession. The popes usually have a confessor to whom he regularly confesses. In extremis, in danger of death, anonymity is impossible. But my experience is that ordinarily, those who go to confession at scheduled times in parish settings are, or if they choose, can be anonymous. I have seen chairs placed to where the penitent can face the confessor. It seems unlikely that a child abuser would choose this option. I think most other confessions are anonymous. When I was in Rome, there were confessionals all over at St. Peter's Basilica where you could find a priest who spoke your language. As I recall, there was no option for being "seen" by the priest. I think the reasoning for this from the Church's perspective is from an understanding of human psychology as well as sacramental theology as regards Confession. I suppose there are some people who would say that they enjoy going to confession. I do not know that I would believe them. I enjoy coming OUT of confession. The mood and the looks on the people in line, including myself, usually reflect a common and natural repugnance to naming our own guilt and failings. This should of course be overcome by the knowledge that in reality our confessions are not to the priest, who is Christ's intermediary, in persona Christi, but to the all-merciful and loving Son of God, our High Priest who intercedes on our behalf, showing the Sacred wounds which He endured on our behalf to the Father who forgives us with His Son. But the Church knows our human frailties and wants to make it as easy as possible to make a good confession and does not require that we reveal ourselves to the priest who we may or may not know behind the screen. I am glad for this concession to my own human frailty. My daughter recently told my wife and I an amusing anecdote about a few of her friends when they were teenagers, who would try to feign accents from other regions, in order that the priest who they knew well, might not recognize who they were! On a more serious note, another reason why this law could itself be easily abused is that it could easily lead to someone (one willing to commit a sacrilege) with a terrible grudge against another, to pretend to be that party to whom the grudge is borne, and falsely confess to child abuse or other horrible crimes that must be reported to civil authority.

There seems to be a mistaken assumption on the part of legislators that the priest knows the identity of the person requesting God's forgiveness. Even if the law was enacted would it require the priest to come bolting out of the confessional to try to get a glimpse of the guilty party? Should he ask the next person who comes in, concerned only with their own sins and negligence to identify the person who preceded them. Most of us aren't looking around to pay attention to a thing like that. Of course I agree with the bishops who follow the Church's perennial teaching, but these legislators don't seem to have a clue about confession. It is ANONYMOUS. There are movies and TV programs that have shown the curtain or screen that separates priest and penitent! What do these legislators expect? How is the priest supposed to discover the identity of anyone? Can we convict any civil offender because the accuser, who never saw the person, overhears someone telling someone else about a murder, robbery, or child abuse that they say the committed? Same problem as with the priest. The priest is merely an "ear witness". How could he be a credible witness to accuse someone of a civil crime? Would it because he thinks he recognized a voice? If this legislation were not already a violation of religious liberty, it would be utterly impractical to expect a single result from it in apprehending a child abuser if and when it is enacted into law.

Hi halconero, I think both of our communions can be suspected of holding to more or less official positions on the Atonement that have not filtered down to all of our faithful. Perhaps this is because varying schools of thought have never been identified by our churches as "official". I hold to a position that I doubt would work for LDS. A brief explanation is that so far as shedding blood in atonement for sins, our Lord's circumcision was adequate for that. However, it was the will of the Father whose will was "the meat", of His Son that His disciples knew not. Through the subordination of the Son, we see a transcendent God loved His creature, Man, so much as to empty Himself of His transcendent divinity and become one of us! A passage in Vatican II claims that through His incarnation (taking human flesh), Christ in a "certain sense" united himself with every man. Before, we were seen as being the offspring of Adam, who having fallen from grace, could not transmit such a heightened nature to his progeny. So, before Christ, all men were in a full sense, united to Adam. The good news proclaimed by the Angels at Christ's birth is that a deliverer, a Saviour has arrived that enables each human person from Adam until the last child born, to escape the predicament caused by Adam's fall. Through faith and baptism we are taught that we can actually be in a non-physical sense re-born. Out of Adam and into Jesus! What a happy exchange. Every person must be seen as having the potential to be brothers and heirs with the Man Christ Jesus. Jesus, the Son of God is also the Son of Man, and when we are incorporated into His visible Body on earth, living members of Christ our ascended Head, seated in the Heavens at the right hand of the Father, we are taught that we are with Him, in the heavenly places, adoring the Father as only we can with and in the Son. Beautiful to us. The transcendent knot untied. The finite in created intimacy with the Infinite. Back to the Atonement. I hold to a theory permissible to Catholics that God's will that the Son should suffer His passion and death has not so much to do with satisfying justice, much less God's wrath. Rather it is a demonstration of what this supposedly unapproachable, dispassionate God will do to Himself, to warm and melt the hearts of stone which had existed in His creature man, ever since Adam hid from Him in the Garden. After all, Jesus Himself said, when I am lifted up, (on the Cross), I will draw all men to me. That paraphrase of Scripture is the leading idea in my mind for the Cross. I am not claiming this is defined dogma. I think both of our churches are still working it out. Halconero, I think your good faith attempt to propose what many Catholics still believe is very faithfully representative of permissible Catholic teaching. But the Church is always moving forward, and while never denying what has been taught everywhere and always, the faithful Catholic is permitted to speculate on implicit mysteries of revelation that have not yet been discovered. Thankfully, none of us in either churches believe that an explicit and perfect understanding of the mysteries of the Atonement are necessary for union with Christ. I hope we agree that faith and baptism are adequate for that. Best, Rory