Confession And The Confessional Seal In The Mormon Church

[LoudmouthMormon]

I haven't seen the current handbook, but in the 2006 edition, there was a list of transgressions for when a disciplinary council is mandatory (murder, incest, child abuse top the list).  Another list for when one may be necessary, and a list for when one is not necessary.  

 

I see: "Excommunication is mandatory for murder and is almost always required for incest."  But that's the only use of the word mandatory I can find.

Edited March 25, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[MiserereNobis]

I haven't seen the current handbook, but in the 2006 edition, there was a list of transgressions for when a disciplinary council is mandatory (murder, incest, child abuse top the list).  Another list for when one may be necessary, and a list for when one is not necessary.  

 

I see: "Excommunication is mandatory for murder and is almost always required for incest."  But that's the only use of the word mandatory I can find.

 

You said in the handbook that a disciplinary council is mandatory for such things, but that doesn't mean the excommunication is mandatory, right?  The council could choose not to excommunicate?

 

But then in your second line you say that excommunication is mandatory for murder.  So I guess I'm a little confused.  What is mandatory, the excommunication or the council that determines whether or not an excommunication occurs?

 

In Catholicism, we use the word "automatic" instead of "mandatory."  Well, to be perfectly accurate, we use the phrase "latae sententiae" which means that the sentence has already been passed which is just a fancy way of saying automatic.  To use the example of this thread, if a priest were to break the confessional seal he would be excommunicated latae sententiae, which means that there would not have to be any ruling made by an ecclesiastical superior.  He excommunicated himself immediately upon breaking the seal.  No need for a council, for judgement, etc.  It already happened.

 

To rephrase my questions above:  Is there any equivalent of this automatic excommunication in Mormonism or is there always a council held?  If a council must always be held, are there instances (like murder said above) were the council must excommunicate? 

 

This actually brings up more questions:  what if a person has been found guilty of murder but claims innocence?  Does the council investigate or does it go with the legal judgement?  What about an innocent wrongly convicted whose conviction is later overturned because of evidence (I'm thinking of those death row inmates who get released like 20 years later when someone runs a DNA test and finds out it wasn't them)?  Would their excommunication be nullified or would they still have to get rebaptized?

[toon]

I'll add that we should not confuse normal clergy-penitent interactions with the confessional.  Any communication outside of the Sacrament of Penance (confession) is not under the confessional seal.  If I walked into my priest's office and told him the story of how I abused a child, there would be no seal.  The Sacrament of Penance is a ritual and so has a very distinct beginning ("Father, bless me for I have sinned") and end (the priest gives absolution).  THAT is where the confessional seal is, nowhere else.

 

So, finding child porn on a computer and turning it over to diocesan authorities has nothing whatsoever to do with the seal of the confessional.

 

Seems like the LDS church does not have the equivalent of the Sacrament of Penance.

[thesometimesaint]

You said in the handbook that a disciplinary council is mandatory for such things, but that doesn't mean the excommunication is mandatory, right?  The council could choose not to excommunicate?

 

But then in your second line you say that excommunication is mandatory for murder.  So I guess I'm a little confused.  What is mandatory, the excommunication or the council that determines whether or not an excommunication occurs?

 

In Catholicism, we use the word "automatic" instead of "mandatory."  Well, to be perfectly accurate, we use the phrase "latae sententiae" which means that the sentence has already been passed which is just a fancy way of saying automatic.  To use the example of this thread, if a priest were to break the confessional seal he would be excommunicated latae sententiae, which means that there would not have to be any ruling made by an ecclesiastical superior.  He excommunicated himself immediately upon breaking the seal.  No need for a council, for judgement, etc.  It already happened.

 

To rephrase my questions above:  Is there any equivalent of this automatic excommunication in Mormonism or is there always a council held?  If a council must always be held, are there instances (like murder said above) were the council must excommunicate? 

 

This actually brings up more questions:  what if a person has been found guilty of murder but claims innocence?  Does the council investigate or does it go with the legal judgement?  What about an innocent wrongly convicted whose conviction is later overturned because of evidence (I'm thinking of those death row inmates who get released like 20 years later when someone runs a DNA test and finds out it wasn't them)?  Would their excommunication be nullified or would they still have to get rebaptized?

 

I wouldn't say automatic. It just happens that the person is ex'd virtually every time for some sins. Excommunication serves 3 purposes to protect the Church, to protect the sinner, and to allow for repentance.

Edited March 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Seems like the LDS church does not have the equivalent of the Sacrament of Penance.

 

For LDS it is a process not an event.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

[LoudmouthMormon]

You said in the handbook that a disciplinary council is mandatory for such things, but that doesn't mean the excommunication is mandatory, right?  The council could choose not to excommunicate?

Correct.  DC's can result in several things - Excommunication, disfellowshipment, formal or informal probation, or no formal action whatsoever.   Evidence and testimony is gathered and weighed, direction of the spirit is sought.  Every case is different.

 

 

But then in your second line you say that excommunication is mandatory for murder.  So I guess I'm a little confused.  What is mandatory, the excommunication or the council that determines whether or not an excommunication occurs?

For murder, both.   It makes sense that if someone is accused of murder (or child abuse or other very serious transgressions), you'd at least want to hold a DC to reach a conclusion one way or the other.  The old manual also had a lot to say about trial verdicts and whatnot - I forget all the details and don't have the manual close by right now.  

 

I have one bit of personal experience - I had a distant relative get convicted of abusing a kid.  I knew both abuser and abused.  I figured I'd be the only person to notify the church, as the victim and victim's parents were not LDS and didn't care, and the perp's close family members could only be counted on to hide what happened.  So I wrote a letter to the distant relative's bishop and stake president, included the case number, some copies of court records, and a request to keep the victim anonymous (not a member of the church, did not live in stake boundaries).  7-8 months later, I got a call back from the stake president.  He let me know the perp had been excommunicated, and he asked me to communicate that fact to the victim, hoping that information would help the victim to heal.

Edited March 26, 2014 by LoudmouthMormon

[flameburns623]

Thanks for the valid clarification.   I'm heading over to the Catholic Forums to pursue this matter further.  Y'all protect confessing child molesters from the law, and y'all are defending that state of affairs as good practices for a church?  I gotta hear that from some more people before I'm willing to believe it.  Maybe I'm about to be schooled in the history of reality, maybe I'm getting the wrong impression.  I hope it's the latter.  We'll see. Anyway, to the point of the thread, no, I don't think we have anything like that in LDS confession.  I mean, we used to, back before the culture started grappling with the reality of child sex abuse.  But stuff started changing in the mid 1980's.  These days, when a bishop gets a confession of child abuse, there's a 1-800 number to call to get educated on the laws in his area, which the bishops then follow to the best of their ability.

This conversation has been going on since forever. Used to be made about murder, back when THAT was the most shocking sin a person could commit.

Priests cannot reveal things confessed in the confessional. Much of the time, confession is anonymous--the priest doesn't know the confessor nor the victim.

HOWEVER--the priest may use persuasion to get the perpetrator to go forward and confess to law enforcement. The very fact the crime is being confessed suggests the perp is sorrowful and willing to take steps to ammend the harm they have done.

Short on time. More later.

[mfbukowski]

You said in the handbook that a disciplinary council is mandatory for such things, but that doesn't mean the excommunication is mandatory, right?  The council could choose not to excommunicate?

 

But then in your second line you say that excommunication is mandatory for murder.  So I guess I'm a little confused.  What is mandatory, the excommunication or the council that determines whether or not an excommunication occurs?

 

In Catholicism, we use the word "automatic" instead of "mandatory."  Well, to be perfectly accurate, we use the phrase "latae sententiae" which means that the sentence has already been passed which is just a fancy way of saying automatic.  To use the example of this thread, if a priest were to break the confessional seal he would be excommunicated latae sententiae, which means that there would not have to be any ruling made by an ecclesiastical superior.  He excommunicated himself immediately upon breaking the seal.  No need for a council, for judgement, etc.  It already happened.

 

To rephrase my questions above:  Is there any equivalent of this automatic excommunication in Mormonism or is there always a council held?  If a council must always be held, are there instances (like murder said above) were the council must excommunicate? 

 

This actually brings up more questions:  what if a person has been found guilty of murder but claims innocence?  Does the council investigate or does it go with the legal judgement?  What about an innocent wrongly convicted whose conviction is later overturned because of evidence (I'm thinking of those death row inmates who get released like 20 years later when someone runs a DNA test and finds out it wasn't them)?  Would their excommunication be nullified or would they still have to get rebaptized?

The bottom line is that it's all up to the council to decide what is best spiritually for the person. What course of action would best bring him back to Christ? The good news about being exed is that one can be rebaptised and all sins are removed.

If the council believes that murder did not happen, they might take no action regardless of what the civil court believed.

But it is hard to imagine such a case where the council would know something the civil court did not, and council would not report the information to the authorities.

[MiserereNobis]

The bottom line is that it's all up to the council to decide what is best spiritually for the person. What course of action would best bring him back to Christ?

 

This should be ultimate end of any ecclesiastical punishment, in Mormonism or Catholicism.

 

 

If the council believes that murder did not happen, they might take no action regardless of what the civil court believed.

But it is hard to imagine such a case where the council would know something the civil court did not, and council would not report the information to the authorities.

 

This seems to me to be the prudent thing to do as well.

 

ETA:  unless, of course, it involved the confessional seal

Edited March 27, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

would you be willing to name this priest who told you "without their permission there is nothing he can do"?  I know some child rights groups who might be very interested in knowing the name and location of that priest, depending on which state he calls home.

Your statement about me giving you a priest's name is ridiculous and should be retracted.

 

By the way, I retract this statement.  After catching up on the history of this thing, I'm thinking the child rights groups are already well aware of Catholic teaching in this regard.

 

I'm grateful the LDS church doesn't have the confessional seal as part of it's way of doing things.  I rest a bit easier knowing that bishops who follow the process, will follow mandatory reporting guidelines, and may in some cases report to the authorities even when not legally required to do so, without jeopardizing their standing in the church.  

[flameburns623]

By the way, I retract this statement.  After catching up on the history of this thing, I'm thinking the child rights groups are already well aware of Catholic teaching in this regard. I'm grateful the LDS church doesn't have the confessional seal as part of it's way of doing things.  I rest a bit easier knowing that bishops who follow the process, will follow mandatory reporting guidelines, and may in some cases report to the authorities even when not legally required to do so, without jeopardizing their standing in the church.

Keep in mind: CATHOLIC CONFESSION IS COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS: even if a perpetrator chose to confess face-to-face, they could go entirely across the state or into another country to make confession to a priest who doesn't know them at all.

Entirely different from what would happen in an LDS ward, where you would never confess to a bishop in a strange ward.

Also: the purpose of confession in the RCC is to restore the relationship of the confessor to Christ. The purpose of confession in the LDS Church is to restore the relationship of the confessor to the community, to the Ward community and to the community-at-large.

Sacramental confession MAY include restoring the penitent's relationship to the community--a priest assigns penances, for example, which might include telling a family member that you are sorry, doing something kind for someone you have injured, etcetera. Catholics have an unusual concept in their theology which says that while sin itself can be wholly forgiven, the "temporal consequences" of sins may or may not be abated by the Divine forgiveness of sin.

So it was that when David committed serious sins on two occaisions, he confessed those transgressions and repented. In each case, he was told that his sins were forgiven. Yet--after his adulterous affair with Bathseba, his infant child died. After repenting of having defied God in taking a census, he was given a choice of temporal consequences for his sin.

A priest receiving the confession of a child abuser or murderer might well use examples such as these to encourage a confessor to 'go public' with their crime. If the confessor refused, such a refusal might even be taken as evidence of lack of a sincere purpose to repent, do penance, and sin no more. In such a case, the priest might withhold absolution (though they would still be constrained by the confessional seal to say nothing).

There is really nothing like the idea of 'temporal punishment for sin' in the theology of Mormonism. Like Protestants--Mormons don't distinguish between 'imperfect contrition', sorrow for sin mostly due to the consequences of sin--and 'perfect contrition'--sorrow for sin derived from a perfect love of God. In Catholic theology, if people are capable of 'perfect contrition', they do not need the Sacrament of Penance. This is considered a heroic virtue, however, and one which very few people achieve in this lifetime--hence the need for Purgatory, a sort of foyer to Heaven where people learn that pure and untainted love of God which most of us fail to achieve in mortal existence.

Even 'perfect contrition', however, does not erase the 'temporal consequences' of sin. Something which a priest would surely drive home to a penitent who has done something grievously wrong. I, for example, have been assigned the penance of taking my wife some flowers after confessing my part in an argument. Surely, a priest dealing with the confession of a serious legal wrong would assign a penance which might include going to proper authorities.

That said: neither a Mormon bishop nor a Catholic priest are agents of the State, and neither should be expected to behave as such. Must a Mormon bishop in Communist Cuba turn in an LDS parent who has committed the "crime against the State" of teaching their children the Gospel? Or the "hooligan" act of distributing LDS literature?

At some juncture, one must acknowledge the Scriptural admonition that 'we must obey God and not men'.

[pogi]

Also: the purpose of confession in the RCC is to restore the relationship of the confessor to Christ. The purpose of confession in the LDS Church is to restore the relationship of the confessor to the community, to the Ward community and to the community-at-large.

 

The purpose of confession in the LDS Church is no different than in the RCC. Confession is only one of the beginning steps of the repentance process.  It is done out of remorse for sin and desire to be reconciled to God.  We do believe that restitution is an important part of the repentance process.  It should be made wherever possible.  This demonstrates a contrite heart.  Where restitution is not made where possible, there is no evidence of contrition, true remorse, or desire for reconciliation. 

 

That said: neither a Mormon bishop nor a Catholic priest are agents of the State, and neither should be expected to behave as such. Must a Mormon bishop in Communist Cuba turn in an LDS parent who has committed the "crime against the State" of teaching their children the Gospel? Or the "hooligan" act of distributing LDS literature?

At some juncture, one must acknowledge the Scriptural admonition that 'we must obey God and not men'.

 

You are right that they should not be expected to act as agents of the state.  As agents of God, on the other hand, they should be expected to have a moral responsibility and obligation to protect the innocence of children.  Without any confessional seal, the best way to do this is to report offenders.  If the offender is truly penitent, he can continue the process in prison.  With a confessional seal, you just have to get more creative and follow the spirit. 

Edited March 27, 2014 by pogi

[flameburns623]

The purpose of confession in the LDS Church is no different than in the RCC. Confession is only one of the beginning steps of the repentance process. It is done out of remorse for sin and desire to be reconciled to God. We do believe that restitution is an important part of the repentance process. It should be made wherever possible. This demonstrates a contrite heart. Where restitution is not made where possible, there is no evidence of contrition, true remorse, or desire for reconciliation. You are right that they should not be expected to act as agents of the state. As agents of God, on the other hand, they should be expected to have a moral responsibility and obligation to protect the innocence of children. Without any confessional seal, the best way to do this is to report offenders. If the offender is truly penitent, he can continue the process in prison. With a confessional seal, you just have to get more creative and follow the spirit.

Pogi: the LDS Church does not share sacramental theology with the Catholic tradition.

When Father Smith declares "I absolve you from all of your sins", it is NOT Father Smith who is forgiving the penitent, but Jesus Christ speaking through and in the voice of Fr. Smith.

When Bishop Jones says to a penitent, "The Lord forgives you", he is NOT acting 'in personae Christi', he is not, in that moment, Jesus Christ Himself. Rather, Bishop Jones is declaring, as a deputy of Christ, what Christ has already done, apart from any act or word of Bp. Jones.

Since the Catholic priest, in the confessional, as on the altar confecting the Eucharist, is not only a deputy of Jesus Christ but is Jesus Himself--the priest in that moment does as Jesus is already doing in the world.

That is--when Charlie Manson causes heinous murder to be committed against Sharon Tate et. al., Jesus does not show up at the local police station and report the murders He has just, personally, witnessed. Rather, Jesus actus upon the consciences of the perpetrators to inspire them to confess; and through the ordinary officers of law, to establish guilt.

Jesus does not, at the moment that Jeffrey Dahmer kills and cannibalizes people, take Jeffrey into custody and detain them by His supernatural might until the law can try Mr. Dahmer based upon the personal, sworn testimony of the omniscient and all-seeing Jesus Christ.

And--when any sinner, of offenses petty or great, kneels down by their bedside and in humble contrition confesses their offenses to God, pleading His forgiveness--Christ does not stand by with His heavenly microphone, recording such admissions to present before those injured by the sins of the penitent. Rather, Christ FORGIVES, and then by the inner promptings of the Holy Ghost leads them to make the appropriate ammends.

When I step into a confessional, I am not confessing to a human being but to Christ Himself. The priest, acting 'in personae Christi' can do none other than what Christ Himself does. He is NOT Fr. Smith in that moment and he cannot act as Fr. Smith might well be wonted to act. By contrast, even in his role as Bishop, the esteemed Mormon Bishop Jones remains--Bishop Jones. Deputised by Christ, acting according to guidelines established by Christ but still distinct from Christ.

All of which sidesteps the most important aspect of this discussuon: Catholic confession is ANONYMOUS--it is an abberation for a priest to know the name of the penitent. This was determined to be the best way to conduct confessions long, long ago, and has been the practice of the Church for centuries and millenia.

However you care to express it, to act on behalf of the community is to act as an agent of that community. To effect a "citizens' arrest" is to act as an agent-of-law. Priests are not agents-of-law but conduits of sacramental grace. When acting within their appropriate role, they are Christ-Made-Visible-On-Earth, in a manner unique only to priests and bishops.

While the LDS have some semblance of belief in apostolic succession as part of their creed--their understanding of what that truly means is different--by Catholic understanding is is properly styled 'deficient'--insofar as LDS priesthood-holders and officers-of-the-Church are not Christ Himself in the ordinary exercise of their priestly duties. 'Deputies' or 'appointees' or 'representatives' of Christ--but not the Lord Himself.

Hope that underscores the distinction.

Edited March 27, 2014 by flameburns623

[pogi]

Pogi: the LDS Church does not share sacramental theology with the Catholic tradition.

 

I was only referring to this:

 

the purpose of confession in the RCC is to restore the relationship of the confessor to Christ. 

 

In this regard, yes, we do share the same theology.  That is all I was commenting on.  You were trying to make the purpose of confession for LDS something other than that. 

 

However you care to express it, to act on behalf of the community is to act as an agent of that community. 

 

Everything that Christ did was on behalf of "the community".  He taught us to do the same.  

Edited March 27, 2014 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

The Sacrament of Penance in Catholicism reconciles us with God and also with his Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, the community of believers.  When we commit mortal sin, we cut ourselves off of the grace of God, including the grace that comes from the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church.  For example, someone who has committed mortal sin may not receive the Eucharist.

 

So, confession reconciles us both with God and with His Church.

 

Forgiveness is an incredibly beautiful gift from God.  On that, I'm sure, we all agree

[3DOP]

Pogi: the LDS Church does not share sacramental theology with the Catholic tradition.

When Father Smith declares "I absolve you from all of your sins", it is NOT Father Smith who is forgiving the penitent, but Jesus Christ speaking through and in the voice of Fr. Smith.

When Bishop Jones says to a penitent, "The Lord forgives you", he is NOT acting 'in personae Christi', he is not, in that moment, Jesus Christ Himself. Rather, Bishop Jones is declaring, as a deputy of Christ, what Christ has already done, apart from any act or word of Bp. Jones.

Since the Catholic priest, in the confessional, as on the altar confecting the Eucharist, is not only a deputy of Jesus Christ but is Jesus Himself--the priest in that moment does as Jesus is already doing in the world.

That is--when Charlie Manson causes heinous murder to be committed against Sharon Tate et. al., Jesus does not show up at the local police station and report the murders He has just, personally, witnessed. Rather, Jesus actus upon the consciences of the perpetrators to inspire them to confess; and through the ordinary officers of law, to establish guilt.

Jesus does not, at the moment that Jeffrey Dahmer kills and cannibalizes people, take Jeffrey into custody and detain them by His supernatural might until the law can try Mr. Dahmer based upon the personal, sworn testimony of the omniscient and all-seeing Jesus Christ.

And--when any sinner, of offenses petty or great, kneels down by their bedside and in humble contrition confesses their offenses to God, pleading His forgiveness--Christ does not stand by with His heavenly microphone, recording such admissions to present before those injured by the sins of the penitent. Rather, Christ FORGIVES, and then by the inner promptings of the Holy Ghost leads them to make the appropriate ammends.

When I step into a confessional, I am not confessing to a human being but to Christ Himself. The priest, acting 'in personae Christi' can do none other than what Christ Himself does. He is NOT Fr. Smith in that moment and he cannot act as Fr. Smith might well be wonted to act. By contrast, even in his role as Bishop, the esteemed Mormon Bishop Jones remains--Bishop Jones. Deputised by Christ, acting according to guidelines established by Christ but still distinct from Christ.

All of which sidesteps the most important aspect of this discussuon: Catholic confession is ANONYMOUS--it is an abberation for a priest to know the name of the penitent. This was determined to be the best way to conduct confessions long, long ago, and has been the practice of the Church for centuries and millenia.

However you care to express it, to act on behalf of the community is to act as an agent of that community. To effect a "citizens' arrest" is to act as an agent-of-law. Priests are not agents-of-law but conduits of sacramental grace. When acting within their appropriate role, they are Christ-Made-Visible-On-Earth, in a manner unique only to priests and bishops.

While the LDS have some semblance of belief in apostolic succession as part of their creed--their understanding of what that truly means is different--by Catholic understanding is is properly styled 'deficient'--insofar as LDS priesthood-holders and officers-of-the-Church are not Christ Himself in the ordinary exercise of their priestly duties. 'Deputies' or 'appointees' or 'representatives' of Christ--but not the Lord Himself.

Hope that underscores the distinction.

 

Oh man...I couldn't believe the accurate things you were saying about our faith flameburns. I double checked. Yup...he has an avatar of that "LDS Jesus". Okay, he is unusually well-informed, I think. And then I read what it says above the avatar. Mystery explained. Heh.

 

3DOP

[LoudmouthMormon]

Flameburns, I got all your points.  Every one of them except where you claim an anonymous confession, because sometimes it isn't, and if a priest knows the victim, it doesn't matter.  Know what I'm not hearing?  Anything about the victims of the abuse that brings the confessor.

 

"Sorry, victim.  I could have done more to end that situation you were in.  But me hearing about it really didn't bind me to any duty to you.  It was all about your abuser and his relationship with Christ.  You were out of scope."

 

No thanks.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

Back before our cultural understanding of how child sex abuse works, the recidivism rates, and how it flourishes through secrecy, maybe my opinion would have been different.  But I've got 20 years of human advancement in understanding which (in my mind) trump your centuries upon centuries of sacred tradition and doctrine and scriptural reasoning.  I rarely let "new stuff we humans just discovered" overturn such things, but here's a rare exception.

 

I ask myself what system of faith I'd look into if I ever lost my testimony.  Catholicism was appealing until I heard about this, now it's down past Judaism, generic protestantism, and that weird UFO religion I always wanted to start.

[MiserereNobis]

I ask myself what system of faith I'd look into if I ever lost my testimony.  Catholicism was appealing until I heard about this, now it's down past Judaism, generic protestantism, and that weird UFO religion I always wanted to start.

 

I'll just point out that that type of reasoning (picking one thing to discredit an entire religion) usually works against Mormonism and most Mormons would argue against such reasoning to a potential convert.

 

Personally, I find it interesting that of ALL the stuff in Catholicism that could give somebody pause, of all of our warts, so to speak, it is the confessional seal that does it for you.  Not the idea of confession, but the seal.  It also intrigues me that because of the seal, and nothing else, you put us lower than a weird UFO cult, which means that if a UFO religion allowed its clergy to talk to the police, you'd find their religion more reasonable than Catholicism.  Strange.

Edited March 28, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[flameburns623]

Flameburns, I got all your points. Every one of them except where you claim an anonymous confession, because sometimes it isn't, and if a priest knows the victim, it doesn't matter. Know what I'm not hearing? Anything about the victims of the abuse that brings the confessor. "Sorry, victim. I could have done more to end that situation you were in. But me hearing about it really didn't bind me to any duty to you. It was all about your abuser and his relationship with Christ. You were out of scope." No thanks. Agree to disagree. Back before our cultural understanding of how child sex abuse works, the recidivism rates, and how it flourishes through secrecy, maybe my opinion would have been different. But I've got 20 years of human advancement in understanding which (in my mind) trump your centuries upon centuries of sacred tradition and doctrine and scriptural reasoning. I rarely let "new stuff we humans just discovered" overturn such things, but here's a rare exception. I ask myself what system of faith I'd look into if I ever lost my testimony. Catholicism was appealing until I heard about this, now it's down past Judaism, generic protestantism, and that weird UFO religion I always wanted to start.

Loudmouth:

I worked with troubled and abusedchildren as well. And understand the tragedy of their plight.

BTW--one of the things my wife disliked about the Mormon Church was it's old-fashioned music and traditional Protestant format. She is very much an 'of the moment' sort of person who for years favored "seeker-sensitive" churches where everything about the worship service is shaped by this week's fads and pop trends, where everything that was done last week is "so fifteen minutes ago"--to use a slang expression which is alread just SO fifteen minutes ago.

(My wife, btw, is getting older and perceptibly gleaning greater appreciation for things with a bit of regularity and tradition. But that is an aside).

More to the heart of the matter

Shall we establish Church practices based upon fads and beliefs which change? The LDS Church, to some measure, may agree we should. But the RCC has demurred and continues to demur. Contraception is illicit for Catholics although far too many Catholics contracept. Divorce is illicit, abortion illicit, transubstantiation is still dogma--and the seal of Confession remains sacrosanct.

Meanwhile, the Coming Global Ice Age has become Global Warming has become Global Climate Change and may revert back to Global Cooling. Eggs were great for their protein, then bad because of their cholesterol, till we distinguished between 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol, and now eggs are OK again. Homosexuality was widely accepted in ancient Rome, has been a moral transgression under Christian cultures, Protestant and Catholic alike and now--in the post-modern era--is acceptable once more. Do we waver with the trends, or hold fast to the Traditions once received, whether by epistle or by word-of-mouth? The RCC has, historically, held fast.

Despite the disappointment of certain 'Loudmouths'.

EDIT--Since this is a Mormon/LDS forum, not a Catholic forum--I'm confessedly a bit unhappy with the tone of my own response here. I'm not here to proselytise, and LoudmouthMormon obviously knows where to go to get enlargement on Catholic issues. I'm stepping back a bit from this thread, as the direction I have taken is somewhat ungracious for a guest here among the LDS to assume. My apologies.

Edited March 28, 2014 by flameburns623

[3DOP]

I'll just point out that that type of reasoning (picking one thing to discredit an entire religion) usually works against Mormonism and most Mormons would argue against such reasoning to a potential convert.

 

Personally, I find it interesting that of ALL the stuff in Catholicism that could give somebody pause, of all of our warts, so to speak, it is the confessional seal that does it for you.  Not the idea of confession, but the seal.  It also intrigues me that because of the seal, and nothing else, you put us lower than a weird UFO cult, which means that if a UFO religion allowed its clergy to talk to the police, you'd find their religion more reasonable than Catholicism.  Strange.

 

Inquisitional propaganda that most people believe...no problem

Infallibility means popes can't sin or make a mistake like most people believe...no problem

We worship idols and think marriage and meat are evil...no problem

 

But when someone has the grace and courage to confess their sins, because the priest who was ordained to forgive sins won't betray the sinner to civil authority, (even though he doesn't usually even know who it is?), we are like some flying saucer religion? Haha. Great job Miserere...To the heart of the matter. It seems hard to believe that someone has worked out all of the other distorted misinformation that non-Catholics believe about us, but can't get past the actual truth about why a priest maintains confidence in the confessional. Goodnight, we don't expect an unordained lawyer to betray their client! How much more intimate and sacred is the relationship between priest and penitent?

 

3DOP

Edited March 28, 2014 by 3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

Keep in mind: CATHOLIC CONFESSION IS COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS: even if a perpetrator chose to confess face-to-face, they could go entirely across the state or into another country to make confession to a priest who doesn't know them at all.

Entirely different from what would happen in an LDS ward, where you would never confess to a bishop in a strange ward.

Also: the purpose of confession in the RCC is to restore the relationship of the confessor to Christ. The purpose of confession in the LDS Church is to restore the relationship of the confessor to the community, to the Ward community and to the community-at-large.

Sacramental confession MAY include restoring the penitent's relationship to the community--a priest assigns penances, for example, which might include telling a family member that you are sorry, doing something kind for someone you have injured, etcetera. Catholics have an unusual concept in their theology which says that while sin itself can be wholly forgiven, the "temporal consequences" of sins may or may not be abated by the Divine forgiveness of sin.

So it was that when David committed serious sins on two occaisions, he confessed those transgressions and repented. In each case, he was told that his sins were forgiven. Yet--after his adulterous affair with Bathseba, his infant child died. After repenting of having defied God in taking a census, he was given a choice of temporal consequences for his sin.

A priest receiving the confession of a child abuser or murderer might well use examples such as these to encourage a confessor to 'go public' with their crime. If the confessor refused, such a refusal might even be taken as evidence of lack of a sincere purpose to repent, do penance, and sin no more. In such a case, the priest might withhold absolution (though they would still be constrained by the confessional seal to say nothing).

There is really nothing like the idea of 'temporal punishment for sin' in the theology of Mormonism. Like Protestants--Mormons don't distinguish between 'imperfect contrition', sorrow for sin mostly due to the consequences of sin--and 'perfect contrition'--sorrow for sin derived from a perfect love of God. In Catholic theology, if people are capable of 'perfect contrition', they do not need the Sacrament of Penance. This is considered a heroic virtue, however, and one which very few people achieve in this lifetime--hence the need for Purgatory, a sort of foyer to Heaven where people learn that pure and untainted love of God which most of us fail to achieve in mortal existence.

Even 'perfect contrition', however, does not erase the 'temporal consequences' of sin. Something which a priest would surely drive home to a penitent who has done something grievously wrong. I, for example, have been assigned the penance of taking my wife some flowers after confessing my part in an argument. Surely, a priest dealing with the confession of a serious legal wrong would assign a penance which might include going to proper authorities.

That said: neither a Mormon bishop nor a Catholic priest are agents of the State, and neither should be expected to behave as such. Must a Mormon bishop in Communist Cuba turn in an LDS parent who has committed the "crime against the State" of teaching their children the Gospel? Or the "hooligan" act of distributing LDS literature?

At some juncture, one must acknowledge the Scriptural admonition that 'we must obey God and not men'.

Are temporal consequences the effects of the sin you committed on those you hurt.  Say in the example of a fight with your wife, you confess your part and God forgives you but your wife is still hurt and angry, wouldn't that be a temporal consequence?