But after the Catholic interpretation, it really doesn’t make sense to confess taking contraception. In most cases, the people take it regularly and plan to keep on taking it, and in this case no real remorse is expressed and absolution cannot be given.
People habitually do things all the time that they feel remorse for, and yet keep doing it.
Is it, really? I’ve never been in a confessional, but if they are anything like books and movies, visual anonymity seems minimal. Not to mention recognizing voices. Unless your congregation is a mega church, don’t you ever talk to your priest outside of confession?
Because people are people. Maybe she’s embarrassed, maybe she’s tired of confessing the same thing every week and being told to do the hail Mary thing every week. Year after year. If I was catholic and went to confession every week to say that I’m still not married to the woman I call my wife of 20+ years, I think I would tire of hearing about how I’m living in sin. Therefore, I would just never bring it up.
Are you really participating in the faith if you choose to ignore the parts you don’t agree with? Why not find a church that adheres more to your values? It’s a little like those groups that claim to be Jewish but think Jesus is the Messiah. BTW, I’m not singling out Catholics as the only ones that do this kind of stuff. It’s spread across all religions.
The church thinks confession of all your sins is good for you, no? I’m saying churchgoers don’t believe that, and have their own ideas of what they should confess to.
Yes, for a lot of people it is difficult. That’s why churches, mosques and synagogues have split off into various factions so much over history. People don’t think what they are doing is wrong, so they find a place that is more welcoming. Or just ignore the parts they don’t like.
Sure, but what good does confessing do them? If the priest just continually forgives them for the same thing over and over, they are going to think it’s no big deal.
In the Catholic church? I thought there were venial and mortal sins. And there is a big difference between the two. If that weren’t so, they wouldn’t have the distinction in the first place. And while I don’t believe in sins, I can think of a lot worse things called sins than using birth control and having sex before marriage. A lot worse.
When I’ve been in a confessional , between the darkness and the screen, I would never have visually recognized the priest. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “mega-church” , but the last parish I regularly attended had five or six Masses each weekend , with at least a couple of hundred people at each. Most people’s conversation with one of the priests was limited to a few words when leaving Mass or at some event. I would be extremely surprised if more than one of the priests even knew my name and I’d be surprised if even one could have recognized me by voice.
The priest is free to make absolution conditioned upon the perp turning themself in to secular authorities and confessing to the crime.
An imperfect schema, I know.
Thanks for the explanation. I would call that a big church. I can’t imagine not personally knowing your priest. While I’m atheist, I am Jewish and I have always known my local rabbi personally. That may be more of an ethnicity thing than a religion thing though.
And maybe I should let this go for now, the thread could use a push back on track and @kaylasdad99 has done so. Sorry to the OP for getting so off subject.
'Saright!
Thanks for that general slam at me and others on this board.
There was such a case in the state of New York, People v. Phillips , N.Y. Ct. Gen. Sess. (NY 1813).
But that 1813 case doesn’t square with the Supreme Court’s modern rulings. The current standard is the peyote case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990):
“laws affecting certain religious practices do not violate the right to free exercise of religion as long as the laws are neutral, generally applicable, and not motivated by animus to religion”
Note that four members of the court appeared disillusioned with the Smith standard in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), with three of them writing that they would overturn it in their concurrence and opt for strict scrutiny instead.
It seems to me that a law forcing a priest to break the seal of confession could probably survive even strict constitutional scrutiny. Certainly it could survive the Smith standard. I don’t believe that specific question has ever been addressed by federal courts, though.
In practice the clergy-penitent privilege is recognized by statute or common law, which means it is for the states to grant or deny. To my knowledge all 50 states recognize a clergy-penitent privilege for formal confessional either by statute or common law, thus preempting any First Amendment defenses. (You try to quash a subpoena with your rights under state law before involving the federal courts)
The only federal court case I could find has nothing to do with the religious freedom clause. Mullen v. United States , 263 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1958) recognizes the clergy-penitent privilege at federal common law. Federal common law only applies to federal cases (such as the aforementioned, which took place in D.C.). See also In re Verplank , 329 F. Supp. 433 (C.D. Cal. 1971), which overturned a federal grand jury holding a Lutheran pastor in contempt for refusing to divulge “confidential communications”.
Federal common law may change with an act of Congress. In theory, if Congress were to abridge the clergy-penitent privilege, said act could be challenged under the religious freedom clause. I think the challenge would fail. But there has been no such act of Congress, and thus no such lawsuit.
~Max