Why do Catholics have to confess their sins to a priest instead of praying straight to God? [Ecu]

***There are several churches consolidated in numerous cities. The primary reason is funding. If there were so many Catholics, why would money be an issue?***

Not sure. With the unfortunate movement of some of the Church immediately prior to and after Vatican II, we lost a lot of clergy. The numbers in the seminaries are climbing with the increased conservatism of JPII and now BXVI; our talks with the Orthodox have increased with the jettisoning of the inclusionist type that supported guitar Masses, Wiccan nuns and liberation theology.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/mar2001p6_149.html says that:

Those US dioceses which have consistently promoted orthodoxy both in their parishes and in their seminaries have been affected little, if at all, by any “vocations crisis” or shortage of priests. Nor are the bishops of such dioceses issuing pastoral letters introducing parish “clusters” or giving instructions on how to celebrate the liturgy in the absence of a priest.

Dioceses such as Wichita, Lincoln, Arlington, Fargo and Peoria have consistently been ordaining as many or more men each year than liberal dioceses five to ten times their size.

In the Rockford, Illinois, diocese, Bishop Thomas Doran ordained eight priests last year, the highest number of ordinations there in 41 years. In Virginia, the Diocese of Arlington ordained 55 men to the priesthood in the years 1991-98. And the Diocese of Peoria, with a Catholic population of just 232,000, ordained 72 priests in the years 1991-98, an average of nine each year.

In comparison, nearby Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with a Catholic population three times that of Peoria, ordained just two priests in 1998, while Detroit, with a Catholic population of 1.5 million (almost seven times that of Peoria) ordained an average of eight men each year from 1991-98.

Archbishop Curtiss’ Omaha archdiocese, considered one of the most conservative in the Midwest, ordained an average of seven men in the years from 1991-98 for a population of just 215,000 Catholics. Compare that to the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin (with a slightly larger Catholic population), which ordained a total of four men during the entire period of 1991-98.

Other dioceses, such as Denver and Atlanta, have turned their vocation programs around by actively supporting orthodox vocations and promoting fidelity to Church teaching, while emphasising the traditional role of the priest as defined by the Church. Atlanta now has 61 seminarians, up from just nine in 1985. Denver boasted 68 seminarians in 1999, up from 26 in 1991.

***And you are right about the Diocese here. This is a VERY Catholic town. And very Democratic too.***

That demographic is changing. The immigrant Catholic population during the 1800s were largely persecuted by the Protestant establishment and supported by or else ignored by the Republican Party. The Democratic Party embraced this new voter bloc and much of that loyalty remains to this day.

But with the movement of the Democratic Party towards socialism, abortion, gay rights and generally left wing and immoral behaviours, the Catholic conservatives are moving towards the Republican Party. The old liberals are remaining Democrat, but they are not replacing themselves with young liberals.

Sadly, your last paragraph has yet to unfold. Most RCs I know are still hardcore Dems and thats because they are what I call, “Catholic in Name Only.” They think they are Catholic, but are CLUEless.

I do think you make a good point, though, on the fact that the orthodox congregations and dioceses having no shortage of priests. We have a very excellent Catholic Church w/i 5 minutes of our home. I have been to Mass there. They are a vibrant community and very, very conservative. Our dear, born-again Catholic friends told us about the church. They are thriving.

***Sadly, your last paragraph has yet to unfold. Most RCs I know are still hardcore Dems and thats because they are what I call, “Catholic in Name Only.” They think they are Catholic, but are CLUEless.***

There are many of those, but they are ageing and generally not replacing themselves with CINOs. My wife (the only human child of her mother) and I are what I’d refer to as generally strong and conservative Catholics. Her mother only goes to church because my wife’s stepfather got hit on while going to church by another CINO. He only goes to church because, well, it doesn’t interfere with his golf and poker and because it’s a habit.

He is old school UAW and votes the ticket each election that the union prints up and he goes down to the union hall to pick up. Democrat all the way. He is backing Obama, by the way, even though he is pointedly bigoted and drops the n-word, especially while watching the news. He maintains these opposed points of view with the ease that most liberals do.

We are in a relatively strong and orthodox and smaller parish, although some of the prime movers are liberal Democrats (they take a political ribbing). We don’t currently have any men in the seminary, although we have had a number in the past.

We have a rough road yet; there are a lot of good intentioned people that make the world worse - the road to hell is paved with good intentions (no pun intended).

The interesting thing about Catholic conservatism is that it’s actually quite easy - it’s all spelled out in the Catechism and backed up with Scripture. God bless and thanks.

Well I can’t argue with you on any of this. I remember many years ago, one of my friends, a pastor in our church (he is not the pastor of another church), told me that we had “a great mission field” right in our own church. I think that is true for many churches.

As I’ve always said, I think God’s remnant is everywhere and even in very unlikely places. The spirit knows the spirit however, and the sheep hear His voice and He knows where His sheep are and who they are.

God knows, indeed.

I had a friend on JAD that was Missouri Synod and posted to Orlando. I meant to visit him a couple of years ago when we visited Orlando, but managed to miss him.

He was a great young man and full of Christ.

“After His resurrection, Jesus, appeared to His disciples on Easter Sunday evening. He conferred the power to forgive sins by breathing on them. This corresponds to God breathing life into Adam. And so, Jesus breathes life giving power to forgive sins into his disciples. Note that this is before Pentecost and the general bestowal of the Holy Spirit. This is a special and unique pouring out of the Holy Spirit for the disciples, the first priests and bishops of the Christian Church.”

So after Pentacost and the general bestowal of the Holy Spirit, why would one need a “priest” to confess? With the Holy Spirit in one’s own heart, why would a sinner need a Priest?

So after Pentacost and the general bestowal of the Holy Spirit, why would one need a “priest” to confess? With the Holy Spirit in one’s own heart, why would a sinner need a Priest?

Thank you, Sunny, for posing an excellent question.

Christ told the apostles to follow his example: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

This power was understood as coming from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).

Note that the power Christ gave the apostles was twofold: to forgive sins or to hold them bound, which means to retain them unforgiven. Several things follow from this. First, the apostles could not know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless they were first told the sins by the sinner. This implies confession. Second, their authority was not merely to proclaim that God had already forgiven sins or that he would forgive sins if there were proper repentance.

If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Hope this addresses your question.