Oops, He Did it Again!

http://blog.steveskojec.com ^ | April 24, 2014 | Steve Skojec

[verga]

She has made that claim, but none of us has seen a shred of proof.

[verga]

During the Korean war my father and many other Catholics often went to confession in a jeep.

[verga]

If I have misstated this, somebody please correct me. Like I said, I'm no canon lawyer.

You are spot on. I would add that it must be the intent of both of them at that time that they be engaging in a Sacramental marriage.

[metmom]

In God's eyes, the state can neither marry nor unmarry anybody. State actions are pfft, irrelevant.

Maybe in the CHURCH'S eyes.

I don't see anywhere in Scripture that says only a Jewish or Christian marriage is valid. That would leave the entire rest of the world living in sin in illegitimate marriages.

The Catholic church makes things too complicated.

[metmom]

Chapter and verse?

[murron]

If you have a telephone conversation with a friend and he or she tells you something in confidence, are you not bound by this confidence just because it was over the telephone? That makes more common sense than not being bound by a confidence because it wasn’t face to face. And we’re not talking about a private conversation. We’re talking about confessing one’s sins. I can’t see your argument, frankly.

[murron]

I think murron has already proven her point. I have yet to see one scintilla of proof from you bolstering your statement. Now you’re just being contentious.

[murron]

All it says is you can’t receive absolution over the phone. It says nothing about the seal of the confessional, which is the issue here. I can just see a priest come out and say “I just talked to Mrs. B over the telephone and she told me that she had an affair, she stole from her boss, she had an abortion, etc., etc.” It can’t happen, and it won’t happen unless the priest wishes to risk excommunication.

[BlatherNaut]

I don't see anywhere in Scripture that says only a Jewish or Christian marriage is valid. That would leave the entire rest of the world living in sin in illegitimate marriages.

Non-Christian marriages are contracts based on natural law (valid but not Sacramental).

[BlatherNaut]

All it says is you can’t receive absolution over the phone. It says nothing about the seal of the confessional, which is the issue here. I can just see a priest come out and say “I just talked to Mrs. B over the telephone and she told me that she had an affair, she stole from her boss, she had an abortion, etc., etc.” It can’t happen, and it won’t happen unless the priest wishes to risk excommunication.

Isn't this a red herring? Regardless of what was discussed over the phone by the Pope and his latest cold-call recipient, there is nothing to stop him from clarifying that he gave her no advice in contradiction to Church teaching. The seal of the confessional doesn't give this woman carte blanche to say whatever she wants without being refuted. The wishy-washy response from the Vatican creates the strong impression that what she has said is probably true.

What if the woman came out and said the Pope told her he hated Muslims? You can bet your bottom dollar there would be a swift correction issued in such a case.

[murron]

“The proper place”, but it doesn’t exclude other locales. Telephone confessions are certainly not the norm, but if a priest, or in this case, the Pope, is on the phone with a person who then starts confessing his or her sins, it becomes a confession, even if the priest didn’t have the intention of hearing confession over the phone. Once he hears the sins, no matter what the circumstances, he is bound to keep them secret.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nonononononononono!

No!

"I don't see anywhere in Scripture that says only a Jewish or Christian marriage is valid."

That's because it doesn't say that, anywhere in Scripture, in the Church or anyplace else. There is such a thing as "Natural Marriage," defined by Divine and Natural Law, and written by Natural Law on people's hearts and in their flesh, whether they believe in God or not. Every nation and every culture has always had marriage in some form, but in those myriad forms they all have this in common: they bring together a man and a woman.

Delete from mind.

Their marriages are called "natural marriages." Their children are called their "natural children."

Nothing illegitimate here at all.

Bu they are not "Sacramental" because they are not born again in Christ, not members of the Body of Christ, and thus have no vows before God to comprise a sacred sign of the union of Christ and His Church.

Nor do they claim to be doing that. Ask married Buddhists if they are a sign of the union of Christ and His Church and they'll say "What?" Or "Uh... namaste, buddy."

So their natural marriages are good and deserving of respect, but they do not amount to their unbeknownst participation in a Sacrament of Chrst. That requires a deliberate, free vow between themselves and the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Catholic church makes things too complicated." And no. I'll go with what Einstein said:

[Sir_Ed]

I know! I really hope we figure that out!

Ed

[ebb tide]

murron has proven nothing. She’s asking me to prove a negative.

I have no more obligation to countering her silly novelty, than I have explaining to 3 year old that the the earth is not flat (frankly, I’d think I’d have more success with the 3 year old).

It’s up to murron, and now you, verga, to show where absolutions of sins are given over the telephone.

Please, just give us one example of your preposterous claim!

[piusv]

I give up. I’m wasting my time yet again.

[piusv]

Really, you’re wasting your time.

[ebb tide]

Do you gals have any other non-Catholic novelties you would like to prove?

Like:

Baptism over the phone?

Confirmation over the phone?

Holy Orders over the phone?

Last Rites over the phone?

How about your own 3D printer to receive Holy Communion, via the internet?

[ebb tide]

Yes, I understand the frustration with protestants; but the ignorance of some Catholics saddens me.

[piusv]

Darn right he would be clarifying that. And the same folks who are saying he shouldn’t have to clarify anything will be praising him for doing so!

[piusv]

Considering how much Fr Z is loved by the Catholics on this board you’d think the link I provided above would be enough for them regarding so-called “confession by phone”. I guess the only time Fr Z comes in handy is when he’s explaining away what Francis “really” meant by this or that.