All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.
Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its.aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
Ping!
Still want to protect those priests do they?
I don’t understand the difference of a priest giving absolution for sins and Yeshua dying on the Cross for them. Either Yeshua died for our sins or He didn’t and therefore the need for a priest to do that?
I had a Labor History class in college. The lefty professor, who was actually a good teacher, had talked with an elderly priest about one of the old time labor leaders. The priest admitted the labor leader had confessed to being a communist.
The labor leader was long gone at the point the priest talked about him, but there were a couple of Catholic girls in the class who got pretty upset (at the priest, not the professor).
I don’t remember who the labor leader was, it was someone in the CIO, which wasn’t really news since the CIO was full of commies and everyone pretty much knew it.
All it takes is providing link to the source from which you are lifting textual copy. It really is that simple.
Meanwhile, that same argument you borrowed from elsewhere, which, along with piles of other Romish blather accumulated over the centuries, results in one being required to confess sins to a 'Catholic' priest primarily & only in order to realize/obtain forgiveness of their own sins -- from God Himself (where the forgiveness actually originates from!) --- is not nearly as sound as Roman Catholics seem to think.
Meanwhile, there is yet another large and gaping hole in the article itself, from the very title of the article itself.
The so-called seal is not absolute in regards to the penitent -- even by RCC canon law, yet there is no mention of that whatsoever in this article you brought, or much of anywhere else when such matters are discussed...
Meanwhile, in a recent case in Louisiana, the Roman Catholic Church, in the persons of Diocese representatives, did attempt to prohibit a witness from testifying in a court of law concerning what a priest allegedly told her in context of RC 'confessional'.
Rather than dig out all the official court document themselves (I did view them some months ago) from http://religiondispatches.org/the-lie-misrepresentation-in-louisiana-seal-of-confessional-case/ is a decent summary of what was being much overlooked -- namely -- the Baton Rouge Diocese's legal wranglings which for a time successfully muzzled the plaintiff from testifying concerning what she [allegedly] had been told [presumably in context of confessiona] -- until that 'muzzling' and case dismissal was overturned by the State of Louisiana Supreme Court;
"...According to Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate (not to be confused with the LGBT publication of the same name), “The case involves a young girl who claims she was sexually abused by a now-deceased church parishioner but that her confession to a local priest fell on deaf ears.” (Even this brief summary is somewhat misleading, since the status of the girl’s conversation with the priest as “confession” is a central question.)---------------A lawsuit filed against the priest and the church several years ago was dismissed by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the priest was not required to report the abuse since his conversations with the girl all occurred during the sacrament of Confession. The state Supreme Court reversed that decision in May ruling that what did and did not take place during confession was a matter of fact that ought to be argued at trial.
So, despite the misrepresentations of the Church, newspapers and right wing bloggers, the court did not rule that the priest had to testify as to what he was told during confession.
It’s also worth noting that, with regard to the girl’s own testimony, the seal of Confession wouldn’t be broken as it doesn’t apply to the penitent, only to the priest. Yet, not only is the Diocese seeking to keep the priest from testifying at all, it filed a motion to bar anyone from mentioning what took place during confession.
So no, no one is actually attempting to compel the priest’s testimony—the attorney for the plaintiff confirmed that fact—and nobody is challenging the seal of Confession. The only question here is: can a religious body—one that, in this case, is a defendant in a lawsuit—make its own determination concerning the facts?
More detail, from the aforementioned Advocate July 16, 2014 [again, not to be confused with the 'gay-fag' publication of the same name]
"...The lawsuit also names as defendants the girl’s alleged perpetrator, George J. Charlet Jr., who died in February 2009 at the age of 65, and Charlet Funeral Home Inc. Charlet was president of the company.
Charlet was a well-known, longtime parishioner and active member of Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church in Clinton, where Bayhi was pastor, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The suit alleges Charlet began emailing the girl in the summer of 2008, and that the emails quickly increased in frequency and became “laced with seductive nuances.” The suit contends Charlet ultimately kissed and fondled the child.
A phone message left Monday at the home of Charlet’s widow, Miriam Joy “Sue” Stelly Charlet, was not returned.
In George Charlet’s obituary, which was published in The Advocate, he shared a message that read in part, “I am alright with my God. He knows my heart. I bet my life on Him. I ain’t worried.”
The suit alleges the girl went to confession three times, telling Bayhi that Charlet had inappropriately touched her, kissed her and told her that “he wanted to make love to her.”
The priest allegedly told her she needed to handle the situation herself because “too many people would be hurt” otherwise, the suit says. He also allegedly told her, “This is your problem. Sweep it under the floor and get rid of it,” the suit alleges.
Charlet’s alleged abusive acts continued after the confessions, the suit adds.
The Supreme Court opinion says various parishioners observed the seemingly inappropriate closeness between Charlet and the girl.
The child’s parents filed a formal complaint against Charlet with the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Office, but he died while the investigation was ongoing, the high court’s decision notes.
Shortly before the trial of the suit was set to begin, the church filed a motion seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from “mentioning, referencing, and/or introducing evidence at trial of any confessions that may or may not have taken place.”
Caldwell denied the motion. The state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal not only reversed the judge but also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the priest and church in their entirety.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and, in a concurring opinion, Justice Jeff Hughes emphasized that the issue of whether the communications were confessions must be addressed before the legalities can be resolved.
“I believe the integrity of the sacrament must be protected to the utmost, not only for the sake of the participants, but to protect the ability of individuals to freely confess their sins,” he wrote. “I see nothing that prevents the child from testifying about her own communications to the priest.” ..."
Source for “The Forgiveness of Sins?”
Almost like a WIFE can't be forced to testify against her spouse.
It also forbids
No cleric may pronounce a sentence of death, or execute such a sentence, or be present at its execution
"No subdeacon, deacon, or priest shall practice that part of surgery involving burning and cutting." (CANON 18; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)