Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#51
(10-20-2012, 04:01 PM)Allan Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

I think it was significant that this was a public sin.  I had publicly taken a stand in defiance of the Bishops so applying penalties to me did not violate the seal of Confession.  
Reply
#52
(10-20-2012, 04:10 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:01 PM)Allan Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

I think it was significant that this was a public sin.  I had publicly taken a stand in defiance of the Bishops so applying penalties to me did not violate the seal of Confession.  

Ah yes if the priest knew of this outside the confession and in fact nothing came from the seal it wouldn't be a breach, thoughnnormally its awkward for the priest as it could be scandalous as they now know it from the seal etc...
Reply
#53
Though I have a suspicion I'm wrong and actually they cant act on anything  in confession even if they knew it before,.
Reply
#54
(10-20-2012, 04:07 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:01 PM)Allan Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

I don't see Jayne relating him as doing anything that broke the seal, so long as he said this within the confessional and put the impetus on her to remove herself from the position and did nothing outside the seal, he did nothing wrong. Confessors tell people to do or not do things, that they can or cannot be such and such all the time, but its up to the penitent to follow their directions and obviously if they refuse to do it they can refuse absolution.

The penance is always best, when related to the confessed sin, and when it's public, sometimes a public act of reparation is necessary. I always make the distinction where reparation is needed. Is it a sin against God: prayer time or special sorts of prayer  is a normal penance.  Is it a sin against people, an act of charity can be. In the case mentioned, an act towards the Church can be. But of course always so, that nobody can ever suspect it to be a penance for a specific sin !!!!
Personally I think, that after the absolution the penintent is free to receive the sacraments and since esp. Holy Communion is a very necessary sacrament for life, I would think that not receiving Him is a bit contradictory - if no special interdicts are the case. I always think of the benefit of the soul, and what the Lord can do in the soul!

BTW the seal of confession is in fact mutual. I understand Jayne wanting to give an example, a case, but understand that we don't need to hear her confession! When making a case about a confession, better not relate it to yourself of any person who can be known. Better say: "I once heard about someone who was a liberal and he/she did... When he/she confessed it... "


On topic: I read the whole story about denying Holy Communion - if it would be true - with open mouth  :O. Never imagined such things could exist, in the SSPX or outside.
Reply
#55
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: On topic: I read the whole story about denying Holy Communion - if it would be true - with open mouth  :O. Never imagined such things could exist, in the SSPX or outside.


I can Father. I have been denied Holy Communion in the past because I was kneeling .If I can be denied Holy Communion, by a priest, for this, then it is not so hard to imagine other reasons.
Reply
#56
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: The penance is always best, when related to the confessed sin, and when it's public, sometimes a public act of reparation is necessary. I always make the distinction where reparation is needed. Is it a sin against God: prayer time or special sorts of prayer  is a normal penance.  Is it a sin against people, an act of charity can be. In the case mentioned, an act towards the Church can be. But of course always so, that nobody can ever suspect it to be a penance for a specific sin !!!!
Personally I think, that after the absolution the penintent is free to receive the sacraments and since esp. Holy Communion is a very necessary sacrament for life, I would think that not receiving Him is a bit contradictory - if no special interdicts are the case. I always think of the benefit of the soul, and what the Lord can do in the soul!

In my case, I did benefit from being told not to receive Communion because it knocked the defiance out of me and helped me to understand the seriousness of what I had done.

(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote: BTW the seal of confession is in fact mutual. I understand Jayne wanting to give an example, a case, but understand that we don't need to hear her confession! When making a case about a confession, better not relate it to yourself of any person who can be known. Better say: "I once heard about someone who was a liberal and he/she did... When he/she confessed it... "

Thanks for this advice, Father.
Reply
#57
Clare admitted:
Clare Wrote:Yes, Fr Morgan did gently have a word with me a few weeks ago, to the effect of the info in Gregorio's post.  

Gregorio's post:
Quote:According to my understanding, Bishop Fellay has 'suggested' to our District Superior that anyone who dares criticize the public words and actions of +Fellay or Menzingen on internet forums such as Ignis Ardens (named specifically) and blogs should be denied Holy Communion by SSPX priests. He communicated that anyone owning or moderating forums where criticism takes place should be denied Holy Communion, and that anyone employed by SSPX who falls into these categories should also get sacked.

If Clare says, after she initially wanted to stay out of it, that Fr. Morgan did have a word with her to the effect of Gregorio's post, above, I believe her.  If two moderators of a forum resign from being moderators, because they are afraid of being refused Sacraments, I take this seriously, and not as gossip.  These are, after all, real people, who even use their real names (more or less) on the forum, so it's not like they are some anonymous troublemakers.  So, how people can still wonder if it's just "gossip" or rumor or whatever is a mystery to me.  Again, I ask, are we to believe Clare & Gregorio are liars involved in some diabolical plot to discredit Menzingen?   Or did Fr. Morgan falsely attribute the threat to Menzingen?  
I think that's the point.
No one knows if it is a directive from +F, or Fr.M's interpretation of some general discussion on the subject, or Fr M's attempt to deal with some communication from the Kroak lawyer, or whatever other possibilities.

I don't disbelieve Clare or Th'gone y'know but we just don't know the realities behind the matter.
Reply
#58
Bah! I got that all wrong in format didn't I?
Reply
#59
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Your quite the warrior princess JayneK. I'm sure glad you're on our side now!
Reply
#60
(10-20-2012, 05:35 PM)kingofspades Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:07 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 04:01 PM)Allan Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 03:57 PM)JayneK Wrote: Back in my liberal days, I was a supporter of same-sex marriage.  In defiance of a bishops' statement calling on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter in support of it to my MP and sent a copy to the local paper which published it.  When I confessed this, the priest told me that I was no longer allowed to be a lector and that I should not receive Communion.  I think that was a reasonable response.

Not really, no.  The confessor is prohibited by the seal from using what he learns and translating it into decisions or actions outside the confessional.  I'm sure I'm tripping over the right language here, and someone more learned in sacramental theology can weigh in, but you know what I mean.

If you confess stealing from the collection plate, the confessor could not as Pastor remove you from that position.  He could assign a penance to you, but not act as if he has knowledge of it or recalls it outside the confessional.

I don't see Jayne relating him as doing anything that broke the seal, so long as he said this within the confessional and put the impetus on her to remove herself from the position and did nothing outside the seal, he did nothing wrong. Confessors tell people to do or not do things, that they can or cannot be such and such all the time, but its up to the penitent to follow their directions and obviously if they refuse to do it they can refuse absolution.

The penance is always best, when related to the confessed sin, and when it's public, sometimes a public act of reparation is necessary. I always make the distinction where reparation is needed. Is it a sin against God: prayer time or special sorts of prayer  is a normal penance.  Is it a sin against people, an act of charity can be. In the case mentioned, an act towards the Church can be. But of course always so, that nobody can ever suspect it to be a penance for a specific sin !!!!
Personally I think, that after the absolution the penintent is free to receive the sacraments and since esp. Holy Communion is a very necessary sacrament for life, I would think that not receiving Him is a bit contradictory - if no special interdicts are the case. I always think of the benefit of the soul, and what the Lord can do in the soul!

BTW the seal of confession is in fact mutual. I understand Jayne wanting to give an example, a case, but understand that we don't need to hear her confession! When making a case about a confession, better not relate it to yourself of any person who can be known. Better say: "I once heard about someone who was a liberal and he/she did... When he/she confessed it... "


On topic: I read the whole story about denying Holy Communion - if it would be true - with open mouth  :O. Never imagined such things could exist, in the SSPX or outside.

True enough, although I don't understand what you mean about "not having to hear her confession" of course a priest doesn't necessarily have to hear an individuals confession but if they refused a particular confession 3 times without just cause St Alphonsus says they would sin mortally, the same if they didn't hear confessions in their parish for x time etc...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)