I am remiss in taking so long to post this, but here is Tony Adragna's response to my post about the current scandal involving the Catholic church, posted as is with no comments. I received it April 29th. I hope to have some time this afternoon to work on a response. I haven't thus far because I don't like to toss off something quickly on such an important topic.

And I thank Tony for taking the time to engage in an exchange with me.

One thing to keep in mind when reading anything I post is that, unless I stipulate that I'm expressing my own thought, I'm often attempting to give insight into what other people are thinking. The two posts in question were largley about "the Church's" thinking -- something I'm able to provide insight on from having studied for the priesthood.

I didn't discuss why pedophilia and under-age sex are distinct because the distinction is intuitively obvious - if there's an argument that sex with a 16 year old is morally equivalent to pedophilia, I haven't heard it. But, I dropped that part of the discussion because in the final analysis all of the distinction being made are irrelevant to whether there should be punishment - that (a) isn't as bad as (b) doesn't mean that (a) oughtn't be punished. The distinctions only go to whether there ought be distinct punishments.

For the record, I think the punishment ought be the same, but the Bishops must consider the totality of the Churchs moral teaching and come to a decision that's consistent with Catholicism.

I actually did give the reason for the Biblical proscription of homosexual conduct -- "natural law that attempts to fulfill God's will" -- as opposed to adultery -- "against God's edict in the Ten Commandments." (btw - the comparison to adultery is not because the priest takes a marriage-like vow, which only priests in religious orders do, but because the sex also involves an act of infidelity to the discipline of celibacy - it may seem like a nuance, but it has to do with how Catholicism works). I'm glad you got the point, though, which is that the disinction between hetero and homo is irrelevant. Sure, I could've gotten to the point less tortuously, but then I wouldn't have dealt with some other exceptions that might have crept up.

As to the "imminent danger exception" -- it doesn't apply to the minister penitent State law on the confidentiality between minister and penitient has only two models: some states allow testimony if the penitent consents to the breach, and other states disallow the testimony even if the penitent consents. I thank you for the reference to Massachusetts' attempt to change state law in trying to compell ministers to violate confidentiality -- it's a forlorn hope. Federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- have consistently struck down similar attempts by legislatures and lawyers. Even if such a law were to be upheld, the Roman Catholic Church would not abide it (and neither should any other church).

As to the effect the Roman Church was reaching for:

"Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes -- e.g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly -- i.e., by repeating them in so many words -- or indirectly -- i.e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession. The only possible release from the obligation of secrecy is the permission to speak of the sins given freely and formally by the penitent himself. Without such permission, the violation of the seal of confession would not only be a grievous sin, but also a sacrilege. It would be contrary to the natural law because it would be an abuse of the penitent's confidence and an injury, very serious perhaps, to his reputation. It would also violate the Divine law, which, while imposing the obligation to confess, likewise forbids the revelation of that which is confessed. That it would infringe ecclesiastical law is evident from the strict prohibition and the severe penalties enacted in this matter by the Church. "Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any other way whatsoever. . . we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin made known to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only be deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to close confinement in a monastery and the performance of perpetual penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 438). Furthermore, by a decree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in confession that would displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him greater displeasure. "[emphasis added]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm (scroll down to "Seal Of Confession")

The Roman Church is quite aware that there may be adverse effects to not violating the seal, yet it's still "inviolable". The only way a priest can breach that seal is if the penitent gives permission. Also read carefully the verbiage "to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity" - Cardinal Ratzinger (try a google search on him) wrote extensively on the subject some years ago after a priest (in Germany, I think) revealed that he was tormented by the fact that he had information about a murder before it happened, but couldn't reveal the information because of "the seal" (turned out the criminal was a serial murderer). Ratzinger was vigourous in defending "the seal", and admonished priests that there are no exceptions.

It gets even worse. A few years ago a priest in California had knowledge that a man about to be executed wasn't guilty -- the real killer confessed to the priest. Ratzinger again said that even in this case -- to save an innocent man -- "the seal" was inviolable.

Why?

Because the "effect" being sought is "salvation", which for the Catholic must include confession. Unless the seal is inviolable, Catholics might decide to not confess, and the Church isn't able to fullfil it mission of salvation.

As to your last point - I refer you again to the Church-State separation at Constitutional Law. Look to the Constitution for protection of your Constitutional rights from the ranting of the militant non-religious - the Roman Church's failings don't impact your rights, and you ought be prepared to defend your own rights regardless of what the Roman Church does.

Tony Adragna
QuasiPundit.com