Editor's Note: The second in a series on how to keep your faith and conscience intact when you must enter a Sedelandia cult center.
TODAY'S SURVIVAL TIP
TREACHEROUS TERRAIN
For the decent Catholic, second to the sermon -- or, as a commenter has recently suggested, "the presentation," although even that word is too grand for what issues from the cult pulpits -- the most dangerous place is the sede confessional. As a rule, you are cautioned to stay away and seek the sacrament of penance from the SSPX or from an independent priest not affiliated with the sede cult masters. (Be certain, too, that the independent priest did not receive his orders from "One-Hand Dan," for until someone with genuine learning and brains opines on the validity of priestly ordination with one hand, "One-Hand's" episcopacy is not certain.) In addition, remember that none of these men enjoys a proper formation*, so your innermost secrets may never be truly sealed. However, if you must seek absolution from marginal figures who have rendered the sacrament odious, you should follow these steps to obtain short shrift:
Upon entering the confessional, disguise your voice by speaking very low, but not so low as to arouse curiosity. These reptiles recognize the voices of penitents and are waiting to ply every trick in their dirty bag. In making your confession, do not under any circumstances reveal specific details. Stick to number and species only, and never disclose anything they can use against you. Remember: they know who you are, and if they don't recognize you right off the bat, they'll be trying their level best to uncover your identity throughout your confession: be brief and to the point. Avoid as best you can any of their attempts to extract detailed information or to get you to speak at length. (If they become too intrusive, leave, so as not to participate in their sin.) To forestall all untoward events, you should position yourself at the very end of the confession line. That strategy allows you to dampen illicit curiosity and to assure that no addled but prying cultist remains behind to listen in and report your identity to the cult masters.
* We once again recount a personal anecdote: Some years ago, one of the sede kingpins was the substitute celebrant at a cult satellite chapel. That Sunday, a particularly long line had formed outside the confessional as the faithful took advantage of a visiting clergyman to unburden their souls. During the "presentation," this malformed excuse for a Catholic priest chided the faithful for repeatedly confessing the "same sins of impurity": one could almost hear a gasp as many an ashen-faced parishioner slowly glanced around, horrified, in a panicked search for any accusing eyes that may have seen him or her waiting in line. In the old days, this reprobate would have been denounced to the chancery for appropriate discipline and retraining. But those are the days of yesteryear.
You guys are nuts. You belong in a looney farm.
ReplyDeleteDear "Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to disagree, at least respond with something other than cheap "name-calling"! The above article's example about a (traddie) priest violating the seal of the confessional is only one of MANY that has been occurred -- at SGG and at other "cult centers" -- and witnessed by several of their parishioners. "Anonymous," either you are very naîve, or perhaps you yourself are one of those cult-center "confessors," in which case, it is YOU who belongs in a "looney farm" -- and in a sound-proof one at that!
May I offer an additional survival tip for the cult confessional? First, buy a whoopee cushion from Amazon. Second, practice coaxing a range of sounds from it, anything from a shy "thrppppit," to a bold "putta-putta-putta-thphb" to an ear ringing BRRRRAAAAAPPPPPFTH. You are armed now. Take it with you and let it work its magic. They won't ask questions and you will be out of there in no time flat. Get away fast because they won't be far behind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the original poster that Craig is nuts (there is only one guy writing this site), but I'll add this —
ReplyDeleteI can't believe Craig thinks what that priest said in the sermon is a violation of the seal of confession. Priests say stuff like this all the time in sermons and no one thinks it's a violation of the seal. Why? Because when he says "you" in that case, everyone knows that's just a rhetorical device; he's not talking about anyone in particular. Some priests preach in the first person plural ("we commit sins," etc.), others in the second person plural ("you commit sins," etc.). There is absolutely no practical difference in meaning between the two.
Besides, if he was a visiting priest, and only heard those people's confessions that one Sunday, how could he possibly know they kept confessing the same sins over and over again?
Besides, I think it's a common experience for many people to fall into the same sins repeatedly. You don't even need to hear confessions at all to know that. So I really don't know why anyone would be surprised to hear that in a sermon, much less consider it somehow a violation of secrecy.
If this is the best that Craig can come up with as far as a violation of the seal of confession is concerned, then it proves the opposite — sedevacantist priests do an excellent job at keeping the seal, which is something I and everyone else I know has experienced.
All of this is common sense, but Craig Toth needs to invent problems to satisfy his need to cause trouble and scare people away from receiving the Sacraments. One day he will answer for the damage he has done to souls.
Craig Toth likes to talk about what would have happened to priests before the Council who did this or that, but in the old days anyone who spread these kinds of vile accusations against the clergy would have been given a personal interdict by the local bishop and barred from attending church.
No matter how hard you try, Chris, you can't explain away the grave fault of the sede priest. In addition, as usual, you are wrong, and your sophistry is transparent. (You also misread the post, since nowhere does it say the priest directly violated the seal.) A properly formed priest in the old days was trained to avoid saying anything that might suggest he was using knowledge gained in the confessional. Moral theology books were full of such warnings. For example, here's what Prümmer (Handbook, no. 705) wrote: "...the use of such sacramental knowledge is normally gravely forbidden. Therefore it is laid down in c. 890, 'A confessor is absolutely forbidden to make use of knowledge derived from confession in any manner disagreeable to the penitent, even though there be no danger of revelation.'" Prümmer (708) further wrote: "The Holy Office...issued an Instruction on the inviolable sanctity of the sacramental seal...in which a grave warning is given that confessors are not to mention confessional matter under any form or pretext, not even incidentally, neither directly nor indirectly, in public or private sermons, even though there may be no direct or indirect violation of the seal. Such references sometimes prove a source of scandal to the faithful. Therefore, in one word, confessors should never mention matters declared in confession except in their prayer to God on behalf of their penitents."
DeleteThe case we brought up is one of indirect violation, where, as Prümmer (707.2) says, "there arises a proximate danger of recognizing the penitent's sin or of rendering the sacrament distasteful through the confessor's manner of speaking or acting." Let us assure you, Chris, that in the old days the chancery would have acted adversely against this priest. However, in the old days, the great majority of sede clergy who may have escaped the scrutiny of seminary officials would have been weeded out well before the subdiaconate.
“Chris” (whoever you are), you seem to take a fiendish delight in “exposing” to the world (what you think) the identity of “the reader” is (as if that matters); you’re a perfect example of “Ignore the message, shoot the messenger” syndrome. But as if that wasn’t enough, you go on to put your squarely in your mouth (in fact, down to your lower G-I tract) by expounding on something of which you’re WOEFULLY ignorant. “The reader” was gracious not to use your last name (which he certainly knows) in answering you (because he knows better than to stoop to the same level as vermin like you). I, however, would not have been so gracious; my belief is that “one good turn deserves another.”
ReplyDeleteAs he correctly (and convincingly) pointed out, no mention of ANYTHING in the confessional – either direct or indirect – is permissible. But, for your information, there have been specific examples where (at SGG, for instance) the “seal of the confessional” was in fact broken -- even in the explicit sense that you mentioned. Chris, I wish that I could give you this reply in person, because I’d like to give it to you in suppository form. The problem is, I’d have a hard time deciding which of your body orifices was the correct one.
I don't know if the seal of confession was broken or not, but I will say this about sins of impurity: being that the problem is something akin to an addiction like alcoholism, there is a dangerous psychological-chemical-emotional dependence for those who have struggled with the vice like myself, and sermonizing in this way is possibly not only ineffective but detrimental. Consider how broken trust fuels sins of impurities. For instance, I have wanted a normal relationship and and Catholic friends, but instead find women have turned to feminism and friends to liberalism, so my general trust is broken with people I grew up with and am often around. Then I go to a sede chapel and my priest even rails on me! This is not the compassion of Christ but a misplaced zeal which can leave people who struggle with this vice depressed with further broken trust and a fertile ground for further sins. Do priests ever wonder if the habitual sins of their flock are perhaps due to their failure to give good counsel and to arrange for support networks to help solve some of these complex problems? Likewise, one oughtn't take God's mercy for granted, but if people start to feel unable to go to confession when they commit a sin and are actually sorry for it, that's a major problem too. Some people need a good kick of just judgment to get them going, but others have a "policeman in their head" of a conscience and need more reassurance and mercy.
ReplyDelete