.

Dear Is Mise,

.

I waded through that lengthy article you indicated in the New Advent on “The Sacrament of Penance”.

While it confirms your first point, that “the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”, I found nothing to support your second point : that “the priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves”.

As I indicated in my previous post, I see no reason to think that most paedophiles are not, as you say, truly sorry for their “sins” (acts) and that their “resolve to sin no more” (never repeat the offence again) is not genuine.

Incidentally, I found a couple of interesting documents on the Vatican web site : one entitled “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”, and another on the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (a catechism promulgated by John Paul II in 1992).

This is from the latter :

« Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws … St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense … Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.

Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. the offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing »

Here are the links :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

As I am inclined to agree with the medical profession that paedophilia should be considered a health problem or a natural phenomenon such as homosexuality (which is observed in all animal species without exception), I fail to see why the Christian Churches consider it to be a “sin”.

I interpret the fact that society considers paedophilia to be a crime simply as a matter of expediency. We have to protect young children somehow, and that seems to be the most expedient (and perhaps the most effective) way to do so.

.

Banjo,

"While it confirms your first point, that “the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”, I found nothing to support your second point : that “the priest can give absolution but only the penitent can validate it, repeat offenders are only fooling themselves”

"the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid”

Well, there you have it, if the penitent is not truly sorry etc., then the Absolution cannot be valid and, obviously, such validity rests on the penitent.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« "the penitent must be truly sorry for his sins and resolves to sin no more for Confessional Absolution to be valid” ... if the penitent is not truly sorry etc., then the Absolution cannot be valid and, obviously, such validity rests on the penitent »
.

I think I understand what you mean, Is Mise : there is not necessarily absolution, even though the priest may pronounce it. Two cases come to mind :

1. The priest may ignore that the so-called “penitent” is just a sham and not a true “penitent” when he pronounces the absolution,

2. The priest may know full-well that the so-called “penitent” is just a sham but pronounces absolution all the same.

An example of the latter is the notorious complicity of the Vatican with the Italian Mafiosi – though their complicity has suffered some serious inroads due to the excommunication of the Calabria branch of the Mafiosi by Pope Francis in 2014.

My initial misunderstanding of your point was due to your statement that it's up to the would-be “penitent” (not the priest) to decide whether the absolution is valid or not. If that were the case, naturally he would decide that it was valid – if not, why bother to frequent the confessional ?

I don’t think you mean to say that it's up to the would-be or so-called “penitent” to decide whether the absolution is valid or not – that he is the sole judge – but that the Church considers that it is mandatory for absolution to be valid (despite the fact that the priest pronounces it) that the “penitent” must also be « truly sorry for his “sins” and resolve to “sin” no more ».

Unless he is totally incapable of compassion and emotion, of course he can be « truly sorry for his sins » and « resolve to “sin” no more » – in all sincerity. But that does not mean that he will never "sin" again, despite all his good intentions.

Nobody is perfect, are they ?

.

Banjo,

"Nobody is perfect, are they ?"

Not even us!!

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Yes, I noticed you have a few imperfections, Is Mise. I guess I have too, but at least I don’t commit “sins” like people who believe in some hypothetical god – no god, no sins.

The only authorities I have to answer to are society and my own conscience.

As regards the topic in hand, “Breaking the seal of the confessional”, I think that that particular recommendation of the Royal Commission would produce more problems than solutions.

I should prefer to see the government “persuade” the Church, by all means at its disposal, to limit the confessional to adults only, i.e., people of 18 years or more.

In addition, I should like to see the Church forbid its clergy and all those acting in its name or on its behalf, to be alone in the presence of any child under 18 years of age, at any time or place, whatever the circumstances.

Also, I am inclined to think that, knowing what we know today, any parent who accepts to allow his or her child under 18 years of age to be alone in the presence of a representative of the Church, for whatever reason, is an accomplice to any crime or misdemeanour that may ensue.

.

banjo,

Excellent suggestions with which I concur.

However, on the issue of pederasty, I don't think that in every case or even in most, that it is not a free choice, its widespread occurrence throughout Afghanistan and historically through other parts of Asia seems to be a matter of choice by the dominant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
http://nypost.com/2015/09/25/yes-our-troops-were-ordered-to-ignore-afghan-pedophiles/