Quaker Catholicism

It's fascinating to see Catholic apologists pivot on the sacraments in light of the hierarchy's response to the pandemic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpzG8q5s0W8

Remember when Bishop Robert Barron was tearing his hair out over the fact that most American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation? Remember how he extolled the value of Eucharistic Adoration?

Now, however, that the Catholic church has imposed an interdict in light of the pandemic, the sacraments turn out to be pretty dispensable. Overnight they've become Quaker Catholics. 

So you don't need to confess to a priest after all!

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-chronicles/if-you-cant-go-confession-take-your-sorrow-directly-god-pope-says

Ash Wednesday

Every year, Ash Wednesday comes around. Every year, some Protestants take the occasion to take a swipe at Ash Wednesday, usually with Roman Catholicism in their sights. Every year I think about doing a little post on Ash Wednesday, and every year the occasion gets past me because I'm overtaken by other priorities. So here are some belated musings on Ash Wednesday:

1. If you take the Puritan view, then you oppose Ash Wednesday for the same reason you oppose manmade holy days in general. There are, however, Protestants who celebrate Christmas and Easter, but take issue with Ash Wednesday. So they're not opposed to manmade holy days in general.

2. There's a distinction between whether it's obligatory or optional. I think Ash Wednesday is permissible but hardly mandatory. Moreover, it's spiritually delusive to imagine a manmade custom compels God to confer a spiritual benefit on the observance. 

3. Ash Wednesday is somewhat different from Christmas or Easter. Those commemorate particular events in the life of Christ. 

By contrast, the significance of Ash Wednesday is more artificial, eclectic, and diffuse. It is based in part on an idea (human mortality) rather than an event. It's good to be mindful of our mortality, although an annual ceremony isn't much of a reminder. 

In addition, it commemorates Jesus in the desert, after his baptism. It's a lead-in to Lent, as a season of fasting and penitence. So unlike Christmas and Easter, the significance of Ash Wednesday seems to be more of a pastiche. As it evolved, disparate things became attached to it.

4. There's no particular season when Christians out to be especially penitent. They should be contrite whenever they sin. But presumably they don't sin according to a calendar. So they shouldn't be more penitent during one part of the year and less penitent during another part of the year.

5. And, of course, I reject the Catholic sacrament of Penance. 

6. The significance of Jesus in the wilderness is usually taken to be that that his baptism symbolically reenacts the Red Sea Crossing while his forty-day sojourn in the wilderness reenacts the time of testing and punitive wandering of Israel in the Sinai. Only that involves a point of contrast as well as comparison because Jesus succeeds where Israel failed.

In any case, that's not an experience which Christians can properly emulate. It figures in the unique work of Christ. We can commemorate the baptism and temptation of Christ, but we can't parallel his over experience. At best our efforts will recapitulate the failure of Israel.

7. Lenten fasting isn't analogous to the experience of Christ in the wilderness.  It's just token fasting.

8. Some Christians say they find fasting a useful spiritual exercise. It helps to concentrate the mind on prayer. Help take their mind of the world. 

I don't have a considered opinion on fasting. I don't practice fasting as a spiritual discipline. There may be the danger that fasting has a placebo effect: the perceived spiritual benefit is autosuggestive. It has that a certain result because you expect it to have that result. You think it's supposed to make a difference, and that in itself exerts a psychological influence. So the conditioning may be naturally self-induced.

9. Ash Wednesday also has a spiritually ostentatious potential. Having the sign of the cross in ashes on your forehead as you go out in public can be a form of virtue-signaling. 

10. If you regard the church calendar as optional, you can be selective. You might attend an Ash Wednesday service, but skip the Catholic rigamarole associated with Lent. 

I don't have a problem with a lead-in to Easter. Just depends on how that's structured.

11. I used to have an elderly relative who asked me to drive her to Ash Wednesday services. I remember the last time she asked. But then she'd suffered a medical breakdown. I told her that I didn't think she had the stamina for the service. She reluctantly agreed. She wanted to go but her body let her down. It was poignant. I associate Ash Wednesday less with the traditional ceremony than with my devout deceased relative. It reminds me of her more than anything else. 

Is it time to end the seal of the confessional?

I'll comment on Michael Bird's recent article:

https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/04/its-time-to-end-the-seal-of-the-confessional-the-religious-case/

I've discussed this before:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-seal-of-confession.html

Despite my relentless opposition to Roman Catholicism, I can't get on the bandwagon of this particular movement:

However, even an advocate for religious freedom like myself understands and accepts the arguments for requiring Catholic clergy to break the seal of confession and to provide mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. Religious freedom is an intrinsic human right, a key index for gauging freedom in any state, but it is not absolute and can be limited in instances of public safety.

There are several distinct issues:

i) Should a priest be free to break the seal of the confessional without fear of excommunication, under extreme circumstances? In a sense, I agree with that. However, passing a law won't change Roman Catholic policy. That's governed by canon law, not civil/criminal law. 

In addition, I reject the whole paradigm of auricular confession and absolution. So this is a solution within a flawed paradigm. The "sacrament" of penance needs to be scrapped. 

ii) Over and above the case of Catholic clergy, there's the issue of confidential information generally. And there's a crucial distinction between freedom to divulge confidential information and mandatory reporting laws. I don't concede that the state has the right to make private citizens agents of the state who are required to spy on each other and report back to the authorities. I don't think there should be an exception for clergy. Rather, I think private citizens in general should be exempt from mandatory reporting laws. Just think of totalitarian regimes, past and present, which enjoin citizens to rat out their neighbors. Bird's solution creates a different problem. 

Thus, within the New Testament, there is dominical tradition and apostolic precedent for prioritizing the safety of congregational members from sexual abuse and exploitation.

Second, there is an ethical argument that protecting children from sexual abuse is the greater good to be pursued. Most ethical dilemmas are usually on account of two valid ethical imperatives coming into conflict. For instance, one should not lie, but lying to the Gestapo to save a Jewish family hiding in your basement is the greater good. Similarly, protecting the penitent in confession is good. If a woman confesses to a priest her adultery and seeks absolution, then the priest shouldn’t blab to her husband or gossip to her friends since it would cause her harm and make her the subject of punishment after she has already shown contrition. So, protection of the penitent is a genuine good … but a greater good still is protecting children from harmful and repeated abuse. 

I agree with Bird that there's a prima facie duty not to violate information shared in confidence, but there are situations where that can be overridden by a higher obligation. That isn't unique to the confession of sin, but applies to information shared in confidence generally: say, between close friends. 

This is particularly persuasive if we consider that the degree of harm done to the victims by a penitent abuser is greater than the harm that would be done to the penitent abuser if he or she were reported to authorities. What is more, reporting a penitent abuser might actually be a form of protection for the abuser, protecting them from committing further crimes (dehumanizing themselves further), protecting them from suicide (which is common among sexual abusers), and from vigilante justice (also, not unheard of). The greater good of protecting vulnerable children exceeds the good of protecting the penitent from judicial punishment in this particular instance. It can also be regarded as being in the interest of the penitent to be prevented from committing further sexual abuse and beginning the journey towards psychological and pastoral treatment.

You have to wonder how Bird can be so blind to the obvious. The primary source of the problem isn't lay Catholic abusers confessing to a priest, but abusive priests (bishops, and cardinals). An abusive priest isn't going to volunteer incriminating information about himself. Breaking the seal of the confessional is beside the point, since the source of the problem is the confessor, not the penitent. An abusive priest isn't going to turn himself into the authorities. The solution is to have a screening process that filters out homosexual applicants to the priesthood (and their evangelical counterparts). 

Third, Catholic faith requires both organic development of its doctrine and resourcement of its ancient tradition to effectively address the problem of abusive priests. The origins of penance and the seal of the confession are developments from the medieval and counter-reformation periods. Just as the seal of the confessional was a necessary development to ensure the confidentiality of the confessional and to prevent the exploitation of the contrite, so too is it now necessary to develop a theology and practice to protect the victims of the penitent in the case of sexual violence.

Actually, I suspect the justification is mainly pragmatic: few Catholics will confess their sins to a priest if they think that will be become a topic of gossip or be used against them. 

Fourth, there is a valid legal argument for government interfering in the sanctity of the confessional. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights § 18.3, concerning religious freedom: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” Religious freedom is invaluable in a secular and pluralistic democracy, but it is not absolute. A person’s religious freedom can be curtailed if it burdens the rights of other persons, like the right to life and the right to safety from harm. That is why governments can limit religious freedom when and only when it is necessary to ensure someone’s safety. One could sensibly argue that the seal of the confessional, insofar that it protects abusers and perpetuates abuse; causes harm to members of the public and therefore can be legitimately curtailed. Now, the limitation of religious freedom should not be deployed in illegitimate circumstances (see the Siracusa principles on the limitation and derogation of provisions), and nothing here illegitimates the seal of the confessional in normal circumstances. However, international law on religious freedom provides legal grounds for limiting religious freedom in order to defend the rights and lives of others.

i) One problem is with the generic category of "religion". I agree that religious freedom isn't absolute, but all religions weren't created equal. There's a problem when, for instance, you chain the fortunes of Christianity to Islam when it comes to religious freedom. 

ii) And, once again, the seal of the confessional doesn't usually protect abusers since the abusers were usually homosexual priests rather than laymen. Why can't Bird make that elementary connection? 

Fifth, Catholics may also wish to consider a missional reason for changing their practice of confession and the seal of the confessional. The sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church all over the world have tarnished, perhaps irreparably, the reputation of the church for a whole generation. 

The abuse, its cover up, the refusal to address its underlying causes, the failure to listen to victims, and the unwillingness to make reporting mandatory, has led to an exodus of people from the church, and represents an insurmountable barrier for the Catholic church to connect with the unchurched public. I fear that a haemorrhaging of the laity will continue for Catholics and their mission to make Christ known will prove ineffective until a comprehensive pastoral review of its clerical standards and sacramental theology is undertaken.

i) It's a good thing that the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It's a good thing that this represents an insurmountable barrier for the Catholic church to connect with the unchurched public. It's a good thing that this scandal has brought the Catholic church into disrepute.

ii) But the problem runs deeper than the clerical seduction of boys. Consensual homosexual conduct by members of the Catholic clergy is also discreditable, from the standpoint of Christian ethics. Homosexual activity is the fundamental problem, of which pederasty is just one expression and symptom. 

Auricular confession

I recently got into an impromptu debate with a couple of Catholics on Facebook. I'll post some highlights of what I said in response to what they said. 

If Christ forgives through priestly absolution, then a priest has the power to compel Christ to forgive anyone the priest absolves.

John 20:19-23 would prove to be problematic for you then. Christ breathed on the Apostles and gave them the authority to forgive and retain sin (if it were merely to announce forgiveness of sin, then it would make no sense to also confer the capacity to retain).

i) Depends on the scope of your claim. That's certainly not a Catholic prooftext, since it's about the apostles in general, and not about Peter in particular. Likewise, it's not about the papacy, or Roman episcopate, or Catholic priesthood, but just about the Eleven.

ii) There's also the question of what Jn 20:23 means or implies. Is that a constitutive act?

In context, it arguably has reference to the Apostolic mission. Evangelism. People who believe the Apostolic kerygma will be forgiven; people who spurn it will remain in their sins. 

That's consistent with the fact that in the Fourth Gospel, people who believe in Jesus, who exercise faith in his message about his person and work, are forgiven–while those who reject his message stand condemned. That's the basis of salvation or damnation. 

To make salvation or damnation contingent on a constitutive act of apostolic absolution (or the absence thereof) posits two different methods of salvation: one through direct faith in the Gospel, the other through auricular confession and absolution. 

That's incongruous. Hence, in context, Jn 20:23 shorthand for how people respond to the Apostolic witness about Jesus.

i) It's not self-evident that Mt 16:18 makes Peter the rock. Although that may seem straightforward considered in isolation, the "on this rock" motif was emphatically used by Jesus, in reference to himself, back in Mt 7:24-25. So Mt 16:16 may allude to that.

ii) But assuming it refers to Peter, the formulation isn't exclusive. It doesn't set Peter in contrast to the other disciples. It doesn't say Jesus will build his church on Peter rather than his colleagues. That imports a nonexistent dichotomy into the text.

It's not as if Peter was the only disciple who believed that Jesus was the Messianic Son of God. So that fails to distinguish Peter from his colleagues. That doesn't single out Peter as the unique basis for the church. 

iii) As a matter of fact, the NT extends the foundation stone imagery to the Apostolate generally (Rev 21:14), and even beyond the Apostolate to apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20).

Sacrament of Penance: Public? Private? Once? Repeatable?

The Sacramental World in the Sentence of Peter Lombard

The human predicament ... was that, no matter what, people sin again: private penance, not public penance, is a remedy for those fresh outbreaks. Even Gratian, down in Bologna, argued for repeatability: charity rules that the ancient tradition of public penance should not be enforced, even though its rules should remain on the books. Why? Although Augustine, in other contexts, argued for unrepeatability, Gratian cited the anti-Donatist Augustine, who defined penance as the way of dealing with postbaptismal sin, yet argued that Donatists thought that rebaptism was the only means to reconciliation.

Peter argued for repeatability by citing what seem to be self-contradictory opinions of the authorities. In the first distinction on penance (distinction 14), for instance, he cited Ambrose, Augustine, and Origen that penance is a once-in-a-lifetime event. He then cites Augustine, Ambrose, and John Chrysostom that penance can be repeated as often as sins arise.

The infallible Council of Trent ruled that it was repeatable, private, to a priest, and it always had been, from the moment Christ instituted the sacrament.

A Brief History of the Sacrament of Penance

Jason Stellman made the claim “There’s a rich case that has been made from Scripture and the early fathers about the sacrament of reconciliation, in case you’re interested”.

As a cradle Catholic, I knew it as “confession”. Only later did it become “reconciliation”. Of course, whatever it was, the Council of Trent was quite adamant about it:

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but distorts them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, as applying to the authority of preaching the gospel, let him be anathema.

Canon 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observe from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema.

[Council of Trent, 1551].

For a variety of reasons, I’ve decided to follow up with that. Bavinck noted that “It was the Roman Catholic penitential system that prompted Luther’s reformational activity” (Vol 3, pg 517).


Alister McGrath gives something of a brief history of the sacrament:

“The systematic development of sacramental theology is a major feature of the medieval period, particularly between the years 1050 and 1240” (Cited in Alister McGrath,Iustitia Dei, A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Third Edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ©2005), pg. 117.

McGrath also notes that Peter Lombard’s inclusion of penance among the seven sacraments was “an inclusion which is of major significance to the development of the doctrine of justification within the sphere of the western church” (120-121). He also says, “It may be noted, however, that there was no general agreement upon the necessity of sacerdotal confession: in the twelfth century, for example, the [Peter] Abelardian school rejected its necessity, while the Victorine school insisted upon it (121). It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that “penance” officially became a “sacrament”. That council “laid an obligation upon believers to confess their sins to their priest annually” (122).

Not coincidentally, Thomas Doyle traces the advent of priestly sexual abuse to the practice of private confession around this time:

With the advent of the private confession of sins came the abuse known as solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession. Unscrupulous priests began to use the intimacy of confession as an opportunity to seduce the penitent into some form of sexual contact. This abuse is particularly heinous because it takes advantage of a person when he or she is most vulnerable and susceptible to the abuse of priestly power. It is not known when the very first reports of solicitation became known, but by the 16th century the Church had begun to pass legislation to control and eradicate this vile form of abuse.

The first work mentioning anything resembling a “second plank” (which is what “the sacrament of reconciliation” was originally called) is Tertullians work “De paenitentia, or on repentence”. Tertullian.org gives this summary of the work:

A short work in 12 chapters discussing whether forgiveness for major public sins is available after conversion, and outlines the position generally held at that time - once only, with public repentance. (De pudicitia 3 tells us the penitent can still be saved; but cannot be received in the church).

Here is Tertullian’s practice in his own words.

The narrower, then, the sphere of action of this second and only (remaining) repentance, the more laborious is its probation; in order that it may not be exhibited in the conscience alone, but may likewise be carried out in some (external) act. This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is exomologesis whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased. And thus exomologesis is a discipline for man's prostration and humiliation, enjoining a demeanor calculated to move mercy. With regard also to the very dress and food, it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning, to lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he has committed; moreover, to know no food and drink but such as is plain,----not for the stomach's sake, to wit, but the soul's; for the most part, however, to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and make outcries unto the Lord your God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God's dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his deprecatory supplication (before God). All this exomologesis (does), that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the (incurred) danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God's indignation, and by temporal mortification (I will not say frustrate, but) expunge eternal punishments. Therefore, while it abases the man, it raises him; while it covers him with squalor, it renders him more clean; while it accuses, it excuses; while it condemns, it absolves. The less quarter you give yourself, the more (believe me) will God give you.

This of course, was quite a public ceremony.

In the “rich tradition of the early church”, [instituted by Christ], a third-century Christian has the opportunity to go through this process precisely once, after which he is “cemented to contumacy”.

This no doubt is the “undeveloped” third-century view of the Catholic sacrament, instituted by Christ, “the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone”, “as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning”, according to Trent.

So what this shows is that maybe Tertullian actually “misunderstood” what Christ actually meant when he instituted that sacrament?


Now, let me ask, if Christ instituted this “sacrament”, what makes Trent think that the “developments” since this important early third-century “interpretation” are better than what Tertullian practiced? Isn’t this what Christ told the Apostles to practice? Or did Tertullian somehow get this wrong, only to have the later church get it right again? To have re-found the “original” apostolic practice?


McGrath follows up on this:

The ninth century, however, saw the Anglo-Irish system of private penance become widespread in Europe of private penance become widespread in Europe, with important modifications to the theology of penance following in its wake.

These are the ones who, upon further “reflection” on the practice that “Christ instituted”, softened the experience for our tender 21st century sensibilities, who think “penance” actually consists of saying three Hail Mary’s.

Although earlier writers considered that penance could be undertaken only once in a lifetime, as a ‘second plank after a shipwreck’ (tabula secunda post naufragiam -- see Jerome Epistola 130) this opinion was gradually abandoned, rather than refuted, as much for social as for pastoral reasons. Thus the eighth-century bishop Chrodegang of Metz recommended regular confession to a superior at least once a year, while Paulinus of Aquileia advocated confession and penance before each mass. Gregory the Great’s classification of mortal sins [sixth century] became incorporated into the penitential system of the church during the ninth century, so that private penance in the presence of a priest became generally accepted. Penitential books began to make their appearance throughout Europe, similar in many respects to those which can be traced back to sixth-century Wales.

The spread of the practice in the Carolingian [French] church appears to have been due to the formidable influence of Alcuin, who has greater claim than any to be considered the founder of the Carolingian renaissance [ninth century]. It is therefore of considerable significance that Alcuin specifically links penance with justification….

A further development of this idea may be found in the works of Rabanus Maurus, who became the leading proponent of private confession in the Frankish church after Alcuin; justification here is linked, not merely with the act of penance, but specifically with sacerdotal confession. The relationship between justification, baptism and penance was defined with particular clarity in the ninth century by Haimo of Auxerre:

Our redemption, by which we are redeemed, and through which we are justified, is the passion of Christ, which, joined with baptism, justifies humanity through faith, and subsequently through penance. These two are joined together in such a way that it is not possible for humanity to be justified by one without the other.

McGrath, pgs. 117-118.

So it really seems that the ninth century church, thus having the authority to “develop” doctrines, developed it in such a way that removed some of the severity from the third-century doctrine (articulated by Tertullian presumably as it was “instituted by Christ” directly to the Apostles).

Or is there some step in “the Tradition” that maybe we don’t know about at this point, where Christ really did advocate the private confessional, and Tertullian somehow made the mistake of thinking it was that “one-time plank”, complete with “sackcloth and ashes”, after which time (“it is impossible to be brought to repentance”, Hebrews 6:6)?