Women Hearing Confessions

[Luke2219]

What's the deal with this? Are there any good arguments for women hearing confessions? Aren't holy orders required to grant absolution? Sure, she could hear it, offer sound advice, but could she bind and loose?

Sounds like we're just trying to tiptoe around the fact that women can't be ordained. Instead of ordaining them, we just want to let them do everything a priest does.

I'm beginning to wonder if someone can be orthodox and liberal.

[Dave]

You are correct; holy orders are required to grant absolution. Women can't receive that sacrament, and so they couldn't offer absolution even if they wanted to.

[ironmonk]

What's the deal with this?  Are there any good arguments for women hearing confessions?  Aren't holy orders required to grant absolution?  Sure, she could hear it, offer sound advice, but could she bind and loose?

Sounds like we're just trying to tiptoe around the fact that women can't be ordained.  Instead of ordaining them, we just want to let them do everything a priest does.

I'm beginning to wonder if someone can be orthodox and liberal.

That would be a heretic teaching.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[VanHooty]

I'm beginning to wonder if someone can be orthodox and liberal.

Well... uh... we can be anti-corporate wellfare, pro-education, and pro-union and orthodox. That makes me kind of liberal.

[cmotherofpirl]

There is a priest in Australia or is it Ireland saying women should hear confessions.

[ironmonk]

A "libral" Catholic is not like a political liberal.

"pro-education" does not make someone liberal, conservatives are also pro-education.

It's not Corporate "welfare"; when companies get breaks from taxes, they hire more people so that people can support themselves. Corporations provide hundreds of thousands of jobs... tax them heavy and they cut jobs... give them tax breaks and they expand.

but that's all another topic...

God Bless,

ironmonk

[JP2Iloveyou]

I think it is important to reemphasize why women can't be ordained. To many people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) don't understand this teaching and claim it is only the Church suppressing women. Nothing could be further from the truth. In her infinite wisdom, the Church realized that God has a purpose for men and a purpose for women and that the sexes are not the same. So why can't women be priests? Because Christ chose only men to serve as the first apostles who in turn chose only men to succeed them. Now, the pro-women's ordination crowd will counter and say that at that time in history women were persecuted. This is certainly true and a valid argument. However, that fails to recognize that Christ did many things counter-culturally. For example, he ate with prostitutes, performed "work" on the Sabbath, called himself the Son of God, and called at least one tax collector to be an apostle. Tax collectors at that time, quite like today were among the lowest in society. Christ did not see that as an impediment to their ordination though.

Therefore, the person who would claim that women should be ordained, must either prove that Christ was sexist and therefore a sinner, and therefore not Divine. If that is true, then Christianity is the biggest lie in the history of mankind. Or they must prove that Christ did nothing counter-cultural, which I've just demonstrated is not the case. So, sorry ladies, but you can't be priests. Likewise, there are things that as a man I can't do that women can. It's not a matter of one sex or the other being superior, it is a matter of everything fitting together as God envisioned it.

[VanHooty]

Ironmonk, I'm going to have to disagree with you when you claim that a liberal Catholic is completely different from, say, a liberal Democrat. Granted, on issues such as abortion there are distinct differences. Yet, I am inclined to believe that the Catholic Church, for reasons of Christian liberty, leaves a lot of topics on government policy open for othodox Catholics to disagree upon without comprimising their orthodoxy.

Oh... and since this thread is about Confession, I had a question pop up in my head that is largely hypothetical. Is it possible for a person to give a confession through a proxy (meaning another person in my "special language that isn't quite English")? Specifically, I guess I'm thinking about the deaf and mute who would be unable to speak. I know the writing one's sins down on a piece of paper is accepted, but I'm curious about another person.

[Luke2219]

Oh... and since this thread is about Confession, I had a question pop up in my head that is largely hypothetical. Is it possible for a person to give a confession through a proxy (meaning another person in my "special language that isn't quite English")? Specifically, I guess I'm thinking about the deaf and mute who would be unable to speak. I know the writing one's sins down on a piece of paper is accepted, but I'm curious about another person.

Yes. The sins must be communicated to the priest so that he can understand. The use of an interpreter is acceptable; be it translated from another spoken language or from sign language. The translator is bound under the seal of the confessional the same way the priest is. Neither the priest or the translator may speak about what was said in the confessional to anyone including themselves and the penitent. (By the way, if you happen to overhear a confession, you are also under the seal.)

In the case where a priest can understand your language, but can't speak your language as well, it is acceptable for him to speak the words of absolution in his native tounge. At least I hope this is the case since I was recently at confession and the priest spoke Spanish primarily. He spoke to me in English but said the words of absolution in Spanish.

[Luke2219]

A "libral" Catholic is not like a political liberal.

"pro-education" does not make someone liberal, conservatives are also pro-education.

It's not Corporate "welfare"; when companies get breaks from taxes, they hire more people so that people can support themselves. Corporations provide hundreds of thousands of jobs... tax them heavy and they cut jobs... give them tax breaks and they expand.

but that's all another topic...

God Bless,

ironmonk

My original statement about being liberal and Catholic wasn't meant to have anything to do with politics. I should have made that more clear originaly. I was only referring to the libralism or progressiveness in the terms of religion. Example: a conservative view that Communion should be recieved only on the tounge, while kneeling, and only from the priest, verses a liberal view that Communion may be recieved in the hand. Both of these views are orthodox (apparetly).

I get very frustrated because I see the liberalism in the Church so often lead to unorthodox teaching and practices that I tend to be ultra-conservative. Yet, I don't want to go so far to the right that I become a scismatic traditionalist. "I the middle lies virtue." Someone important said that, but I don't know who. I don't know where the middle is. I didn't grow up with the Baltimore Catechism, I grew up with the "Butterfly Catechism." Now that I'm learning what the Church really teaches, I get very angry that I wasn't taught this before. My best friend, a member of SSPX, knew all this stuff and when I was younger, I was actually arguing with him about things like the existance of purgatory. I went to CCE all through childhood, and no one ever told me about purgatory. I don't even remember anyone mentioning the pope! Anyway, I get scared of anyone who says anything liberal or mentions the 'spirit of Vatican II."

We have the imposter* Catholics who still want women ordained, who are pro-contraception, pro-abortion, or pro-homosexual actions, and now we have liberal Catholics who want women to hear confessions. Who can tell the difference anymore between dissent and legitimate argument?

*(not strictly exculsionary, but exaggerated to make a point)