Bradford DeLong wrote: >> Bradford DeLong wrote: >>> But when the Knights Templar were suppressed by Philip the Fair of >>> France and Pope Clement V in 1307, one of the charges was that the >>> Templars confessed only to each other and not to other priests--so >>> that nobody outside the order knew what horrible and foul things >>> were going on within the order. > >> confession is only seven centuries old?
> The idea that the seal of confession could *never* be broken would > seem to be less than seven centuries old. If it was older than that, > why bother to accuse the Templars of the crime of refusing to confess > to priests outside their own order? Seems to be considerably older according to a case in a US court. http://www.law.emory.edu/caselaw/11ca/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html. <quote> Early in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, confession of sin became an obligation of faith. The Church decided during the third century A.D. that parishioners would be more likely to confess privately to a priest than publicly before the congregation. See Albert W. Alschuler, A Peculiar Privilege in Historical Perspective: The Right to Remain Silent, 94 Mich. L.Rev. 2625, 2639-40 (1996). Parishioners naturally would have expected that a public confession of crime would result in punishment by ecclesiastical or secular authorities, and confidentiality helped to overcome their reluctance to expurgate their sins. Christians were free from the moral duty spontaneously to confess their sins in public. In the eyes of the Church, they had a right to remain silent about their own transgressions. <end quote> Ray. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
