The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1899-10-28

Butte. Mont. Oct. %. 1899.

Butte, Mont, Oct. %, 1899.
Editor Intermountain Catholic:
was asked the other day: "Who is
it that. forgives sins in Confession, AL
mightg God or the priest?" Please an
swer this question in your query col
umn, which is one of the most inter-
esting departments of your splendid
newspaper. NJ. ]. OBJ.
! AS a companions question, we ask &:
who pardons a criminal condemned
TO death, the governor or the people
whose agent he is?" Is it not correct
to say that the governor, using his own
judgment as to propriety of it, pardons
the criminal, when he exercises a power
which by the will of the people belongs
to the office he holds? Is it not the
act of the governor that saves the GRIM
inal from the executioner? Is it not
by his act that the will of those who
empowered him becomes known and of
force?
We say the governor pardons. and we
mean precisely that, for the act is his
act; not his personally, but his officially
for before he held the office he could
not pardon. Mr.. Roosevelt, the private
citizen, cannot pardon a criminal. but
Governor" Roosevelt can. The pardon
then is his official act, and his author
ity to grant it comes from the people.
But the fact that the general pardon
ing power comes from the people does
not make a particular pardon any the
less the act of the governor. 1t depends
entirely on his viii and judgment, as
he can grant or refuse IL, as he deems
proper under the circumstances. To say
then that the governor pardons the
criminal is an exact expression of the
truth, and no one knows it better than
the criminal himself
II the governor were commanded by
the people to pardon in a particular
case he would be merely an irresponsi-
bic instrument and the act would not
be strictly speaking his act. But he is
not commanded in any case; he is sim
ply authorized to his own Judgment
when and on whom he deems proper.
In this case the act when done is truly
his.
Now in the light of these considera-
tions let US come back to the original
question. Is it God or the priest that
forgives sins in confession?
The priest, as a minister of the |
Church of Christ, acts as an agent |
commissioned to pardon under certain |
conditions-he being the judge in each |
particular case whether those condi- |
tons are present. These conditions are
the proper disposition of the sinner,
etc.
The priest being of the ministry of
the Church acts under the following
given to that ministry: |
Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosoever
sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven
them; and whose sins ye shall retain
they are retained" John xx-23.
The members of the ministry of the
Church to whom this power of pardon
was given, are, like the governor, left l.
10 their own judgment and sense of
1uty as TO when and on whom the
power should be exercised. The act
lnder a general commission, as the
governor does, but each particular act
II pardon is their own act, determined
)y their own will and judgment. The
act that they exercise a commissioned
power does not make their acts any the
ess their own. The act one is free to
llace or not to place is ones own act.
L'he power of pardoning comes from
Iod to His commissioned agent. the
lct of pardoning is that OF the agent.
10 say, therefore. that the priest for
ives sin in confession is an exact eX-
'ression Of the truth. In doing so he
Xercises power entrusted by Jesus
Ihrist to the ministry of His Church.
Then is it the priest and not God who !
This question brings to light
fallacy that turks in the original
uestion. 1t is the implication that if
iod forgives the priest does not, or if
he priest forgives God does not A
cry simple principle blows this dust
way. 1t is this: the act of commits '
ioned agent is the will of the principal Y
mo commissioned him to do it. The '
ender and the sent are corelative and
annOt be Separated