Here is the book. In this edition, the story I referred to is on page 98.
It's a very good book, by the way!
https://www.cathinfo.com/files/sinners.pdf
I couldn't agree more that this is an amazing story, and a scenario that needs to be dwelt upon by anyone who is in similar circuмstances. People do this all the time, hang onto one "pet sin", might even be very virtuous people otherwise, but simply will not turn loose of contraception, abortion choice advocacy, various kinds of corporeal gratification (not just sɛҳuąƖ, it could be drugs or alcohol), an illicit partner, or in our day, a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship.
But did it really happen, or is it just a parable? If it really happened, then that means someone had to be there noting the conversation (was it a confession?), or the priest himself would have had to remember it, and then relate the story. If the latter were the case, then it couldn't have been a sacramental confession, or else he would be breaking the seal.
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no desire to refute the story, I just have to wonder how something such as this could be recorded accurately, and for someone who
does wish to refute it --- you know the type --- that's the first question they'd ask.. Still, I know, people had sharper memories then, than they do now, so maybe somebody was standing by, a relative, a nurse, whomever, and quickly committed it to writing, or else was able to remember the exact conversation after the fact.
As a kind of aside, someone very close in my acquaintance has this reflexive urge, when something is mentioned as having a supernatural explanation, instantly to start disputing it, and offering explanations why it
couldn't be supernatural. Fatima --- couldn't have happened, the children made it all up. Eucharistic miracles --- couldn't happen, it's a fraud. And so on. For instance, this person had been firmly convinced of the existence of a ghost in a house they used to live in, and disputed any natural explanation for this (changes in air pressure and drafts that would cause doors to close, bed slats falling due to gravity, etc.), but at the same time doubts eternal life after death. I reminded this person that, if you maintain that there was a ghost in the house (a past owner of the house who had died), yet deny the immortality of the soul, that doesn't make sense, you are maintaining that we live for a time after death, then our soul just evaporates or something. Being challenged to look at this way, this person no longer insists that it was a ghost, and now maintains that it was probably natural after all, this after years of having been adamant that it was the soul of the past owner. Bottom line, they don't want to admit the immortality of the soul, so they "shoot the witness" and repudiate what they'd once maintained. Anything to avoid that feared cognitive dissonance.
Topic: Marriage vows and domestic abuse (Read 7699 times)