Bad Priest Advice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alphonsus1

Guest
I heard priests say:
  1. Humanae Vitae is not infallible. Nuns in the Congo can use contraception in anticipation of rape.
  2. Lustful thoughts that are deliberately consented to with sufficient knowledge are objectively mortal sins. “Don’t be too concerned about lustful thoughts.”
  3. Homosexual acts should be treated as equivalently immoral to heterosexual sins (apparently the crime of Sodom is not a crime that Cries out to Heaven for Vengence, worse than fornication, adultery, masturbation, etc)
Question: How do we improve priestly formation to stop contradictions to the Magisterium?
 
Last edited:
Priests are people who have opinions. Some right. Some wrong. They should not mislead though. Context is key. A priest may say #2 to a habitual penitent, thinking it may help them. The Pope has authorized condoms not just in the Congo but rather in south America to combat Zika, using the Congo situation as historical backing. And as far as #3 goes, the Church had ample opportunity to combat the homosexual culture we see today. She chose to be reactive to the issue instead of proactive, coupled with the abuse crisis, the Church really has no option in that war right now…
The best way to improve formation is to have the support of the hierarchy. The best way to get that support is to vocalize what we are thirsting for.
 
Last edited:
It’s interesting. I don’t know how we impress orthodoxy on our current priests, but I was reading an old article about the traditional priesthood. And according to that, while sinful thoughts on their own are to be conquered they are not necessarily so for the laity. But for a priest who has taken vows of celebacy (even a subdeacon I suppose) sinful thoughts are a grave sin.
 
I have a friend whos sister was a nun in the congo and she was raped by three men, she begged them to kill her but they said no we need you to teach our kids, so contraception may be a good idea as it is not used to prevent life like the family planning is.
Thoughts are not mortal sin or any sin unless it’s a bad thought that is acted upon.
Lusting in the heart is another matter.
Not sure how one goes about listing which sin is greater but Jesus himself told us God hates Divorce, and i don’t believe he talked about homosexuals being hated by God, so…

If you want my advice and you should because I am a wise man, then it is this, you me and every other Catholic should Love everyone and never judge anothers actions or motives because we don’t know what lead them to make their choices. Remember Jesus loves sinners and maybe these priests are just enlightened enough to know it is up to God to judge others actions, all we have to do is Love them and pray for them no matter who or what they are. God bless you and I hope you find peace in your heart.
 
alphonsus1 said:
Homosexual acts should be treated as equivalently immoral to heterosexual sins
Click to expand...
A mortal sin is a mortal sin. I would think that with all of your past threads about sexual sins between heterosexual people, you aren’t going to be giving a heterosexual sinner a “Get Out of Hell Free” card.

Hell is hell. If you sin gravely, you risk going there. There is no reason to separate out gay people and claim they’re somehow going to Double Secret Probation Hell.

Completely aside from the effect on gay people, that sort of attitude would just make straight people think their sins weren’t so bad. “I live with my girlfriend and fornicate every night, but hey, at least I’m not as bad as that GAY person over there.”
 
Last edited:
  1. Is deceiving someone the correct answer to anything. In #2, it is hard to argue against lustful thoughts not being worse than any sin Catholic men aged 15-40 face today. So how does pretending like it isn’t help people? I agree though that it is possible to say misleading statements that are not technically lies, but may “help” people. However, I am someone who personally wants to hear all of the Truth, not a watered down, misleading version of it.
  2. The Pope never authorized condom use in the Congo, it occurred under the reign of Pope John XXIII, not under the reign of Pope Paul VI. Furthermore, Pope Francis was speaking in an off the cuff interview, speculating, when he spoke of the Zika virus (not a magisterial document), so it is not clear what he meant.
What is clear: from the 1993 decree under Pope John Paul II, contraception is not permissible whatsoever for a woman in a non-pregnant state to impede the procreative functioning of a generative faculty, where that generative faculty itself is capable of procreation, to avoid risks to either the life of the mother or baby that arise from that future pregnancy. It is a clear violation of double effect. The National Catholic Bioethics Center, filled with the best and brightest theologians we have, with degrees from Stanford and MIT, experts in Moral Theology, and who lead the largest gathering of Bishops outside of the Holy See, immediately issued a ruling saying it was impermissible to use contraception in the case of Zika. It is black and white.
  1. There is not a homosexual culture in the Church. That is a made up conspiracy. Rather, society influences priests, heterosexual and homosexual. And no, there is no evidence that homosexual priests are more likely to disagree with Church teaching than heterosexual priests. Also, as far as priest abuse, it is outmoded theories of psychiatry to say that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Plain and simple, I would be perfectly fine with more gay people becoming priests, there are not homosexual networks/ a “homosexual culture” in the Catholic Church!
 
Last edited:
The Pope says it happened. I assume he has access to information we dont.
 
First, I am very sorry for your friends sister. Second, it is not at all obvious that nuns in the Congo can use contraception in the case of rape. One person’s bad actions do not justify your bad actions if it is indeed an act of direct contraception.
We need a consistent theory of self defense. Since contraception is taken at the same time every day (say noon), and we have no way of determining with any certainty whether the attackers will decide to do the attack spur of the moment (say the attackers decide to do the attack at 5 pm and then the attack happens at 6 pm). Therefore, it is very possible that the nuns are taking contraception as “self defense” when the perpetrators of the crime have not even decided to attack anyone yet. So you are claiming “defense” against an attack for which the eventual perpetrators may not have yet decided to attack (it is impossible to know with certainty when they decided to attack). Would a police officer who pulls someone over, and pulls out a gun and shoots, before the victim even makes his intentions known to attack (but based on a risk of a future attack), really be able to claim self defense? Plain and simple, the intentions of the attacker must be explicitly made known!
Is this rightfully called “self defense” or a “risk” of a future attack. Essentially, if there were 500 nuns, it may be a small chance that any particular nun is attacked, but a large chance that some nun out of the entire group is attacked. Therefore, is it rightfully called self defense or prevention of a risk in the circumstances of the act? We seem to be coming up against the same issue that the National Catholic Bioethics Center came up against when considering opportunistic salpingectomies for a woman with a moderate cancer risk. Since once the cancer is detected, there is nothing anyone can do, the question becomes: can a woman get a salpingectomy even though there is no current pathology in the organ, but only a “moderate” future risk? The NCBC said no, there must be an imminent/ high risk to the woman. Therefore, for nuns in the Congo, the answer is likely no as well, there needs to be an imminent risk to a specific individual nun.
You cannot use contraception that has an abortion effect (the NCBC has a list of these)! And that should still be considered in the circumstances of the act!
I apologize for saying thoughts and not “thoughts that are deliberately consented to with sufficient knowledge are objectively mortal sins”
I never said Homosexuals were hated by God. I never said we should judge individual priests, that is why I am omitting the names of any priests in my topic. Also, I never said God hates homosexuals, where did you come up with that? I said that the sin of Sodom was a Crime that Cries out to Heaven for Vengeance. I agree with praying, but how on Earth do you think I am judging? (And should not heresies be stamped out… no judging required.)

Finally, sins can be ranked: St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, etc, rank sins on the objective level (God judges culpability). Everything is not equal!
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, there are clergy who simply don’t align all of their theological views with the teachings of the Church. That’s why it is important for us individuals to study on our own and not rely solely on a Priest’s homily as a 15 minute form of bible study.
 
I disagree strongly. The infallible Magisterium, which is impossible to error, says that the pains of hell are not all equal. So this statement is misleading at best and incorrect at worst… that we should operate as though “mortal sin is mortal sin” (please revise your post). Given God is just, the punishments for hell are indeed unequal because of the differing culpabilities for the crimes that the individuals commit and the differing levels of how bad the acts are objectively, when someone reaches the threshold of knowledge and consent judged by God for actual mortal sin. But hell is rightfully called torture for everyone in hell! However, someone who goes to hell for one unrepentant and unforgiven lustful thought will likely (notice I said likely because I am not God), not experience the same suffering as someone who goes to hell for one unrepentant murder, for example. But like I said, hell is rightfully called torture for everyone.
I am not separating out “gay people,” I am separating out the sin of Sodom from other sins. I personally think it is a worse sin for homosexuals to do sodomy than heterosexuals, and this conforms with St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus’s view. However, there is no doubt that objectively 1 sin of Sodom is worse than 1 sin of fornication (not accounting for culpability). So they do indeed need to be “separated out” (just like stealing 1000 dollars should be “separated out” from stealing 100000 dollars).
Not at all, I revised my post to include the nuance that is confusing you. How do I reconcile my position that the Sin of Sodom is worse than heterosexual sins? Because 1 sin of sodom is worse than 1 sin of fornication. However it is not obvious whether 1 sin of sodom is worse than 10 sins of fornication, 100 sins of lust, or 1000 sins of lust. My position is that sins of lust are overall the worst sins Catholics face today, heterosexual or homosexual (because I am taking into account the number of sins committed and the fact that St. Alphonsus and many very smart Doctors of the Church/ Saints thought there was a number of sins beyond which God pardons no more… so while we do not know this for certain… the fact that lust can rack up so many sins… and the uncertainty that there may indeed be a line beyond which God pardons no more… makes me think lustful thoughts are the worst sin overall for men aged 15-40! I am not giving heterosexuals a “get out of jail free card!”
 
Last edited:
sevenswords said:
If you want my advice and you should because I am a wise man, then it is this, you me and every other Catholic should Love everyone and never judge anothers actions or motives because we don’t know what lead them to make their choices. Remember Jesus loves sinners and maybe these priests are just enlightened enough to know it is up to God to judge others actions, all we have to do is Love them and pray for them no matter who or what they are. God bless you and I hope you find peace in your heart.
Click to expand...
What about the correction of their actions and the direction of their lives. Jesus loves sinners yes, but He was harsh in His language of those who sought to lead others astray or commit sinful actions. As did John the Baptist and Peter as well.

Jesus didn’t just leave them to their own devices and desires. He sought to gather them to him as a mother hen does her chicks. He didn’t just tell His apostles, go and pray for everyone in sin, because you don’t know what led them to commit their actions. They need to be taught and corrected and rebuked if need be.
 
I don’t think I’m the one who’s “confused” here. I think this thread taken along with your previous threads is showing an excessive and potentially unhealthy focus on sexual topics and sexual sins. All of what you post is a bit suspect in view of this seeming tunnel vision on a particular topic.

I will now mute this thread as there’s only so many times one can make the same comments over and over.
 
Hate to tell you but these still exist today. Not as legends, but fact. I hear them from my priest. . .and other no doubt well-intentioned but equally incorrect teachings. Please pray.
 
A number of sins beyond which God can pardon no more? If I am understanding that correctly, that seems very bleak
 
Last edited:
Sorry, i meant to reply to Alphonsus, my mistake.
 
Last edited:
“I heard a priest(s) say…” does not establish fact.

This all still sounds like an interwebz magnification of, or exaggeration of something that may or may not have happened - or may be a twisting of words, a misunderstanding or an outright attack on the Church. I seem to recall from CAF years ago something on the order of this was all a hoax.

In any event, we know the Catholic teaching and Congolese Bishops are in charge of their dioceses. To belabor this risks lapsing into gossip, detraction or calumny. I’m out…
 
You start multiple topics on the same issues of sexuality again and again. If you have a problem with a certain priest or certain priests, why not just confront them personally?
 
I have started 3 or 4 topics at most, and on different subject matter every time. One was about smoking, one was about lustful thoughts specifically, this has the Congo nuns case. I promise to make them slightly different each time, to avoid redundancy. Indeed they are about sexuality. But these are the teachings currently under attack. We need help reforming seminaries, so the Truth is always taught!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top