Confessor Shopping

[PhilotheaZ]

Thanks again to everyone for the hlep with this. I confess (pun intended) that I’m still a little unclear on the extent to which a private individual is permitted (or obligated) to assess based upon his private interpretation the “clear” meaning of Church documents in determining whether to comply with the advice of a priest, and how this fits in with the Church’s general teaching on private interpretations. There seems to be a real tension there based on what I’m hearing.

I appreciate it.

CThomas

It is the duty of every Catholic to inform his conscience, to the best of his ability, based on the teachings of the Church.

Those of us who are aware of them and have access to them should make use of official documents of the Church: the Catechism, papal documents, etc. I am not sure how much “private interpretation” is needed for these; most are pretty clear. The words “private interpretation” are usually used in reference to Scripture. It is the Church that gives us the official interpretation. Once a teaching on faith or morals finds its way into an official Church document (supported by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him), there is no further question of “private interpretation.”

There is a difference between someone who goes “confessor shopping” (to find one who says what we want to hear, confirming us in our sinfulness), and someone who is unintentionally led astray by an unscrupulous confessor.

In the first case, we are intentionally turning our back on God’s law, using the priest as someone to blame for our own guilt. God sees through our deceit.

In the second case, God may excuse the person who is truly ignorant and has no access to the truth. But we also know that the law of God is written on our hearts, so “pleading ignorance” should be a rare thing for those who truly love and want to serve God.

 

[Corki]

It is my understand that any priest (with appropriate faculties) can absolve any sin (assuming in his judgment there is true repentance).

However, in some cases, the lifting of a penalty (e.g., excommunication) can be reserved to the Holy See.

This was a recent story about this.

msnbc.msn.com/id/28663430/

Now the list of sins that fall into this category is very small and mostly are sins of priests. Direct abortion is one of those sins where absolution is reserved for the Bishop, even if the condidtions for excommunication don’t exist. In the US, most Bishops have “deputized” (I know that’s probably not the right word) all of their pastors, and in some cases all of their priests to absolve the sin of abortion at the parish level and then submit to the Bishop to have the excommunication, if any, lifted but its not required that a Bishop do so.

 

[puzzleannie]

These sins can be absolved, as can any sins, providing there is true repentance. In the case of artificial birth control, this would include the intention to discontinue its use.

In the case of a tubal or vasectomy, they can certainly be absolved if there is true sorrow.

true, but that is not what I was speaking of, the common practice was to shop for a priest who would tell you that’s okay honey, just follow your own conscience and continue this evil practice that is destroying your marriage and we will just look the other way. true contrition and repentence were never a part of the picture

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks again to everyone for the hlep with this. I confess (pun intended) that I’m still a little unclear on the extent to which a private individual is permitted (or obligated) to assess based upon his private interpretation the “clear” meaning of Church documents in determining whether to comply with the advice of a priest, and how this fits in with the Church’s general teaching on private interpretations. There seems to be a real tension there based on what I’m hearing.

I appreciate it.

CThomas

Like I said, it’s a hypothetical that is based on a misunderstanding of the sacrament and Catholic thinking, since only a fool thinks he can play legal games with the Almighty.

… It seems to me that it would be very difficult to always be sure that if you slipped and committed a sin you did not have at the back of your mind the knowledge that confession was a means for absolving the sin once committed. Speaking only for myself and my sadly inadequate spiritual state, I think I would be very concerned that I might now and then engage in a sinful act that I knew could be forgiven through confession afterward and where that knowledge at some level influenced me. Is that ever a concern for you as a Catholic?

Regards,

CThomas

No more so than a similar practice among n-Cs in your own faith community who might rationalize their sins with a mindset like that.

As I pointed out, why would you even try to compare the hypothetical worst of Catholics with the best of n-Cs. It’s a fallacious argument because of that disparity. A real apples and oranges argument.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Penance is negotiable–if Father tells you to do something crazy (give all your money to the poor, wash his car and mow the grade school football field with cuticle scissors), you can argue it down. Weird, I know. But if you were looking for something different (drink a 2-liter of Mountain Dew, play Guitar Hero for 3 hours and waterboard your little sister), it’s within your rights to fight for it. Good luck, sir.

FWIW, I’ve never had any priest give me wacky or unjust penance. It’s usually to pray a particular decade of the rosary or “do something nice for your mother” or whatnot.

 

[CThomas]

That’s really interesting, Wholly Roamin’. I didn’t know that!

Regards,

CThomas

 

[CThomas]

Like I said, it’s a hypothetical that is based on a misunderstanding of the sacrament and Catholic thinking, since only a fool thinks he can play legal games with the Almighty.No more so than a similar practice among n-Cs in your own faith community who might rationalize their sins with a mindset like that.

As I pointed out, why would you even try to compare the hypothetical worst of Catholics with the best of n-Cs. It’s a fallacious argument because of that disparity. A real apples and oranges argument.

Church Militant: On the first point, it seems to me that you’re begging the question by characterizing the practice as “play[ing] legal games.” I was asking whether such conduct was permitted (in which case it would not be gamesmanship), and, if it is not permitted, exploring the implications of such a rule for other areas of Catholic doctrine.

On the second point, I don’t believe that the issue I’m discussing would be limited to “the worst of Catholics.” I think it’s a natural and nearly inevitable condition for all fallen humans to sometimes have one’s decisions be tainted by the knowledge of the consequences. I think that everyone – certainly myself, as I noted in the previous message – tends toward psychological weaknesses such as this, and I never meant to “compare” Catholics against non-Catholics on this score at all. I was just genuinely curious if Catholics had experienceed this concern, because it would seem like a very natural one to me.

Best regards,

CThomas

 

[Spirithound]

Is it permissible under Catholic doctrine to “shop” for the most permissive priest as confessor

I thought it was crystal clear in Catholic doctrine that if I as a layman get erroneous advice from my priest that engaging in conduct X is not a sin and that if I fail to confess X on that basis, then his erroneous advice to me is nonetheless effective, and that I won’t go to hell on the basis of X for having relied on the priest’s advice. Is that not true, or is it unclear?

I’m still a little unclear on the extent to which a private individual is permitted (or obligated) to assess based upon his private interpretation the “clear” meaning of Church documents in determining whether to comply with the advice of a priest, and how this fits in with the Church’s general teaching on private interpretations.

A penitent is certainly permitted to “shop” for a confessor. It is also certain that we must be obedient to our pastor/confessor, bishop, and pope. If we invincibly ignorantly follow them into error, God will not hold it against us.

That being said, I think there are different standards of obedience. The most stringent is due to the pope, then bishop, then pastor/confessor. This is particularly where invincible ignorance comes into play. If we know what the bishop or the pope teaches, and it differs from your priest, you must trust the bishop over the priest.

Now, to bring it back to your example, the scenario strongly implies that you have confessed this sin to on previous occasions to other priests, and they have agreed that it is sinful. Finally, you went to the next priest, who told you it wasn’t sinful. Here now, you have several priests disagreeing with each other. Now, you have conflicts, and in order to work it out, you are obligated to do some homework.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant: On the first point, it seems to me that you’re begging the question by characterizing the practice as “play[ing] legal games.” I was asking whether such conduct was permitted (in which case it would not be gamesmanship), and, if it is not permitted, exploring the implications of such a rule for other areas of Catholic doctrine.

I’m afraid you’re wrong there again.

It actually IS “gamesmanship” on an eternal level since it involves the eternal life or death of a human soul. It would indeed be thinking that one can somehow “trip God up” with some sort of binding legalism of “Father so and so absolved me.” as if that would bind God to something that contradicts both His revealed nature and Catholic teaching.

The person would probably find themselves in Hell.

On the second point, I don’t believe that the issue I’m discussing would be limited to “the worst of Catholics.” I think it’s a natural and nearly inevitable condition for all fallen humans to sometimes have one’s decisions be tainted by the knowledge of the consequences. I think that everyone – certainly myself, as I noted in the previous message – tends toward psychological weaknesses such as this, and I never meant to “compare” Catholics against non-Catholics on this score at all. I was just genuinely curious if Catholics had experienceed this concern, because it would seem like a very natural one to me.

Best regards,

CThomas

Then I’d say that you need to become Catholic and get your conscience properly formed so you won’t come up with such carnal scenarios that might send someone to Hell.

To recap: Under the conditions that you have put forth.

1. There would be no valid absolution and,
2. Therefore the person’s sin would remain bound and,
3. If he died in that sin he’d be condemned
   (a) According to the teachings of the Catholic Church,
   (b) According to the Word of God, and
   (c) According to the 2,000 years of Catholic Sacred Tradition.

I don’t know how you come up with your “everyone” since the fallacy of that generalization virtually glows in the dark, since
(a) you do not know “everyone”,
(b) you do not even know all non-Catholics, and
(c) you don’t even know all Catholics.

Do you begin to see what my real problem with your thread here is?

A fallacious premise which leads to a specious argument that serves no good purpose for anyone of any faith community. :whackadoo::jrbirdman::takeoff: