Is the deceived one still culpable?

[Mel_Stones]

If a person is deceived by a priest, is that person still guilty of mortal sin? If a person’s conscious or all other advice says differently than a priest but the person listens to the priest because he is Christ’s representative, does the person still receive punishment for sins or is culpability removed because the person trusted their pastor?

Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” **Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. **Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing (CCC2285).

It says the deceiver will suffer grave consequences but it says nothing of the one being deceived.

 

[JuanCarlos]

If you know the priest is orthodox, you should always trust him. He spent years studying theology, moral theology included- it’s highly unlikely you know better than he does.

There’s no sin in following a priest’s counsel, unless you have reason to believe the priest’s judgment is faulty

 

[baltobetsy]

Does this quote from St. Philip Neri help?

He who always acts under obedience may be assured that he will not have to give an account of his actions to God.

Betsy

 

[Joe_Kelley]

One of my Jewish bosses once told me that if a Jew is unsure of what to do he can ask a rabbi and does not sin if he follows the rabbi’s advice. However, one may not ask two rabbis and take the answer he likes best.

I think the same applies here, with the added proviso that one not seek out a priest he knows will give him the answer he wants. This was [is?] a particular problem with couples who want to practice artificial contraception. They know it is wrong, but they also know that Father ____ is a nice guy and will say it is okay.

 

[diggerdomer]

If a person is deceived by a priest, is that person still guilty of mortal sin? If a person’s conscious or all other advice says differently than a priest but the person listens to the priest because he is Christ’s representative, does the person still receive punishment for sins or is culpability removed because the person trusted their pastor?

It says the deceiver will suffer grave consequences but it says nothing of the one being deceived.

Follow your conscience. That’s what the Church teaches.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If a person is deceived by a priest, is that person still guilty of mortal sin? If a person’s conscious or all other advice says differently than a priest but the person listens to the priest because he is Christ’s representative, does the person still receive punishment for sins or is culpability removed because the person trusted their pastor?.

Actual sin occurs when a person knowingly chooses to do what is immoral. If the person believed their actions to be moral because of the incorrect teaching of a priest, the person would not be guilty of actual sin. If the person realized in their conscience that the priest’s teaching was wrong, and merely used the words of that priest as an excuse, then the person would be guilty of sin. It all depends on whether or not the person realizes that what they are doing is immoral.

It is not true that, when we act under obedience, we cannot sin. If you are told under obedience to do what you know is a sin, and if you choose to do it, then you are guilty of sin.

 

[puzzleannie]

It depends on how and why you sought this counsel. If this was a teaching from the pulpit from a priest you had no reason to suspect it was anything except true to the Church’s teaching. If it was advice from a priest in confession, whom you had no reason to expect was not giving correct counsel, you would not be culpable to the extent that you know and understand the Church’s basic teaching on the topic. This is what is called “vincible ignorance”, capable of being corrected through sound teaching. If the counsel was clearly against what you already know to be wrong–he counselled you to continue an adulterous relationship, for instance–then you have a degree of guilt and responsibility depending on your own maturity, knowledge of the faith, sincerity etc.

For instance, in my day it was common knowledge among Catholic women that there were priests you could go to in confession who would not only absolve you from practicing ABC, but give you a relativist answer that it was okay in your situation (health whatever) so some of us yes were guilty of seeking out a priest to salve our conscience on a matter we already understood was gravely sinful. The next generation sadly, because their were so many priests who routinely taught contrary to Church doctrine on this matter, did actually grow up, many of them, not knowing or understanding the teaching, and forming their conscience based on a broad-based faulty Catholic formation. For them, culpability is much lessened, although they like every other Catholic adult has the duty to continue to grow in knowledge of the faith.

We have the words of Christ himself that the greater punishment falls on those with a mission to teach, who then teach wrongly, including guilt of sin by individuals who listened to our false counsel. For instance, my guilt in teaching my own children wrongly about contraception will be bad enough, and their culpability lessened, although they still have a duty to seek out a fuller understanding of the teaching. But my culpability in teaching falsely in my position as catechist of teens or adults is even greater.

 

[Mel_Stones]

Thank you everyone for your replies.

 

[chain]

Funny, among my more religious friends - there have been a few discussions about avoiding certain priests for confession since they apparently don’t believe sin exists anymore.​

Probably the most extreme example of this was a priest at a former parrish I belonged to. He told an RCIA class that they would never need to go to confession since it was essentially impossible for them to commit a mortal sin.

Second worst was a friend who went to confession about his sex outside marriage (series of one night stands and short relationships) and was told by a priest that it was only a sin if he believed in his heart that God wanted it to be a sin for him (technically my friend was still married, since he had not received an annulment).

 

[Mel_Stones]

Funny, among my more religious friends - there have been a few discussions about avoiding certain priests for confession since they apparently don’t believe sin exists anymore.​

Probably the most extreme example of this was a priest at a former parrish I belonged to. He told an RCIA class that they would never need to go to confession since it was essentially impossible for them to commit a mortal sin.

Second worst was a friend who went to confession about his sex outside marriage (series of one night stands and short relationships) and was told by a priest that it was only a sin if he believed in his heart that God wanted it to be a sin for him (technically my friend was still married, since he had not received an annulment).

Yeah, some priests have gone . . . . . . liberal? touchy-feely? protestant? . . . I’m not sure what term to use. I think sometimes a priest feels the need to go deeper into whether something is or isn’t a sin than is truly necessary for the repentant. If by all Church definitions a mortal sin has been committed, the person knows this and wishes to reconcile, it isn’t always important to determine if mortal/death to soul occurred. If a priest goes too deep or too often into ‘you can’t really commit a mortal sin’, we’re going to be guilty of the accusation ‘you can do anything and just run to confession’. In fact, as you said you’d heard, we’ll go a step farther (from God) with ‘you don’t have to go to confession ever’.
:bighanky: breaks my heart.

Good news is my priest is not this way despite being what might be classified as ‘touchy-feely’ in other areas . If you commit a mortal sin, he lets you have it - or so I’ve heard . Not in a ‘chew-you-out’ sort of way but in a ‘not cutting you any slack, you know you’ve messed up big time’ sort of way.

I also fear the parish which becomes the Gospel according to Fr. So-and-so. Meaning it has a pastor out of line with the true Church teachings. I’ve heard this is the reason priests can no longer stay at one parish for 40 years. The Church has to rotate the trouble makers around as a means of damage control :juggle:.

 

[puzzleannie]

I recently heard a local priest giving instruction on mortal sin etc. to catechists who prepare children for sacraments (think of a Mexican Fr. Corapi) and his made a point I think is valid, that quite often a priest who makes excuses for penitents in the confessional and does not apply the Church’s standards of sin and morality for his flock, claiming to be “pastoral” he is actually excusing his own sins and failings and extending his own psychological state to his flock. For this reason, I personally think the instinct to be suspicious of a priest who does not adhere to traditional Catholic moral teaching is probably a sound one.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I recently heard a local priest giving instruction on mortal sin etc. to catechists who prepare children for sacraments (think of a Mexican Fr. Corapi) and his made a point I think is valid, that quite often a priest who makes excuses for penitents in the confessional and does not apply the Church’s standards of sin and morality for his flock, claiming to be “pastoral” he is actually excusing his own sins and failings and extending his own psychological state to his flock. For this reason, I personally think the instinct to be suspicious of a priest who does not adhere to traditional Catholic moral teaching is probably a sound one.

I think the psychological state of the priest is a good point BUT agree that such state should not interfere with any part of his teaching, guiding, or duties. Although . . . I naturally think a priest would be harder on himself (and therefore harder on the repentant) for his sins because of his position I suppose it varies from priest to priest.

I read on a web site once (the Importance of Catholic Orthodoxy) that I use for examination of conscious that gave a test everyone should give when looking for a spiritual director. The test was to ask about homosexuality, the possibility of woman priests, and birth control. If he didn’t answer with the Church’s teaching that homosexuality and birth control are gravely immoral and woman priests is an impossibility, he isn’t orthodox and should be avoided.

(I know nothing about the authenticity or origin of the linked website - if it is out of line with Church teaching, I retain the right to be corrected.)