Priest gave bad counsel

[stayathomemommy]

rlg94086: Thank you, I am very fortuanate to live in a community with 4 Catholic churches (we are not a big city) and I can go right down the road to a Church that has a very orthidox Priest. I guess i just need to figure out if there is someway to do some good in my current parish.

 

[Cristiano]

The priest is bound by the seal, but not the penitent.

Also, the pastor does not do anything to violate the seal when discussing the wrong information he gave and what the correct church teaching is.

I am not sure that you are correct. The code of canon law 932.2 states: “The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.”

That means all including the penitent. The penitent may share his sins with whomever he wants but he cannot share the confession.

My understanding is that it is a way to protect the penitent from pressure into sharing what was discussed during confession.

 

[Cristiano]

Well my meeting with the Pastor of my Church was not a whole lot better. It did come to my attention, my own revelation, nothing that the Pastor said, but that i should have gone back to the source and talke to the priest who gave me bad councel. I guess i thought if he said the things he said i wasnt going to change his mind, he is an older priest. The Pastor was a little wishy washy about his take on it, a little defensive as well…

Make sure tat you are nor creating scandal with your talking. If you did not like what happened in the confessional you should have gone back to the confessor. If you were still troubled you should have gone for confession with another confessor without discussing the details of the first confession.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I am not sure that you are correct. The code of canon law 932.2 states: “The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.”

That means all including the penitent. The penitent may share his sins with whomever he wants but he cannot share the confession…

You are wrong. Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

Canon law says all others. For example: if people in the confession line overhear, they are also bound by the seal of the confession not to repeat knowledge of the sins learned from another person’s sacramental confession. The penitant is not an “other”; the penitant knew her sins before she entered the confessional and she is not bound by the seal. Others can not reveal what a penitant said in the confessional, but she is not bound to silence regarding her own confession.

And speaking of Canon Law, here’s another part relevant to this thread:
Can. 978 §1. In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is equally a judge and a physician and has been established by God as a minister of divine justice and mercy, so that he has regard for the divine honor and the salvation of souls.
§2. In administering the sacrament, **the confessor as a minister of the Church is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium **and the norms issued by competent authority.

A priest who fails to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium is the cause of scandal, not a penitant for reporting a priest’s misconduct in the confessional to his superior.

 

[stayathomemommy]

And speaking of Canon Law, here’s another part relevant to this thread:
Can. 978 §1. In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is equally a judge and a physician and has been established by God as a minister of divine justice and mercy, so that he has regard for the divine honor and the salvation of souls.
§2. In administering the sacrament, **the confessor as a minister of the Church is to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium **and the norms issued by competent authority.

A priest who fails to adhere faithfully to the doctrine of the magisterium is the cause of scandal, not a penitant for reporting a priest’s misconduct in the confessional to his superior.

THAnk you, i was starting to get nervous that i had done something wrong. Really i am not slandering the priest. The first thing i did after my penence was pray for him. I really think my heart is in the right place and i am being led by the Holy Spirit to pursue this further. I am just so scared for those souls that go to this priest for confession and get bad councel like i did and then go about their marry way doing wrong without knowing it because some Priest said it was OK. It just sickens me.

but i will have to keep myself in check and make sure i am not doing it for the wrong reasons. I do not want to create a scandel!!

 

[DJgang]

My jaw is seriously dropping.

What is taught by the Church IS taught by the Church… I just don’t get it… I finally feel like I’ve found a church that is true and feel at home, literally…and to go to a priest and they say something like this, practically laughing at your confession, makes me upset. If you don’t tell someone…who will? What if his counsel is actually hurting people, (and according to Church teaching…it is)

I am so sorry stayathomemommy…I will pray for you in hopes that you can find a priest and parish that feels right.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That sounds like your meeting with the pastor went okay. It’s proper that the pastor gave the other priest any benefit of the doubt. Only you and the other priest really know what was said in the confessional, and–I’m not saying that you misinterpretted the priest–but the other priest is severely restricted in what he can tell the pastor in his own defense. The pastor and the other priest can talk about Church teachings and* in* general terms about the guidance to give in the confessional. But a priest can not defend himself regarding the specifics of what was said in the confessional.

I agree with you to a point, insofar as a superior must recognize that the priest is unable to defend himself and thus must be given the benefit of the doubt. BUT, that said, it hardly seems possible that everything reported to us by the OP could have been misinterpreted. And even if it was, the pastor has a problem on his hands of a priest working in his parish whose teaching is understood to be espousing heresy. That at the very least needs to be corrected. He needs to make sure not just that the exact wording of advice is accurate but that that wording also manages to convey accurate information to the penitent. Finally, although it is a more minor matter, the pastor should make sure the priest knows he is not to discourage the confession of venial sins. It seems a good pastoral approach to meeting with a distressed penitent would be to give the priest the benefit of the doubt but also make clear that there *will *be some sort of discussion to try to avoid further miscommunication/heresy/scandal.

 

[puzzleannie]

OPs action places priest #1 in an impossible position, as he cannot discuss the confession with anyone outside the confessional, including the penitent and the pastor.

a more beneficial tactic would have been to approach priest #1 outside the confession, by appointment, bringing the NFP literature you have been given which contradicts his advice, and ask for further guidance and clarification. then you will be in a position to contest anything that obviously contradicts church teaching.

in my day (60s/70s) a common topic of discussion among married women was to compare notes on priests and parishes, so you would know where to go for reliable counselling on marriage and NFP issues (or conversely, where to find a more “pastoral” priest who was notorious for opposing church teaching). obviously nobody discussed their actual confession (at least not in my hearing) but we certainly discussed the personalities and points of view of various local priests.

 

[otjm]

There has been a great deal of judging of this priest - “liberal” being perhaps one of the milder comments.

Many priests have not been taught what the Church teaches; they have been taught that those in Rome don’t “get it” and that eventually the rule will be changed by a recognition that the Pill acts differently.

The fact that the priest was taught wrong does not make him a horrible person; it makes him wrong. Not liberal, but wrong. There is more than a slight difference.

For anyone who cares, listen carefully to the original tape or CD by Janet smith (one more soul, mentioned above) the talk was being given to priests. She acknowledges they were taught wrong, and then consider the fact that not only were they not taught correctly, but they have been giving wrong advice (and not for malicious or evil reasons - it was what they were taught) for a long time to a whole lot of people who ahve issues with sexual morality. It is not easy to back out of what they have believed was right, and go a different direction.

And to those who think that it is a simple matter of just talking to the priest and he’ll “get it”, one might charitably call them naive. It is not like you are teaching them how to properly enter a debit in their check book.

As to the OP, she should have gone back to the priest; if anything was said to him, his probable first reaction was that she went “behind his back”. Her issue was with him and there is where it needs to be taken up.

And good luck with the advice about going to the bishop if he doesn’t change his mind; it is entirely possible the bishop was taught the same thing.

This ship is going to take a long time to turn around; way too much time, I agree. but I truly think you are wasting your time trying to go to the bishop, in particular unless you get a private appointment with him. otherwise, it is most likely simply going to be short-stopped at the chancery and never get to the bishop.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There has been a great deal of judging of this priest …Many priests have not been taught what the Church teaches; they have been taught that those in Rome don’t “get it” and that eventually the rule will be changed …
The fact that the priest was taught wrong does not make him a horrible person; it makes him wrong…

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly*…*

If you think people on this forum judge harshly, just wait until you hear how God deals priests who cause others to falter by their instruction….

Malachi 2:7-9 *For the lips of the priest are to keep knowledge, and instruction is to be sought from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of host. But you have turned aside from the way and have caused many to falter by your instruction…I therefore have made you contemptible and base before all the people, since you do not keep my ways…. *

I think you are naïve if you think the only problem is that others taught this priest wrong. Many of us were taught wrong, but at some point, we must take ownership of our beliefs. This priest chooses to believe who say Rome “doesn’t get it” regarding contraception and chastity. Why?

The op reported that this priest not only laughed at her in the confessional for believing what the Church teaches regarding chastity, but he also refused to hear confession for venial sins. If he really believes the “just follow your conscience” nonsense that many spout off, then he shouldn’t laugh and send away people like the op who “followed her conscience” to his confessional. I suspect there may be more going on than the priest simply repeating errors he learned from others*. Some people* practice what they preach—that can apply to priests (and possible even bishops) who preach error regarding chastity.

This ship is going to take a long time to turn around; way too much time, I agree……

Yes, it may take a while to “turn this ship around”, but the ship won’t turn around while those “controlling the rudder” speak falsehoods and give bad counsel. Following James’ warning that teachers will be held to higher standards, James compares of the tongue as the rudder of a ship.

James 3:4-5 … It is the same with ships, even thought they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small ruder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes. In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions.

One may argue about who the op should bring her concerns, but clearly something must be said to someone regarding a priest who gives erroneous advise that may lead others into mortal sin. Such a priest doesn’t just put the souls of those he counsels at risk, he puts his own soul at risk too. Christian charity demands that *someone *correct him before the Lord judges him. While some may think some poster on CA judge harshly, I think that pales in comparison to how God may judge priests who lead others into sin. Lord have mercy on their souls and save us from such priests.

 

[quiet52]

I would not advise the OP to return to the confront the first confessor. My experience has been that sometimes we who confront are not only to be labeled, but torn down to others – yes, by some priests. If we’re involved in a ministry in the parish, our credibility and integrity are attacked, and this can diminish our effectiveness in what we try to do.
The OP may leave literature anonymously, praying the confessor reads it. But she did well in confronting the pastor, and if she’s dissatisfied with the outcome, she would be acting responsibly by informing the bishop.

 

[otjm]

If you think people on this forum judge harshly, just wait until you hear how God deals priests who cause others to falter by their instruction….

I think you are naïve if you think the only problem is that others taught this priest wrong. Many of us were taught wrong, but at some point, we must take ownership of our beliefs. This priest chooses to believe who say Rome “doesn’t get it” regarding contraception and chastity. Why?

The op reported that this priest not only laughed at her in the confessional for believing what the Church teaches regarding chastity, but he also refused to hear confession for venial sins. If he really believes the “just follow your conscience” nonsense that many spout off, then he shouldn’t laugh and send away people like the op who “followed her conscience” to his confessional. I suspect there may be more going on than the priest simply repeating errors he learned from others*. Some people* practice what they preach—that can apply to priests (and possible even bishops) who preach error regarding chastity.

Yes, it may take a while to “turn this ship around”, but the ship won’t turn around while those “controlling the rudder” speak falsehoods and give bad counsel. Following James’ warning that teachers will be held to higher standards, James compares of the tongue as the rudder of a ship.

James 3:4-5 … It is the same with ships, even thought they are so large and driven by fierce winds, they are steered by a very small ruder wherever the pilot’s inclination wishes. In the same way the tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions.

One may argue about who the op should bring her concerns, but clearly something must be said to someone regarding a priest who gives erroneous advise that may lead others into mortal sin. Such a priest doesn’t just put the souls of those he counsels at risk, he puts his own soul at risk too. Christian charity demands that *someone *correct him before the Lord judges him. While some may think some poster on CA judge harshly, I think that pales in comparison to how God may judge priests who lead others into sin. Lord have mercy on their souls and save us from such priests.

I have been around since before priests started giving advice on the pill, because I have been around longer than the Pill has been marketed. And I can most assuredly guarantee you I am not naive.

I would be surprised if there was a poll of priests that we would not find at least 70% of them giving the advice this one gave.

Nothing in my comments indicated that I accept that as valid, or legitimate, or correct in terms of Moral Theology. But it is factual. As I said (if you were reading), listen carefully to Janet Smith’s comments on the first version of “Contraception - why not?” She was lucid, most definitely not attacking anyone, not argumentative, interesting to listen to, logical - and she comments that many of the preists who were listening to her lecture gave the initial impression they didn’t want to hear what she had to say and were not interested (body language speaks loudly…).

I do not disagree that priests need to get in line with the teaching of the Church. I do say that it is going to be a long struggle, and anyone who wants to take it on in a lecture format, or a tattling format isn’t going to make much change. People shut down with that. Call it pride, call it stubborness, call it what you want, those priests have been in the trenches for a long time, and they have dealt with a lot of people who have an issue with this. They are most likely initially to have the reaction that they have a whole lot more training (they took a Moral Theology class [and you and I can agree it was not correctly taught]), they have had to deal with the issue for far longer than most people coming to them have, and they know what “makes the world go around” - that is, they have the practical experience in dealing with the issue.

They are wrong on several issues - you and I can agree with that - but I am simply trying to bring a little reality to all the enthusiasm and vehemence that gets expounded on these fora. Leaving the parish is not necessarily going to result in anything but more travel, given the prevalence of priests who view the Pill as not one of the more serious issues of the day. Telling people they need to confront these errant priests is simply to invite more frustration, anger, and contempt. If someone as smart as Janet Smith is having a problem getting the message across, we all might take pause to consider whether or not our planned attack will do better.

 

[otjm]

I would not advise the OP to return to the confront the first confessor. My experience has been that sometimes we who confront are not only to be labeled, but torn down to others – yes, by some priests. If we’re involved in a ministry in the parish, our credibility and integrity are attacked, and this can diminish our effectiveness in what we try to do.
The OP may leave literature anonymously, praying the confessor reads it. But she did well in confronting the pastor, and if she’s dissatisfied with the outcome, she would be acting responsibly by informing the bishop.

I agree with you as far as confronting the priest. But there are far more than one way to skin a cat; and one does not skin it by going to another cat. The issue was with the priest, and for anyone who has been around the issue of sexual morality for any serious length of time (the OP is married, so I presume not a teenager), it should be well established by now that many priests have an altogether "relaxed’ sense of moral rightness and wrongness.

Taking it to the pastor is not the person with whom she ahs a bone to pick, and it asks the pastor (who stands statistically a very good chance of having the same opinions) to “correct” the other one. Her results were not far off what I would have predicted.

And in the real world - not in cyberspace where one may expound with all sorts of huffs and puffs and righteousness, but the one where things happen - the likelyhood of her getting the bishop to do anything hinges on two critical issues. The first is whether or not the bishop has been trained in the same theological morass of “soft” morality abotu sexual issues; given hsi age the lieklyhood is what - 50%? 70%?

The second, and more important issue is that precious few people have direct access to the bishop to begin with; most are filtered off at the Chancery level. Want to guess how excited they will be? Want to guess what the results will be?

I am astounded at the number of people who want everyone to “tell the bishop”. We have had 35 or so years of people “telling the bishop” and if you read these fora, one wonders… the old phrase of “doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” comes to mind.

Don’t misunderstand me; I do not disagree with her take that the priest was wrong. I disagree with the advice given to her. I think it will only result in her being more upset.

Shoving water uphill with a pitchfork will get some water up the hill. Just not much.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I would be surprised if there was a poll of priests that we would not find at least 70% of them giving the advice this one gave.
…I do not disagree that priests need to get in line with the teaching of the Church. I do say that it is going to be a long struggle, and anyone who wants to take it on in a lecture format, or a tattling format isn’t going to make much change. …(errant priest) are most likely initially to have the reaction that they have a whole lot more training (they took a Moral Theology class [and you and I can agree it was not correctly taught]), …
They are wrong on several issues - you and I can agree with that - but I am simply trying to bring a little reality to all the enthusiasm and vehemence that gets expounded on these fora. Leaving the parish is not necessarily going to result in anything but more travel, given the prevalence of priests who view the Pill as not one of the more serious issues of the day. Telling people they need to confront these errant priests is simply to invite more frustration, anger, and contempt. If someone as smart as Janet Smith is having a problem getting the message across, we all might take pause to consider whether or not our planned attack will do better.

While I don’t know about the percentage, I agree that many priests give counsel contrary to Church teachings regarding contraception. However, there was something different regarding the situation the op reported—refusing to hear venial sins, laughing at a penitent, and trying to convince a penitent who believes Church teachings that she shouldn’t—all done in the confessional. Those particular actions cross a line that I think few priests would cross *regardless *of their opinions on contraception.

If the op spoke directly to the priest, she would likely get the prideful reaction you predict. “He’s taken the moral theology classes, she hasn’t.” Bla, bla, bla. I think she did well to inform the pastor because the problem wasn’t only dissention from Church teachings on contraception-it was his whole manner in the confessional. Maybe it was just an isolated instance on a bad day, or maybe its a pattern. The pastor–as his superior, not just his peer—should be aware of this so he can both address his poor behavior and watch for any patterns.

Now, regarding the issue of chastity. Even if a priest or pastor disagrees with the Church teachings on chastity and contraception, it is good for errant priests to encounter sincere Catholics who believe and strive to live out Church teachings. Some argue that people should “follow their conscience”, but that argument falls apart when people’s consciences actually align with the Church.

The answer to sin is holiness–not arguments, nor intellectual lectures and explanations. Sometimes we must speak, but our lives should also give witness to the truth.

otmj is right that many bishops would do nothing to correct errant priests and getting past the chancellery is difficult. Yet several bishops come to my mind who are readily available to listen and help: St. Augustine, St. Patrick, St. Felix and St. Cyprian, St. Timothy, all of the Apostles, etc. Talking to people here on earth may seem to accomplish nothing, but storm heaven with prayers and petitions. Prayers of the righteous avails much.

When we encounter errant priests (as I suspect many on this forum have encountered), we shouldn’t simply complain about them and angrily storm off. We shouldn’t expect our intellectual discussions or reports to superiors to fix the problem. The real problem is sin, and the answer is holiness. In “planning our attack” we must remember this is a spiritual battle, not a verbal or intellectual argument. If God gives us a glimpse that a priest has some serious trouble and that the priest’s soul is endangered, God also wants us to pray for that priest using the spiritual weapons at our disposal. God wants us to grow in holiness while helping priests to grow in holiness.