Well, I went back there. I was looking to go to Confession and as it turned it, it was THE saturday once-a-month that they offer Confession (for 1/2 hour).
When I went in it was a younger guy. He was wearing casual dress clothes.
It went something like this:
Me: Are you a priest?
Him: Yes.
Me: How do I know that?
Him: What do you think a priest should look like? <with a smile or smirk?>
Me: Well I’d be expecting you to wear a collar, or your stole . {Then I looked down at his hands and sort of gestured to them} I don’t even know if you’re wearing a ring.
Him: <smile/smirk gone and opening his hands> No I’m not wearing a ring.
Me: I’m not from this parish and I’ve never seen you before, so how do I know you’re a priest? I’ve had a deacon try and hear my confession and I’m not looking for that to happen again. I’m sorry sir but I’m just not comfortable with you hearing my confession. I’m the last one out there sir.
And that was it. Heart pounding a mile a minute.
I went that afternoon to a different parish. It was a priest I had seen before and he was wearing a collar. Remarkably enough though, no stole or ring.
Am I mistaken? Do priests not wear rings?
No, most priests do not wear rings. A few might, but most priests I have seen or met don’t.
He told you he was a priest. I do not know about your previous experience, but if he had had a collar on and a stole (the latter which he should have had on), you would probably not have asked him the questions? However deacon in some circumstances might wear a collar, and if the stole was there and he put it on, you would not have known the difference, right?
I understand the issue: once bit, twice afraid is the old saying. However, once he identified himself as a priest, then even though he should have had a stole on (a separate issue), it seems to me that leaving him after you had entered and asked your questions is not respectful of his office - priest, alter Christus. I would have proceeded with the sacrament.
And I find it interesting that you describe him as having a “smile or a smirk”. The latter is definitely an attitude, one that is often superiority; but since you said it that way, are you trying to read into a smile - something that seems innocent - a different attitude because he did not meet your expectations? I can pretty much read an expression. I am wondering if you met a priest who may not have been well trained in all of the rubrics of the sacraments, byut was there joyfully to represent Christ in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, and because he did not meet your expectations (which, by the way, I do not consider wrong - I would expect the same), you may be trying to read in an attitude that is not there?
It is easy to categorize people as “liberals” and then simply dismiss them, as if they had no merit whatsoever, and had a preconceived attitude about everyone else. “Liberals” can also be trying to do God’s work; they may not have all the parts, or not have them all lined up correctly, but are we not all sinners?
Another way of saying it: I have no problem with someone who wants a priest to wear a collar, and no issue at all that the stole is to be worn during Reconcilliation - or any other sacrament - but which is more important at the moment: the stole or the priestly role of Alter Christus? Can we actually say that the priest herein is trying to “downgrade” the role of priest, or that he is intentionally casual or slipshod about it, or should we say in charity that he may never have been taught the importance of those items?
