K
KSchuster
Guest
Are we bound to obey a priest in the matter of faith and morals even if we suspect he is wrong? If no then how do we keep from “priest shopping”
- Status
N
nilofc
Guest
Humility, Understanding, Wisdom, Discernment. These are great gifts.
You need to have signal graces.
I am not advocating disobedience to the priest (never will I do that) but you need to have the graces that I mentioned above to be able to tell if you conscience is in the right path.
You need to have signal graces.
I am not advocating disobedience to the priest (never will I do that) but you need to have the graces that I mentioned above to be able to tell if you conscience is in the right path.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
IMHO it comes done to knowing he is wrong when he speaks on faith and morals. Just suspecting it is not enough. If you suspect he is wrong then you must search and find out the Truth. If he is correct then you submit, if he is not then you do not.
K
KSchuster
Guest
how do you find out though without asking another priest and if you do your own research how I do I know I am understanding that correctly. Example if I get a second oppinion on a doctors diagnosis alot of the time if I think he is wrong I will not be able to understand the research leading up to my ultimate conclusion that he is wrong. As for trusting my own conscience is that not what others have done in the past that have fallen away from the Church. Wasn’t Martin Luther trusting in his own conscience instead of the trusting in the Church?
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
If a priest suggests you to act sinfully then you must **not **obey. Church and God is always above any priest. So if you are not sure and suspect that he is wrong I would check it out perhaps by reading an appropriate document or asking an orthodox and knowledgeable priest. If the priest in question is wrong then it might be a good idea to get back to him and explain him that he made a mistake (of course gently with respect). He might not be aware that he is spreading a wrong message.
Pax Christi,
~G
K
KSchuster
Guest
An example of what I am talking about is a wedding that one priest says to attend and another says to not attend. BOTH claim they are not putting forth their own oppinions but the Church’s teaching. One has to be right and the other has to be wrong. How are we to find out which one is right since now we know any priest (except the Pope of course) is subject to being right or wrong in this matter?
D
dessert
Guest
If you have spoken to him in the confessionel he will feel uncomfortable speaking to you outside of the confessionel about the situation, been there tried that.
Since there isn’t really a lot time in the confessionel best to make an appointment to discuss matters other than your sin or including your sin.
If you humbly and politely set a time to discuss matters I’m sure he will comply.
If you suspect he is still wrong and you are right then study the CCC and the bible and the traditioon and make sure you have your facts correct and then even ask another priest or write to the bishop and not get too personal like you against the priest but you just want to find out the facts. Hope that helps. Dessert
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Why don’t you make a thread here at CAF and people might help you to decide!
Or you can ‘Ask the Apologist’.
1
1ke
Guest
Some things are not black and white and may allow for pastoral application of a basic principle to a concrete situation.
This is likely the case here, and each pastor has an opinion. In such a case you take those opinions along with your own study of church teaching-- the Catechism and Canon Law in this case-- and then make your decision.
In the case of attending a wedding you would look at whether or not this marriage would be an attempt at an invalid marriage, whether the parties are Catholic, and whether your attendance would give scandal.
K
KSchuster
Guest
My thoughts are that what works for me has to work for all of us. And in the end you can always go back to Martin Luther who knew more than most lay people about the Church, its history, the Bible and its teachings and he still trusting in his own conscience turned away from the Church. I don’t see how a person can discern this for themselves. To me it is like a kindergärtner questioning a professor. What can a student that small do for himself when trying to understand something that has the potential to be so complicated. I have come to the conclusion that we are bound to obey (only in the matters of faith and morals) our home parish priest and he leads us astray the sin is not our but his and we are ok all the time.
1
1ke
Guest
This is not Church teaching regarding formation of conscience or following one’s well-formed conscience.
Yes, he turned away from the Church and rejected defined doctrines. That is not the same as applying Church teaching to a concrete situation.
That is what we are called to do. Read the Catechism on this topic.
The Church does not define every aspect of our lives. There are many times when you will have to choose from among options-- one must apply moral principles to choose correctly or as best as they can.
The Church does not take the role of dictator in our lives. She guides and directs us, and if we form our conscience well we will have moral certainty regarding our actions.
No, this is not correct. Yes, you are to obey them but you are also to inform your conscience which you can do through prayer and study.
If your priest told you to do “X” and you could look in the Catechism and see that “X” was listed as a violation of one of the Commandments, then you would not have properly formed your conscience if you went ahead and did “X” just because he’s your parish priest.
Now, if you researched X, could find no clear teaching for/against in the Catechism or other church documents, come to no conclusion on your own, and asked for your priest’s (name removed by moderator)ut and he told you to do X then you would have done your best to form your conscience and you are correct you would not be guilty of sin.
K
KSchuster
Guest
Since God has always desired us to come to him we all have the things we need to do that. That thing has always been the Church in some form or other. What is the difference between the true prophets of the old testament and any of the heretics running around at the time. They had the backing of God and the Church who are one in the same. My point being that whatever they had to work with back then should be good enough for us now to work with.
I think that if Martin Luther would have done away with his own conscience and followed then he would have been ok. I think that since our conscience is obviously flawed and the Church’s is obviously infallible (being led by the Holy Spirit) who are we to question the Church or its representatives.
K
KSchuster
Guest
In other words if we listen well The Church will form our conscience right as when we are born we are working with practically nothing in the ways of discernment. If that is so then how can we question those who have taught us. The average lay person doesn’t even have the training to discern for themselves what they need to do that is why we go to PSR and Catholic School. But what happens when the problems get harder and there is more grey area. In all the other fields of learning in the world you get more schooling when the problems get harder. When the moral problems get harder I just don’t see where we have the training or the knowledge to work this stuff out for ourselves. Just as people in the medieval times had to rely on the Church for everything when they could not read or when they could not have a copy of the scriptures.
Z
Zooey
Guest
I wouldhttp://bestsmileys.com/thinking/4.gif question how well Luther knew these things. He seems to have had some
very bizarre notions, really…
L
LilyM
Guest
That’s not the way it works. God will judge us by what we know, not what we don’t, as long as we have made a sincere effort to learn, as our resources permit, and to apply our learning. He holds a child to different standards from an adult, a priest to different standards from a layperson, a pagan who’s never heard of Christ to different standards from we who are Catholic.
We can only really go by our own best knowledge (whether it comes from a priest or our own research) and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make good decisions. And in some cases there truly isn’t one single obviously right course of action. Like the wedding issue - in some cases it’d be the wrong thing to do, not all cases.
And if there is conflicting information, we simply have to weigh up each option and do what we think best. Even if it just means looking at where the balance of opinion lies. Rather like a parent faced with conflicting information on child rearing. The main thing is to make a decision rather than waiting around hoping the ‘perfect’ answer will drop from the sky - if you don’t find one early on then chances are there really isn’t one.
Remember early Christians didn’t even have the complete Scriptures to turn to for at least some decades after Christ’s death. Let alone a formal catechism, or much education (most of 'em were illiterate). You think they were any the less able to lead good and holy lives? No way.
Jesus loved children (who aren’t educated either) because ‘the Kingdom of Heaven is made of such as these’. Meaning they have a complete faith and trust that God will accept them with their limited understanding and all (and all human understanding is limited).
O
otjm
Guest
You keep from priest shopping by educating yourself on moral matters. and to do that, you look first to the teachings of the Church; one of the first places to stop is with the Catechism or one of its legitimate derivatives.
Next, you look to other sources that are in tune with what you have read.
Part of learning how to live a moral life is steeping yourself in the Gospels; not that they have specific answers, because they often don’t; but because they teach us what Christ taught - “Come, follow Me”. and you pary; pray for guidance.
In addition, you learn how to aks questions. That may seem simple, but it is like trying to teach curiosity - “Why?”
Too often, what we really want is a simple answer; then we don’t have to take responsibility for our choices. But complex questions too often don’t have simple answers.
For example, one is not to give scandal; and the issue mentioned above - going to a non-Catholic wedding - is often couched in the issue of not giving scandal. But the next question is, who is it that scandal might be given to? And is it simply a presumption that they will be scandalized, or is it factually based? For example, who will be at the wedding, and do they a) know that you are Catholic, and b) have any clue that there might even be an issue with you showing up? Current Canon law does not automatically forbid going to a non-Catholic wedding, and in addition, most people nowadays don’t even know that such a law might impact Catholics (that is, the non-Catholics at the wedding). If they have no knowledge, how will they be scandalized? So if the non-Catholics at the wedding will not be scandlized, then who will - other Catholics at the wedding? Think that last sentance through… they are there… how will your being there scandalize them?
So, if the priest said that you should not go because you should not give scandal, I am not suggesting he is wrong; I am suggesting that he needs to give you more information than a simple “don’t give scandal” answer. And you don’t have to be challenging his authority or snotty to ask more than the first question. If he is truly willing to give advice, he should be willing to explain why he gives that; and if he is not, then I would want to know why; he has a pressing appointment and you just dropped in unannounced; he has an attitude of “I know more than you and don’t ask impertinant questions”. etc.
Some questions are very complex without clear answers (see, e.g. a thread herein about giving birth to frozen embroyos); some are not necessarily complex, but not necessarily clear cut, either. Those require that we use our intelligence, do our best to form our conscience, and make wise judgements. And that is the part too many don’t want to do; they just want someone to tell them what to do.
B
BobP123
Guest
I don’t know if I’d agree with that. Aren’t there are a whole ton of folks who wish to remain “ignorant” just so they won’t be committing wrong knowingly, maybe? For example, you tell someone something is wrong. Do you think he’s going to believe you if he’s been conditioned otherwise? Maybe we’re all pagan in this sense. And who’s to say no “Catholics” are pagans?
Maybe it’s better to say God will judge us on what we SHOULD have known? But then we can’t judge God either, can we? Nor do we know how He will judge us.
L
LilyM
Guest
That would be where ‘sincere efforts to learn and apply that learning’ come in. Wilful ignorance, unwillingness to learn, or being unwilling to admit one is wrong if one is, doesn’t fit into the equation there.
B
BobP123
Guest
Wilful ignorance? Now who would admit to being of such state?
Being unwilling to learn? Many aren’t but do they consider that to be a sin?
Unwilling to admit one is wrong if one is? Give me a break. We’re all Fonzi’s to a degree.
And many on this board can claim to be sincere even though no two of us agree completely on what constitutes as being sinful. Where’s the objectivity needs to be addressed if one wants to know the truth about sin. And then who amongst us is perfect enough to be in the position to address it? And more importantly, be in a position where everyone else can be convinced of it?
1
1ke
Guest
I recommend you read the entire section of the Catechism on Conscience:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
- Status