Should a Priest do this?

[buc_fan33]

I am a priest, and I feel compelled to reply to this thread. On its face, I see nothing objectively wrong with this priest having dinner with a friend. However, we also have to ask the question of whether or not it is prudent. Even though something may not be sinful, may in fact be completely innocent, it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is prudent. A good guideline I was given in seminary was that a priest can go to lunch, alone, with a woman, but dinner might be a different story. There’s a cultural connection, in the United States anyway, between dinner and a formal date.

That said, priests do have, and need to maintain, friendships. Two of my closest friends in the world are women who would be my peers. I think of these two women as sisters, and they think of me as a brother. And, there is nothing secretive about this. Their respective husbands know of the friendship between us and are 1) ok with it, and 2) also my friends.

People can be very quick to criticize priests, and I’m not just saying this because I am one. But, I quit posting on these forae for quite some time because of the vitriol, and I don’t choose that word lightly, that I read on hear directed at priests. Now, I’m not accusing the OP of said vitriol. I suspect he is simply concerned about the well-being of his niece and asked an innocent enough question. But, in all things, especially for priests ordained into the priesthood of Jesus Christ, Christ must be our model and guide. So, in a real way, we must ask ourselves, what would Jesus do?

Looking at the Gospels, it is quite evident to me that our Lord enjoyed close companionship with both males and females. Since we’re talking about a female in this case, let’s just limit ourselves to Christ’s interaction with women. Leaving aside the baloney in The Divinci Code, it is clear that Christ maintained a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. The Scriptures are explicit that he was friends with Martha and Mary. Is it so far-fetched to think that He never enjoyed a meal with Mary Magdalene, Martha, and/or Mary? I don’t think it is.

Priests need human interaction just like anyone else.

 

[WD615]

Thanks for the thoughtful response …

I don’t believe they ever had dinner alone before … their friendship was through a church group … but I am not sure.

My concern is more related to the power differential than anything else … and secondarily to the fact that he is married to the church and unavailable

Although some people seem to think your concerns are unfounded, I can understand them. Now, of course, this isn’t cut and dry, this priest might not just have a feel for propriety.

However, situations like that (spending one-on-one time and sharing intimate details) are an easy way to slip into something inappropriate. If this priest was a layman, I’d suggest not to have a one-on-one date with the member of the opposite sex (same for women). I mean, used to, even people who were romantically attached didn’t have one-on-one dates until they were married, or at least engaged. Once again, that doesn’t mean something is wrong, but there’s always the possibility someone could “slide” into doing something wrong.

 

[McCartney]

I had to visit my parish priest recently. During the conversation he said that he never visits anyone unless invited because of the likelihood of a scandal. I invited him for lunch but he always had an excuse not to come. I invited the assistant priest and he was delighted to come over and have a meal with me.

Regarding the situation in the OP I would say, “Lead us not into temptation”.

 

[SwizzleStick]

2 questions:

1. I wonder if in the seminary they warn priests about getting too close to single/attractive women?
2. Isn’t the mere appearance of impropriety an issue here?

Perhaps. But, priests are people too and need friends like everyone else. They also need to eat dinner. Since your niece has had a longstanding friendship with this priest and since…

…I have no reason to believe that anything is going on between them romantically…

perhaps the most charitable thought is that they are simply two friends who had dinner together?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

2 questions:

1. I wonder if in the seminary they warn priests about getting too close to single/attractive women?
2. Isn’t the mere appearance of impropriety an issue here?

1. Of course.
2. There’s a fine line between an “appearance of impropriety” and scandal-mongering. Let me cite a parallel but slightly different situation: No one would question a deacon out to dinner with his wife. But a deacon is observed in a restaurant with an extremely attractive young woman a fraction of his age. They are dining alone. They are observed to be smiling warmly at each other, with the deacon occasionally toiching her shoulder. The parish gossip happens to be there, and before you know it a tidal wave of stories spread through the parish to the effect that the deacon is having an affair. The reality turns out to be that the deacon’s adult daughter, who lives in another part of the country and isn’t known to the parish, is in town and they’re out for a father-daughter dinner. Should the deacon have recognized the potential “appearance of impropriety” and not taken his daughter to dinner? What is the obligation of clergy to think through all possible interpretations of a given situation?

 

[4love2God]

Gee, JohnPaul, me thinks that you are twisting and turning your story around.
It seems that you want to make a point that a priest is married to his profession.
Yeah, and PART of that priest’s profession is spending time with his parishioners (and others).

Since your whole Post was about your niece, and that gets shot down, then you move your attack to the priest.

You partially quoted me: "In my mind, your niece could date any guy or girl in the World. She is currently un-attached. So, this question seems silly to me."

To which, you simply threw out:** “The priest is attached.”**

So, I am not sure what your point actually is.
Are you worried about your niece … or the priest?
So, which of these scenarios are YOU worried about?
(1) That your niece raring to have SEX with this priest? …or
(2) That you suspect that this priest wants to sleep with your niece? … or
(3) Something else?

Life is FULL of times that a Married person spends time with an un-married person.
Are you assuming that ALL men are potential fornicators for your niece (or, just the ones who are “attached” to another)?
And, since the Door is open on this (and, you chose to NOT answer any of my questions) … Are you a potential fornicator with your niece?
This answer would help things make more sense.

 

[seaton2005]

The facts:

• My niece was engaged to a man and he called off the engagement … she is heartbroken and in a vulnerable state now
• The priest in question assisted in marriage preparation and provided personal counseling to help them sort out their difficulties
• My niece is 28 years old and is quite attractive
• The priest and my niece had a longstanding friendship prior to her dating her ex-fiancé

The question:

My niece and the priest had dinner last Saturday night. I have no reason to believe that anything is going on between them romantically, however I would question whether the priest should be going on what is presumably a platonic date given that he was their personal counselor and knows intimate details of her life; that he is a man with a pulse (yes, priests have sex drives); and that she is a quite attractive woman in a vulnerable state.

Your thoughts?

If the priest has acted in the role of counselor to her, he should not have dinner with her as friends. Imagine a psychologist or psychiatrist having dinner with her or his patient - there are professional cannons that address this.

 

[4love2God]

seaton2005 posted :** “If the priest has acted in the role of counselor to her, he should not have dinner with her as friends. Imagine a psychologist or psychiatrist having dinner with her or his patient - there are professional canons that address this.”**

Well, seaton, you might THINK that there are Canons against having dinner with a “Patient” … but there are NONE.
In fact, many therapists (in order to make their patient feel more open) will share a meal with patients AS the scene of the counseling session.

I could go on and on. Would you like me to?

 

[Origen52]

I am a priest, and I feel compelled to reply to this thread. On its face, I see nothing objectively wrong with this priest having dinner with a friend. However, we also have to ask the question of whether or not it is prudent. Even though something may not be sinful, may in fact be completely innocent, it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is prudent. A good guideline I was given in seminary was that a priest can go to lunch, alone, with a woman, but dinner might be a different story. There’s a cultural connection, in the United States anyway, between dinner and a formal date.

That said, priests do have, and need to maintain, friendships. Two of my closest friends in the world are women who would be my peers. I think of these two women as sisters, and they think of me as a brother. And, there is nothing secretive about this. Their respective husbands know of the friendship between us and are 1) ok with it, and 2) also my friends.

People can be very quick to criticize priests, and I’m not just saying this because I am one. But, I quit posting on these forae for quite some time because of the vitriol, and I don’t choose that word lightly, that I read on hear directed at priests. Now, I’m not accusing the OP of said vitriol. I suspect he is simply concerned about the well-being of his niece and asked an innocent enough question. But, in all things, especially for priests ordained into the priesthood of Jesus Christ, Christ must be our model and guide. So, in a real way, we must ask ourselves, what would Jesus do?

Looking at the Gospels, it is quite evident to me that our Lord enjoyed close companionship with both males and females. Since we’re talking about a female in this case, let’s just limit ourselves to Christ’s interaction with women. Leaving aside the baloney in The Divinci Code, it is clear that Christ maintained a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. The Scriptures are explicit that he was friends with Martha and Mary. Is it so far-fetched to think that He never enjoyed a meal with Mary Magdalene, Martha, and/or Mary? I don’t think it is.

Priests need human interaction just like anyone else.

Bless you, for answering God’s call.

 

[tominrichmondva]

situations like this is why, back in the day, priests were instructed never to be alone in social situations with women. If in a car, she sits in the back and he drives, or vice versa, if in a counselling situation, never in a private room, but in a public area large enough for private conversation yet public observation, never a meal out with just a priest and a woman.

Why? because priests can’t be trusted or women can’t be trusted?

No, because the priest “is not his own” and cannot afford to give even a whiff of impropriety or scandal, whether or not it would be ‘justified.’

Does this mean a priest can’t have friends or a social life? No, but some prudent safeguards should be observed so anyone observing cannot draw an improper conclusion, so the priest’s own heart is guarded, and so the heart of the woman is protected from anything improper.

Lack of observation of these prudent rules has caused much grief in the last 40 years.

 

[JohnPaul]

But this is an open forum that anyone that comes here can read it and commet on it,

Yes, I chose to ask this question in an open forum (without mentioning names) but that does not mean that the question is ‘none of my business’.

 

[JohnPaul]

CCC 2477:
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

–of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
–of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
–of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.​

Seriously? Because I ask a question - without mentioning names - on this web site and that means I am guilty of harming the reputation of someone? Get your facts straight.

 

[JohnPaul]

Yet you post them on a public forum for everyone to see and comment on.

Yes, of course I did. But that does not mean that the question is none of my business.

 

[JohnPaul]

I am a priest, and I feel compelled to reply to this thread. On its face, I see nothing objectively wrong with this priest having dinner with a friend. However, we also have to ask the question of whether or not it is prudent. Even though something may not be sinful, may in fact be completely innocent, it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is prudent. A good guideline I was given in seminary was that a priest can go to lunch, alone, with a woman, but dinner might be a different story. There’s a cultural connection, in the United States anyway, between dinner and a formal date.

That said, priests do have, and need to maintain, friendships. Two of my closest friends in the world are women who would be my peers. I think of these two women as sisters, and they think of me as a brother. And, there is nothing secretive about this. Their respective husbands know of the friendship between us and are 1) ok with it, and 2) also my friends.

People can be very quick to criticize priests, and I’m not just saying this because I am one. But, I quit posting on these forae for quite some time because of the vitriol, and I don’t choose that word lightly, that I read on hear directed at priests. Now, I’m not accusing the OP of said vitriol. I suspect he is simply concerned about the well-being of his niece and asked an innocent enough question. But, in all things, especially for priests ordained into the priesthood of Jesus Christ, Christ must be our model and guide. So, in a real way, we must ask ourselves, what would Jesus do?

Looking at the Gospels, it is quite evident to me that our Lord enjoyed close companionship with both males and females. Since we’re talking about a female in this case, let’s just limit ourselves to Christ’s interaction with women. Leaving aside the baloney in The Divinci Code, it is clear that Christ maintained a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. The Scriptures are explicit that he was friends with Martha and Mary. Is it so far-fetched to think that He never enjoyed a meal with Mary Magdalene, Martha, and/or Mary? I don’t think it is.

Priests need human interaction just like anyone else.

Great response and thank you for your service.

Jesus was of course incapable of sexual sin … so as you suggested, perhaps priests who are human need to be more careful how close they get to a woman

 

[JohnPaul]

seaton2005 posted :** “If the priest has acted in the role of counselor to her, he should not have dinner with her as friends. Imagine a psychologist or psychiatrist having dinner with her or his patient - there are professional canons that address this.”**

Well, seaton, you might THINK that there are Canons against having dinner with a “Patient” … but there are NONE.
In fact, many therapists (in order to make their patient feel more open) will share a meal with patients AS the scene of the counseling session.

I could go on and on. Would you like me to?

Counselors aren’t supposed to be ‘friends’ with their patients … not sure what canon you need other than common sense to know that.

therapyabuse.org/index.htm

 

[Gorgias]

4love2God:

seaton2005:

"If the priest has acted in the role of counselor to her, he should not have dinner with her as friends.

Well, seaton, you might THINK that there are Canons against having dinner with a “Patient” … but there are NONE.
In fact, many therapists (in order to make their patient feel more open) will share a meal with patients AS the scene of the counseling session.

Counselors aren’t supposed to be ‘friends’ with their patients

I just thought I’d point out that ya’ll are making assumptions about what the others are saying, as well as not really addressing the same point…

Seaton2005 makes the assumption that they went to dinner as friends. The OP mentions that they are friends, but didn’t say anything about the nature of the dinner (although, clearly, he fears that it had a sexual component).

4love2God speaks of a shared meal as part of a counseling session.

John Paul, finally, goes back to the notion of friendship over against the counselor/counseled relationship.

You guys are talking right past one another…

 

[seaton2005]

I am a priest, and I feel compelled to reply to this thread. On its face, I see nothing objectively wrong with this priest having dinner with a friend. However, we also have to ask the question of whether or not it is prudent. Even though something may not be sinful, may in fact be completely innocent, it doesn’t necessarily imply that it is prudent. A good guideline I was given in seminary was that a priest can go to lunch, alone, with a woman, but dinner might be a different story. There’s a cultural connection, in the United States anyway, between dinner and a formal date.

That said, priests do have, and need to maintain, friendships. Two of my closest friends in the world are women who would be my peers. I think of these two women as sisters, and they think of me as a brother. And, there is nothing secretive about this. Their respective husbands know of the friendship between us and are 1) ok with it, and 2) also my friends.

People can be very quick to criticize priests, and I’m not just saying this because I am one. But, I quit posting on these forae for quite some time because of the vitriol, and I don’t choose that word lightly, that I read on hear directed at priests. Now, I’m not accusing the OP of said vitriol. I suspect he is simply concerned about the well-being of his niece and asked an innocent enough question. But, in all things, especially for priests ordained into the priesthood of Jesus Christ, Christ must be our model and guide. So, in a real way, we must ask ourselves, what would Jesus do?

Looking at the Gospels, it is quite evident to me that our Lord enjoyed close companionship with both males and females. Since we’re talking about a female in this case, let’s just limit ourselves to Christ’s interaction with women. Leaving aside the baloney in The Divinci Code, it is clear that Christ maintained a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. The Scriptures are explicit that he was friends with Martha and Mary. Is it so far-fetched to think that He never enjoyed a meal with Mary Magdalene, Martha, and/or Mary? I don’t think it is.

Priests need human interaction just like anyone else.

Hello, this goes a bit further than just mere companionship. She saw the priest previously and the priest acted in the role of a counselor. Strictly speaking, the priest in question did not use good judgment in going to dinner with this person after he had counseled her. I would be interested to know if seminary training addresses this. I am most sure he could have went to dinner with some other acquaintance for companionship. By the way, you are correct, every human being does need positive companionship.

 

[McCartney]

There was a case in a parish I used to attend where a priest was counselling a divorcee and ended up marrying her.

 

[Gorgias]

Hello, this goes a bit further than just mere companionship. She saw the priest previously and the priest acted in the role of a counselor.

It does? And Christ didn’t counsel Martha and Mary?

Strictly speaking, the priest in question did not use good judgment in going to dinner with this person after he had counseled her.

Strictly speaking, a parish priest counsels everyone in his parish – after all, he’s their confessor, isn’t he? So, then… you’re saying that a parish priest cannot legitimately share a meal with any parishioner?

I would be interested to know if seminary training addresses this.

On one hand, parish priests are to immerse themselves in the life of the parish; on the other, they’re to prudently interact with their parishioners, maintaining appropriate boundaries.

Clearly, you’ve judged that the priest in question has crossed a boundary. It seem to me that you’ve made a certain set of assumptions that haven’t been explicitly asserted. To my mind, then, your conclusion is premature. Is it possible that the priest is having boundary issues? Perhaps. Is it possible that you’re seeing something that just isn’t there? Perhaps. My gut feel is that your take is that the priest should remained locked up in his rectory, and only trotted out when people have a sacramental emergency. (Yes, I’m prone to hyperbole. ) This seems to be a model of parish priesthood that isn’t necessarily the most healthy for either priest or parishioner.

I am most sure he could have went to dinner with some other acquaintance for companionship.

Again, I think it’s necessary to note that asserting that this was a ‘companionship’ thing is an assumption you’re making unilaterally.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Counselors aren’t supposed to be ‘friends’ with their patients … not sure what canon you need other than common sense to know that.

therapyabuse.org/index.htm

You are correct but perhaps the real question is should he of counselled her in the first place. They were friends first. Did you protest to him counselling her? In the medical world it would not have been allowed due to their friendship causing a conflict of interest.

That said as has been pointed out, priests counsel EVERYONE (confession) …does that mean no one can invite them over for dinner?