Should I trust my confessor?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nickname_Sam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nickname_Sam

Guest
I have really bad scrupulosity, as many of you know. I have a confessor that I’ve been talking to for help. But as much as I like him, I’m a little nervous. He seems very lenient about sin and I’ve heard him say things that are different from what I’ve heard here and from another priest. For example, he told me something wasn’t necessarily a mortal sin when another priest said it definitely is. I’ve been praying for my confessor to have guidance, and I don’t want to doubt God’s Help. But do you think I should have another confessor? If so, should I just continue to listen to what he’s taught me until I get a new one?
 
If you have scrupulosity then it is important that you get a confessor that you can trust absolutely.
 
Do you have a choice? It is possibile that the doubts in your mind come from the Devil.
If your current priest is not your confessor, I would either make an appointment to see the priest who told you the act is a mortal sin, and/or the Pastor of your Church and discuss the matter with him. If necessary, you could get the priest to put the Seal of The Confessional on your conversation.
Until you can make such an appointment, I suggest that you pray the Rosary, offering it up to resolve your quandry and to east the pain of your scrupulosity.
 
First, I think you should discuss this with your current confessor. For example, the first priest may have been saying something is a mortal sin *objectively, *and your confessor that in context, the act was not *subjectively *a mortal sin, that some factors mitigated the individual’s guilt.

And the first priest might have been wrong, too.

It used to be said that a priest should be a lion [regarding sin] in the pulpit but a lamb in the confessional. He is in the confessional to be merciful, to absolve your sins, no? And he wants you to be strengthened by this. So talk to him about this.
 
Nickname_Sam said:
But should I trust my old one until I get a new one?
Click to expand...
Yes.

If he is giving you bad advice, that will be up to him to account for. But if you obey your confessor (except for advice which is very obviously contrary to Church teaching) in good faith, you will be doing the right thing.

Please keep in mind that a scrupulous person may be inclined to distrust the advice of their confessor, any confessor, regardless of how good the advice is, so be careful. The advice that a priest may give a scrupolous person may indeed look different to the advice a priest may give in general, so don’t be too quick to test out your confessor’s advice vis-a-vis other priests. So be careful to discern whether you need a new confessor, or whether you need to stop second guessing this one.
 
This second priest, did he know of your scrupulosity? The sin, was it one that you have a history with, a habit of doing, a habit so strong that may mitigate your ability to consent that your regular confessor knows about?

I’m all for finding a good, strict, and orthodox confessor but as you are scrupulous do NOT go priest-hopping. Before going to a new priest make sure he will be available and maybe you should discuss it with your current confessor before swapping for good.
 
I was once told brilliantly by a priest, when in doubt consider it a mortal sin.
 
underacloud said:
Is this meant to be a joke? 🤷
Click to expand...
I rather doubt it, as I was taught that very same thing by a Jesuit over 65 years ago, when I was a boy in Parochial School! It is old fashioned traditional Catholic teaching that was very common pre V II.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
I rather doubt it, as I was taught that very same thing by a Jesuit over 65 years ago, when I was a boy in Parochial School! It is old fashioned traditional Catholic teaching that was very common pre V II.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK, thanks for clarifying. I’m very post-VII so it seemed a bit foreign to me.

I don’t mind the opinion that when in doubt it’s best to confess (unless one has scruples and has a regular confessor who guides them). But I don’t think it’s a correct interpretation of the requirement for mortal sin, which essentially requires that one does not have any doubt (ie needing full knowledge and deliberate consent).
 
Some people on this forum think I have scruples, and maybe I do, but I have been learning to listen to my conscience. My conscience is strict with me, but I feel great joy believing that some day I will be rewarded in Heaven. Whenever somebody says that I suffer with scruples, I reply that this or that is my own personal preference, even though it may not be a sin. I live very modestly, like a hermit, and a lot of people tell me that I’m being scrupulous, and I reply, it’s my own sacrifice.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Some people on this forum think I have scruples, and maybe I do, but I have been learning to listen to my conscience. My conscience is strict with me, but I feel great joy believing that some day I will be rewarded in Heaven. Whenever somebody says that I suffer with scruples, I reply that this or that is my own personal preference, even though it may not be a sin. I live very modestly, like a hermit, and a lot of people tell me that I’m being scrupulous, and I reply, it’s my own sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Nobody was telling you that you were scrupulous because you lived or wanted to live modestly. It was because you were saying or implying that living the “hermit” like existence you mention is required or recommended by God and his Church which it is not.
You are free to live that way and should not be condemned by anyone for that just as nobody should be condemned for not living like that and not wanting to live like that.
 
The age old approach is that a penitent with a difficulty with scruples have a “regular confessor” and to follow his direction (obey in one word one can use here).

That one with a difficulty with scruples follow the direction unless it is *manifest *sin.

So if he says – it ok to for you to --murder his secretary or to use contraception or to rob a bank and share the proceeds with him – then one would not listen to such (and one would need a new one!)

And there can be the question not of the objective nature of a sin --but of a persons subjective culpability --which a confessor might judge is reduced in the persons case. (Not that the person can then “go ahead” in their case --but if culpability is reduced that is important aspect.)

(It is also important for one with such struggles to have a confessor who one basically trusts and not to jump around to different ones …for some they may need to settle for one that they have difficulty trusting --for that would be the case for them with any Priest due to their scruples…)
 
Nickname_Sam said:
I have really bad scrupulosity, as many of you know. I have a confessor that I’ve been talking to for help. But as much as I like him, I’m a little nervous. He seems very lenient about sin and I’ve heard him say things that are different from what I’ve heard here and from another priest. For example, he told me something wasn’t necessarily a mortal sin when another priest said it definitely is. I’ve been praying for my confessor to have guidance, and I don’t want to doubt God’s Help. But do you think I should have another confessor? If so, should I just continue to listen to what he’s taught me until I get a new one?
Click to expand...
You don’t have to answer this, but consider it. My question is: did you confess the same sin twice to both priests? Or did you commit the sin again, and confess it again? If you confessed the same sin to both priests, you didn’t accept the gift of the Lord’s forgiveness the first time. If we are confess and are forgiven for our sins, we don’t need to, and shouldn’t, confess them a second time.

Does that make sense?
Christina
 
Nickname_Sam said:
But should I trust my old one until I get a new one?
Click to expand...
You will not be led astray by listening to and holding to what a confessor says to you in Confession - even if you find out at a later date and with hindsight that that confessor was wrong. The Sacrament of Reconciliations is the celebration of The Mercy of The Lord, not of infallibility of the priesthood which does not exist in the first place. When and if one finds out that something told to one by a priest in Confession was wrong, there is no call for distress - rather simply abandon what one had been told and follow what one now believes to be right. God’s Ways are indeed not our ways and sometimes He does permit something adverse (or evil) in our lives because He can bring good out of it - even if one never sights nor understands that good. The Divine Providence of The Lord is always with us and never ever abandons us no matter the circumstances.
CCC
313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

St. Catherine of Siena said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181
St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."182 Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that ‘all manner [of] thing shall be well.’"183
#311…"God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177"
Click to expand...
 
TiggerS said:
simply abandon what one had been told and follow what one now believes to be right.
Click to expand...
But I really need advice on something and I’m afraid if I trust him it’ll be wrong. And I don’t have another personal confessor. hat do you think I should do to make sure the advice is right?
 
Nickname_Sam said:
But I really need advice on something and I’m afraid if I trust him it’ll be wrong. And I don’t have another personal confessor. hat do you think I should do to make sure the advice is right?
Click to expand...
He is your regular confessor right? He has taken responsibility for you due to scruples right? You see him as one who thinks with the Church right? Who is faithful right?

It is really hard for us to advise you. We do not know him or you or the question (not that you should ask it here) …but part of the problem for many who have scruples is that they start fearing even the direction of their very sound confessors or start seeking other confessors or advice and get confused (especially if it is some contingent “judgement call thing”). Such can be part and partial to scrupulosity itself.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10876559&postcount=15

If he is saying it is ok to go and rob a bank…or it is ok to lust or ok to contracept or murder…etc. Get a new confessor
 
Bookcat said:
He is your regular confessor right? He has taken responsibility for you due to scruples right? You see him as one who thinks with the Church right? Who is faithful right?

It is really hard for us to advise you. We do not know him or you or the question (not that you should ask it here) …but part of the problem for many who have scruples is that they start fearing even the direction of their very sound confessors or start seeking other confessors or advice and get confused (especially if it is some contingent “judgement call thing”)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10876559&postcount=15

If he is saying it is ok to go and rob a bank…or it is ok to lust or ok to contracept or murder…etc. Get a new confessor
Click to expand...
There’s a big difference, I guess, in saying a sin is completely ok and saying a sin is not mortal. GHe just said it wasn’t necessarily mortal I think. So I think I’ll trust what he says. Thanks, everyone, for all the help. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top