The New Catholic Church? Have the Rules Really Changed?

[phil19034]

And now fast forward to last month. My parish was having its annual Easter confession. Numerous priests from around the area were invited to come and hear confessions. The priest I got was an older gentleman from a parish a few miles across the county. He had obviously been around long enough to know the rules. Because there were not enough confessionals for so many priests my confession was face to face. I told this priest that I had been told by other priests that having sex with my wife without intercourse was not a mortal sin. He said that it certainly was not a sin. He said it was a sin under “the old Catholic Church”. He said it is not a sin under the new Church. I sat there incredulous! I then said “what about sex having to be unitive and procreative?” He said “it is unitive; it can’t be procreative.” He told me that what my wife and I do in our bedroom is our business and not to worry about all this

I’m sorry, but it sounds like you live near a lot of heretical, older priests. Purposefully bringing yourself to sexual arousal without any intention of intercouse is sinful.

Sounds like a lot of priests near you need to study the Theology of the Body.

 

[jrgmercado]

Actually, I think that the OP was clear enough for me. I think the original priest had more then enough information to make a decision. Two other priest agreed with him and 1 didn’t…

 

[phil19034]

No, we don’t have to intend to procreate every time we have sex.

No, but it needs to be ordered towards procreation.

 

[po18guy]

The qualifier here is that neither Lenin nor Marx were working for themselves. A malevolent spirit incited both of them, as they are gone and their ideologies disproved.

However, the methods they used to corrode the west are still accepted - and therein lies the danger.

 

[phil19034]

Thanks for the suggestion. The nearest one is about an hour away.

Might be a good thing to go to visit one of those priests one day for confession or a sit down. Whatever they tell you, you will know it to be correct.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

Trying to give the benefit of the doubt. We assume the post is true and accurate. That is giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, but we have not heard the other side, either what was said or more importantly, what was meant and why. ,

In any event, the OP- and each of us - stand to benefit from improved catechesis.

 

[SeraficLeo]

To be fair - except for the single date of the FDA certifying the pill as safe in 1960, which was likely more the product of American Protestantism, which was generally more open to contraception, and Scientific Humanism/Liberalism than anything - all the other events you mentioned happened in the latter half of the '60s. Those organizations were obviously intended to pressure and manipulate the public into accepting bad and evil things.

By “Zeitgeist,” I mean only a general “spirit of the age” or “spirit of the times,” which may be good or bad or even neutral. Many use the term and some, no doubt, mean it in some New Age kind of way - I don’t, nor does anyone have to mean that. As a Catholic, I believe there are spiritual powers, thrones and principalities, which can be either good or evil and do have some sway in the world, so to speak; so that inclines me to accept the basic idea and reality of something akin to a Zeitgeist, whether more local or regional or even global in reach, but still there.

 

[jrgmercado]

Except all that is not what the OP is asking or even eluding to. We have a married couple, one of who has a physical disability that no longer allows them to have intercourse. So they have an alternate method to be intimate. After what appears to be a 45 min discussion with his priest, he was told that it didn’t constitute a sin…it’s not like the priest told him it was ok to go out on him it was ok to find a paramore to assist.

 

[jrgmercado]

What gives an FSSP priest more knowledge?

 

[phil19034]

What I don’t understand is how an honorable man like my pastor could tell me what he did with as much certainty as he expressed. So I am now inclined to believe a group of anonymous people over my parish pastor. That is just messed up.

In many seminaries back in the late 1960s and 1970s there was expectations that a lot of sexual morals were going to change. There was also a lot of open dissent against humanae vitae by theologians - many of them were teaching priests back then.

So a lot of priests (not all of them) at select seminaries received dissent formation. So a number of older priests received bad formation.

Also, it is not uncommon for some priests of that era to refer consider the post Vatican II Church as a different Church because a lot of them remember some of the rigidness that they experienced in the Seminaries. I think that’s why a lot of the priests who entered the seminary in the 1950s and 1960s don’t like the Latin Mass - they mistakenly associate the mass with some of the ridgedness that was part of their formation.

Hope this helps a little

 

[phil19034]

Between a priest fresh out of seminary and or one 10 years out, I’d pick the veteran.

Ha, I would pick the one fresh out of seminary! The seminaries are far better today than they were even 10 years ago.

Also, today, you don’t really have as many men joining the seminary to “hide” anymore.

 

[jrgmercado]

I prefer my former army chaplain with 21 years experience.

 

[edwest211]

You’ll have to back that up. I was there, at Mass, before Vatican II. There was a great sense of the sacred the moment I walked into Church, a great reverence because this was the House of God. Our thoughts were about God and Jesus Christ who was present in the Eucharist.

Rigidness is an invention. A false association. On Easter, the priest traveled under a canopy with two altar boys who swung incense censers. We had brought potted lilies with us and joined the procession. It was all about God.

 

[phil19034]

Why would a FSSP priest have a “better” understanding of a issue then a diocesan priest?

A FSSP priest would not have a “better” understanding than a diocesan priest. That’s not the issue.

The issue is that the OP has spoken to 4 different priests, and based on what the OP has told us, 3 out of the 4 priests SEEM to have dissent views regarding the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. It SEEMS like the OP lives in an area with a number of dissent priests.

The FSSP has very little tolerance for dissents and no tolerance for dissent priests. Therefore, the chances are pretty good that whatever the FSSP Priest (or Deacon) tells him is going to be in line with Church teaching.

NOTE: I’ve said “SEEMS” because I’m basing this totally on what the OP has stated and I’m assuming that the OP is 100% correct. So in my view, receiving one more opinion from an FSSP priest would give the OP peace and mind.

God bless

 

[jrgmercado]

Only 1 of the 4 priest had a different opinin of the sinfulness of the act…

 

[phil19034]

You’ll have to back that up. I was there, at Mass, before Vatican II. There was a great sense of the sacred the moment I walked into Church, a great reverence because this was the House of God. Our thoughts were about God and Jesus Christ who was present in the Eucharist.

Rigidness is an invention. A false association. On Easter, the priest traveled under a canopy with two altar boys who swung incense censers. We had brought potted lilies with us and joined the procession. It was all about God.

@edwest211 - I don’t know what you are talking about? I never said there was “rigidness” in the mass.

I’m talking about supposed rigidness in the seminary. My own pastor has stated there was a change in the seminaries during Vatican II. He started in High School Seminary before Vatican II and was ordained in 1973.

NOW, my archdiocese had a very good, and orthodox archbishop, Cardinal Krol during my pastor’s time in the Seminary. So they were not taught a lot of crazy things during his time there. But he still admits that there was a change in the way things were done at the seminary after Vatican II. The formation became less “rigid” and formation directors less strict.

He told us stories about when he was a seminarian, the seminarians were NOT allowed to wear summer Cassocks in warm weather. No matter how hot it got, they had to wear the winter ones all year long. So there was apparently some “seminarian hazing” that started to disapere after Vatican II.

Unfortunately, a lot of the older priests link their experience in the Seminary back in the 1950s and 1960s to the Mass (which obviously had nothing to do with the way they were treated in the seminary).

That’s what I meant.

God bless

 

[TruthSkr]

I did not attempt to indict the Church. I told my true story exactly as it happened. The only way to fix what is wrong in the Church is to shine a light on it.

 

[edwest211]

A priest said the following on Catholic Radio: “Things went nuts in seminaries in the 1970s.” The corruption had come in, with bad to very bad effects afterward.

 

[phil19034]

Only 1 of the 4 priest had a different opinin of the sinfulness of the act…

Correct. Based on the OP’s description, 3 of them sound like they were olders and the younger priest view it as sinful.

It’s public knowledge that some seminaries were filled with dissent professors back in the 1970s, so it’s POSSIBLE that some of those priests never learned about the Theology of the Body.

Again, I’m basing my answer on what the OP has stated. What he has said, makes it SEEM like the 3 priests were 100% wrong. However, the OP might be holding something back or not telling us the whole truth.

Therefore, I’m supporting the suggestion that he speaks with the FSSP priest that’s within a hour from his home as one more final opinion, since he’s been getting conflicting information.

I’m not saying all diocesan priests are bad. I’m not saying that FSSP priests are automatically better (there are a ton of great diocesan priests out there - and the vast majority of them are awesome).

However, FSSP priests receive a lot training on morality and preach on these subjects often. So the FSSP priest should be a good place to go for one last opinion regarding the OP’s situation.

God Bless

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think it’s important to note here that we are only getting one side of the story. The priests aren’t here to present the full picture of what was said, and in the case of the ones who discussed in confession, they wouldn’t be able to speak about it anyway.

It’s entirely possible that one or more priests misunderstood something being asked, didn’t hear correctly, were addressing the “mortal sin” aspect rather than just sin in general aspect (I can see there being a genuine issue whether the sin in question in these circumstances was truly mortal), were given facts slightly different than how they’re presented here, and in the case of the visiting priest who came in to staff a large confession event, I have seen how hectic those can get.

I’m not saying the OP is deliberately lying or leaving stuff out, but there are always three sides to every story: the person telling it, the other person involved, and the truth.