US Bishop Forbids Priests To Hear Confession - Seemingly Without Exception

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IanM

Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Lubbock is in Texas, a part of the country that is strongly against stay-at-home orders.
It is likely that this level of order is necessary to make sure that people there do what they’re supposed to be doing.
The fact that a lot of people don’t want to follow the orders also would put the priests at greater risk.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know, it seems like there should be some exception for those in danger of death–it is times like these when people need the sacraments like confession and anointing more than ever. In these situations, the old manuals put the duty on the priest even at the risk of his own life (it would contribute toward his own eternal life surely). Pope Francis has described the Church as a field hospital and the moment it actually needs to be that, the priests are taken away. I guess it’s more important than ever to pray to St. Joseph to be spared an unprovided death, as those are going to be common it seems…

On a somewhat unrelated thought–I feel like each diocese should take a brave low risk priest or priests–or even a priest who had and recovered from the virus–and put them on coronavirus duty in the hospitals. We keep hearing “if it saves one life” the measures are worth it–what about saving one soul?
 
Last edited:
God is aware of our circumstances. I trust in Him that no one who would’ve otherwise been saved will be damned because they can’t confess their sins.
 
Genesis315 said:
On a somewhat unrelated thought–I feel like each diocese should take a brave low risk priest or priests–or even a priest who had and recovered from the virus–and put them on coronavirus duty in the hospitals. We keep hearing “if it saves one life” the measures are worth it–what about saving one soul?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a ‘low-risk’ priest. And at this time, we don’t know if recovery from the virus confers immunity.
 
Ok, just brave then. I’m sure there are many with the heart of the Good Shepherd, willing to lay down their lives for their flocks, but who are being forbidden. There is no greater love. Pope Francis actually specifically made such an act one that could make a soul worthy of canonization.

I know it’s easy for me to say from my self-isolation, and I’m not saying anyone should be forced to, just permitted. The dying need the consolation and grace of the sacraments more than ever. I can think of so many saints who risked their lives during similar situations. If leprosy were thought to be infectious today like in his time, St. Damien of Molokai’s ministry would be forbidden…
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Ok, just brave then. I’m sure there are many with the heart of the Good Shepherd, willing to lay down their lives for their flocks, but who are being forbidden.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about being brave. Or being forbidden from laying down their lives. It’s that when they leave the hospital, they risk passing on the virus to everyone else they meet.
 
Why not treat them like nurses, who also must either stay there or go home and otherwise stay quarantined? I’m just trying to think outside the box—from a Catholic perspective, care for the soul and care for the body should at least be of equal priority. It seems like they both should be “essential.” But it is what it is I guess…
 
The diocese likely has priests who have “waivers” for “in danger of death” last rites that would include confession, and also they probably have priests who are on hospital duty. Often these priests are not parish priests but come from some other pool of priests such as a religious order.

There is no reason for the diocese to publicly announce those types of things to the general public; the arrangements are likely already in place with the hospitals, nursing homes, hospice care and others who need to know. I am currently involved with the care of an elderly family friend who is in hospice, and although their care home is generally not letting anyone in except nurses, it was confirmed to me that there’s a waiver for priests when a Catholic person is dying. Lots of stuff going on that is not announced.
 
Last edited:
The newest proclamation by the governor deliberately and specifically overrode local orders on this matter. I do not know the date this came out, but it may not be mandated, rather a decision of what is best by that bishop. In the context of forbidding anyone to come to church property, I would think that the way it was worded, “make himself available,” would not preclude emergency visits for extreme unction, but I do not know.

FYI - the newest order would still allow local authorities to act in accord with anyone who is not adhering to the guidelines set by President Dr. Trump.
 
Last edited:
Texans are not strongly against stay at home orders. No one around here, my home town, or anywhere else in the state that I know if are advocating against the stay at home orders.
 
Thanks for the personal perspective. Up here in the Midatlantic and Northeast (which as you know has an annoying bias against all of Texas other than Austin), they have been reporting about Texas like everybody is running around protesting the order and holding gatherings in defiance of it because they want to go back to work. I think this is due to the statements made by the governor.
 
Where I am, I have seen no resistance to the measures put in place. Well, not much. We did have to close entry onto the beach, but that was kind of precautionary. People were still spread out enough. It may be why we hear in the news about defiant preachers and parties is because they are an anomaly, with most people being cautious.

DWI’s are down, by the way, though some stupid people remain stupid. Assaults are steady, especially family violence, but most other crime has dropped. (here) I have seen no resistance toward what the diocese has done.
 
Last edited:
St. Leonard of Port Maurice and other saints who dwell on “how few are saved” may be correct, but the statement made presumed that someone was on track to be saved anyway, meaning that up until this epidemic hit, they have lived generally in accordance with God’s teaching, including confessing regularly. If someone was on track to be saved, God is not going to bar them from heaven because they were unable to confess before they expired. They can certainly have a perfect contrition for their sins whether the priest is there or not.

We are not talking about people who have been going around in a state of grave sin before this, although God in his mercy is certainly capable of saving them too if they have perfect contrition. Only he knows the state of their individual souls and I am happy to leave that in his hands and simply pray for sinners to be saved.

Confession to me is something I do twice a month (Or ASAP if I commit a grave sin, which i really try to avoid because it hurts God) out of love of God (and Mother Mary as one confession is always for First Saturday). It is not something I run and do compulsively because I am afraid of going to Hell if I don’t. One needs to move beyond fear of hell and act out of love for the Lord if one is to grow spiritually beyond the “baby Catholic” stage.
 
Last edited:
St Leonard is certainly exhorting us not to be complacent about salvation; however, he is not saying that those who would have confessed their sins but were unable to will not be saved. Certainly, that is not what the Church teaches; rather, what benedictinehopeful said is right - we commend them to God’s mercy. the wording of Preface I for the dead says pretty much the same thing when it talks about how those “saddened by the certainty of dying might be consoled by the promise of immortality to come.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top