 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 877 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2007 12:30 am |
|
Hello Again,
I was watching an Encore Presentation of Mother Angelica this evening and a caller called in asking a question about sin. The caller said that she felt really bad about smoking because it is damaging her body and she has tried to stop but is having a difficult time. When she went to confession and confessed this sin, the priest told her not to be that concerned about her smoking. She said that he said, "Everyone has their vices. Just as long as you are trying to stop, that is all that matters." Well, Mother Angelica, being who she is first said she didn't want to come against the clergy. But then she went on to explain how detrimental smoking is and that our bodies are a gift from God and the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is a sin to do anything that will cause great harm to or destroy our bodies. I fully agreed with Mother's advice to this woman who was struggling terribly with this sin.
What really bothers me is that I keep hearing about these situations whether it be on EWTN or somewhere else, that priests are telling their parishes or Catholic laity things that are not doctrinally correct or in line with the Magesterium. What's up with this? I expect this in Protestantism because everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit on their own and they don't claim to have one source of doctrine or one source of where to go to to find the answers, except the Bible, which they interpret differently in many cases. In fact, Prtotestants love to say, "Let's agree to disagree." But Catholics? I just don't get it. And this really bothers me. Yeah, I know I already said that. But I want to be part of a faith that is One in their understanding and promotion of doctrine. So why are there these situations of priests misinforming their flock regarding Catholic teaching? Are these priests from the Vatican II era where doctrine was not stressed and Ecumenism was? Or are they liberation theologians? Or are they fallen away Catholics that remain as priests because they have no other vocation? What happens when a priest is discovered to have been seriously misleading a parish under his charge? Is he warned and if he continues to spread wrong theology and teaching contrary to the Catholic faith, forced to resign? Or is he relieved of his duties?
I appreciate your answers on this troublesome topic.
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2007 03:25 am |
|
This is not an easy one. Like Mother Angelica, I do not want to cross swords with anyone, but I understand your dilemma, too.
I suppose one could say that the priest did have a point. It’s not clear how smoking could be a mortal sin. Venial sin, assuredly, but not mortal. Detrimental to one’s health, definitely, but so is a lot of television watching, and there are other reasons than health concerns to avoid watching much television. Yet how many people have stopped watching television because of its immoral and worldly programming, let alone the fact that it’s hard on the eyes and encourages one to lead a couch potato lifestyle?
So if the priest was looking at the situation from the point of view of moral theology, yes, he has a point. But it’s still a nasty habit, isn’t it? And there we can agree with Mother Angelica. At the very least, it’s a worthwhile project to kick the nicotine.
So why didn’t the priest take his counsel to the next level? I don’t know. I’ve always had to search out a confessor who would do this, too. It seems that, just as there are minimalist Catholics who just want to squeak in heaven’s door after a long session in purgatory so they can indulge their vices in the here and now, so there are priests who are perfectly willing to let them. If a person wants to be a better Christian than that, he will have to be careful about the priest behind the grille.
OK, now. What have we learned? First, that most priests in the confessional are not heretics. It just seems like it when we are comparing notes. But we want the best guidance — we are entitled to the best — and we get mediocre. At least our absolution does not depend on the virtue of the priest, but on our own repentance. No priest can refuse to absolve a truly repentant sinner. (There are canonically some things he cannot absolve, however. Ongoing sins in another area, like being in a sacramentally invalid marriage, will prevent him from absolving the sins you confess, say, lying. Also, certain grave sins are what is known as “reserved.” This means he has to get permission from the bishop to absolve.)
Second, even if we come to the confessional with something we think is important, it may not actually be a sin, or if it is, it will be a venial sin, and the priest’s job in the sacrament of penance has to do primarily with mortal sin, since venial sins can be forgiven and expiated outside of the sacrament of penance. (Not that we can’t use the confessional for venial sins, but that it is not strictly necessary.) Many times, the priest’s job in the confessional is a matter of instruction in what is sinful and what is not, or the difference between mortal and venial sin.
True, there are some isolated instances of a priest violating his trust in the confessional. And there are severe canonical penalties for doing so, including dismissal from the clerical state if the offense merits it. But as I said, very few priests use the confessional for spreading heresy.
By the way, since you mention it, I have known at least one priest who was infatuated with liberation theology (a heresy which mixes Marxist ideology into Christian doctrine and usually employs a form of moral theology known as “situation ethics” to promote social insurgency and justify objectively immoral behavior to topple the societal structure). I never went to him for confession because I could see by what he said and did publicly that he would not be a suitable confessor. A short time later, I was asked to provide testimony regarding his activities. Along with a number of other people, I did so. He was removed from his post within two weeks. So these things can happen, but they are not common.
David
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 622 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2007 08:24 am |
|
For me it's always especially helpful to remember that church is run by humans. Priests are men, too. Holy men, called men, but still men. Men who have bad days and who make mistakes. Remember, they need confession, too. They do have a huge responsibility to care for us. Sometimes I worry about who is taking care of them, though.
IRT the call you mentioned, we only heard one side of the story. The caller may have been coloring the comments through their own lens of experience, as we tend to do. It's hard to judge the comments of the priest without actually hearing them.
Ali
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2007 12:59 pm |
|
Darlene:
I think I know what you mean.You've seen and heard lots of ambiguous teachings in your past situations. I had some of the same worries. i.e. Didn't want to go from the frying pan into the fire.
But here's what convinced me: I began to learn what the Church really teaches. That's what you can hang your hat on. And to that the great majority of priests are loyal. I learned to ignore those few dissident voices because I know that the Magisterium is there to keep them on a leash, so to speak. That's the Authority that is missing in Protestantism.
If you have a question about doctrine, look it up in the Catechism. That's the belief of the Church. (Or ask the moderators of this forum).
Finally, you will hear those "disloyal" voices from time to time. That's the human condition - imperfection. They irritate, but are not fatal. Keep your eyes, "on the prize."
God Bless,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 9th, 2007 05:44 pm |
|
Believe it or not, I don't want to cross swords with anyone either. But for some strange reason....
Hello Again,
I was watching an Encore Presentation of Mother Angelica this evening and a caller called in asking a question about sin. The caller said that she felt really bad about smoking because it is damaging her body and she has tried to stop but is having a difficult time. When she went to confession and confessed this sin, the priest told her not to be that concerned about her smoking. She said that he said, "Everyone has their vices. Just as long as you are trying to stop, that is all that matters." Well, Mother Angelica, being who she is first said she didn't want to come against the clergy. But then she went on to explain how detrimental smoking is and that our bodies are a gift from God and the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is a sin to do anything that will cause great harm to or destroy our bodies. I fully agreed with Mother's advice to this woman who was struggling terribly with this sin.
The priest is right. Smoking itself is not a sin. But we must try to control ourselves from smoking in excess.
Mother Angelica is right. It is a sin to do anything that will do great harm to our bodies.
Smoking, like drinking, is not sinful in itself. It is something which we may indulge in within reason. A person who smokes too much is like a person who drinks too much, indulging in the sin of gluttony. Smoking itself is not sinful, smoking to extreme is sinful. And if we know that smoking even one cigarrette is detrimental to our health, then we shouldn't smoke.
The anti-smoking people have done a great job to educate people the dangers of smoking. But many people have gone to the extreme position that smoking is dangerous to everyone, everytime no matter what. I have met too many people who have been smoking since their childhood and who are living healthy, happy lives to know better.
What really bothers me is that I keep hearing about these situations whether it be on EWTN or somewhere else, that priests are telling their parishes or Catholic laity things that are not doctrinally correct or in line with the Magesterium.
This example isn't one of them. Of the two, he is more correct than Mother Angelica in this example. Since according to your statement, she characterized smoking as a sin. It is not.
What's up with this? I expect this in Protestantism because everyone is guided by the Holy Spirit on their own and they don't claim to have one source of doctrine or one source of where to go to to find the answers, except the Bible, which they interpret differently in many cases.
Personally, Mother Angelica jumped to the wrong conclusion here. She heard the persons testimony, assumed the priest was encouraging someone to smoke and made some statements hard to reconcile with Magisterial teaching.
Don't get me wrong, Mother Angelica is a great person. In my opinion, a saint. But Saints are not infallible. We must discern what they are saying. Just because Mother Angelica said something doesn't make it Gospel.
In fact, Prtotestants love to say, "Let's agree to disagree." But Catholics? I just don't get it.
The Catholic equivalent of lets agree to disagree is, "Unity in that which is necessary, Charity in that which is unneccary."
And this really bothers me.
It shouldn't. Catholic Saints have been on both sides of Theological questions since the beginning. Look at James and Paul. They explained the same things so differently they thought they were on opposite sides of the question. But they were actually saying the same things. This they finally agreed upon and Peter seems to think it was because Paul says things "hard to understand".
And you can read up on St. Augustine and St. Jerome. Whose relationship of love led St. Augustine to say, "He (St. Jerome) is a saint by nature, I am a saint by the grace of God."
Yeah, I know I already said that. But I want to be part of a faith that is One in their understanding and promotion of doctrine.
We are, but sometimes we are very hard on ourselves. Look at yourself. You just accused this poor priest of teaching against the Magisterium.
So why are there these situations of priests misinforming their flock regarding Catholic teaching?
I suppose its true. I've never had it happen to me. For the most part, I think it is the flock, who having learned a little believe they understand it all. I put my money on the priest. After all, he's the one who has dedicated himself to God and His Teachings.
Are these priests from the Vatican II era where doctrine was not stressed and Ecumenism was?
That is a false characterization of Vatican II and the Vatican II era.
Or are they liberation theologians? Or are they fallen away Catholics that remain as priests because they have no other vocation? What happens when a priest is discovered to have been seriously misleading a parish under his charge? Is he warned and if he continues to spread wrong theology and teaching contrary to the Catholic faith, forced to resign? Or is he relieved of his duties?
None of this applies in this situation. However, if you have misgivings about a priest, it is best to ask him first. Then, or if you don't want to face him, ask his bishop.
But as for me, I counsel you to have faith in your priests even if it seems they are saying something wrong (Unless you are certain of the matter, Then of course, proceed as in above.)
I appreciate your answers on this troublesome topic.
I hope this helped.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 08:36 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
