Fake Confessions

[rkwright]

A lot of people are bashing the Priests on this one, but I tend to give the Priest the benefit of the doubt. There very well could be more to this story, or the way the sin was confessed, or if absolution was given, ect ect...



[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182316' date='Feb 1 2007, 02:25 PM']
Dude, one only has to spend an hour surfing Catholic sites on the internet to see that reality of almost every priest having a different opinion. Spend an hour just looking at some of the commentary threads posted on open mic.

So tell me. Once you come accross a priest telling you one lie, are you ever going to believe anything else he says?
[/quote]

Oh please... have you ever told a lie? Should we discount everything you say??

Priests are human; they sin. Truth is truth regardless of whose speaking it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1182320' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:38 PM']
A lot of people are bashing the Priests on this one, but I tend to give the Priest the benefit of the doubt. There very well could be more to this story, or the way the sin was confessed, or if absolution was given, ect ect...
Oh please... have you ever told a lie? Should we discount everything you say??

Priests are human; they sin. Truth is truth regardless of whose speaking it.
[/quote]Exactly what I'm saying. I'm not bashing priests, I'm making the point that priests have varying opinions on lots of things.
I am asking leading questions to how that affects your understanding of what the Church is and isn't.
When is or isn't a priest acting on behalf of the Church?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1182320' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:38 PM']
A lot of people are bashing the Priests on this one, but I tend to give the Priest the benefit of the doubt. There very well could be more to this story, or the way the sin was confessed, or if absolution was given, ect ect...
Oh please... have you ever told a lie? Should we discount everything you say??

Priests are human; they sin. Truth is truth regardless of whose speaking it.
[/quote]
that's all true: and seeing as this is a situation of a fake penitent committing fake crimes in order to get a story (and as such, who knows how exactly he worded his confessions et cetera) I chose to try to direct it towards a hypothetical in principal discussion.

it doesn't say if the priest absolved him. you know, if he didn't absolve him and said "that's a matter of conscience" I wouldn't have much of a problem with what he said there. he would thusly have refused to absolve someone who had not exhibited a firm purpose of ammendment, and did not intend to recommend either fornication with a condom or fornication without a condom. one cannot recommend either of those options at all; and while morally one option piles up two mortal sins while the other includes just one; the fact that the sex is already immoral makes for no reason why the sex has to be protected as sacred-- it is no longer sacred, it is not supposed to be lifegiving. it is killing grace in the souls of both involved; and while the priest cannot recomend he use a condom, he can neither recommend that he not use a condom. as such "a matter of conscience" is not too bad an answer. if he leaves it up to his conscience fully, he won't even have sex. if he doesn't let his conscience lead him out of sex, he'll likely have a conscience formed on the basic principals of doing no harm to others but not one formed by any form of sexual morality and would thus opt to use a condom.

but if the priest chose to absolve him: the priest was absolutely wrong and all the codemnations I said would apply: hellfire and all that.

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182322' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:42 PM']
Exactly what I'm saying. I'm not bashing priests, I'm making the point that priests have varying opinions on lots of things.
I am asking leading questions to how that affects your understanding of what the Church is and isn't.
When is or isn't a priest acting on behalf of the Church?
[/quote]

And you now see why many priests not just call upon but plead with the Holy Spirit to lead him in the direction he needs to go. It is very easy to make assumptions on the part of the priest, but unless you are sitting in that confessional you can never truly understand what a priest goes through. He is a human being called to do the work of God, by acting in the Person of Christ, do you know how hard it is to allow yourself to be that instrument time and time again? This is why it is important for a priest to not just understand what the Church teaches but live, know, and know how to convey that to the people. This is why it is so important, in this day and age, for a priest to be holy, because when he starts acting from his own viewpoints, his own opinion, confusion abounds, the way it has here and for many who have read that article.

Please pray for our priests.

[cmotherofpirl]

We are only hearing one side of this story, and since we can't hear the priests' versions and we know the reporter acted in a deceitful and disgusting manner, we will known know the truth of what the reporter claims.

[Anomaly]

But what about the reality of the faithful getting different answers at different times? There is confusion and dissension and contradiction and discord. Beyond the methods of the reporter, it seems that there is little thought given to the reality of what the reporter 'may' have found.

Do you people really think the reporter didn't get different answers and opinions from various priests?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182391' date='Feb 1 2007, 05:26 PM']
But what about the reality of the faithful getting different answers at different times? There is confusion and dissension and contradiction and discord. Beyond the methods of the reporter, it seems that there is little thought given to the reality of what the reporter 'may' have found.

Do you people really think the reporter didn't get different answers and opinions from various priests?
[/quote]
I think he probably got different answers and that is unfortunate, since the teaching of Christ is clear.

I don't see how we can respond in any way to that but to pray for our priests.

[White Knight]

That is horrible news, that journalist, not only commited a grave sin upon himself, he also sould be fired for what he did. its just sad, that people would do this. I hate to judge but its truth, that journalist did commit sin, Lord have mercy on that person.

[Paddington]

It would be fascinating and OK to have a study where priests say what they think they WOULD say if it were truly during the Sacrament. People performing the study would have to be knowledgeable too so that they know which questions to ask and how to correctly understand the answers. That would be great. I wonder if anything like that has been done. Somebody could act as the penitent too.

[Aloysius]

It would also be acceptable to interview people who had actually confessed: the seal of confession applies only to the priest not to the penitent, he may choose to dispense the seal and answer a reporter's questions.

a couple random undercover sacrilidgeous confessions don't provide much of a scientific survey of what priests are actually advising penitents. they said one priest said the right thing while another priest said another thing... with those faulty statistics we could think 50% of priests were following Church teaching and 50% were not! ridiculous.

if they want the data so bad for a story, they ought to conduct anonymous polling of Catholics... at least give us accurate and analyzable data to work with here

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1182902' date='Feb 2 2007, 05:10 AM']
if they want the data so bad for a story, they ought to conduct anonymous polling of Catholics... at least give us accurate and analyzable data to work with here
[/quote]Come on Al, admit the reporter's premise is sound. You've been here long enough to hear about the various things people have heard from priests in the confessional as well as the variant views espoused by Bishops and Cardinals.

Instead of denying that the scenario even could be possible, try to discuss the reality of it existing and how that relates to the what the Church says it is or isn't.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182931' date='Feb 2 2007, 08:38 AM']
Come on Al, admit the reporter's premise is sound. You've been here long enough to hear about the various things people have heard from priests in the confessional as well as the variant views espoused by Bishops and Cardinals.

Instead of denying that the scenario even could be possible, try to discuss the reality of it existing and how that relates to the what the Church says it is or isn't.
[/quote]

Nothing is sound about a man who proudly lies about sins in order to manipulate the priest into "saying" what he wanted to hear. This is a point I'd like to make:

The reporter went into to each confessional with a fullly planned agenda. He knew which sins to talk about and I daresay he knew what he [b]wanted[/b] to hear so that story would sell.

There is nothing sound about this. Here is a man who manipulated and used priests, the Sacrament of Confession, and The Church to sell a cheap story. The priests themselves should not be the focus of anyone's attentions. This man who did such a terrible thing should get that focus. The priests were innocent victims in this.

What is needed now is for the voice of Catholics to be heard over the voice of this reporter's 15 minutes of fame.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182931' date='Feb 2 2007, 08:38 AM']
Come on Al, admit the reporter's premise is sound. You've been here long enough to hear about the various things people have heard from priests in the confessional as well as the variant views espoused by Bishops and Cardinals.

Instead of denying that the scenario even could be possible, try to discuss the reality of it existing and how that relates to the what the Church says it is or isn't.
[/quote]
clear proof you just completely refused to read any of my other posts. the last post was saying it'd be nicer to have scientifically analyzable data; this doesn't tell us diddly squat about what percentage of Catholics are being told what; only that they were able to get these results from some undercover confessions.

I already said time and time again that the premise is correct: sadly there are many priests who don't tell it like the Church teaches. I dealt with that in two ways: one I sort of responded to the specific wordings cited in the artical and said how some might not be that bad of a response and others are bad; and that priests would be culpable for sins they fool their penitents into comitting; and two I dealt with it in principal, as a hypothetical: if the priest absolved this person who showed no purpose of ammendment, that priest would be committing grave sacriledge et cetera et cetera.

never did I suggest that this doesn't happen. this artical, of course, used sacriledgeous means to verify that it does happen and got sporadic results which cannot really be analyzed except to say "some priests are attempting to lead some people astray"

[prose]

I have a personal story. I know someone who went to the Archbishop for "confession", afterwards she said she felt soooooooo good. Then she proceeded to tell me all she did was go in and thank God for everything He gave her. She thinks she was absolved. I highly doubt she was. I think that he probably nodded, thanked her for coming, and gently sent her on her way. But to a person who never goes to confession, she may have mistakenly thought that he gave her absolution.

I think the same may have been the case in this situation. Maybe the priests didn't absolve them at all. Afterall, it is pretty clearly not confession if you don't think you have sinned, and if you aren't going to change your ways.

On a separate note:

Since the Holy Spirit is present and helping the priest during confession, do you think b/c these were illicit that maybe the Holy Spirit may not have been as directly assisting the priests as to what to say?

[catholimaniac]

[quote name='prose' post='1183189' date='Feb 2 2007, 03:04 PM']

On a separate note:

Since the Holy Spirit is present and helping the priest during confession, do you think b/c these were illicit that maybe the Holy Spirit may not have been as directly assisting the priests as to what to say?
[/quote]


I've been wondering that as well. The confessional is protected by the Holy Spirit. If the penitent is insincere or fraudulent in his confession, I could see how priests might be put in a strange position trying to discern the proper thing to say. I wonder what would happen if the reporter had tried to pull this one off on Saint Padre Pio? He might of been sent out of there on his backside.

[catholimaniac]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1182316' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:25 PM']
Dude, one only has to spend an hour surfing Catholic sites on the internet to see that reality of almost every priest having a different opinion. Spend an hour just looking at some of the commentary threads posted on open mic.

So tell me. Once you come accross a priest telling you one lie, are you ever going to believe anything else he says?
[/quote]


Look, if you want to find two priests or even two Catholics who disagree with each other you don't have to go very far. The reporter could have just as well asked these hypothetical questions to priests in public or on numerous "Ask Father" question boxes around the internet. Then he could verify what was being and who was saying it with out defiling the sanctity of the Sacrament.

I have never had a priest lie to me. If I knew a priest were teaching error I would avoid that priest , but so far every priest I have met or have had the privilege of celebrating mass with have seemed like upright guys. Besides, why would a priest lie to me? Because he wanted to sell more newspapers? May God continue to guide and protect our priests.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1183070' date='Feb 2 2007, 01:06 PM']never did I suggest that this doesn't happen. this artical, of course, used sacriledgeous means to verify that it does happen and got sporadic results which cannot really be analyzed except to say "some priests are attempting to lead some people astray"[/quote]The method used by the report is not easily defendable, nor should it be. The questions raised, though, are captivating.
Does a person get absolution if they lack complete understanding of the 'right way' to confess?
Is the Holy Spirit stymied by misunderstandings?
What is clear-cut, and what isn't really?

Frankly, I'm a little taken aback with your statement "some priests are attempting to lead people astray". As cynical as I am, I wouldn't say that. If people truely are being led astray by priests, I highly doubt it is the intention of very many of those priests, if any at all.

[son_of_angels]

I know from experience, asking priests for advice in the confessional is a mistake. Ask for advice about the nature of the sin; confession is not a free spiritual direction seminar nor a therapy session.

Edited February 3, 2007 by son_of_angels

[Paddington]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1183554' date='Feb 3 2007, 02:23 AM']
I know from experience, asking priests for advice in the confessional is a mistake. Ask for advice about the nature of the sin; confession is not a free spiritual direction seminar nor a therapy session.
[/quote]

Why would it be a mistake? I've been told that confession is supposed to include spiritual direction.

[Aloysius]

you have a tremendous ability to ignore me. like I said: a priest's bad advice does not affect whether the person is forgiven. However, if the person confesses without a purpose of amendment, he does not receive sacramental absolution. If he continues to sin because the priest's bad advice made him think it wasn't wrong, he probably isn't culpable for that sin. But the priest, who should know better, likely will hold the culpability for the evil which is being committed.

The priest may not mean to "mislead", he probably thinks his advice is the correct advice. But he has been given every oppurtunity to learn what is right and what is wrong; and he is very likely culpable for his false opinions and thus not excused by his ignorance for his advice for others to do evil. Of course, all such things will be sorted out by the Just Judge Himself, and it is not my place to say for certain that this priest is culpable for the evil advice he dispenses and the evil he becomes accomplise to by misleading others. But I will say it is very likely given all the chances he has had to know what is right and to choose not to accept that it is right but rather blur the lines and lead countless souls into sin.

The scriptures do teach that those in positions of power will be judged more harshly than others. These priests will be judged harshly for their bad advice.