Fake Confessions

[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.