Strange situation last month

Kunkka

So a small bit of background about myself before explaining what happened when I went to confession last month for the first time in years.

I was raised a Catholic but lost interest like a lot of people in my my teens. I became an extreme drinker over the years and became a huge critic of the church stating how bull**** it all was etc. Fast forward a few years and I came to the realization I was an alcoholic. I got in to a recovery programme and in October I'll be 3 years without a drink. A big part of my recovery was due to becoming interested in religion again and I would attend mass every few weeks as it really does help put my mind at ease. My faith has been a huge crutch in keeping me sober. I'm of the opinion(and this is only my opinion) that no religion in the world has it completely right about god but I do believe there is something, as I've had too many strange & greats things happening to me to say otherwise. I think that a majority of religions are an important part of society & I would never speak out against any of them. I don't shove my beliefs down other people's throats and I don't think ANYONE should do it to other people, that to me is wrong. However I do agree with most Christian values about living and generally agree with the ones I feel are right. The values I don't abide to do not make me feel guilty when I don't adhere to them.

Anyway, the reason for this post was because something happened last month that really annoyed me & I wanted to share it with other people to see if you think it was right. I was at my grandfather's anniversary mass and there was also confession on that morning in the church. My gran asked if I'd go to confession and I said sure as I felt obliged when she asked with the day that was in it. I hadn't gone to confession since I first got sober. I went in and spilled the usual stuff about being selfish and mentioned how I was selfish when it came to my girlfriend at times. He then asked if I was having inter marital relations. I wasn't going to lie so I said yes. He then proceeded to ridicule me in the box and said he was refusing to give me a full confession. He said to come back when I wasn't living a life of sin.... This happened in one of the busiest churches in the South side of Dublin.

Ok I know the church is obviously against sexual relations before marriage but I was still shocked by the priest's reaction. I had briefly explained that I had slowly been getting back in to religion as well so I felt this was very harsh considering how many people the church has already been losing with all the scandal going on. I'm sorry but after this it just confirmed to me how out of touch the church is with people. To be perfectly honest I think the church has lost the right to talk about what is right & what is wrong when it comes to sexual relations. It hasn't changed my beliefs about god in the slightest but it could have and that priest knew that which is completely irresponsible by someone in his position. So do you feel this is the right way the church should be approaching stuff like this? Do some of you feel that it's lost touch with modern times?

Manach

First in regard the OP's occasion of the confession, the Priest could have handled it much better and perhaps could have engaged with the OP on the Church's teaching on these matters with more tact and sensitivity.
On the teaching itself, by the very nature of the institution it is slow to change its outlook on worldly matters. Perhaps this is a good attribute to have. The current mores of today are flexible and subject to change but so there been similar to other historical eras and then the pendulum swings to the opposite extreme (eg Victorian values after the louche Regency era). The Church tries to provide both a balancing act between those two extremes and promote a sense of morality than enhances sacraments such as stable marriage which better for society as a whole over the centuries.
Thus, hopefully the OP will not be discourages in the future and perhaps sound out a more tactful confessor in future.

zoomtard

This is a pretty bad situation. You didn't deserve what happened to you. I mean, that's obvious! But under the terms of Catholic practice, the priest was well outside the bounds of good pastoral care.

For what it is worth, how a priest conducts confession is governed by Canon Law. Going to confession is a duty for Catholics and therefore it is a right. Even the grandest failure of a Catholic should be welcomed into the booth and guided into an awareness of sin.

What's the point of it, if it is only for perfect people?!

From a distance, who can know what was going through his head. I am not even a Catholic, so I can't know! But I suspect that if he wasn't just being a bit of an arse, he might have been operating out of a poor reading of Canon 962, where in Section 1 we are told that the penitent must be "properly disposed" to the sacrament.

If he didn't know you, how could he assess whether your disposition was proper or not??

BUT, echoing Manach, I would urge you to have grace for the Irish Catholic church and not to give up on it. You are probably right when you say "the church has lost the right to talk about what is right & what is wrong when it comes to sexual relations." But at the core of Christianity we have the message that God loves us and extends hospitality to us even when we don't deserve it.

One of the main problems facing Christianity in Ireland is how we think of the "church" to mean just the Roman Catholic Church and how we think of that church as just the clergy. Even in your faltering, not entirely sure of everything way, you are a baptised Christian. You are the church as much as that priest is. Giving up on him is sort of like giving up on yourself. Letting the clergy get on with it is one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in with scandals in the church.

So instead of letting this block your retrieval of faith, I'd urge you to reflect on it in the light of God's grace. You might find you have more mercy for that fella in the confessional than you could have imagined.

Finally, respect on the years of sobriety!

lazybones32

To cut you off in the middle seems a bit harsh but why should he continue when he cannot absolve you from your sins at the end? It might have felt good for you but he might have viewed it as a waste of his and other people's time.

"You'll catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar" ~ St. Francis de Sales

eviltwin

Is there any facility to report a priest like this to his superior?

Kunkka

lazybones32 wrote: »

To cut you off in the middle seems a bit harsh but why should he continue when he cannot absolve you from your sins at the end? It might have felt good for you but he might have viewed it as a waste of his and other people's time.

"You'll catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar" ~ St. Francis de Sales

He clearly did look at it that way but one of the most famous bible parables "the prodigal son" clearly teaches that god wants people to be open armed to people that are coming back after being lost. As I've stated I had told him that I was slowly beginning to grow interested in religion after my recovery so I thought it was totally negligent on his part to act how he did.

It didn't affect my own faith as I have stated but my point is it could have. Can you imagine if this "priest" was talking to someone else who was recovering from some sort of addiction and because of this they eventually had a slip. That's why I'm annoyed about it. I've grown a back bone in the last 3 years so it's not how he treated me it's just his possible outlook to others. It is just wrong and the fact that he is the "leader" of quite a large congregation had me me shocked about it & hence the is the church out of touch question.

Saying that since becoming sober I have been in close contact with another priest over the last 3 years and he was the person who gave me my confession when I first gave up drink. He has been an enormous help to me so I'm not painting all Catholic priests with the same brush here. I'm due to meet him for a coffee on Saturday so I'm curious to see what he thinks about it.

lazybones32

Kunkka wrote: »

He clearly did look at it that way but one of the most famous bible parables "the prodigal son" clearly teaches that god wants people to be open armed to people that are coming back after being lost. As I've stated I had told him that I was slowly beginning to grow interested in religion after my recovery so I thought it was totally negligent on his part to act how he did.

It didn't affect my own faith as I have stated but my point is it could have. Can you imagine if this "priest" was talking to someone else who was recovering from some sort of addiction and because of this they eventually had a slip. That's why I'm annoyed about it. I've grown a back bone in the last 3 years so it's not how he treated me it's just his possible outlook to others. It is just wrong and the fact that he is the "leader" of quite a large congregation had me me shocked about it & hence the is the church out of touch question.



Saying that since becoming sober I have been in close contact with another priest over the last 3 years and he was the person who gave me my confession when I first gave up drink. He has been an enormous help to me so I'm not painting all Catholic priests with the same brush here. I'm due to meet him for a coffee on Saturday so I'm curious to see what he thinks about it.

None of us know what the priest's motivations were so we should leave it at that. Would you consider asking him why he answered you the way he did? Just for your own knowledge...

There is a fine balance between maintaining standards while helping those who are struggling or not yet strong enough - the mix of the Letter of the Law and the spirit in which the Law was given. I'm of the firm opinion that the Church shouldn't lower standards in order to attract people; no matter how unpopular we may be in Public eyes (we are not here to impress and please people). I am not a priest but a member of the Church and identify with it.

I'm not siding with the priest, I'm not siding with you, and I'm against neither of you. Not all priests are holy, spiritual men (one franciscan in particular has little love for me and the feeling is mutual but others get along fine with him) but they have their purpose, place and function too.

Kunkka

lazybones32 wrote: »

None of us know what the priest's motivations were so we should leave it at that. Would you consider asking him why he answered you the way he did? Just for your own knowledge...

There is a fine balance between maintaining standards while helping those who are struggling or not yet strong enough - the mix of the Letter of the Law and the spirit in which the Law was given. I'm of the firm opinion that the Church shouldn't lower standards in order to attract people; no matter how unpopular we may be in Public eyes (we are not here to impress and please people). I am not a priest but a member of the Church and identify with it.

I'm not siding with the priest, I'm not siding with you, and I'm against neither of you. Not all priests are holy, spiritual men (one franciscan in particular has little love for me and the feeling is mutual but others get along fine with him) but they have their purpose, place and function too.

I understand that and I know you weren't having a go at me but you were just saying where you thought the priest was coming from. That's your view & I respect that.

Where we disagree is I think the church & it's representatives should lower their standards where necessary while practicing humility. Humility is one of the most important aspects of spirituality in any religion, not always being right and being willing to listen to other people. In the last 3 years I have read so much in to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism to name but a few & they all ask people to be humble. That is my main problem with the church that they are not open to change or reform even though they themselves have altered the words of Christ to suit their own church but that's another subject entirely. What is worse is if the Church was more open to change in a very different world I'm sure it's popularity wouldn't be near as damaged as it has been in the last 20 years.

Anyway, to keep on topic I still don't think a person in a priest's position should act like that way to anyone. It is disgraceful carry on I can only imagine how he was to someone in a worse situation... I didn't query this with him afterwards because I was too annoyed and had to go off somewhere anyway with the day that was in it. I won't be wasting anymore time on him that's for sure.

Mrs OBumble

eviltwin wrote: »

Is there any facility to report a priest like this to his superior?

Yes: you are free to complain to either the parish priest of the church or the bishop of Dublin, by writing a letter to the. Don't expect to hear much back - but know that if enough letters are received, the problem will be addressed.


At the very least he OP should have received a far more compassionate response - and not have faced a fishing trip for more issues that he did not bring up himself.

OP, church-workers are like everyone else. There are arses, there are people having a bad day. There are people doing the job properly. I know it's hard, but try not to let the fact that you met one of the first two stop you living the best spiritual life you can.

Personally I would never go to confession to a priest who I did not know, and whose reputation I had not checked out beforehand. Some are know for being particularly hard on people.

ABC101

Well done on getting over your alcohol problem.... 3 years sober is some achievement... not many people get that far.... well done that man!!

In relation to you not getting "pardoned"... well confession basically involves two actions by the penitent.

1) Admitting your sins.
2) Promising not to repeat those sins in the future.

The fact that you were in a unmarried sexual relationship before confession... which is a sin (in the eyes of the RC Church)... and are going to continue in that relationship after confession means the second point above is not being kept.

Saying "sorry" to God or anybody else.... basically means being sorry for previous actions... and undertaking a promise not to repeat those actions in the future. That basically is what being sorry is about... a recognition of past wrongs and a commitment not to repeat those wrongs in the future etc

That probably is why the priest did not give you absolution, because it is not a true or full hearted confession.

As for suggestions to report the priest... I would not bother taking it that far.

Perhaps the priest could have explained it better to you on the day, maybe he was tired, cranky etc etc...

You could get married to your girlfriend, then go to confession and everything would be grand.

As for getting upset with the priest... you should not take it too personally, there are good Gardai, bad Gardai, good teachers, bad teachers, good religious, bad religious people... etc etc... but you can still believe in the rule of law, importance of education and believe in God / spiritual matters etc.

PS... if you want to know more about "Harsh" confessions... have a read of Padre Pio.... he was famous for kicking people out of the confession box, and even out of the church building. He had a special ability to know if a person was being sincere or not.

I remember reading one incident where he came down the church and told an atheist to get out... never having met the man before either.

mezuzaj

I think the church has lost the right to talk about what is right & what is wrong when it comes to sexual relations

It goes back well before the Church. What were you expecting the Priest to say?

The Church teaches that sexual intercourse has a purpose; and that outside marriage it is contrary to its purpose. According to the catechism, "conjugal love ... aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul"[5] since the marriage bond is to be a sign of the love between God and humanity.

Too many times you see men who go out to score on a weekend, or will just pay of sex.

I commend the priest for saying things as it is. If you are a Catholic and what to live as a Catholic then that is the teaching. If you want to live your own version of Catholicism and decide yourself what you think is right and wrong then so be it,many choose their subjective view of things.

newmug

Kunkka wrote: »

So a small bit of background about myself before explaining what happened when I went to confession last month for the first time in years.

I was raised a Catholic but lost interest like a lot of people......... I'm sorry but after this it just confirmed to me how out of touch the church is with people. To be perfectly honest I think the church has lost the right to talk about what is right & what is wrong when it comes to sexual relations. It hasn't changed my beliefs about god in the slightest but it could have and that priest knew that which is completely irresponsible by someone in his position. So do you feel this is the right way the church should be approaching stuff like this? Do some of you feel that it's lost touch with modern times?

Firstly, that priest was way out of order saying that to you.


Secondly, the bolded bit - THAT PRIEST is out of touch, not the Church, not me or you, WE ARE the Church.


And thirdly, eventhough he could have been a bit more diplomatic about it, basically the priest is right! If you had went in seeking absolution for extra marital sex, that would be different. But you cant go in and ask for forgiveness for X, while blatantly ignoring Y.

hinault

Kunkka wrote: »

Anyway, the reason for this post was because something happened last month that really annoyed me & I wanted to share it with other people to see if you think it was right. I was at my grandfather's anniversary mass and there was also confession on that morning in the church. My gran asked if I'd go to confession and I said sure as I felt obliged when she asked with the day that was in it. I hadn't gone to confession since I first got sober. I went in and spilled the usual stuff about being selfish and mentioned how I was selfish when it came to my girlfriend at times. He then asked if I was having inter marital relations. I wasn't going to lie so I said yes. He then proceeded to ridicule me in the box and said he was refusing to give me a full confession. He said to come back when I wasn't living a life of sin.... This happened in one of the busiest churches in the South side of Dublin.

Ok I know the church is obviously against sexual relations before marriage but I was still shocked by the priest's reaction. I had briefly explained that I had slowly been getting back in to religion as well so I felt this was very harsh considering how many people the church has already been losing with all the scandal going on. I'm sorry but after this it just confirmed to me how out of touch the church is with people. To be perfectly honest I think the church has lost the right to talk about what is right & what is wrong when it comes to sexual relations. It hasn't changed my beliefs about god in the slightest but it could have and that priest knew that which is completely irresponsible by someone in his position. So do you feel this is the right way the church should be approaching stuff like this? Do some of you feel that it's lost touch with modern times?

The underlined bit seems unclear to me.
What is inter marital relations?

If you or your partner has been married to someone else, your ongoing sexual relations with your partner is a sin and the priest is well within his rights to deny absolution to you.
Living in sin, is a sin. The rules of the church is explicit in that regard.

Kunkka

hinault wrote: »

The underlined bit seems unclear to me.
What is inter marital relations?

I presumed he meant sex before marriage because I have never been married. I don't think it is the right way to phrase it either but that's what he said and I had explained I hadn't been married at all.

Anyway, I had a coffee with the priest I've been in regular contact with on Saturday and he agreed that the priest who gave me confession was completely out of order. He told me the priest that gave me confession isn't the leader of that congregation at all(my mistake), he's actually a "problem" priest they can't move on apparently so that makes sense but still isn't right at all. He's had a couple of incidents when he has been very hard to people in both what he's said and how he's acted. They shouldn't have someone like that in any position giving advice or being a spiritual guide.

The priest I know is quite liberal and he doesn't share the same views as the Catholic church on a lot of things. His primary purpose is the teaching of Christ and then the RCC. His view which I agreed with is if you're in a loving relationship with someone sexual relations isn't an issue once you see them as you're life partner which in my case I do.

I know my tone wasn't great initially as I painted the whole church with the same brush however I still think the RCC has big problems if it still has "issues" disciplining or moving priests that cause problems. We all know what happened in the past...

ABC101

As I mentioned before... there are performing and under performing employees everywhere not just the RC chruch. Trying to move on a bad teacher....???? or a Garda??? ... a lot of things have to happen before the person gets dismissed.

Technically... I would be a bit cautious in getting advice from a priest who admits he does not share the same views as his organization.

A bit like a an accountant giving you tax advice... which is contrary to what the tax law of the land states etc. You see there has to be clear guidelines and rules.... otherwise it becomes a free for all.... and nobody knows what is the official position.

lazybones32

My honest opinion: if it is spiritual advice and direction you are genuinely seeking, choose the 'problem' priest over your current pal. "The road to hell is wide and there are many that follow it but the road to heaven is narrow and there are few who find it" - somewhere in the Gospels.

Kunkka

ABC101 wrote: »

As I mentioned before... there are performing and under performing employees everywhere not just the RC chruch. Trying to move on a bad teacher....???? or a Garda??? ... a lot of things have to happen before the person gets dismissed.

Technically... I would be a bit cautious in getting advice from a priest who admits he does not share the same views as his organization.

A bit like a an accountant giving you tax advice... which is contrary to what the tax law of the land states etc. You see there has to be clear guidelines and rules.... otherwise it becomes a free for all.... and nobody knows what is the official position.

lazybones32 wrote: »

My honest opinion: if it is spiritual advice and direction you are genuinely seeking, choose the 'problem' priest over your current pal. "The road to hell is wide and there are many that follow it but the road to heaven is narrow and there are few who find it" - somewhere in the Gospels.

He's 82 years of age and been a priest for 50 years. His views are more liberal than other priests I have met which I respect and he shares the same humility that I am after. Admitting that the RCC isn't right about everything it preaches and it does need to change to conform to today's society. I think that is obvious but we could go on debating this all day and no one will change anyone's mind so we will leave it at that.

Mrs OBumble

lazybones32 wrote: »

My honest opinion: if it is spiritual advice and direction you are genuinely seeking, choose the 'problem' priest over your current pal. "The road to hell is wide and there are many that follow it but the road to heaven is narrow and there are few who find it" - somewhere in the Gospels.

And mine is just the opposite: the spiritual path is long, and you need to work with someone who understands your needs at each point in it.

What's more, the Catholic church has a history of being wrong sometimes. this is why your personal informed conscience is the bottom line, not church teaching. If your personal belief is different to the church you need to understand why - but you're not necessarily wrong.

Kunkka

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And mine is just the opposite: the spiritual path is long, and you need to work with someone who understands your needs at each point in it.

Exactly how I feel about it.

newmug

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

the spiritual path is long, and you need to work with someone who understands your needs at each point in it.

Kunkka wrote: »

Exactly how I feel about it.

While that may be true, you basically got your help at this point - your help being a kick in the behind! We all need it sometimes.


As for "issues" with moving the "problem priest", he didn't do anything illegal in this situation, he didn't do anything against his employers, at worst he was rude to a customer. While you don't deserve that either, I think the message he was giving is the important thing, not the delivery.

lazybones32

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And mine is just the opposite: the spiritual path is long, and you need to work with someone who understands your needs at each point in it.

What's more, the Catholic church has a history of being wrong sometimes. this is why your personal informed conscience is the bottom line, not church teaching. If your personal belief is different to the church you need to understand why - but you're not necessarily wrong.

The spiritual path is as long as God allows it for the individual.

Yes, there has to be mutual understanding and trust for spiritual direction to be beneficial but there has to be boundaries and it has to be based on the Gospel. Anything less is a sham.

The appeal to conscience is pretty weak in this case...this isn't a grey area.

zoomtard

newmug wrote: »

... at worst he was rude to a customer. While you don't deserve that either, I think the message he was giving is the important thing, not the delivery.

I think both Popes would have serious problems with the way you have described the relationship between two baptised Christians.

lazybones32 wrote:

Anything less is a sham.

This is what I don't get about the culture of conservative Irish Catholics. It feels as if they see Christianity as a means to get people into the "right" boxes.

Our friend Kunkka is trying to be faithful to the call of God in his life. There's no point lamenting that he isn't where you are or where I am. He is where he is and Jesus can work with that. If we can't rest easy with that, we're insisting we can do His job better than He can.

hinault

Kunkka wrote: »

I presumed he meant sex before marriage because I have never been married. I don't think it is the right way to phrase it either but that's what he said and I had explained I hadn't been married at all.

Anyway, I had a coffee with the priest I've been in regular contact with on Saturday and he agreed that the priest who gave me confession was completely out of order. He told me the priest that gave me confession isn't the leader of that congregation at all(my mistake), he's actually a "problem" priest they can't move on apparently so that makes sense but still isn't right at all. He's had a couple of incidents when he has been very hard to people in both what he's said and how he's acted. They shouldn't have someone like that in any position giving advice or being a spiritual guide.

The priest I know is quite liberal and he doesn't share the same views as the Catholic church on a lot of things. His primary purpose is the teaching of Christ and then the RCC. His view which I agreed with is if you're in a loving relationship with someone sexual relations isn't an issue once you see them as you're life partner which in my case I do.

I know my tone wasn't great initially as I painted the whole church with the same brush however I still think the RCC has big problems if it still has "issues" disciplining or moving priests that cause problems. We all know what happened in the past...

A Catholic priest who doesn't share, according to you, the views of the Catholic church. :rolleyes:

A protestant.

Mrs OBumble

hinault wrote: »

A Catholic priest who doesn't share, according to you, the views of the Catholic church. :rolleyes:

A protestant.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

lazybones32

zoomtard wrote: »

This is what I don't get about the culture of conservative Irish Catholics. It feels as if they see Christianity as a means to get people into the "right" boxes.

Our friend Kunkka is trying to be faithful to the call of God in his life. There's no point lamenting that he isn't where you are or where I am. He is where he is and Jesus can work with that. If we can't rest easy with that, we're insisting we can do His job better than He can.

The user Kunkka went to confession because his gran asked him to and he obliged to please her, not to make genuine use of the sacrament to be reconciled with God.

I understand the OP is developing his relationship with God and an interest in spiritual matters and it is not that I wish to arrest this but there are different means more suited to where he is. There is a treasury available for people in this position but I cannot advise the misuse of Sacraments as the correct way to proceed. Also, not every teacher/guide will lead a person to Christ; if warning against such makes it look like I "can do [Jesus] job better than he can", so be it.

hinault

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You say that like it's a bad thing?

It is a bad thing. Especially bad for a Catholic seeking the Sacrament of Confession.

zoomtard

lazybones32 wrote: »

... if warning against such makes it look like I "can do [Jesus] job better than he can", so be it.

This deserves to be saved for posterity.

And just for the record, the paralytic demonstrated no desire to encounter Jesus or receive reconciliation. His friends did the preliminary work and Jesus took care of the rest. Think of Kunnka's gran as someone taking the tiles off the roof to lower her loved one into the path of God and a lot more grace can be extended to everyone in this conversation.

newmug

zoomtard wrote: »

I think both Popes would have serious problems with the way you have described the relationship between two baptised Christians.

This is what I don't get about the culture of conservative Irish Catholics. It feels as if they see Christianity as a means to get people into the "right" boxes.

Our friend Kunkka is trying to be faithful to the call of God in his life. There's no point lamenting that he isn't where you are or where I am. He is where he is and Jesus can work with that. If we can't rest easy with that, we're insisting we can do His job better than He can.

A) Both Popes? What are you on about? That wouldn't be a thinly veiled dig there would it? And you criticising ME over my account of relations between two baptised Christians!




Why would THE Pope have a problem with what I described above? There are times in life when we get an answer we don't want to hear, this is one such time for the OP. Didn't Jesus himself get angry with the merchants using the temple for a marketplace, he kicked over their tables and took up a whip in a threatening demeanour. This is exactly the same situation, in so many ways.


The OP is indeed trying to find his spiritual path to God in life, and he has done an excellent job so far. Now he is at yet another junction. The slightly rude priest, and us, are trying to help him. Now, Jesus said "Don't commit adultery". As I'm sure each and every one of you know, its one of the commandments, equally as important as "Don't kill people". So, if the OP really wants to be cool with God, he would make a conscious effort to do as Jesus asked, and refrain from sex until he is married. Simples. And all that priest, and us proper Christians, are doing, is pointing that out. The priest could have been a bit more diplomatic about it, but if you walk into the temple and don't have any intentions of respecting it, then don't be surprised when Jesus kicks over your table.




C) The "culture of conservative Irish Catholics"????? You mean, true followers of Christ? I think you'll find that "culture" anywhere you go in the world where Christianity and Catholicism is taken seriously. Its not about putting people in the right boxes whatsoever - its about loving God. The OP is making huge strides towards getting his soul into Heaven, fair play to him, he has come on here for advice, and we are helping him. Nothing more, nothing less. If that appears to you as "putting people into boxes", well then no offence, but that's your problem. I'd be interested to hear from you why you think that. What has been done / said to give that impression?




D) The "he" underlined below was in reference to the random teacher / guide also underlined below, as well you know, so no need for subtle digs about "saving this for posterity".

lazybones32 wrote: »

There is a treasury available for people in this position but I cannot advise the misuse of Sacraments as the correct way to proceed. Also, not every teacher/guide will lead a person to Christ; if warning against such makes it look like I "can do [Jesus] job better than he can", so be it.

newmug

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And mine is just the opposite: the spiritual path is long, and you need to work with someone who understands your needs at each point in it.

You see, the problem with that approach is that you're centring your spiritual path around YOU, not GOD. In reality, the only "need" is to keep your soul out of hell. So aim for God, concentrate on living your life for Him, and everything else will fall into place. God first. Always.

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

A) Both Popes? What are you on about? That wouldn't be a thinly veiled dig there would it? And you criticising ME over my account of relations between two baptised Christians!

I'd have thought that is simply a quicker way of referring to the current pope and the pope emeritus - hardly a dig!?

OP, congratulations on your sobriety and I wish you well on your spiritual journey. Good to see that your encounter with a less than sensitive priest hasn't soured you against Christianity in general.

newmug

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd have thought that is simply a quicker way of referring to the current pope and the pope emeritus - hardly a dig!?

Why refer to Benny at all then? But if you're right, sincere apologies @ Zoomtard.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Following Church teachings is very hard to do, no one ever promised that being a good Catholic will be easy. This situation reminds me of the Bible story where a rich man approached Jesus and asked him what is he to do to follow the Lord. When Jesus told him to sell all his worldly possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, the man wavered and left.

We cannot choose which tenets of Catholicism we like and which we do not. Obedience and chastity are virtues which must be abided by, no matter how tough life gets. If this is any consolation, I am also a man who had to give up a lot in order to remain celibate until marriage.

PS We are here to pick up the cross. The fun starts in the afterlife (:

Onesimus

@ OP Kunnukka: Perhaps he could have let you down a little easier with some explanation on the conditions of confession. You have used the prodigal son as a piece to plead your case but you must remember the prodigal son was returning with full knowledge and full compunction for his sins he had commited and with a desire to never sin again he had ''left'' his sin and had intentions of never returning to it.

I went to a priest one time who said to me ''What do you plan to do about your sin?'' I replied ''I plan to make reparations and never do it again''. If I had of said ''nothing much I can do, I'll just repeat again '' he does not have to give me absolution.

If you are living with your girlfriend and having pre marital relations with her then you must say this to the priest and let him know ''I will make honest intentions never to do this again and will make plans to help me with this sin in the future''. I say it every week, and I do mean it, but sure look I'm back in the confession again the next week with the same aul sin BUT the difference is I know its bad, wrong, and that I need to really mean what I say each week and keep fighting.

Its tough, the Christian life is tough, perhaps he was a little too tough with you and instead of raising you on milk he gave you the solids too hard and too soon but he was definitely right in refusing you confession and this authority to do so has been given him from above regardless of whether or not he failed a little in the pastoral care part.

I've had tough priests too and ya know what? I thought it was great, its great to be challenged to be better than I am. It's great to be given a wake up call, but for others who are just babes in the faith, a gentle sprinkling is all thats needed and not a dunk in the deep end of things.

some priests you meet are super liberal, some super traditionalist and to be honest a little over the top. and then sometimes ya meet jusssstttt the rriiiiggghhhttt priest :-)

God bless you, feel free to PM me, I too was a big drinker and like yourself used to co habitate also and perhaps we may benefit from listening to each others story.

zoomtard

newmug wrote: »

Why refer to Benny at all then? But if you're right, sincere apologies @ Zoomtard.

I accept your apology. I won't speak in such shorthand again.

My point was simply that Benedict and Francis both are wonderfully deep in their account of Christianity as a movement that subverts neo-liberal capitalist ideologies (amongst others).

J C

Terrence Tart Roundworm wrote: »

Following Church teachings is very hard to do, no one ever promised that being a good Catholic will be easy.

Perhaps ...

Anyway, this is what Jesus promises all Christians who follow Him:-

Matthew 11:28-30King James Version (KJV)

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Terrence Tart Roundworm wrote: »

This situation reminds me of the Bible story where a rich man approached Jesus and asked him what is he to do to follow the Lord. When Jesus told him to sell all his worldly possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, the man wavered and left.

The rich young man was boasting about how 'good' he was and how he deserved Salvation based on his own merits ... and Jesus showed him that he didn't have as much merit as he thought he had.

Terrence Tart Roundworm wrote: »

PS We are here to pick up the cross. The fun starts in the afterlife (:

For the Christian in a Christian marriage ... the fun starts here and now .. and continues in the afterlife.:)

lazybones32

zoomtard wrote: »

This deserves to be saved for posterity.

Save it all you want but at least save it in full. I don't want to have to return and correct people for misquoting me.

lazybones32

newmug wrote: »

D) The "he" underlined below was in reference to the random teacher / guide also underlined below, as well you know...".

The "he" was Jesus, not the priest. I don't always capitalise.

"...Jesus can work with that. If we can't rest easy with that, we're insisting we can do His job better than He can." #22 (Zoomtard)

to which I replied with

"...not every teacher/guide will lead a person to Christ; if warning against such makes it look like I "can do [Jesus] job better than he can", so be it." #25

Meaning, if advising against a questionable teacher causes people to think "lazybones thinks he can do Jesus' job better than Jesus can", so be it. Christ knows he has no challenger in me and I won't spend too much time correcting those who may have reached a wrong conclusion about me.

Mrs OBumble

newmug wrote: »

Now, Jesus said "Don't commit adultery". As I'm sure each and every one of you know, its one of the commandments, equally as important as "Don't kill people". So, if the OP really wants to be cool with God, he would make a conscious effort to do as Jesus asked, and refrain from sex until he is married.

Let's be quite clear about something: adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

Nothing that the OP has said indicates that he is involved in adulterous relationship.

There is a world of difference between having consenting sex outside marriage when neither of you is married to anyone, and doing so when one of you is married to someone else.

lazybones32

'Fornication' is the word that should have been applied.

newmug

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Let's be quite clear about something: adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse.

Nothing that the OP has said indicates that he is involved in adulterous relationship.

There is a world of difference between having consenting sex outside marriage when neither of you is married to anyone, and doing so when one of you is married to someone else.

Wrong Missus! Adultery is the abuse of the very thing that makes you an adult - the ability to reproduce life by having sex. Unless you are a married man and woman having sex purely for the purposes of having kids, then you are committing adultery. Straight, consensual, pre-marital OR marital sex is as much a sin as consensual gay sex or consensual extra marital (affair) sex.

Mrs OBumble

newmug wrote: »

Wrong Missus! Adultery is the abuse of the very thing that makes you an adult - the ability to reproduce life by having sex.

Links please.

newmug wrote: »

Unless you are a married man and woman having sex purely for the purposes of having kids, then you are committing adultery.

So a married couple who continue to have sex after the woman has reached menopause are committing adultery? As are a couple know continue to have sex even after a medical condition that 100% makes it impossible for them to conceive?

Yeah, right.

Onesimus

Newmug, that is the way St.Augustine used to think but it was rejected by the Church and later by himself lol.

Nobody is commiting adultery because they cannot have kids Catholic teaching just requires the couple remain open to having children and to make the effort to adopt. my wife can no longer have children due to chemotherapy and we have two young boys and have done our bit for the Lord. But we are still one flesh and one body and can have sexual intercourse for as long as we're able. There is no catholic teaching that officially states otherwise. Any other stuff you give me would only be the opinions of theologians who throw around ideas like my son blows bubbles in the wind.

I invite you to read theology of the body. It will open up a whole new world of sex for ye and the churches teaching on it newmug.

recedite

Kunkka wrote: »

I do agree with most Christian values about living and generally agree with the ones I feel are right. The values I don't abide to do not make me feel guilty when I don't adhere to them.

This is the problem OP, the priest obviously picked up on this and is sick of this attitude from people.
The basic principles of the doctrine of confession and the forgiveness of sins is that you acknowledge the sin and you repent. Then you get forgiven.

Onesimus wrote: »

You have used the prodigal son as a piece to plead your case but you must remember the prodigal son was returning with full knowledge and full compunction for his sins he had committed and with a desire to never sin again he had ''left'' his sin and had intentions of never returning to it.

Exactly.

If you don't see anything wrong with pre marital sex, then fine, carry on. But don't expect a RC priest to condone it.

Kiwi in IE

newmug wrote: »

Wrong Missus! Adultery is the abuse of the very thing that makes you an adult - the ability to reproduce life by having sex. Unless you are a married man and woman having sex purely for the purposes of having kids, then you are committing adultery. Straight, consensual, pre-marital OR marital sex is as much a sin as consensual gay sex or consensual extra marital (affair) sex.

Wow! If this is the case I'm suprised they don't need 50 confession boxes per Catholic church open 24/7!

newmug

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Wow! If this is the case I'm suprised they don't need 50 confession boxes per Catholic church open 24/7!

Hence why Irish families used to be so big.

Kiwi in IE

newmug wrote: »

Hence why Irish families used to be so big.

Key words there are used to be yet around 80% are still Catholic? Clearly a lot of 'sinning' going on out there! Going by your previous post, the priest should be treating married members of his congregation who continue to have sex after the woman reaches menopause the same way as he treated the OP. And what of all those Catholic families with only two or three children. They are also equal 'sinners' to a person having an extra marital affair are they not? I surely hope this priest treats all fairly and gives them a going over too.

If all priests were to start treating all the 'sinners' that you described above the way the OP was treated, the 80% would be down to 10% by the next census!

Kiwi in IE

newmug wrote: »

Wrong Missus! Adultery is the abuse of the very thing that makes you an adult - the ability to reproduce life by having sex. Unless you are a married man and woman having sex purely for the purposes of having kids, then you are committing adultery. Straight, consensual, pre-marital OR marital sex is as much a sin as consensual gay sex or consensual extra marital (affair) sex.

I know a woman who is in her mid 60's and a very devout Catholic. Never had sex before marriage, never used contraception, never had an extra marital affair, goes to church every day unless ill or otherwise unable, always fills the weekly envelopes. Her kids are grown up and she is obviously post menopause, yet she and her husband still have a sexual relationship. You say above that a 'sin' is a 'sin', the same as every other 'sin'. I very much doubt that she has any intention of ceasing the sexual part of the relationship, therefore if she confessed she would be in the same boat as the OP. So really she should have just ignored the lot and had a good time, because according to the rules of Catholicism she will meet the same end as any other 'sinner' who dosn't 'repent'? What a huge amount of time she has wasted! In fact I assume that a person who has committed murder or rape but has confessed would be in a better position on the 'sinner' scale than this poor devout Catholic grandmother.