Some People Want me to Confess While Not Confessing Their Faults About Me

Meaning, not wanting to confess to me they have failed to me. Some Orthodox might know a rite beginning of Lent, in which priests ask their parishioners if they have hurt them. I missed it while I was among the Orthodox. I sometimes regret Catholics of Latin rite can't begin Lent by complaining about priests before going back to confessing to them.

My own question

What should a Catholic do if the priest that he should confess to is also in disagreement with him?
edited to : What should a Catholic do if the priest that he confesses to is also in disagreement with him?
https://www.quora.com/What-should-a-Catholic-do-if-the-priest-that-he-confesses-to-is-also-in-disagreement-with-him

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Own comment, Mar 27

Someone edited my words “the priest that he should confess to” to “the priest that he confesses to”. This is inaccurate. I am not currently confessing to one, I am considering the options for getting back to confession.

I

Robert Osowiecki

Roman Catholic from Poland

Written 23h ago

It shouldn't matter. St. John Paul II before he became a pope once had a harsh argument wit one of his subordinates. He criticised him very hard publicly, but some time later (even on the same day?) he came to him asking for confession.

Maybe JP2 felt guilty of a misjudgement against this priest and that’s why he specifically chose him to have both confession and apology at the same time — maybe not, and his intention was only proving that despite of valid criticism as a superior there are no hard feelings from his side, but what’s more important is that the matter of disagreement between them was insignificant to God’s mercy.

However: when in doubt and not in danger of death: choose another priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First off, there is no “St. John Paul II” with me, I rejected Bergoglio’s “papacy” the day I knew he had “canonised” this uncanonisable man along with the even less canonisable Roncalli.

Now, to the example he gave:

“He criticised him very hard publicly, but some time later (even on the same day?) he came to him asking for confession.”

This is so remote from the situation I am talking about.

He was dealing with an inferior in the diocese of Kraków who would not have dared try to push his bishop out of the project of remaining bishop.

I am dealing as a homeless writer with people who would presumably like me to confess as a sin the fact I claim to be a writer (which I am by the fact of writing daily, some days like yesterday excepted) or to have enough competence to write about the things I am writing about.

With people who do not want to talk to me socially, yet quasi invite me to come to their confession.

With people who would probably use the situation in confession to blackmail me to some kind of capitulation, since their other demanour does not give much hope of their being decent about my projects.

II

Alex Pismenny

Pax vobiscum

Written Mar 24

I am neither a priest nor a canon lawyer; what follows is strictly my layman’s opinion.

As a practical matter, I would go to a priest that I am comfortable confessing to. Often, people avoid the priest they know personally, e.g. their parish priest, in order not to complicate the relationship with him. Indeed, the priest would be burdened unnecessarily if he recognizes you by the voice during the confession, because he would be obligated to drive the knowledge he obtained during the confession completely out of his mind while interacting with you socially. Another reason to avoid a priest you know is because he is a poor confessor: too liberal, not probing enough. etc. Or, God forbid, he does not keep to the appropriate lifestyle. None of these obstacles would invalidate the confession, but given a choice you’d rather go elsewhere. There would be nothing wrong with making that choice.

But you are asking a different question: assuming there is no other priest you can conveniently confess to, or the priest in question is your spiritual director, so naturally you should be confessing to him. Yet you disagree on something.

If the matter of the disagreement is unrelated to the sin you need to confess, I don’t see a problem whatsoever. The confession is still valid, and you can keep your disagreements outside of the confession booth.

What if the disagreement is about the very sin you are burdened with? In other words, you have an awareness of a sin, but your confessor does not agree that the behavior is sinful at all. You are still under an obligation to confess and so you go to that priest and confess — there is simply no other option. But I would, perhaps, make a short preamble to you confession:

“Father, I am truly burdened of this act (or inaction) I am about to confess. I ask you to set aside your personal views on the matter, as I know that you don’t agree with me, and nevertheless give me proper confessional relief, and assign a proper penance according to my conception of the problem and not yours”.

The priest should be able to decide on your sin from within the frame of reference that is yours, within reason.

Lastly, we need to consider a case when what you consider a sin is a objective failure of judgement on you part (*). Then it is not a disagreement, but your error. Then the priest is to correct your error.

In short, it is not a problem for you to solve. It is a duty of the priest to (1) adapt to your disposition and (2) if that is not objectively possible, correct your scruples.

(*) For example. You are against capital punishment but your confessor accepts it. Both views are allowed in the Catholic Church, but you are not aware of it. It so happened that you sat on a jury and your vote made a capital punishment a possibility for the accused. You have a consciousness of sin, but that is not objectively a sin, because the Church does not consider capital punishment an intrinsic wrong. Now the duty of your confessor is to explain the magisterial teaching on that subject to you, and turn you away, for you have nothing to confess.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

“You are against capital punishment but your confessor accepts it.”

Fictitious example, I am for capital punishment, though divided on whether it can safely be applied in modern society. Obviously some alternatives, like psychiatric treatment for malefactors are even worse.

Death row is less bad in US due to death penalty as such, and more bad due to prolonging the wait while lawyers try to find an insanity excuse for you - which sometimes, rarely, they do find by the process actually driving you mad and them getting away with pretending you were so before the crime.

But no, I mean disagreement about things concerning my life.

Alex Pismenny

Mar 27

Yes, it was fictitious just to illustrate the point I was making. I was not implying anything about you. I also agree with you regarding the death penalty.

I an still thinking about the real example of disagreeing with the priest that you gave in the previous comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

“Indeed, the priest would be burdened unnecessarily if he recognizes you by the voice during the confession, because he would be obligated to drive the knowledge he obtained during the confession completely out of his mind while interacting with you socially.”

In my case, I would want to have him interact with me socially so much as to know my projects and aspirations for my life before I dare confess to him.

The shocking revelations would not be what he heard from me in confession, but what he could hear from me outside confession.

I have had two spiritual directors, both of whom refused to interact with me about my pastoral case outside confession and both of whom therefore also made it impossible for me to either marry or get going to a novitiate, back when a possible vocation was nagging at my conscience.

And last time I confessed, it was probably to a man trying to resurrect the vocation I regard as hopefully dead, at least as far as celibate is concerned - though I am not keen on married priesthood either, unless getting married before even deciding on a seminar. But probably not even then.

Alex Pismenny

So, to summarize my understanding, you need to discern a vocation and need a help from a priest. You would prefer it to be done in a social setting and the priest wants it done in a confessional setting.

From that alone — I don’t know much above that — it seems that the priest might have a valid point. In discussing intimate aspects of one’’s life it would be difficult to separate material that is disclosed socially form material that is disclosed in a confessional. It is quite impractical to have a conversation where you both hop in and out of confession depending where the conversation goes.

Much more productive would be to block off and hour or two, and maybe for several days, to discuss your life plans entirely under the seal of confession. It could be that nothing in that conversation is about your sins; it could be that some aspects would be telling your sins and getting (we hope) absolved of them.

It seems to me yours is the last case in my matrix, when a discussion of what is and what is not sinful is a part of the confession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“So, to summarize my understanding, you need to discern a vocation and need a help from a priest.”

NO.

I am extremely fed up with priests, monks and other Catholics and Orthodox who think I “need to discern a vocation”, and my problem is precisely that the priest I might confess to might be yet another one of them!

Since 2000, question of non-matrimonial vocation is finished for me, after I received a NO from Le Barroux.

Since 2000, the non-matrimonial vocation has been “revived” in the eyes of everyone except me (among merely humans) precisely by people who think I “need to discern a vocation”.

I need a priest who won’t provoke me to anger when I should be penitent by bringing this up, and a priest who won’t try to impose it on me.

“You would prefer it to be done in a social setting and the priest wants it done in a confessional setting.”

I want a social setting so priest cannot pretend there is any hope of me wanting to renounce marriage behind my back - even if pretense is just by non-disclosure of confession.

“In discussing intimate aspects of one’’s life”

It is NOT intimate.

Saying I want to marry and I want to make money on the writing I am anyway doing is NOT intimate.

Treating it as so is inviting people to think I won’t really bother about getting married, and inviting people to think I don’t really want someone to print what I write.

In other words, such a priest is socially committing an act of slave hunt, is a mighty hunter before the Lord, in the same sense as Nimrod, and is buying and selling souls, in the sense in which both Jews two thousand years ago and Russians a little more recently would have taken the words.

He is acting like a slave hunter.

He is preventing me from “coming out” as a layman.

He is giving me the kind of delays that a little earlier Puritan families would try to give homosexual members, while I am (at least predominantly, and that at least consciously) heterosexual.

It is 17 years since 2000, Catholic priests have abused that kind of position over and over again, and by giving me that kind of yet another delay, he would be preparing to give me an 18th year of delay.

If I went as angry as this IN confession, I would be committing sacrilege, and so inviting the priest to dominate me by excommunications.

Guess why I will NOT go to confess to him on such conditions?

I am not eager to murder either my own soul or my prospects of getting married this year, as opposed to next or overnext, when my teeth are even worse and my hair even grayer.

I came to France with no or little gray hairs and good teeth as far as front row is concerned, and now I am hoping to find a girl who kisses Japanese style, i e nose to nose rather than mouth to mouth.

Have you done doing your weird misunderstanding now?

Alex Pismenny

When I wrote about “discerning a vocation”, I meant either priesthood, or monastic life or marriage.

Are you free to marry as it is now? Are you free to write? In what way are you depending on your current spiritual director?

I only know what you tell me, so naturally I can only give general platitudes, that do not relate to your situation. Sorry if that upsets you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 28, 1 upvote

"Are you free to marry as it is now?"

Legally and canonically, yes. In practise some things would have to change before the actual wedding day, perhaps before, perhaps after an important other is giving her consent.

"Are you free to write?"

Thank God, yes.

Legally, yes. Canonically, yes. In practise - yes, as you can see.

"In what way are you depending on your current spiritual director?"

I haven't had one, since the time I came to consider the ones I had as trying to push me into monasticism and stop me from writing.

I am not depending on a father confessor to do what I do, but on the one hand he can provoke bad scenes either of anger which is sacrilegious, or of humiliation, if I keep my peace.

What I want to know before I start to confess again is whether he will refrain from abusing his position as father confessor.

That is the context in which I asked my question.

Scene A - a self printed booklet is sewn ready on even of St Patrick's Day.

I hover back and forth but finally decide the SSPX curate of St Nicolas du Chardonnet (where I last practised and where I have lay friends who are believers) should get it as a name's day present. His name is Patrick de La Rocque.

Scene B - I get into the Church, find him in the confessional, insofar as his name plate is before the confessional, try to adress him, no answer.

I put it below his name plate.

So, if he had a normal respect for my choice of profession, perhaps he would have been somewhat keen on actually reading it and sending me a mail (the booklet involves my mail as a way to communicate with me as author).

Nope.

In Paris, people who like me enough to talk to me either are outside the Catholic parishes, will discuss the matter with me and will drop it as soon as they actually read my stuff which is too Catholic for them, OR are his parishioners and will avoid the subject with me as long as he tells them.

Outside Paris, there may be Catholics who have some interest, but whose priests may be telling them that “if he is not a fake, why doesn’t he get someone in Paris to print his stuff”. And they are obeying these priests.

Alex Pismenny

Wed

I have a few disjointed thoughts. I understand that by rejecting the “bergoglians” your problem becomes near-intractable. This is my first disjointed thought: have you considered that the Church historically (in pre-bergoglian times) allowed confessions to, for example, Orthodox priests, in the event of emergency? It seems that your particular confession should be allowing sacramental confession within the “bergoglian” world. It may not be ideal solution for you, but I think you might consider your situation emergency, akin, for example, me traveling to a Russian provincial town where there are no Catholic priests for thousands of miles.

I am very happy to hear that your are free to pursue your life goals. I would like to urge you to pursue them without regard to the complicated relationship you find yourself vis-a-vis your former confessor. I don’t detect any need to confess the very decision to marry and write books; these are salutary objectives.

I understand that, sadly, your wish to discuss your aspirations with that man socially is not going to be met.

Naturally, you may experience lasting anger. There could be other sins connected to the life change that you are planning. So therefore you need to confess these: not as a broad life plan, which, I repeat, is nowhere nearly a sin, but as distinct individual instances of anger, or pride, or lust, or what have you.

I would simply confess them, as they happen, to the nearest priest I can find.

If that priest must be of that particular group, find someone with whom you have no baggage that causes additional anger during the confession itself.

Failing that, just preface the actual telling of your sins with some broad statement that you no longer wish a far-reaching discussion about life goals, but you would like to tell your discernible sins one by one. Then I would just tell them, in simple terms, without attitudinal stuff.

I remember the following scene. It was either Lent of Advent and my wife and I went to confession in a Kansas City suburb. Stepping into the church, we saw a line of about 30 people queued up in front of a single confession booth. The Mass was starting in an hour, so it was clear that half of the people queuing up, including ourselves, would not be able to confess.

And then the priest stepped out of the confessional and said, roughly, this:

“Dear people. When you come to confess, list your sins in short sentences. Just say what you did or did not do. Do not give me the circumstance, the details, the feelings you had. Thank you”

We got all done in time for Mass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

// I have a few disjointed thoughts. I understand that by rejecting the “bergoglians” your problem becomes near-intractable. //

Oh, really?

// This is my first disjointed thought: have you considered that the Church historically (in pre-bergoglian times) allowed confessions to, for example, Orthodox priests, in the event of emergency? It seems that your particular confession should be allowing sacramental confession within the “bergoglian” world. It may not be ideal solution for you, but I think you might consider your situation emergency, akin, for example, me traveling to a Russian provincial town where there are no Catholic priests for thousands of miles. //

I already tried that option, it landed me in an uncomfortable position as a Catho-Dox biritualist. My other confession if it still counts is Romanian Orthodox.

Here is by the way a dialogue with a FB friend who is an Orthodox priest:

With an Orthodox Priest on Lenin, Putin, KGB and the Orthodox I Met
on HGL's F.B. writings, 15th March 2017
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2017/03/with-orthodox-priest-on-lenin-putin-kgb.html

// I am very happy to hear that your are free to pursue your life goals. I would like to urge you to pursue them without regard to the complicated relationship you find yourself vis-a-vis your former confessor. I don’t detect any need to confess the very decision to marry and write books; these are salutary objectives. //

The now quasi curate of St Nicolas du Chardonnet is not my former confessor, but the problem is he and his successor would simply probably:

• a) not want to hear a word from me about these goals outside confession
  
  
• b) if I did not mention them in confession either, they would either not consider these as my goals, but for instance pray for me to become successfully prepared for withdrawing to a monastery, or, if considering these as my goals, consider them as illicit, condition validity of given absolution on my withdrawing from these.

As you can see from link, I had the same problem with Orthodox.

// I understand that, sadly, your wish to discuss your aspirations with that man socially is not going to be met. //

It is not just a wish, it is a precaution.

// Naturally, you may experience lasting anger. There could be other sins connected to the life change that you are planning. //

Being a writer, unlike marrying, is not a change in life.

Getting an income from writing does not depend on my planning.

// So therefore you need to confess these: not as a broad life plan, which, I repeat, is nowhere nearly a sin, but as distinct individual instances of anger, or pride, or lust, or what have you. //

That is what I was already trying to do when confessing became a chore because of these.

// I would simply confess them, as they happen, to the nearest priest I can find. //

If I fear that young priests are invalidly ordained and that old priests validly ordained are into psychoanalysis?

// If that priest must be of that particular group, find someone with whom you have no baggage that causes additional anger during the confession itself. //

I'd prefer one adhering to Pope Michael, if it could be had.

// Failing that, just preface the actual telling of your sins with some broad statement that you no longer wish a far-reaching discussion about life goals, but you would like to tell your discernible sins one by one. Then I would just tell them, in simple terms, without attitudinal stuff. //

Well, and if I have to leave to a confessor how much I sinned in being angry at this person, and he had no idea what I was up against and have to be angry about?

// I remember the following scene. It was either Lent of Advent and my wife and I went to confession in a Kansas City suburb. Stepping into the church, we saw a line of about 30 people queued up in front of a single confession booth. The Mass was starting in an hour, so it was clear that half of the people queuing up, including ourselves, would not be able to confess.

And then the priest stepped out of the confessional and said, roughly, this:

“Dear people. When you come to confess, list your sins in short sentences. Just say what you did or did not do. Do not give me the circumstance, the details, the feelings you had. Thank you”

We got all done in time for Mass. //

That could be an option. If I were to use it, it could be considered as dishonest, and especially as it is a few years since I confessed …

Alex Pismenny

Fri

The conversation you linked is depressing.

I don’t know what Pope Michael and you think about our bergoglian sacraments. If you don’t believe they confer grace, then I am back to the intractability statement.

If you do, then it is not dishonest to go where valid confession can be obtained, because it is clear that your existing michaelian environment cannot provide the sacrament meaningfully.

One can confess even complex feelings honestly and at the same time succinctly.

“Father, I feel anger toward my former spiritual director because he is pushing me toward monastic life. I am conscious that it is a sin and I am sorry. If you need details about that, just ask”.

That is what I would say. All the priest really need to know is whether you are sorry and what is it you are sorry about. He is not there to sort your dilemma out.

Of course, you list may be long, but the items need not be.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

"I don’t know what Pope Michael and you think about our bergoglian sacraments."

If priest is ordained in old rite by bishop consecrated in old rite and uses old rite while saying mass, no problem as to validity of Mass.

For confession, jurisdiction is required. He sees none accepting him as Pope is at hand, told me he preferred FSSP priests, Institute of Good Shepherd etc (ex-Lefebvrians who made up with Rome in 1988 or later) over FSSPX or Sedevacantists, nevertheless at least counselled me not to do so due to risk of priest thinking I am mad.

"If you do, then it is not dishonest to go where valid confession can be obtained, because it is clear that your existing michaelian environment cannot provide the sacrament meaningfully."

I am not in a Michaelian "environment". Pope Michael has most of his faithful in US and Canada, I am in Paris.

The priest I talked of was FSSPX, I was not per se asking because I very much wanted to confess, but because as ex-Parishioner of Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet I have friends there, their attitude to me and my projects depends on their priests and the priests instead of making a move of hearing me are "waiting for me to come to confession".

"All the priest really need to know is whether you are sorry and what is it you are sorry about. He is not there to sort your dilemma out."

My dilemma is rather that it is the priest himself who risks making me angry again, pushing me back to sins of anger again, so it is difficult to say on my part "I am sorry" when I have no idea that they are and some at least vague idea they are not.

Obviously, the attitude of waiting for my confession and commenting nothing else adds to the impression that he and they might not be sorry for their sins.

Later today

Alex Pismenny

Within the canonical limits that you find yourself in, you should be able to find a priest to whom you should confess, listing succinctly all the sins on your soul. If anger toward the confessor is among them, list that. The purpose is to seek absolution for your sins, not the confessor’s.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The question is not who is seeking absolution.

The question is whether, once I get absolution, will have a realistic chance to keep away from such sins of anger, which will not be easily the case as long as such keep targetting me.

Alex Pismenny

If you experience lasting anger again, confess it again. Unless it is fully outside of your control, in which case it is not your sin. Only you know the difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’d say it is for my enemies, not to control, but to give me satisfaction on.

And I place my former confessor in that category, as long as he is holding out against any talks on what parishioners could do to make my situation better the way I want.

Putting someone in a position where he will be provoked to anger by one’s acts, and those as a superior, is diabolical, and prohibited by St Paul, both as to parents, and as to priests.

Alex Pismenny

There is nothing for you to confess then on that topic. It is not a sin to have enemies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, thanks.

III

Ev Sek

17-year Catholic, Human, and defender of the faith!

Updated Mar 27

You can either do nothing or find another preist. They’re not hard to find, wearing black and all. Many preists’ favorite part of their job is being God’s instrument to heal souls, so just ask one if they have a minute. If you have no other choices, remember that you’re talking to a preist in persona Christi. That means that you are in fact talking directly to Jesus himself, no matter how the human sitting in front of you feels about you or your sin. He can’t say anything outside of the Confessional anyways. Take heart that you are talking directly to God. My other suggestion would be to go behind the screen if that's available. I sometimes do that so I feel more comfortable, even though I know what's happening. Hope this helps!

Edit: I removed the b that appeared in Jesus. I've never talked to Jesubs…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

The problem is how the human feels about OTHER things than what I confess as a sin.

Ev Sek

Mar 27

If you can, could you specify what you mean by “other”? I don't know if I'd be addressing your concern by answering immediately.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

Like, if I want to be married and have been so frustrated at not being so I have resorted to hatred against those blocking this, or similar for not having my writings published in a form which will give me money, obviously, I would confess (or at least probably need to confess) the harted as a sin.

For the former probably also moments of unchaste thoughts while thinking about someone I was then or that other time hoping to marry.

But what if priest is simply against the projects? As such? And not ONLY against unchaste or hateful thinking?

That is my problem.

Ev Sek

Mar 27

It is definitely tough when a preist disagrees with you, but it doesn't mean that they should refuse you the Sacraments, especially Confession, which is a big factor in our Salvation. If your preist is against your projects (which I took to mean getting married and writing a book), then that is a human to human problem, but not one that prevents him from absolving you. It’s kind of like how the Sacraments celebrated by a preist in Mortal Sin are still valid. God is the one working the miracles, not the preist. I would still suggest that you find another preist who wouldn't have any barrier between you. As I said in the answer, you don't even have to physically see him by going behind the screen anonymously. I apologize if I pried too much. I was just trying to see if this answer would fit your situation. I was unsure of what other stuff you may have been talking about besides sin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

I am not even talking about refusing sacraments, I am talking about a non-communication during confession, and a priest absolving in premisses I think are wrong and won’t be fulfilling and that might endanger validity of sacrament.

“I apologize if I pried too much.”

Really no need to!

“I was unsure of what other stuff you may have been talking about besides sin.”

It’s not about taking the other stuff up in confession, it’s about how the admonition and penance part is affected by the priest’s stance on the other matters.

Ev Sek

Mar 27

Ohhhhhhhhh. That makes so much sense now! I wasn’t even thinking about that. I still think my earlier advice still applies about another preist. I hope you find what you're looking for!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

Thank you!

IV

LL deMerle

Published writer and poet, painter at Various Small Press Journals, Newspapers, Acoustic Guitar Magazine

Written Mar 24

I'm going to assume that you aren't referring to an issue with the sacrament of Reconciliation, but a personal conflict. My opinion is that it's best to receive Reconciliation with someone one is comfortable with, if possible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27, 1 upvote

Yes, that is correct, as to your assumption.

I agree with your opinion.

For my own part I would like to settle certain things with the priest in a normal conversation which he CAN hand on to others before being confortable with confessing to him.

LL deMerle

Mar 27

That is preferable, yes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

And I have been up to some priests who have been refusing me exactly that. Not just now, but also earlier at start of my life as a new convert.

V

Maura Rudd

Recovering Catholic

Written Mar 24

If you are uncomfortable confessing to your parish priest for any reason, just go to another Catholic church for confession. You are not required to use the services of a particular church.

Depending on the nature of the disagreement with your parish priest, you may also have something to confess regarding it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

Or it could be that the disagreement is the priest’s fault?

For the moment, in Paris, I don’t have a parish priest.

I am accepting Pope Michael and we have Bergoglians (ordinary and extraordinary form), SSPX, sedes in the usual sense, but no parish accepting Pope Michael.

But I am asking because of my situation a bit before this.

If priest after priest in parish after parish thinks I am a kind of monk when in fact I am not, it is a bit hard to make the confession of a layman seeking marriage.

If priest after priest in parish after parish considers my writing on the internet as a pathological thing, it is hard to make the confession of a layman who is a writer and looking for people to republish my blogs.

VI

Gerry Parker

studied at University of Strathclyde

Written Mar 24

If you mean that he doesn’t want to talk to the priest because they’ve argued he can simply confess to another priest. Catholics can confess to any priest in any Catholic church. It’s an anonymous process anyway.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

Most priests are out, since not trads.

Those who are trads have a creepy way of not even arguing with me, but avoiding all communication OUTSIDE confession, so I cannot settle anything with them before I confess.

VI

Ellen Micheletti

I am a cradle Catholic, read extensively about it and teach RCIA.

Written Mar 27

I’m quite sure what you mean. If you go to confession and don’t think that what you did is a sin but the priest says it is, that might be a problem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27

Yes, that too, but not the only one.

VII

John Swencki

Roman Catholic priest

Written Mar 24 · Upvoted by Alex Pismenny

Hans-Georg, could you elaborate? “Disagreement”, in what sense?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mar 27, 1 upvote

Disagreement on:

• 1) whether I have a right to marry or not
  
  
• 2) whether I have a right to be a writer or not
  
  
• 3) whether my positions on Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism are orthodox, or heretical, or within the pale but should by caution not be expressed
  
  
• 4) and on who is the Pope.
  
  On the latter issue, I think I disagree with every priest in Paris, since I accept Pope Michael.
  
  He on his side said I could theoretically confess to a EOForm priest, but even so should not, since that priest would risk taking me for a madman.
  
  And obviously, one more disagreement which could also come up is:
  
  
• 5) whether I am sane and have a right to resist encroaches on my liberties by psychiatry or have a duty to submit to such tyranny.

VIII

ARq

Answer requested by Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bob Geier

Catholic for 52 years, Catholic schools, former seminarian

Written 13m ago

Hi Hans-Georg. I’m not sure that I understand the question. What is the nature of the disagreement?

There are many priests with whom I disagree about various things, from theology to politics to favorite sports teams. The same with any professional - I don’t agree with my physician on everything, or my car mechanic. I do trust that in their professional roles and areas of expertise they will do the best they can. I also understand that it’s my responsibility to consider their advice thoughtfully and then make my own decisions.

As a Catholic, I also trust that God is able to work with and through humans who are flawed, who are not perfect. My confession is ultimately to God, and forgiveness comes from God. God is not limited by the foibles and failures of priests.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I trust that God can work through humans who are flawed.

But if a father confessor is partial against all what I am trying to do with my life, I don’t trust God will suddenly make him impartial just because it is a case of confession.

It would perhaps be for a priest of the SSPX.

Now, they would also say that a French Monarchist had a right not to confess to a priest who is Republican and requires them to give up writing for monarchy. Or reading those who do.

That is one reason the FSSPX (and related groups having made peace with Rome, as FSSP and Good Shepherd or Christ King and Sovereign Priest) exist.

Now, the disagreement between me and that FSSPX priest is similar.

He seems to have got into his head:

• either that I am writing during crises of psychosis and should stop writing for my mental health
• or that my writing on young earth creationism and geocentrism is misinformed, misleading and should stop because of that.

However, the way I know it is not his directly saying the one or the other, the way I know it is he seems to avoid any conversations with me EXCEPT the confession I am not going to.

AND then judge me because I am not going to confession, and judge both my writing and my hope to get married by that fact as therefore “of the devil”.

I say “he seems to” because he is neither speaking to me (beyond “bonjour”) nor answering my emails. So, I cannot say for sure, but I can only say what it looks like to me.