Neurotic priests scare me, says Pope
#11
I knew a neurotic and anxious priest whose actions were very harmful to the church and it was a scandal to normal regular church goers who wanted gain closeness to God in that parish.

I'm not even trying to be offensive about mental illness. I have no stigma with that. But  it was crazy. Check out my letter to. The bishop post on here
Reply
#12
From the linked article (emphasis mine):

Quote:"When a youngster is too rigid, too fundamentalist, I don't feel confident (about him). Behind it there is something he himself does not understand. Keep your eyes open!"

Okay, I will give him some credit that he's right, like RTG says, those with genuine mental illness will do more harm than good. This is probably true of every single occupation, if we want to compare apples and orange and call the priesthood an occupation. The last line of the article says
Quote:Improved selection and training of priests is a priority for the Church in the wake of the huge clerical sex abuse scandals which highlighted how easy it was for totally unsuitable candidates to be ordained.

And I again agree with this. Totally unsuitable candidates *were* ordained. It's funny and ironic though that this comment is coming from someone who is part of an entire generation of "unsuitable candidates" it seems at times.

I think what I'm wary of though is who is doing the defining of "rigid", "fundamentalist", "neurotic", and "unstable". Who is going to make parameters and criteria for those descriptors? I personally would apply each and every one of those to Pope Francis himself, so obviously application of those definitions will largely depend what side of the fence you sit on.

Reply
#13
Unsuited for active ministry, perhaps, but unsuited for ordination? Is it even possible for an ordained priest to not have a true vocation in the clerical state?
Reply
#14
Someone should research all the convicted sex abusers there were in the clergy and then tell me how many came from a traditional background? I bet not many. Was the SSPX overrun with sex abuse cases?

C.
Reply
#15
(11-21-2015, 03:54 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: If he is not attacking all trads here he was not attacking all trads in his speech at the end of the Synod or in his speech for the Italian bishops, because its basically the same thing: people cannot be comfortable with fixed forms, with laws, with doctrine. No! Doctrine generates questions, doubts even!
Now, if you're comfortable leaving doctrine unchangeable and if you're not drinking the cool aid of the “god of change”, you're sick in the head!

I'm sorry, not buying it.

Also, I wonder if you've ever been to an SSPX chapel. The SSPX generally have solid priests and what you described is a gross caricature (even Bergoglio didn't have a problem with the SSPX in Argentina, where they have massive presence, even a Seminary there). At the end of the day, its like what I said above, the chances of one finding a psycho priest among traditional Catholics (or simple Catholic priests who think doctrines don't change) is far lower than among the egocentric homosexuals, the non-liturgical liberals (btw, how egocentric must one be to simply disregard the rubrics?), etc.
At the end of the day this is the same sort of myth the secular world likes to disseminate: celibates are sick and a time bomb, those mystics loving suffering are sick, sexually frustrated people who seek comfort in religion, etc. (never mind that modernists are precisely the ones that see religion as a source of comfort, which is a 19th century Prot distortion).

It has been my observation that some of the more liberal types can be neurotic also.
Huh? Huh? Huh?
Reply
#16
(11-22-2015, 12:37 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think what I'm wary of though is who is doing the defining of "rigid", "fundamentalist", "neurotic", and "unstable". Who is going to make parameters and criteria for those descriptors? I personally would apply each and every one of those to Pope Francis himself, so obviously application of those definitions will largely depend what side of the fence you sit on.

I've heard priests properly use the term "rigid" when referring to recently-ordained, young priests who are just a little weak in their interpersonal skills.  They've read a lot about how things should be, but aren't, and think they can go in and set things straight overnight.  There are certain instances where this works, but if a priest who gives the "...and that's how things are going to be from now on" homily before the altar society has even had a chance to pick up their dirty dishes from the welcome reception, will have serious and unnecessary problems. 

I have known some priests who were a bit rigid when they were fresh out of seminary.  Some came to parish life not knowing how to distinguish very clearly between gentleness and weakness or between courage and harshness.  After a few years' time, some parish experience, and a little more growing up, they were fine.  They never compromised on orthodoxy or reverence.  They did learn, however, to better distinguish between gentleness and weakness and to distinguish between harshness and seriousness.
Reply
#17
(11-22-2015, 04:30 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(11-22-2015, 12:37 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think what I'm wary of though is who is doing the defining of "rigid", "fundamentalist", "neurotic", and "unstable". Who is going to make parameters and criteria for those descriptors? I personally would apply each and every one of those to Pope Francis himself, so obviously application of those definitions will largely depend what side of the fence you sit on.

I've heard priests properly use the term "rigid" when referring to recently-ordained, young priests who are just a little weak in their interpersonal skills.  They've read a lot about how things should be, but aren't, and think they can go in and set things straight overnight.  There are certain instances where this works, but if a priest who gives the "...and that's how things are going to be from now on" homily before the altar society has even had a chance to pick up their dirty dishes from the welcome reception, will have serious and unnecessary problems. 

I have known some priests who were a bit rigid when they were fresh out of seminary.  Some came to parish life not knowing how to distinguish very clearly between gentleness and weakness or between courage and harshness.  After a few years' time, some parish experience, and a little more growing up, they were fine.  They never compromised on orthodoxy or reverence.  They did learn, however, to better distinguish between gentleness and weakness and to distinguish between harshness and seriousness.

So did their rigidity, in your opinion, make them unsuitable for clerical life? Because that seems to be what the Pope is suggesting.
Reply
#18
(11-22-2015, 04:30 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(11-22-2015, 12:37 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think what I'm wary of though is who is doing the defining of "rigid", "fundamentalist", "neurotic", and "unstable". Who is going to make parameters and criteria for those descriptors? I personally would apply each and every one of those to Pope Francis himself, so obviously application of those definitions will largely depend what side of the fence you sit on.

I've heard priests properly use the term "rigid" when referring to recently-ordained, young priests who are just a little weak in their interpersonal skills.  They've read a lot about how things should be, but aren't, and think they can go in and set things straight overnight.  There are certain instances where this works, but if a priest who gives the "...and that's how things are going to be from now on" homily before the altar society has even had a chance to pick up their dirty dishes from the welcome reception, will have serious and unnecessary problems. 

I have known some priests who were a bit rigid when they were fresh out of seminary.  Some came to parish life not knowing how to distinguish very clearly between gentleness and weakness or between courage and harshness.  After a few years' time, some parish experience, and a little more growing up, they were fine.  They never compromised on orthodoxy or reverence.  They did learn, however, to better distinguish between gentleness and weakness and to distinguish between harshness and seriousness.

Oh man, remember when the selection was not based on liberal charicatures but on real moral traits? Now, who am I to judge, right?
Pope Francis is creating a real dark ages for the Church. I realize it when the two MPs were released. It was common knowledge that easy divorce makes people anxious about marriage (cf. Casti Connubii, also Salazar's law recognizing sacramental marriage had the effect of actually rising marriage rates), so while many will not marry out of fear of divorce (especially those sons and daughters of divorced parents) many marriages will be built on the sand of feelings. Also, as a Vaticanist reported a couple of weeks ago, Francis' revolution is rolling swiftly through his appointment of bishops. Now he is going after the priests.

As I said when the MPs were released: we better hold on to our hats, because it will take decades to just get to what things were like under BXVI (which weren't great). We will basically live for decades under leaders who are simply Italian Anglicans.


Reply
#19
(11-22-2015, 09:46 AM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(11-22-2015, 04:30 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(11-22-2015, 12:37 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think what I'm wary of though is who is doing the defining of "rigid", "fundamentalist", "neurotic", and "unstable". Who is going to make parameters and criteria for those descriptors? I personally would apply each and every one of those to Pope Francis himself, so obviously application of those definitions will largely depend what side of the fence you sit on.

I've heard priests properly use the term "rigid" when referring to recently-ordained, young priests who are just a little weak in their interpersonal skills.  They've read a lot about how things should be, but aren't, and think they can go in and set things straight overnight.  There are certain instances where this works, but if a priest who gives the "...and that's how things are going to be from now on" homily before the altar society has even had a chance to pick up their dirty dishes from the welcome reception, will have serious and unnecessary problems. 

I have known some priests who were a bit rigid when they were fresh out of seminary.  Some came to parish life not knowing how to distinguish very clearly between gentleness and weakness or between courage and harshness.  After a few years' time, some parish experience, and a little more growing up, they were fine.  They never compromised on orthodoxy or reverence.  They did learn, however, to better distinguish between gentleness and weakness and to distinguish between harshness and seriousness.

So did their rigidity, in your opinion, make them unsuitable for clerical life? Because that seems to be what the Pope is suggesting.

If "rigidity" is the only problem, then it will work itself out once the priest gets a strong enough dose of real life.  Rigidity alone should not make someone unsuitable for ordination.
Reply
#20
How would someone distinguish between rigidity and commitment?
Huh? Huh? Huh?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)