Case XLIX: A Pastor's Watchfulness over his People

Titius, a parish priest, is assiduous in giving good example to his people, in the administration of the Sacraments, in preaching the gospel; but beyond this his activity does not reach. He does not bother much about the individual members of his parish, seldom admonishes any of them privately, though he knows that some of them are living in sin and giving scandal, knows little about their homes or how they live, beyond what he hears in the confessional or picks up from casual conversations. He admits, of course, that if he did extend his activity a little more beyond the precincts of the parish church, he could accomplish more good; but he claims, at the same time, that he has no strict duty to do so. He contends that when he became a priest, he took on himself the obligation of leading a priestly life and giving good example, of administering the Sacraments and of preaching the gospel to the people, and that with the accomplishment of this all grave obligation ceases. If he were obliged to do more, he claims, the life of a priest would become an intolerable burden. He regrets, at times, that he has not a little more of the "spirit of the saints"; still the "spirit of the saints" is a spirit of heroism, and no man is obliged, "sub gravi," to practise heroism. And thus he argues himself into a feeling of security, "against the evil day." Is Titius' position really secure?

Answer.—Although Titius does his duty with regard to giving good example, administering the Sacraments and preaching the gospel, nevertheless there will continue to be in the parish a certain number of people living in grievous sin, and giving grave scandal, openly or secretly, who are not reached or influenced by Titius' ministry. There will be some in the parish who seldom or never go to Mass, or to the Sacraments; some who drink to excess; some who live in hatred or dissensions; some who are ruining their children by bad example, by neglect, by indifference; some who are being daily submerged by the temptations and difficulties which surround them.

Now, although it is true that not even heroism on the part of the priest will remove all these sins and scandals, still their number may be greatly reduced in any parish by the timely warnings and admonitions of the pastor, given to individuals in private. And it is a part of a priest's office to do this. If he neglect it, he has reason to fear the reproach of Almighty God: "If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand" (Ezech. xxxiii, 8).

If you ask, at how great sacrifice must a pastor do this, the theologians answer, that although there are cases where a priest is bound to sacrifice even his life to save a soul from extreme danger of being damned, or to prevent very grave public scandal (the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep), nevertheless the occasions are more or less rare that a priest will be obliged, at great sacrifice to himself, to administer private warnings and admonitions to individual parishioners. If he were obliged to do so constantly or frequently, it would render the office of a priest so burdensome that conscientious men would be deterred from assuming it. Thus, for instance, De Lugo: “For a superior is not bound to prevent disorders at any cost to himself; nor do they intend to bind themselves to this most burdensome obligation when they undertake offices of this kind, but to reasonable and prudent vigilance and care, which ought to be proportionate—greater for guarding against greater things, and less for things less grave” (xiv. 133).

I. The pastor is bound in duty to be vigilant and to make inquiries, otherwise many evils will escape him, or only come to his knowledge when it is too late to remedy them. “What excuse can there be for a shepherd if the wolf devours the sheep and the shepherd does not know it?” writes St. Gregory. The pastor should know what children attend Catechism, and what children do not. He ought to know who among his parishioners fail to make their Easter duty; what schools the children attend; what books and papers and magazines are to be found in their homes; where the children are employed, especially the girls; whether peace reigns in the family, or whether there be grievous quarreling or hatred and discord, intemperance and blaspheming.

But, some one may ask, ought Titius to make minute inquiries into the lives of his parishioners, in order to learn whether they are leading really moral, Christian lives?

We answer, without hesitation, No; he should not. To oblige him to do so would be to make his office an intolerable burden, to torment him with scruples, and to make him detested by his people. The great theologian, Diana, says of this too close scrutiny of the private affairs of parishioners, that it begets scandal and hatred and dissensions. People will not tolerate that their private affairs be scrutinized by others, and such scrutiny, by its very nature, is damaging to the honor and esteem we owe our neighbor, and which all people desire should be shown them (Diana, vii. tr. 4, n. 25).

Hence the theologians lay down the rule that the pastor is obliged, in conscience, to make some inquiries about his parishioners, but only in a general way; except in some very particular case, where he has ample reason to suspect that something is seriously wrong and which he believes he can remedy. In this case he is in duty bound to make a more minute but always prudent and cautious inquiry. We say prudent and cautious, because if prudence and caution are not used, then no good, but a great deal of harm, will be done.

II. The confessional should never be made use of for the purpose of getting information concerning the parish. If it be used for this purpose, then people will come to Confession, not so much to tell their sins in a spirit of true penitence, as to rehearse the gossip and scandal of the parish. And many will refrain altogether from going to Confession, lest they be cross-questioned in this manner, or be thought by others to be scandal-mongers.

III. Even outside of the confessional the pastor should be very slow to listen to any information from others, especially from his own servants or help. The only safe method for him to pursue, if he must ask others, is to ask some good, level-headed, godly man, who may have opportunities for knowing what is going on, and who will not exaggerate or falsify.

IV. But what is the pastor to do if he finds that certain sins are quite common in the parish? Should he administer private corrections and warnings to individuals? No; he should not. In such a case he should give the warnings and corrections in the Sunday school, or in his sermons from the altar. Scavini says: “It is generally impossible for all to be corrected individually when the number of offenders is excessive; in that case correction should prudently be made in catechetical instructions and public sermons” (I., 452).

V. In what cases, then, should private warnings be given to individuals? It is difficult to say, precisely, in what cases the pastor should admonish individuals privately. By way of suggestion, we would say:

(a) In case of public scandal, as when parishioners have gone to a non-Catholic minister, or civil magistrate, to be married; conducting saloon business in a scandalous manner; young girls frequenting public dance halls, etc.

(ft) In case of scandal that is not public, if it be of a serious nature, as people living in concubinage, Catholic druggists selling immoral goods, dealers in immoral pictures, books, etc.

(c) Where parents are very delinquent with regard to their children, not sending them to Catechism, exposing them to grave dangers without necessity.

(d) Where a person has neglected his Easter duty, through carelessness or indifference.

(?) In cases of hatred or discord among members of a family.

(f) In case of grave detraction, or other sin, committed in the presence of the pastor.

In general, the rule may be laid down, that a pastor is bound to correct in private whenever all other means fail of result, and there is reason to believe that a warning or correction, administered in private, will do good.

VI. As regards the manner of admonishing and warning people, in private, of their sins, the following suggestions are gleaned from the best theologians:

(a) The pastor's own life ought to be without blame, and he ought to endeavor to make himself loved and esteemed by his people.

(b) He ought to pray fervently to God that his warnings may be heeded.

(c) He ought to base his admonitions on natural as well as supernatural grounds, especially when expostulating with persons who have little or no fear of God.

(d) He ought to choose an opportune moment for reproving. Reproofs should not be given in the presence of others, unless it be necessary, nor in such a way that friends or neighbors may suspect it.

(e) The pastor must make it evident to the guilty party that he is acting solely for the temporal and eternal good of the sinner. He must speak earnestly but kindly, not vilifying the parishioner, but rather praising his good qualities, and expressing the confidence that he will not disappoint one's hopes in his regard.

(f) Lastly, it may be better in some cases to work through others than to interfere personally. A judicious Catholic layman or woman, of good standing in the parish, may do more good in particular cases than a priest.

With these remarks in mind, and they are gathered from the best sources, from St. Alphonsus, Cardinal De Lugo, Diana, Berardi, etc., the conclusion naturally follows that the position Titius has taken, regarding his duty toward his parishioners, is not fully justified by the teachings of sound theology. It is a great deal what Titius does, but it is not the whole law. To keep a prudent, cautious vigilance over individual parishioners, and to reprove in private, is not to practise heroism. To require of a pastor a constant and minute surveillance over the lives of his parishioners were indeed, as De Lugo admits, to render the office of the priest an intolerable burden, and to deter conscientious men from entering the priesthood; but to require of a pastor a reasonable and prudent watchfulness over the morals of his people is neither contrary to the teachings of sound theology nor opposed to the dictates of sound sense.