In Church circles we often hear about the need for priests to be willing to "accompany" their people. Taken at face value, there is nothing wrong with this idea. There is a significant problem, however, when we realize that some have taken the idea of "accompaniment" and changed it to mean something that it does not normally mean. Technically, the term "accompany" means to be present with someone; all good and well. There are some, however, who have decided to dump foreign ideas into the word that causes many to hear it and think of something other than what is correct.
"Accompaniment" has, to many people today (including some clergy, sadly) come to mean to support a person in their current state, regardless of whether it is right or not. It is almost as though the idea of calling someone to repentance has been done away with. According to this view, no longer are priests supposed to lead people to turn from their sins, rather they are supposed to be a "shoulder to lean on" and a "supportive buddy" who will just pat them on the hand and say "it'll be OK, don't worry".
I recall an incident where one priest said to another priest, "those people need someone to accompany them". The second priest stated that he was doing everything he could to "be there for them" and give them guidance whenever he could. The first priest said, "that's not accompaniment; they don't need guidance, they need someone to support them right where they are, not tell them to change". What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one who sees this as compromise? If you are about to drink poison and I tell you "it'll be OK" am I helping or hurting?
When people are hurting, it is true that they need support. They need their priest to come alongside and show them that he is "there for them". They need someone willing to listen and seek to be sympathetic to their difficulties. If, however, those difficulties came about because of their sinful choices, and they are now encountering the temporal consequences of their behavior, guidance is precisely what they need. A priest needs to "accompany" them by letting them know that he is sorry for what they are having to endure but that there are ways to avoid it in the future.
Yes, it is true that a priest should not unload a burden of corrections on those who are suffering (at least not right at the very beginning, or all at one time). Yet, if he does not come to them with guidance, he is not truly accompanying them. Rather we could say that he is abandoning them! What kind of "accompaniment" allows a person to continue in error that will lead to further problems? Imagine for a moment an organist providing accompaniment for a chant in Mass. Now try to picture that the cantor is off key and the organist does nothing to correct it; he just plays but ignores the problem. Will we have a beautiful piece of music? No. Take it one step further. Imagine that the cantor is off key and the organist chooses to ignore the notes for the chant and plays off key exactly like the cantor.
Both of the images in the previous paragraph are describing what the modern idea of "accompaniment" looks like in the pastoral setting. We would not consider either of those to be proper accompaniment. Instead, we would expect the organist to stop and speak to the cantor, "ummm, sorry, but that's not the correct key". Is he being rude or insensitive for doing so? Only a self-centered cantor would think that. A priest is not "accompanying" if he just smiles at someone in their sin and says, "it'll be OK". He accompanies by being available, speaking to them, giving counsel, and letting them know that he is willing to help them to find the path to holiness and joy in Christ. This is what the laity should expect from their priests, and this is what every priest should provide.
