Review for Religious

Review for Religious

1943 March

WHEN we initiated the discussion of spiritual direction, we confined our own remarks to direction by the ordinary confessor. As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law grants to religious many privileges of confessing, under certain circumstances, to other priests. Some of our readers have suggested that, before concluding the discussion on spiritual direction, we should explain the prudent use of these privileges according to the mind of the Church.

The suggestion appears very practical. Since the publication of the Code, much has been written in explanation of the meaning and extent of these privileges, but comparatively little has been said about their prudent use. For the sake of clarity, we shall first consider the confessors of Sisters, then apply our remarks, with the needed qualifications, to the confessors of religious men.

The Ordinary Confessor

The concept of the ordinary confessor of Sisters, according to the mind of the Church, is a basic one to this entire subject. He is not to be a mere confessor. This expression might sound shocking, if taken out of its context. Penance is a Sacrament; and as a Sacrament it is productive of graces which in themselves are more fruitful for the human soul than is spiritual counsel. And the greatest work that a priest does in the confessional is to give absolution. There should be no mistake about that point; the sacramental value of absolution should never be placed below spiritual advice, and the first purpose of every penitent should be to perfect his disposition for the fruitful reception of the Sacrament.

But religious are not ordinary penitents. They belong to the spiritual elite of the Church. They are supposed to strive after perfection; and they are entitled to the means conducive to perfection. One of these means is the opportunity of having expert spiritual guidance. True, to some extent this guidance is embodied in their rule, for the rule contains the plan of a perfect life. Also, guidance is frequently available through their superiors. Despite these helps, however, all will experience, at least at times, the need of counsel that only a priest can give.

It is the mind of the Church that in each community of Sisters, this priestly counsel should be given normally by the ordinary confessor. In making this legislation, the Church intends to provide the Sisters with direction that is capable, consistent, and uniform. It should be capable, because of their special position in the Church; it should be consistent, because this is generally needed for progress; and it should be at least relatively uniform because of their uniform manner of life, and because in their communities they live in very close contact, and great differences of direction could make for disagreeable situations.

Such is the ideal. It is not always realized in practice. Ecclesiastical superiors have no special charism that prevents them from making mistakes in their appointments; and at times they must appoint ordinary confessors who they realize do not measure up perfectly to the canonical standards. Like the rest of us, they cannot give what they do not have. In these situations the Sisters must be both fair-minded and patient. If possible, they can avail themselves of the other privileges given by canon law; when this is impossible, they have every reason to trust in God.

Extraordinary and Retreat Confessors

The Church also prescribes that Sisters have an extraordinary confessor, and a practically universal custom provides yet another confessor at the time of retreat. It may be well to consider just what use the Sisters are expected to make of these opportunities.

Regarding the extraordinary confessor, it is not expected that everyone will wish his advice, nor should it be expected that he will volunteer direction to all. He is given to all to safeguard the opportunity of the few who may need his help. In a community in which all find the ordinary confessor satisfactory, the work of the extraordinary could well be limited to hearing the confessions and giving absolution.

The prudent use of the opportunity of consulting the retreat confessor is a subject as difficult as it is delicate. Let us begin by stating that some Sisters need this opportunity very much. They may have been in a small community all year, without an ordinary or extraordinary confessor in whom they had confidence and with relatively little opportunity of profiting by the various privileges accorded by canon law. Perhaps many problems have accumulated: perhaps, too, if they do not get help during the retreat in planning for the future, then they will never get it. Sisters belonging to this class should feel perfectly free to discuss their problems and plans with the retreat confessor; and he, on his part, should be quite willing to give all the time and help he can.

The case is different with the Sisters who have a good ordinary confessor during the year. All other things being equal, his guidance should be sought in preference to that of the retreat confessor. The Sisters may say, of course, that at time of retreat they make a "yearly review"; but does this review necessarily bring up new problems? Or again, they may say that during retreat they must plan for the future, and that in this planning they will need some guidance. This is true, but it can be overdone. They might discuss the general notion of this plan with their ordinary confessor before they leave for retreat. Unless the retreat is marked by very special inspirations, one can usually predict ahead of time along what line one is going to need a renovation of spirit. Furthermore, when the plan is made, if one wishes approbation for it, is it not better to get the approbation from the priest who knows one and is to guide one in the keeping of it rather than from a priest one may never see again?

Special Confessor or Director

The foregoing are the confessional opportunities regularly provided for all. Many will find them sufficient for their needs and ideals. Yet, there will always be a few who will need the habitual help of another priest, and many who will rightly desire the opportunity of occasionally going to another. The Church has provided for both kinds of exceptions to the general rule; and we can consider now the right use of these exceptional privileges.

Roughly speaking, those Sisters who wish the habitual help of another confessor may be divided into two classes that can be exemplified as follows. Sister A does not wish to go to the ordinary confessor at all; she wants a substitute confessor for herself. Sister B is willing to confess to the ordinary confessor at the customary times; but she also wishes to go to confession periodically (say every week or every month) to another priest. To the ordinary. Sister B merely makes her confession; with the second priest, she discusses her spiritual life more in detail. In other words, Sister B wants an extra confessor, who is to serve mainly as her spiritual adviser. Cases like these, though exceptions to the general rule, are not to be branded as "singularities." Considering the wide differences of human temperament and human needs, it is not surprising that even an excellent ordinary confessor will not satisfy everybody. The Code (in canon 520 § 2) takes cognizance of these diversities, by instructing the local Ordinary to be gracious in granting the request of such Sisters when they ask for a special confessor or director.

In making this wise provision, the Church is not catering to the mere whim or caprice of the Sisters. The latter are to have a serious supernatural reason for making their request. In general, these reasons may be summed up as follows: the Sister finds it extraordinarily difficult to manifest her conscience sincerely to the ordinary confessor, or she honestly judges that it would be to the greater good of her soul to have another confessor or director. The law presumes that the Sisters give the ordinary confessor a fair trial before requesting another confessor or director.

The canon law does not authorize the Sister to appoint her own special confessor or director. The appointment should come from the local Ordinary, upon her request. The request itself might take one of these two forms. The Sister might merely ask for the special confessor or director and leave the choice to the local Ordinary; or she might have a definite priest in mind and ask for him. In the second case she is not free from personal responsibility in making the choice. Naturally, the Ordinary would not approve the choice if he knew the man to be incapable of fulfilling the office, but on the other hand, he is not always able to discern the hidden motives that might lie behind such a request. The Sister herself must judge that the choice is really for her spiritual good.

Extra-confessional Director

What of the Sister who makes her confession to the ordinary confessor, but who wishes periodically to discuss the affairs of her soul with another priest, outside the confessional? Note that this case is different from that of Sister B, previously outlined. Sister B wanted direction in confession; in the case we are now considering the direction is entirely separated from the confessional.

A few eminent canonists think that, since the director in this case is not to serve as confessor to the Sister, the case need not, strictly speaking, be referred to the local Ordinary.

We do not share this opinion. We think that, since this second priest is really to serve as the Sister's spiritual director, he should be appointed by the Ordinary. However, even those who, in a speculative way, hold the more lenient view on this one point, admit that the case involves serious difficulties and demands special safeguards.

It is a generally recognized ascetical rule that the confessional is the proper place for the spiritual guidance of women. This rule is not absolute. It admits of exceptions; and no doubt there are cases in which a Sister can receive more apt guidance outside the confessional. But these exceptions are rare, and the dangers involved should be recognized. If the Church demands certain qualities of  virtue, prudence, and maturity of the ordinary confessor, with much greater reason would she demand them of an extra confessional director. If there is danger of wasting time in the confessional, there is much greater danger of doing so outside. If an inordinate personal attachment might arise even from the confessional, there is much more danger of this when the safeguards of the confessional are abolished.

We wish to be correctly understood in this matter. It is wrong to be constantly suspecting people; and much harm has come to many earnest souls through rash suspicions and rumors. But it is foolish, and may be quite wrong, for Sisters to cherish the notion that, simply because they wish to discuss their spiritual life, these meetings never involve danger. In this matter, a bit of self-suspicion at the beginning can save a great deal of selfreproach at the end. Whatever may be said theoretically about the need of the local Ordinary's permission for this extra-confessional director, it is certain that no Sister could adopt the practice of meeting her self- hosen, extra-confessional director with- out at least the permission of her own superior. The superior should weigh this question very carefully. In practice, she could seldom give a confident judgment without consulting the local Ordinary, especially when the parties are young and the visits frequent.

Occasional Confessors

The number of Sisters who desire a special confessor or director is comparatively small; the number of those who might want the opportunity of occasionally consulting another priest besides the ordinary confessor is rather large. To guarantee the latter as much liberty of conscience as possible, the canon law provides for supplementary and occasional confessors. The supplementary confessors are appointed by the local Ordinary, assigned to definite houses or groups of houses, and given the special jurisdiction required for hearing the confessions of religious women. The religious are free to summon any one of these or the extraordinary confessor. Not much need be said concerning the prudent use of this privilege. Since the confessors are designated by the Bishop himself, it may be presumed that they will be capable men. The principal danger of abuse would come from the Sister herself, were she to call for them needlessly, or at a needlessly inopportune time, or perhaps from an unreasonably long distance.

In a large city, the privilege of the supplementary confessors may have much practical value; but in general most Sisters will find the very wide concession of canon 522 more useful.

Canon 522 allows Sisters to take advantage of the opportunity of confessing to any priest approved in the diocese for the confessions of women. The priest need not have the special approbation necessary for the confessors of Sisters. The canon does not give permission to leave the house or to set aside the order of the house or the prescriptions of rule; but it does allow the Sisters to take advantage of any legitimate opportunity of confessing when they are outside the house, as well as to a priest who happens to be visiting the convent, or even of calling a priest to the convent. In all cases, the confession must be made in, a place which conforms with the legislation of the Church for hearing the confessions of women.

One phrase in canon 522 calls for particular attention here. This privilege is accorded to the Sister for her "peace of conscience." This phrase has been discussed and re-discussed by canonists. Authorities now commonly agree that any confession seriously made satisfies this demand, in so far as the law is concerned.

But the spirit behind the law must be kept in mind when we are considering the prudent use of this privilege. Evidently, in framing this law, the Church did not wish to do away with all the prescriptions and counsels that she had laid down for the proper direction of Sisters. Certainly she does not wish by this one canon to set aside the maxims of sound Catholic asceticism; and most certainly she does not wish to justify a departure from the more basic and necessary principles of moral theology.

From both the canonical and ascetical points of view it is a mistake for a Sister to go to another confessor for advice or to confess things that naturally call for advice, if her ordinary confessor would prove equally satisfactory. The difficulty proposed or the matter confessed may be the very thing that the ordinary confessor should know in order to give her progressive and helpful direction. Of course, there are occasions when the ordinary is not available. If, on these occasions, the Sister consults another confessor, she will be acting according to a sound ascetical practice if she refers the matter later to her ordinary confessor.

The mistakes made in the use of this privilege can violate not merely ascetical principles, but also certain basic principles of moral theology. Perhaps we can illustrate by an example. Any priest knows that young people who are growing addicted to certain bad habits are prone to "shop around"—as the saying goes—for an "easy" confessor. In doing this they make two serious mistakes. They go from one confessor to another with the result that none of these transitory confessors can give them real help; and, when at last they settle on the "easy" one, they choose him precisely because he does not have the qualities that a helpful confessor should have.

Writing in the Cormmentarium Pro Religiosis for June-July, 1926, Father van Acken pointed out that some religious who experience difficulties with regard to the religious life in general or in regard to one of the vows in particular, are apt to make this same childish mistake. They need sympathetic direction, it is true, but also expert and firm direction. Because they fear this, they avail themselves of the privilege of canon 522 to "shop around" for a confessor who will ask no questions or make no firm demands of them. This is the gravest of all the abuses that can result from the imprudent use of the privilege. Needless to say, the Church never intended this favor to be a source of the loss of vocation and even a grave danger to the soul. Religious in extreme difficulties of this kind, more than any others, need the help of a man who knows the demands of the religious life. If they cannot get it, then God's grace must be sufficient for them; but if they deliberately avoid it they expose their souls to extreme peril.

Application to Religious Men

Provisions for confessors of religious men follow the same general lines as the legislation for Sisters. In lay institutes of men there must be one ordinary and one extraordinary confessor for each house; and the local Ordinary is to grant a special confessor to the individual religious who asks for one. The Code is silent about extraordinary and special confessors for professed members of clerical institutes; but it seems to be the common practice to provide these. All religious men may confess to their priest superiors who have confessional jurisdiction; and all have the privilege of confessing to any priest having the faculties of the diocese, even though not specially approved for religious.

The prudent use of these privileges is governed by the same general principles we have explained in treating of the privileges of Sisters. By way of brief and practical summary, we may say that these principles are aptly indicated by two words: competence and consistency, In regard to the principle of competence, religious must bear in mind that the Church, in allowing them to confess to all priests with diocesan faculties, does not thereby approve all these priests for the direction of religious. This applies not only to diocesan priests but also to members of one's own institute. Some lack the experience, or the right attitude, or some other quality needed for sure guidance in certain delicate problems.

To be more concrete in a matter of such great importance, let us say quite candidly that there are some problems that a young religious must take particular pains to face and solve honestly. Notable among these may be mentioned a strongly rebellious spirit, a fundamental inability to live and work harmoniously with one's brethren, a genuine weakness in regard to temperance or chastity. To embrace the religious state permanently and above all to go on to ordination in the face of serious doubts in such matters is wrong. The competent confessor knows this and will put the proper alternatives squarely before his penitent. Another confessor might fail to recognize the case as truly serious, or, if he does recognize it, might be too hesitant in asserting the remedy.

The grave results of what is falsely termed "kindness" in this matter are too well known to need comment. As for the principle of consistency, we have already indicated that, even in the ordinary affairs of the spiritual life, it is unwise to shift confessors or directors needlessly. In serious matters such as those mentioned above, this shifting will amount to gross imprudence, if it means that a religious goes from one confessor to another to the extent that even a competent confessor would not have the opportunity of recognizing a difficulty as habitual.

Conclusion

Although some of the statements made in this article may sound rather severe, yet we did not make them with the intention of minimizing the privileges granted by the Church. Rather, our one desire was to make these privileges more useful by showing how they fit into the entire scheme of canonical legislation and approved asceticism.