Review for Religious

Review for Religious

1943 March

FROM early Christian times it was customary for those who wished to attain to perfection to seek out a mature and experienced guide with whom they could treat of spiritual things and to whom they revealed the secrets of their souls so that he might give them wise and practical direction. Thus, many hermits in the deserts of Egypt, upon learning of the holiness of St. Anthony, moved their cells to that part of the desert where he dwelt, in order that they might have the benefit of his spiritual direction. When the first monasteries, or groups of monks living in common, were established, the Father Abbot was also the spiritual guide of his subjects, who freely made known to him their anxieties and spiritual problems. Thus, by custom, the practice of manifestation of conscience was introduced into the religious life and eventually became a matter of obligation in many institutes.

Meaning of Manifestation

To manifest one's conscience means to reveal to another person the inner state of one's soul in order to obtain advice and guidance regarding the doubts and difficulties of the spiritual life. The phrase, "inner state of one's soul," comprises not only one's faults, but also the various inclinations one experiences towards both good and evil, the trials and temptations one must undergo, the difficulties encountered in the practice of virtue, the inspirations and good desires one has received from God.

From this description it will be seen that the purpose of manifestation of conscience differs from that of Sacramental Confession. The essential purpose of confession is the forgiveness of sins; the principal aim of manifestation is spiritual direction. In other words, one gives the director a complete and clear insight into his soul, so that the director may help him to correct his faults, overcome his evil tendencies, correspond with the inspirations of grace, and practice virtue more effectively.

This difference of purpose does not mean, of course, that the account of conscience need be separated from confession. It can be made in or out of confession. When made in confession, it becomes a natural supplement to the so-called confession of devotion and supposes a regular confessor who also fills the role of spiritual director.

Usefulness of Manifestation

All spiritual writers admit the beneficial effects of the account of conscience when given freely and sincerely. It has always been recognised as one of the principal means to progress in the spiritual life, not only for religious, but for persons living in the world as well. It is the necessary prelude to enlightened spiritual guidance. In worldly matters it is normally considered a wise thing to consult others. We give our family doctor a sincere account of our bodily ailments, as well as of any symptoms which may help him to understand our physical condition better. In every-day business matters we consult our lawyer to be certain that our actions do not fall afoul of the law, as well as to protect our rights. How much more eagerly, then, should we seek counsel in the matters of highest importance, those of the soul? Moreover, the most enlightened spiritual director will be very much limited in his direction, unless his consultant gives him an intelligent insight into the state of his soul.

But all good things can be abused. And the fact that the practice of manifestation of conscience was made obligatory by rule in many lay institutes did give rise to such abuses, since all the necessary safeguards are not at hand in the case of lay superiors. Pope Leo XIII issued a decree on this subject on December 17, 1890 (Quemadmodum), in which he mentioned three such abuses: lay superiors required, directly or indirectly, avowals which by their nature belonged to the tribunal of penance; they restricted too much the freedom of going to confession; and they reserved to themselves, in the matter of receiving Holy Communion, a direction which belongs for the most part to the confessor.

To remedy these abuses, the Pope forbade all lay superiors (both Brothers and Sisters) to induce their subjects to give their intimate manifestation of conscience to them. He also ordered deleted from all constitutions, directories, and custom books of all lay orders and congregations of both sexes every direction pertaining to the intimate manifestation of heart and conscience to lay superiors. In 1901 this prohibition was extended by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to masters and mistresses of novices in lay institutes (Normae, N. 79). Finally, in 1917 the Code of Canon Law extended the prohibition to all religious superiors, even to those who are priests. Does this mean that in modern times, the Church has changed her mind in regard to the value of manifestation of conscience for religious? A careful study of canon 530 will give us the answer.

"All religious superiors are strictly forbidden to induce their subjects, in any way whatever, to make a manifestation of conscience to them (canon 530. § 1).

"Subjects, however, are not forbidden to open their minds freely and spontaneously to their superiors: nay more, it is desirable that they approach their superiors with filial confidence, and if the superiors be priests, expose to them their doubts and troubles of conscience also (canon 530. § 2)."

Explanation of the Law

All religious superiors are forbidden: The term superiors must be understood here to include those to whom the Code gives that title, that is to say, those who govern the institute, its provinces, and its individual houses, as well as those who take their places, such as visitors, vice- provincials, vice-rectors, and the priors of abbeys. To induce their subjects in any manner whatsoever: The term subjects includes not only the professed religious, but novices and postulants as well, since they are subject to the domestic power of the superior. To induce in any way whatever, is a summary statement of what the decree of Leo XIII (Quemadmoduin, n. 2) gave in detail: "His Holiness formally forbids superiors, both men and women, of whatever rank or preeminence, to seek, directly or indirectly, by precept, counsel, intimidation, threats, or flattery to induce their subjects to make the said manifestation of conscience to them." Superiors may not, therefore, show a marked preference for those of their subjects who do freely and spontaneously give them an account of their conscience, nor may they treat with coldness those subjects who refrain from giving such an account. The law does not forbid superiors to inquire delicately concerning the reasons for the sadness or trouble that they see afflicting their subjects. To make such inquiries may at times be an obligation of charity; but the superior must be careful not to insist if he sees that the subject prefers not to explain the source of his condition.

To make a manifestation of conscience to them: We have already explained that manifestation of conscience means the revelation of the inner state of one's soul. It does not include the chapter of faults, customary in many institutes, because this is limited to external faults and to violations of the constitutions that can be noticed by others.

Nor does it include the canonical visitation of religious made by their own religious superiors, as prescribed by canon 511, because the object of the visitation is external government (cf. canons 513 and 618, §2, 2°).

Subjects, however, are not forbidden to open their minds freely and spontaneously to their superiors: What is forbidden by the law is all force or inducement on the part of the superior, not the free and spontaneous manifestation made by the subject.

Nay more, it is desirable that they approach their superiors with filial confidence: Hence it is not only licit for a religious to make a manifestation of conscience to his superior, provided he does so freely and spontaneously, but it is recommended as something desirable. There should exist between superior and subject that fine relationship which exists in the model family between parent and child. What is more natural than that a son or daughter go to father or mother for advice in time of doubt or trial? Similarly a religious will usually find a sympathetic counselor and a prudent guide in the person of his superior, especially in regard to the spirit of his institute and the proper understanding of the rules and constitutions. The superior has the added advantage of knowing his subject, at least from his external conduct, a point of view which the confessor often lacks.

This filial confidence in superiors is necessary and helpful in other matters as well. Superiors are human beings; they can and do make mistakes occasionally. Misunderstandings may arise, which can be cleared up easily if a religious has the good sense to go to his superior and talk matters over with him. On his part a religious may fail by avoiding his superior. If this be the case, it is difficult to see how mutual confidence can exist. The probabilities are that the superior will not know his subject, while the latter will be inclined to criticize his superior, or at least grumble because he is misunderstood. The only remedy for such a situation lies in a frank unburdening of his mind to the superior. He will find that the superior will be relieved to find out the true state of things, and superior and subject will become better acquainted with each other for their mutual benefit.

It is desirable that, if the superiors be priests, they expose to them their doubts and troubles of conscience also. We have just seen that, in a general way, the Church recommends the voluntary manifestation of one's conscience to the superior. However, in regard to "doubts and troubles of conscience," the Code makes an important qualification. It positively encourages religious to manifest even these to priest superiors; regarding lay superiors, it does not positively recommend such intimate manifestation, though it does not forbid it.

What is meant by "doubts and troubles of conscience"? The expression certainly includes all doubts and anxieties concerning sins. It seems also to include other questions of conscience which, because of their difficulty, importance, or uncertainty, require the help of one who is well-versed in moral and ascetical theology—a quality that may be lacking even in very holy lay superiors.

If their superiors are priests, religious are recommended by the Church to give them their fullest confidence in all matters pertaining to their spiritual life. Everything else being equal, they will find no more sympathetic friend and prudent counselor than him who has only the best interests of each individual member of his community at heart and who, as a priest, is the representative of the Master of the Spiritual Life, Who came that men may have life, and have it more abundantly.

If the superior is not a priest, he should remember that the Church does not encourage subjects to give an account of their doubts and troubles of conscience to him. Hence, ordinarily he will advise the subject who wishes to do so to consult his confessor or spiritual director in these particular matters. On the other hand, he should gladly receive the spontaneous manifestations made by a subject regarding other matters of the interior life. This is quite in accord with the mind of the Church, provided always that the subject does so voluntarily, without any urging or coercion on the part of the superior.

When subjects come freely and spontaneously to the superior to give him an account of conscience, he should receive them with fatherly kindness, listen patiently and at length, and question them prudently in order to obtain all the information necessary to give them wise counsel and direction. Both superiors and subjects should remember that all matters talked of in manifestation of conscience are safeguarded by the highest kind of professional secrecy, though not by the sacramental seal, unless it happens that the superior is a priest, and the subject manifests his conscience to him by actually confessing to him. Novice-Master and Manifestation The master (mistress) of novices is not a superior in the canonical sense. For this reason, commentators on canon 530 are not agreed that the prohibition of this canon applies to him. Despite this  controversy, it is certain that he cannot demand of his novices a manifestation of such things as normally pertain to the Sacrament of Penance.

In the case of a lay master of novices, the decree Quernadmodum denounced this as a grave abuse and the Normae, N. 79, explicitly forbade it. As for priests, the Code even forbids them to bear the confessions of their novices except in certain special cases (c. 891); it is evident, therefore, that they may not demand such intimate revelations outside of confession.

Nevertheless, the master of novices must have some rights of inquiry. He alone has the right and obligation of providing for the formation of the novices; he alone is charged with the direction of the novitiate (c. 561). Under his personal guidance, the canonical year of novitiate has for its object the forming of the mind of the novice by means of the study of the rule and constitutions, by pious meditations and assiduous prayer, by instruction on those matters which pertain to the vows and the virtues, by suitable exercises in rooting out the germs of vice, in regulating the motions of the soul, in acquiring virtues (c. 566).

To attain these objects of the novitiate, there must be mutual confidence between master and novice; and the novice master must be free to inquire about things which pertain to his office and do not border on confessional matter. Such objects of licit inquiry would be: one's reactions to his brethren and common life; his progress in prayer; attraction to certain kinds of spirituality; qualifications for certain offices; difficulties with the rule, and so forth.

The novice, on his part, will best prepare himself to become a fervent religious by being frank and open with the master, whose only task is to train him in the way of the religious life as outlined in the rules and constitutions of the institute.