Is confession a time for spiritual direction? An answer from St. Alphonsus

The confessional can be busy at times!

In my seminary days, I was strongly opposed to the idea of making confession into a time of spiritual direction. “After all,” I said, “there is only so much time and, if the priest gives too much advice, many confessions will go unheard.”

Thus, it was with great surprise that I read the recommendations of St. Alphonsus Liguori (the patron of confessors and the Doctor of Morals): After imploring confessors to take time to instruct and encourage the penitent he states, “But some will say, ‘If we treat sinners in this manner a great deal of our time will be taken up, and others who are waiting cannot be heard.’ But in answer I say, that it is better to hear one confession well than to hear a great number imperfectly. But the most appropriate answer is, that the confessor has not to give an account to God of the persons who are waiting, but only of the person whose confession he has begun to hear.” (from Selva, or The Dignity and Duties of the Priest)

St. Alphonsus sees spiritual direction as integral to the work of the confessor (see, especially the final chapter of his Pratica del Confessore). Still, we simply must admit that confession is not spiritual direction proper and there is the realistic fact of time constraints. What will be necessary, then, is to discuss the occasions in which it is appropriate (and perhaps even obligatory) for the priest to give some spiritual counsel to the penitent.

The need to question the penitent

The principal cause for which the confessor must question the penitent is in order to assist the penitent in making an integral confession. Hence, according to St. Alphonsus and the theologians generally, the priest is obliged to question the penitent if there is reasonable doubt that he has omitted either to examine certain areas of his life or to confess serious sins with the required specificity.

Here, we might say that the questioning should generally be directed towards grave sins in order to gain the integrity of the confession. However, it may also be profitable for the confessor to question some penitents about the life of prayer.

A few simple examples will illustrate our point.

1) If a penitent has not confessed recently (within a few months) and is not known to the priest (or is known to him as only a sometimes-practicing Catholic), but gives only a very general confession without mentioning any sins against God; it would be reasonable to claim that the priest ought to question the penitent in regard to the first three commandments, especially it will be good to question regarding the regularity of Sunday Mass attendance.

2) If a penitent has confessed mortal sins, but has made no reference to the Church’s teaching about not receiving communion after committing mortal sin and before going to confession; it would seem obligatory for the priest to question the penitent and educate him in regard to the Church’s teaching (cf. CCC 1385, “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”).

3) If a penitent confesses lustful thoughts, it may be advisable (according to the prudential judgment of the confessor) to question the penitent as to whether such thoughts were occasioned by other sins (we refer to immoral images or writings) and as to whether these thoughts led to any external acts against the 6^th Commandment (either solitary or with another). [here, we do note that the priest must be extremely cautious when questioning women regarding sins against chastity, but must also recognize the obligation of helping them to make an integral confession of all mortal sins]

There are, of course, many other circumstances when the priest ought to question the penitent; but we hope that these examples will provide some indication of the proper course.

Consider also the words of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, taken from The Priest in Union with Christ: “The confessor must help the penitent to make an integral Confession, a sincere act of contrition and a firm purpose of amendment; he should also give suitable advice.

“Integrity. The priest is recommended to make a practice of questioning any penitent who comes to him for the first time unless the penitent is clearly well instructed, precise, and has already said on his own initiative everything that is necessary. The questions should normally bear upon the penitent's state in life; for example, whether he is married or not, his age, his occupation, the date of his last Confession.

“It is also useful to ask the penitent about the more common types of sin and their causes, if he has not been sufficiently explicit. In order to discover whether he may be hiding some sin of a more serious nature of which he is ashamed, the priest should put the following general question: ‘Is there anything else weighing on your conscience, anything at all which you would like to get off your mind?’ […] In such cases, the priest should ask explicitly about those sins which may likely have been committed by the penitent in his or her state of life, and implicitly about other more serious sins which could have been committed.

“In dealing with the virtue of purity, the priest must formulate his questions in such a way as to be readily understood by the guilty, and yet they must be sufficiently veiled and discreet as not to offend the innocent.”

Answering the penitent’s questions

Certainly, there will be times when the penitent has a question regarding the seriousness of a sin, or even as to whether a particular act is a sin at all. While the priest must be careful to keep the confession from turning into a simple conversation, a truly pastoral zeal should lead him to answer questions simply and directly. If the people cannot ask a priest for advice in confession, when will they ever have the opportunity?

When relapsing and habitual sinners cannot be granted absolution

There are cases in which the priest will not be able to grant absolution at that time. Such can occur when dealing with habitual sinners and relapsing sinners (called “recidivists”). Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, again in The Priest in Union with Christ, speaks well to the charity with which the priest must speak to the penitent when absolution must be deferred:

“If there is any doubt about the penitent’s resolve to avoid sin in the future, the priest should not refuse him absolution unconditionally but promise to give it when the penitent is better disposed. A case in point would be when the priest is doubtful about the dispositions of those who have contracted habits of sin, of those who frequently fall into the same sin after repeated Confession and without any effort at emendation, and of those who are in the occasions of sin. [Cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessarii, c. iv.]

“The habitual sinner may be absolved as often as he seriously undertakes to employ the means necessary to overcome his habit, but he cannot be absolved if he refuses this undertaking.

“The recidivist is one who frequently falls into the same sin after repeated Confession, without making any effort to avoid the sin. He differs from the habitual sinner who often falls into the same sin but has not yet confessed his sinful habit. The absolution of these recidivists presents difficulties, since they cannot all be treated in the same way. There are those who repeatedly commit sins due to a malicious will [recidivi formaliter], and those who repeatedly commit sins due to frailty [recidivi materialiter]. These latter should be given advice and encouragement, and then absolved. As regards the former, St. Alphonsus, who steers a middle course between severity and excessive leniency, states that as a general rule they are not to be absolved unless they give special signs of their sorrow.

“Then there are those penitents who are in occasions of sin – either in a free proximate occasion, if it is one that could easily be avoided, or in a necessary occasion, if it cannot be avoided. A penitent unwilling to avoid a free proximate occasion of sin cannot be absolved; but one who is in a necessary occasion of grave sin may be absolved if he seriously intends to take the necessary measures to make the occasion a remote one. The priest’s charity will here be invaluable in pointing out the correct path to follow, which will avoid laxity on the one hand and rigorism on the other.”

Directing the penitent toward contemplation

Finally, it is the opinion of St. Alphonsus and of the best of the doctors of the spiritual life that the confessor ought at least occasionally to question the penitent regarding his interior life and, generally, to offer at least some advice, direction, and encouragement.

When a penitent has overcome mortal sin and is generally living in the state of grace, it will be essential to his spiritual growth that he begin to practice regular mediation – we give special mention to the Rosary. Likewise, as the soul grows into closer union with God, the Savior will lead the penitent more and more toward contemplative prayer: thus, the faithful servant of Christ will eventually be brought into the dark night of the senses (on the verge of the purgative and illuminative ways). At this time, especially, it will be necessary for the confessor to question and advise the penitent regarding personal and liturgical prayer.

St. Alphonsus states that the confessor is a father, a physician, a teacher, and judge. Especially in his role as father and teacher, the confessor must be ready and willing to direct the penitent through periods of spiritual dryness and toward the life of contemplation. Here, we must mention that the good director will move the soul toward contemplation neither too quickly nor too slowly. The confessor must listen to the penitent and learn from his words what advice and direction is needed – this will certainly take some time, but it is the most effective way of saving souls!

Confession as a universal avenue of spiritual direction

It is said that St. John Vianney could hear the confession of grave sinners who had spent years away from confession in not much more than ten minutes. Certainly, most priests will not be quite so wise as the Curé, hence we should not be surprised if a confession occasionally takes more time. Still, in general, we can safely say that the questioning and directing of penitents will not usually be a grave burden on either priest or people. In fact, it may be good for the priests to offer confessions daily so that the “regulars” can make their confessions at ease and the “big fish” will not be rushed through.

The Holy Father recently spoke these words to the students of the Teresianum in Rome: “As she has never failed to do, again today the Church continues to recommend the practice of spiritual direction, not only to all those who wish to follow the Lord up close, but to every Christian who wishes to live responsibly his baptism, that is, the new life in Christ. Everyone, in fact, and in a particular way all those who have received the divine call to a closer following, needs to be supported personally by a sure guide in doctrine and expert in the things of God. A guide can help defend oneself from facile subjectivist interpretations, making available his own supply of knowledge and experiences in following Jesus. [Spiritual direction] is a matter of establishing that same personal relationship that the Lord had with his disciples, that special bond with which he led them, following him, to embrace the will of the Father (cf. Luke 22:42), that is, to embrace the cross.” (read the full text here)

If Pope Benedict really thinks that all the Christian Faithful need to avail themselves of spiritual direction in order to live responsibly their baptismal promises, it will be necessary for confession to serve as a means of accomplishing this task. There is simply no practical way of accommodating universal spiritual direction unless this be accomplished through the sacrament of reconciliation.

Obviously, it is possible for persons other than priests to serve as spiritual directors, but there is likewise real danger here – since the knowledge required to direct souls well can be gained only after many years of serious study and formation. When we recall the intensity of the formation of priests – who receive at least four years of 24/7 theological, spiritual, and pastoral formation (both through the common life of the seminary and through the academic program of the university), and who are in constant formation even after the completion of seminary – we do not see how a few weekend “classes” (even if taken over several years) can possibly prepare a lay person to be a spiritual director.

In any case, the lay faithful generally want the direction of a holy priest – and they deserve this guidance, since Christ has entrusted the duty of pasturing souls specifically to priests. Therefore, it will be necessary for priests to give some level of (informal) spiritual direction to penitents in the confessional.


UPDATE: We should be very clear, excepting the above listed circumstances (and, perhaps, a few others), it does not seem that a confession should take much time at all. Indeed, though the priest should always give some little bit of advise or encouragement, this should never devolve into simple conversation - this would be quite disrespectful of the sacrament itself. Moreover, even in the cases enumerated in this article, the level of "spiritual direction" appropriate for the confessional is still quite minimal - indeed, it should rarely take more than ten minutes to hear even a difficult confession. In fact, if priests stuck to giving direction almost exclusively in those circumstances listed above (and refused to allow vain conversation during confession), I should think that some confessional lines would move more quickly while the quality of the confessions heard would also improve dramatically.

A few articles on spiritual direction: What to look for in a spiritual director, and When you cannot find a spiritual director. It would be better to have no director at all, than to receive poor or errant spiritual direction.