Verbumhas placed an important questionon the table that must be addressed at various theological levels. I’m not sure that I can do it justice in one post, but I’ll try.
One of the roles that the priest fills in confession is to be the alter Cristos. He is there in place of Christ. In Mystical Theology we say that he is the mirror of Christ. Through his ordination he undergoes an ontological change so that he has both human and divine powers. For example, the power to absolve from sin is a divine power. The power to consecrate is another.
When a priest in the confessional guides you on a matter that you are confessing, you are bound to obey him, provided that he is representing the Church and the Gospel. In the case where the priest tells the penitent that he does not have a vocation to religious life, a lot depends on what the penitent said first. The priest makes a judgment based on what the penitent tells him.
However, circumstances can change that advise is no longer valid and the individual is free to enter religious life. Let’s say that a person struggles with obedience, it is legitimate for the confessor to say that the person does not have a religious vocation. But down the road, this struggle is no longer present. That advise is no longer applicable. In other words, the advice of the confessor is only good as long as it is applicable, consistent with the Gospel and with the teachings of the Church.
There are times when a confessor may advise something that may sound inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, but is not really the case. We do not always know the full teaching of the Church on every issue. The Church does not always speak to every possible situation that comes up in life. She offers moral guidelines and the confessor applies those guidelines.
I’ll give you an example. A person has a habit of masturbation. The confessor may adivise the person to come once a month to confession and to continue to receive the Eucharist. He is following the moral guidelines of the Church. The guidelines say that a sin is mortal only if their is full freedom. If a person has an addiction, that person’s freedom is limited by the addiction or even not existent. Therefore, the person is doing something that is mortally sinful, but not guilty of the sin, because he has little or no control.
It’s like a child who pulls the trigger on a gun and kills someone. The child has committed murder. But the child is not guilty of murder, because of the age and the lack of self-control. He found a gun and decided to play cowboy or cops and robbers. There is no full knowledge and full control. The child is not guilty of sin, though he has committed a sinful act.
This is why it is adviseable to follow your confessor. Your confessor has insight into moral logic that is not common knowledge to the average person who has not studied theology and philosophy.
In the case of a confession that is a one shot deal, where the person and the confessor have never met, this makes the confessor’s job more difficult. He must go on what the person is saying.
As regards medical issues, the confessor responds according to the information that the penitent has at the time. If the information changes, then the advice may no longer be valid.
This is why a regular confessor or a regular spiritual director are valuable. Because this person sees you often and knows the changing circumstances in your life. He can give you the right advice as your situation changes.
I recently had a person in spiritual direction who was having a serious problem with prayer and mass attendance. In the past, this person was faithful to both. Due to changes in the person’s life stressors kicked in that were not there before. These stressors impair the person’s ability to pray and to attend mass regularly. The inattendance at mass and the diminished prayer life are not fully under the person’s control. He must first get the triggers under control. That becomes the focus of spiritual direction.
Those triggers are not of the person’s making. Therefore, the person is not guilty of sin. There is a moral duty to ty to solve the situation that interferes with the sacramental and prayer life of the individual. This happens to many people and they feel guilty because they are not praying or attending mass as they should. But until they get rid of the obstacles or reduce them, feeling guilty is not going to make prayer and mass happen. It’s like feeling guilty because you can’t attend mass when you have to take care of your sick mother. Until you can find an arrangement for someone to care for mother while you go to church, there is no sin involved and nothing to regret. You have not made a bad choice.
These are the kind of judgments that confessors and trained spiritual directors make every day.
If the confessor or spiritual director make a mistake an dish out advice based on what you tell them, but you did not try to deceive, neither you nor the confessor are morall guilty. Both acted on the best information available at the time. This applies to any moral situation.
The key is to choose the good based on the information that you have at the tme.
If the confessor has a particular theological leaning and leads you in that direction, you have two choices, you can trust his direction and obey, knowing that God will not hold you accountable for the advise the confessor gave you or you can find another confessor, just as you would a second opinion in medical cases.
What is never adviseable is multiple confessors, because it will only confuse you. Find one with whom you’re comfortable and stick with him. If your spiritual director is not a priest, he or she can point you to a confessor that you may feel comfortable with since he knows you.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
JR
