Is it wrong to use confession as counseling?

[Kithri]

The OP asked the question “Is it wrong to use confession as counseling”.

She didn’t say anything about time constraints or lines, appointments or scheduled confession times. She just asked if it is wrong to bring up her worries, thoughts, conflicting beliefs, etc. in addition to her sins. There might be circumstances under which it would be prudent and considerate to keep her confession short and limit the topics discussed, but the fact remains that it is not inherently wrong to bring these topics up during the context of a confession.

Opinions abound in this topic, but I’ve yet to see somebody quote the catechism or a church document, or any official source whatsoever to back up the assertion that it is wrong.

True, that. So I just checked the Catechism, and there isn’t anything specifically said about the wrongness or rightness of counseling in confession.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

She just asked if it is wrong to bring up her worries, thoughts, conflicting beliefs, etc. in addition to her sins. There might be circumstances under which it would be prudent and considerate to keep her confession short and limit the topics discussed, but the fact remains that it is not inherently wrong to bring these topics up during the context of a confession.

The priest is an alter Christus there to perform a sacrament. My original answer early this morning pointed out that these various matters IF they had a bearing on sins committed or the spiritual life were appropriate.

The priest is not an MSW, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist and normally has no particular training in dealing with anxieties, OCD, scruples, and other assorted mental ailments. Even if he did the confessional is not the place to do it.

His appropriate response is to hear a confession and, if the penitent seems in need of a shoulder to cry on or mental health services, make a referral.

Since you insist on legal citations, here is the first Canon dealing with Penance in the Western Code of Canon Law. The Eastern Code is comparable:

Canon 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning they wounded.

And that’s the sacrament. That is also what the Scriptures documenting what Christ did. Notice the word “counseling” is absent.

I completely disagree that confession is not the time to bring up worries, thoughts and conflicting beliefs that affect one’s spiritual life.

If it is related to the confession of sins and reconciliation to the Church. As you’re phrasing it anything which bothers or upsets you could be related to your “spiritual life”.

If you want guidance on your spiritual life, the appropriate action is to get a spiritual guide, a personal confessor, who knows you and works with you on your spiritual life.

But this all far afield of the question which was originally asked.

I guess somebody forgot to tell him that this length of time is unnecessary and inappropriate for a confession.

The fact that there were five priests hearing confessions may have had something to do with it.

The original question was “Is it wrong to use confession as counseling?” The answer is “yes”. Counseling is done by mental health professionals.

However, it is appropriate for the confessor to provide spiritual counsel related to the sins confessed, such as ways to avoid the occasions of sin, prayers that might be helpful, and spiritual pointers which may help the penitent fortify his resolve to sin no more.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

“Urgent necessity” is not defined, but for the purposes of the law, this generally describes a necessity such that the faithful must be absolved from mortal sin, such as prior to ordination or getting married, which usually take place on a scheduled date and time, so as not to receive the Sacraments sacrilegiously. Merely remaining mortal sin, but with no danger of scandal, sacrilege or death, does not constitute “urgent necessity”.

Where did you get that from?

I am preparing for a trip on which I leave early Sunday morning, but because of the importance of the topic I will address this before finishing. The phrase “grave necessity” is used in a number of the canons, for example 961 dealing with general absolution, which can only be under certain conditions, one of which is “grave necessity”.

grave necessity

“The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2) pertains to circumstances which are less extreme. It involves a ‘grave necessity’, described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone’s confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.”

“Urgent necessity” , canonists and moralists agree, is exemplified by the case of a priest who is duty bound to celebrate in order to provide or ensure Mass for his flock on Sundays or holy days. - Lanza-Palazzini, “Principi di theologia moralis”, vol.IlI, p.168, ed. Studium, Rome

I am having some problem understanding the attitude that being in a state of mortal sin is “no big deal”. It is a VERY big deal. It is being in a state of spiritual death.

Not only is the priest obliged to make the hearing of confessions his priority, he is in fact prohibited canonically from not providing them:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

If this discussion is continuing when I return I will try to pick this back up.

My reference in these sorts of things is the “Code of Canon Law Annotated”, which is the Latin-English edition of the Code of Canon Law and the English translation of the 5th Spanish language commentary prepared by the faculty of the University of Navarra faculty of Canon Law under the responsibility of the Instituto Martin de Azpilcueta.

The University of Navarra is a preeminent center for Canon Law and its commentary is renowned.

Additional background can be found also in older commentaries for Canon 892, which this Canon replaces and generally corresponds to.

I would also quote Paul VI, who wrote in his allocution of April 20, 1978, to the bishops of the United States:

“Other works, for lack of time, may have to be postponed or even abandoned, but not the confessional.”

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

“Urgent necessity” is not defined, but for the purposes of the law, this generally describes a necessity such that the faithful must be absolved from mortal sin, such as prior to ordination or getting married, which usually take place on a scheduled date and time, so as not to receive the Sacraments sacrilegiously. Merely remaining mortal sin, but with no danger of scandal, sacrilege or death, does not constitute “urgent necessity”.

Where did you get that from?

I am preparing for a trip on which I leave early Sunday morning, but because of the importance of the topic I will address this before finishing. The phrase “grave necessity” is used in a number of the canons, for example 961 dealing with general absolution, which can only be under certain conditions, one of which is “grave necessity”.

grave necessity

“The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2) pertains to circumstances which are less extreme. It involves a ‘grave necessity’, described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone’s confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.”

“Urgent necessity” , canonists and moralists agree, is exemplified by the case of a priest who is duty bound to celebrate in order to provide or ensure Mass for his flock on Sundays or holy days. - Lanza-Palazzini, “Principi di theologia moralis”, vol.IlI, p.168, ed. Studium, Rome

I am having some problem understanding the attitude that being in a state of mortal sin is “no big deal”. It is a VERY big deal. It is being in a state of spiritual death.

Not only is the priest obliged to make the hearing of confessions his priority, he is in fact prohibited canonically from not providing them:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

If this discussion is continuing when I return I will try to pick this back up.

My reference in these sorts of things is the “Code of Canon Law Annotated”, which is the Latin-English edition of the Code of Canon Law and the English translation of the 5th Spanish language commentary prepared by the faculty of the University of Navarra faculty of Canon Law under the responsibility of the Instituto Martin de Azpilcueta.

The University of Navarra is a preeminent center for Canon Law and its commentary is renowned.

Additional background can be found also in older commentaries for Canon 892, which this Canon replaces and generally corresponds to.

I would also quote Paul VI, who wrote in his allocution of April 20, 1978, to the bishops of the United States:

“Other works, for lack of time, may have to be postponed or even abandoned, but not the confessional.”

.

 

[babochka]

Since you insist on legal citations, here is the first Canon dealing with Penance in the Western Code of Canon Law. The Eastern Code is comparable:

Canon 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning they wounded.

And that’s the sacrament. That is also what the Scriptures documenting what Christ did. Notice the word “counseling” is absent.

Certainly, that is the sacrament of confession. However, as I cited earlier, there is a long history and current practice, of offering spiritual counsel(ing) to penitents when they approach for confession.

Again, I quote from the Vatican document issued to priests as a guide for confession and spiritual direction. Clearly, it is not the intention of the church to exclude spiritual counsel from the occasion of the sacrament.

…through the Sacrament of Penance, the ministers reconcile the sinners with God and the Church; this penitential celebration can also provide and opportunity for spiritual direction and counsel

I really don’t think we’re that far off in our opinions here. I’m reacting not so much to what you have said in this thread, but to what others have said, giving the impression that in confession, one should do nothing more than list one’s sins and receive absolution. This is not the mind or tradition of the Church.

If it is related to the confession of sins and reconciliation to the Church. As you’re phrasing it anything which bothers or upsets you could be related to your “spiritual life”.

If you want guidance on your spiritual life, the appropriate action is to get a spiritual guide, a personal confessor, who knows you and works with you on your spiritual life.

Absolutely. Mine is my spiritual father, my confessor, and we deal with these subjects in confession, which is perfectly appropriate.

The original question was “Is it wrong to use confession as counseling?” The answer is “yes”. Counseling is done by mental health professionals.

However, it is appropriate for the confessor to provide spiritual counsel related to the sins confessed, such as ways to avoid the occasions of sin, prayers that might be helpful, and spiritual pointers which may help the penitent fortify his resolve to sin no more.

My thesaurus lists “counsel” as a synonym for “counseling”. Mental health counseling is done by mental health professionals. Spiritual counseling is definitely in the domain of a priest. The OP didn’t specify which type of counseling she was seeking, but I made a reasonable assumption that it is spiritual counseling since she was seeking it during confession.

 

[porthos11]

Where did you get that from?

I am preparing for a trip on which I leave early Sunday morning, but because of the importance of the topic I will address this before finishing. The phrase “grave necessity” is used in a number of the canons, for example 961 dealing with general absolution, which can only be under certain conditions, one of which is “grave necessity”.

grave necessity

“The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2) pertains to circumstances which are less extreme. It involves a ‘grave necessity’, described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone’s confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.”

“Urgent necessity” , canonists and moralists agree, is exemplified by the case of a priest who is duty bound to celebrate in order to provide or ensure Mass for his flock on Sundays or holy days. - Lanza-Palazzini, “Principi di theologia moralis”, vol.IlI, p.168, ed. Studium, Rome

I am having some problem understanding the attitude that being in a state of mortal sin is “no big deal”. It is a VERY big deal. It is being in a state of spiritual death.

Not only is the priest obliged to make the hearing of confessions his priority, he is in fact prohibited canonically from not providing them:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

If this discussion is continuing when I return I will try to pick this back up.

My reference in these sorts of things is the “Code of Canon Law Annotated”, which is the Latin-English edition of the Code of Canon Law and the English translation of the 5th Spanish language commentary prepared by the faculty of the University of Navarra faculty of Canon Law under the responsibility of the Instituto Martin de Azpilcueta.

The University of Navarra is a preeminent center for Canon Law and its commentary is renowned.

Additional background can be found also in older commentaries for Canon 892, which this Canon replaces and generally corresponds to.

I would also quote Paul VI, who wrote in his allocution of April 20, 1978, to the bishops of the United States:

“Other works, for lack of time, may have to be postponed or even abandoned, but not the confessional.”

.

Because you’re confusing the state of one’s soul (spiritual death, a big deal) and what “urgent necessity” means with regards to the law. Even in the example you cite, things like a large number of penitents does not constitute “grave necessity” (in the example given, for general absolution). One can be in a state of mortal sin but not in a state of legal “urgent necessity”. For one who lives in a peaceful parish that offers regular scheduled confessions, that state of “urgent necessity” does not exist even for poor souls in mortal sin because they can be reasonably expected to confess without waiting a prolonged period (that would be urgent necessity). It is reasonable for a priest to defer confession for such other urgent necessities as celebrating Mass.

No one, especially me, is belittling the state of mortal sin as no big deal. It is. One who is in a state of mortal sin should run, not walk to the nearest confessional right away. But we can also distinguish between the state of grave necessity or danger of death as understood by the law, but your definitions are way too extreme. A priest cannot for example give general absolution if he needs to stop Confessions to say Mass. That would be unlawful because a reasonable person can see that the state of grave necessity does not exist. The reasonable action is to ask them to come back another time.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Because you’re confusing the state of one’s soul (spiritual death, a big deal) and what “urgent necessity” means with regards to the law.

My impression is that your definition of “urgent necessity” is your own.

I am heading out the door in less than hour, but in an hour last night with standard Canon Law commentaries I was unable to find a clear enough explanation to actually post.

Any priest who tells people in the confessional line to come back next week, or the next day, or whenever because he’s dawdling doing counseling instead of shriving sinners should be reported to the bishop.

I encounter parishes all the time where there is NO regular time for confession. This sort of attitude is destructive to the life of any parish, although not as destructive as the nonchalant attitude towards mortal sin expressed in this discussion.

The faithful have a right to have their confessions heard, mortal sins or not.

.

 

[babochka]

Any priest who tells people in the confessional line to come back next week, or the next day, or whenever because he’s dawdling doing counseling instead of shriving sinners should be reported to the bishop.

I encounter parishes all the time where there is NO regular time for confession. This sort of attitude is destructive to the life of any parish, although not as destructive as the nonchalant attitude towards mortal sin expressed in this discussion.

The faithful have a right to have their confessions heard, mortal sins or not.

Is this regularly happening? I mean, turning people away from confession because the lines are too long, for whatever reason? I’ve only once been “turned away” from confession. When my turn came, it was almost time for the Divine Liturgy to start and the priest looked concerned. I told him that it could wait. He asked “are you sure?” and I told him that I was. I didn’t receive communion. He came out immediately afterward, heard my confession and gave me communion. That is the only time I’ve ever not made it, and I am certain that the priest would have started the liturgy late in order to hear my confession if I hadn’t given him the “out”. (I’m equally sure I’d have not gotten more than the briefest spiritual counsel, even though I’ve had 45 minute confessions with this priest before). I’ve never seen an urban or suburban parish that doesn’t have regularly scheduled confession times. (I can certainly understand why a rural parish in which more than one parish shares a priest might have difficulty with weekly confession times on the schedule.) When there are long lines, I’ve always seen priests finish the confessions, even if it went past schedule, unless the confession times run into the start of the Mass and only one priest is available. Anytime I’ve approached a priest about confession outside of regularly scheduled hours, he is always willing to hear my confession right now. I’m sure it happens, but I have a hard time believing that the faithful are being turned away regularly.

 

[porthos11]

My impression is that your definition of “urgent necessity” is your own.

I am heading out the door in less than hour, but in an hour last night with standard Canon Law commentaries I was unable to find a clear enough explanation to actually post.

Any priest who tells people in the confessional line to come back next week, or the next day, or whenever because he’s dawdling doing counseling instead of shriving sinners should be reported to the bishop.

I encounter parishes all the time where there is NO regular time for confession. This sort of attitude is destructive to the life of any parish, although not as destructive as the nonchalant attitude towards mortal sin expressed in this discussion.

The faithful have a right to have their confessions heard, mortal sins or not.

.

And I counter that your definition of urgent necessity is your own.

Dawdling with counseling is something I’m against, and I’ve made that clear on this thread.

But I also take exception to the extreme definitions of “urgent necessity” and “danger of death” you hold, and to the implication that I have a nonchalant attitude toward mortal sin.