E
Elixir
Guest
Ah yes…the eyeroll. Very uncharitable. Perhaps you should take the whip to your back to curb such sinful leanings.If you say so
- Status
T
TrueLight
Guest
Why do you call flagellation disgusting behavior? That’s not that charitable as sone people on this board probably use the discipline. There is light flagellation abs there is drawing blood. Moderate ca extreme.Ah yes…the eyeroll. Very uncharitable. Perhaps you should take the whip to your back to curb such sinful leanings.
J
jmj1984
Guest
You’ll note a few things:Ah yes…the eyeroll. Very uncharitable. Perhaps you should take the whip to your back to curb such sinful leanings.
- I did not say everyone should do what those saints do, thats obviously a little extreme and its not suitable for everyone
- The discipline is still used amongst both laity and clergy, even to the point of drawing blood in some cases. Further it has been used by innumerable saints, so condemning it is condemning them something I do not count myself worthy as doing
- Wearing chains, i.e ‘The little chain of Mary’, is recommended by numerous saints and religious directors, an obvious example would St Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort
- Lesser mortification, which would be considered extreme, such as numerous days of fasting and extremely strict fasting has been encouraged by numerous saints and enforced by the church for centuries. One thinks of the total fast from midnight that one had to follow in order to receive communion for centuries if not at least a millenia.
Accusing the saints of disgusting practices and claiming it demostrates ‘a sure sign of mental instability’ is however ignorant, imprudent and arrogant. Flaggelation for example has been practiced for a millenia or more and is still practiced today, as are many more of the practices you claim are ‘disgusting’. As a good man said ‘Some people naturally derive more pleasure and profit from such external things than others. To some they are a great help to piety, whilst to others they are not. This much is certain, that you may be an extremely devout Catholic, without making any considerable use of them. You must, however, take greatest care of one thing, that is, never to allow yourself the least thought of contempt for such things, or the devout people who delight in using them. You may be quite sure that any practice that the Church encourages must be good, and if you cannot appreciate it, it is a misfortune, probably arising from some deficiency in your own mind.’ Rev John B Bagshawe, The Threshold of the Catholic Church, p161.
Of course he was talking about sacramentals but his message very much applies to this situation.
M
Monica4316
Guest
I think it could be… I think for myself, I don’t really have other symptoms of OCD. Maybe very very mild. There are certain traits that I have, like overthinking things, analyzing, etc, which encourages scrupulosity so I shouldn’t focus on my thoughts/feelings so much. But regarding scrupulosity in general, - it’s helped me to try and trust more, - trust God, the Church, my confessor… I don’t know about others with scrupulosity.
that is interestingSt. Alphone de Ligori wrote about scrupulosity. In fact, he spoke about his own struggles with it. He acknowledged that he was mental condition. St. Alphonse did not know the term OCD or Anxiety Disorder.
He said one thing that is very important. He said that it helped him get started on the right path. Had it not been for this “mental condition” he would not have stopped to ask himself the hard questions that he faced regarding the practice of law. He was a lawyer. He realized that not everything in law and in politics was right. That in itself is not scrupulosity. That’s just common sense.
The scrupulosity came in when he felt compelled to get out of the legal profession as one feels compelled to wash and wash to rid themselves of germs. Had it not been for scrupples, he might have remained in law and been another Thomas More.
However, God had other plans. As we know, “Grace builds on nature.” God used his condition to lead him where he wanted him to be. He entered the seminary and became an Oratorian. From there, he went on to found the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (CSSR), also known as the Redemptorists. They educated and preached to the poor.
But Alphonse’s struggles with scrupulosity did not end when he entered the seminary. He was still scrupulous. The fact that the poor did not have teachers and preachers bothered him to the point that he felt personally responsible. He moved out of the Oratorians and became a consecrated religious That’s how the Holy Spirit called to life the Redemptorists.
Scrupulosity did not stop there. Alphonse was so scrupulous that he was irascible, to the point that his Redemptorist brothers left him and a new congregation was founded, The Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament.
On October 3, 1731, during the Transitus of St. Francis of Assisi, Alphonse had a vision. He saw Christ with Holy Father Francis seated at his right. To Christ’s left, he saw a priest seated. As he looked closely, he realized that that it was him. Christ said to him, “This is he whom I have chosen to be head of My Institute, the Prefect General of a new Congregation of men who shall work for My glory.”
Alphonse was humble and he acknowledge his struggle, but he also trusted the words of Christ. He pushed himself.
Fast forward, the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer came to be. In this wonderful priest, bishop and religious, we see how God can use our condition to build the Kingdom and suffering becomes redemptive love. It is no coincidence that the congregation founded by this man who suffered so much from scrupulosity should be named after the suffering Redeemer
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
maybe I should ask him to intercede for me because my scrupulosity has mostly just caused me harm.yea I don’t think it’s disgusting… it’s something many of the Saints have done.
J
JReducation
Guest
No my friend. We do not recommend flagellation or chains. Those of us who do this ministry day in and day out do not encourage people to use the discipline or the chains of any kind. This is not necessary.
Yes there were many saints who did it. However, this does not mean that it is necessary or that they were right for doing it. They were the product of their time. Spiritual directors of those times had very little formation in human behavior and mental health. That’s not the case today.
Today, you cannot be a spiritual director unless you have been certified. You must have either a Master of Spiritual Theology or the equivalent in CEUs. You can’t get such a degree until you have completed a four-year Master of Divinity, then you go for a two-year Master of Theology with a major in Spiritual Theology. The program is very rigorous. A great deal of time is spent not only on theology, but also on Christian psychology and pastoral counseling. We spend a great deal of time separating what comes from God and what comes from the pscyhe. Spiritual Directors 100 years ago did not know much about the psyche.
We cannot apply to today’s man every religious discipline and every form of asceticism from yesterday. This does not mean that we’re judging or minimizing the saints of the past. The problem that you’re having is that you’re afraid that if we say that this should not be done by today’s man, we’re somehow trivializing or dismmissing the saints of the past. That’s not the case. The spiritual goals remain the same, but the means have to adjust according to the knowledge and the means that we have today.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Br. Jay,
Did not Blessed John Paul II practice self flagellation? Is this article a lie?
Is it really that stringent or only among the Franciscans?
Why do I get the sense that there are spiritual directors who don’t have those qualifications?
H
Heliotropium
Guest
Give me an FThe spiritual goals remain the same, but the means have to adjust according to the knowledge and the means that we have today.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Give me an A
Give me an S
Give me a T
Give me an I
Give me an N
Give me a G
What does that spell? :extrahappy:FASTING!:extrahappy:
That’s right Catholics, fasting is one of the best mortifications we have to help you climb that spiritual ladder to perfection. But wait there’s more! For the low low price of $0.00 you too can fast all day long! That’s right were giving away a $0.00 mortification for absolutely FREE!
Plenary indulgence sold separately:
In order to obtain a plenary indulgence once must first complete the following norms.
a.) Sacramental confession. A single sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences; but Communion must be received and prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff must be recited for the gaining of each plenary indulgence. b.) Eucharistic Communion. c.) Prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff. The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion. d.) It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent. If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only, Please see link for fruther info. God bless.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/norms.htm#norm
T
TrueLight
Guest
Ha ha. Love it!
J
jmj1984
Guest
Has human nature improved? Have we somehow become less subject to sin and our passions? Has someone discovered a better method of controlling our passions and strengthening our will than punishing the flesh?
That ultimately is my fundamental problem with your argument it rests on the idea either that man has changed or that we have found better ways to control our passions. I do not think that anyone could say there is ample evidence for either, we are as a race more led by our passions than ever and engage in the same sins as our forebears did and will continue to do so till the end of time.
As for no one practicing flagellation or recommending it, we both know thats patently false. Numerous religious and laity still practice it, most famously Opus Dei but there are others.
As for spiritual directors not having knowledge of the psyche thats an oversimplification of matters, St Francis de la Sales to name but one saint has been described as ‘A master Pyschologist’ One should also not forget that psychology is ‘new science’, it is mostly unproven, there are many conflicting theories about almost everything and there are some who argue that it is not even a science.
If I may say so with all due respect your last paragraph sounds like Modernism, the idea that the church must change and adapt to the modern world, or that modern man is somehow different fron ‘old man’.
The discipline and other ascetic practices have survived numerous civilisations, Roman, Visigoth, Medieval, Islamic, nation states and yes the modern world. Further mans nature does not change, either the methods used in the past were never effective or they were in which case they are still effective now. The fact is the use of the discipline and the practice of mortifications, even extreme mortifications, is almost universally lauded by Saints, the Doctors of The Church and The Church itself. Do we think our society is so different, so advanced that we do not need these mortifications anymore? That we can dispense with the teaching and practice of thousands of years?
I stand by what I quoted earlier ‘Some people naturally derive more pleasure and profit from such external things than others. To some they are a great help to piety, whilst to others they are not. This much is certain, that you may be an extremely devout Catholic, without making any considerable use of them. You must, however, take greatest care of one thing, that is, never to allow yourself the least thought of contempt for such things, or the devout people who delight in using them. You may be quite sure that any practice that the Church encourages must be good, and if you cannot appreciate it, it is a misfortune, probably arising from some deficiency in your own mind.’ Rev John B Bagshawe, The Threshold of the Catholic Church, p161.
As for the qualifications needed to be a spiritual director, surely one could ask a priest to be your spiritual director and confessor? Ultimately a spiritual director is nothing more than your permanent confessor, so surely every priest should be able to be a spiritual director? At least I’ve never seen anything to the contrary.
M
Monica4316
Guest
Br JR, what about spiritual directors today who allow corporal mortification? and the religious orders where this is still done…No my friend. We do not recommend flagellation or chains. Those of us who do this ministry day in and day out do not encourage people to use the discipline or the chains of any kind. This is not necessary.
Yes there were many saints who did it. However, this does not mean that it is necessary or that they were right for doing it. They were the product of their time. Spiritual directors of those times had very little formation in human behavior and mental health. That’s not the case today.
Today, you cannot be a spiritual director unless you have been certified. You must have either a Master of Spiritual Theology or the equivalent in CEUs. You can’t get such a degree until you have completed a four-year Master of Divinity, then you go for a two-year Master of Theology with a major in Spiritual Theology. The program is very rigorous. A great deal of time is spent not only on theology, but also on Christian psychology and pastoral counseling. We spend a great deal of time separating what comes from God and what comes from the pscyhe. Spiritual Directors 100 years ago did not know much about the psyche.
We cannot apply to today’s man every religious discipline and every form of asceticism from yesterday. This does not mean that we’re judging or minimizing the saints of the past. The problem that you’re having is that you’re afraid that if we say that this should not be done by today’s man, we’re somehow trivializing or dismmissing the saints of the past. That’s not the case. The spiritual goals remain the same, but the means have to adjust according to the knowledge and the means that we have today.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
God bless!
J
JReducation
Guest
This is hilarious. However, Luther would see the line about indulgence and have an apoplexy since he was so scrupulous. But I love it.
No. Human beings continue to be human beings. But we also understand that there is a grave potential here for abuse and this must be guarded. Therefore, we do not endorse these types of penances. There are penances that are less dangerous and are still effective and very much part of Christian tradition.
What the Opus Dei and Franciscans practice is not the same as what many of these individuals did. We both have the dscipline. However, the rules are very strict. You may never cause yourself pain or do harm to when using it. You must always remember that it is only a symbol. Too much or too little are extremes to be avoided. The superior or the spiritual director have the authority to command that you stop using it, they observe that you hurt yourself. By that, we mean drawing blood or leaving welts on your skin.
St. Francis de Sales was an excellent spiritual director with a great deal of knowledge about the mind, as was Ignatius of Loyola. They were not the norm for their time. Together they are master teachers for all spiritual directors today.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church adapts by making use of new knowledge that it did not have. That’s not modernism. That’s common sense. Look at great spiritual masters such as Bl. John Paul II or older ones such as Francis de Sales who adopted to the local culture and taught that Christianity had to be separated from Europeanism. Do you see what I’m saying?
If you and your spiritual director agree that such punishment is good for you, go for it. But let’s not present it as what the Church encourages today. That’s not the case. We admire and respect these holy men and women, but we also see the dangers involved if this type of penance is put out there for people to do without any kind of supervision and guidance.
This is not accurate. The spiritual director and the confessor can be the same person, but they are not the same ministry. Spiritual Theology is not a requried area of study for the priesthood. Therefore, most priests are not trained to be spiritual directors. Those who are have trained for it. There are people who are naturally gifted. In the end, a spiritual director is a teacher. There are many people who are natural teaches.
Don’t confuse the advise that you get in the confessional with spiritual direction. Confession, spiritual direction and pastoral counseling are different from each other. Not every spiritual director is a priest. Many are sisters, brothers, deacons and laymen. He or she guides your spiritual journey and discerns with you. The confessor deals with your sins. Most of the time, unless it’s by appointment, confessors do not have the time to do spiritual direction, because there are others on line.
Yes, as I said above, there are. However, it is very carefully guided. In the past, it was less controlled. Experience has proven that people did harm to themselves. Today, we tend to be very careful as to who we encourage to use things such as the discipline or extreme fasting. We do not discourage asceticism, but we do encourage that it be done under supervision. It is very hard to be objective with oneself. We can think that we’re doing enough and are not or that we’re not doing enough and go too far, as was the case with St. Francis. At the end of his life he comes to terms with the fact that he has abused his body. This was the final act of penance that he needed to do before he died. He needed to ask forgiveness of his body for the abuse.
We can see someone like Mother Teresa who was a very penitential person, but does not allow her sisters to engagte in any form of corporal penance other than what the entire Church is bound to do. She see the sacrifice of daily following the Gospel and the poverty of her sisters as enough penance. This is what I mean by adapting. Mother Teresa is no Modenist, but she adapts to the circumstances. There was no need for her sisters to do more, considering the harsh conditions in which they live and work. Anything more would render them ineffective.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
This article came out a while ago. From the responses given to the article, including the author of the book itself, it seems that the reporter does not understand what the writer is talking about.
Bl. John Paul was a great admirer of the Carmelites. He spend years studying Carmelite asceticism. It is possible that he did use the discipline. What the author said in response to this article was the he never said or inferred what the article wants to say. Bl. John Paul never abused his body.
I believe that the author of the book is being honest and he’s not trying to say that Bl. John Paul abused his body. Remember, Bl. John Paul was a frequent visitor to the hospital after he was shot. None of the doctors who testified at his hearings or who wrote about their experiences with John Paul ever mention any signs of self-abuse. You can’t hide welts and cuts from a physician.
My guess is that he may have done the same as we do. We use the discipline, but we are very careful to use it very lightly and only while we recite the Misere, which takes all of two minutes. We use it once a week. It’s meant to be a symbol of Christ’s suffering and our vocation to conform to Christ in all things. It is not meant to be do damage.
Another confidant of Bl. John Paul, his spiritual director, also responded to this. He was interviewd on EWTN. He said that he never knew that John Paul used the discipline; therefore, he doubts it very much. He did know that John Paul collected anything Carmelite and the discipline found among his things was a Carmelite discipline.
If you read the byline of the article, it wants to suggest that Bl. John Paul was ready to resign. However, in the text, they have to admit that it was something that he had considered in 1989 and it was very carefully worded. Notice how this is written.
John Paul wrote that he would resign "in the case of infirmity which is presumed incurable, long-lasting and which impedes me from sufficiently carrying out the functions of my apostolic ministry."
The pope lays out the condition here. If he is impaired from carrying out his duties.
Now observe how Reuters prefaces the quote. They use the word “resign”. This is the first red flag that they are putting words into John Paul’s mouth and the author of the book. No theologian would ever say, “The pope plans to resign if he can’t do his job.” Guess why?
Popes cannot resign. To whom does a pope tender his resignation? Who’s his boss?
A pope abdicates, not resigns. This means that he walks away from the Chair of Peter with the intent of not exercising the office. This happened once. That’s exaclty how it happened. The pope packed his bags, took off the Fisherman’s ring and walked out. This was St. Celestine. He was a religious brother who was elected pope. He was not a priest at the time of his election. So they ordained him deacon, then priest, then bishop, and then crowned him pope. He was in office less than a year or a little over a year. I can’t recall exactly. He missed his old life so much that he created a law that said that the pope could abandon office. Once he signed the law. He took advantage of it and walked.
The point is that the author of this article does not understand what he’s reading. It’s obvious by his choice of incorrect words. Unfortunately, the average layman does not know enough to pick up on these red flags.
The other thing is that this was in 1989. Bl. John Paul became very ill after 1999. He obviously changed his mind. It is also very likely that if he used the discipline at any time, he did not do so as they are trying to imply in this article. People do change their minds. The book’s author did respond that he was not comparing Bl. John Paul’s behavior to that of Francis of Assisi or Catherine of Sienna. Notice, that these names are not in quotation marks. They are introduced by the writer of the article.
Bl. John Paul had great admiration for St. Francis, but it was not Francis’ penance that imrpessed him, but his ecumenism. That’s why he chose Assisi for the Assisi gathering. Francis of Assisi is considered to be the father of ecumenism, even though Francis never used the word.
The author of the book and the spiritual director are not saying what Reuters wants to say.
This is pretty standard. The problem is that there are not enough of us trained in this field. Most priests have no one to whom they can refer people for spiritual direction, so they fly by the seat of their pants. Some of them are actually very good at it, because it comes naturally to them. As I said above, some people are natural teachers.
Dioceses are starting to provide programs for their priests, religious and laity to train them; but they are not universally availabe. Spiritual Theology is a highly specialized area of theology and is every complex. Very few people go into this field. There are three fields that people usually avoid: Spiritual Theology, Moral Theology, and Sacred Scripture. They are very detailed oriented, require foreign languages, and are very long.
But you can train to be a spiritual director with a certification program, which is much much shorter than a degree.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
justtryin
Guest
I remember hearing a long time ago that the children of Fatima would place small stones in their shoes. They would offer this discomfort (can’t remember if it was severe enough to be called pain) up to God. Does anyone know if this is true or just a legend?
M
Marie5890
Guest
(I want one, too. So many explanations to questions/concerns/skepticisms I have had for several years)
M
Marie5890
Guest
First off…An early Happy Birthday!!For what it’s worth, my only hope is to do some good for the Church. Thank you for your kindness. Forget the book and just pray for me.
Now, we can get back to moritication instead of mortifying Br. Jay?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Secondly, you are in my prayers.
Third, and I mean this most sincerely without intent to mortify you. And I have no doubt my words echos others thoughts on this. Your posts really are extremely helpful in clarifying and being honest and real in what is factual, both when it comes to things like tradition and myths etc.
As someone who came from another faith background, even though I am in full communion with the Church, I do from time to time have lingering doubts, concerns and questions (ie like the topic of this thread and the idea that some of the Saints suffered from mental illness)
Rather than just sweep this under the rug and whitewash what seems so obvious when it come to their mental health status, you, Bro Jay, take it head on and have an honest and open conversation. You dont deny their own humanness and frailty but also explain the hows and whys of the approach the Church takes.
I can’t tell you how many times your posts just help to explain and put to rest so many of questions and concerns that I expect many of us have.
I dont say that to “pat you on the back” or “puff up your ego”. I have too much respect for your striving for humility and poverty.
I do say it to be honest though.
If it is ever seriously considered to put together some sort of collection of the posts you have made, I would see it less as a “book you wrote” and more of a great resource for those who seek to have an authentic and credible understanding of Church teachings and traditions that wipe away myths. That keep things in context and refrain from whitewashing history.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Br Jr, I think this talk of spiritual directors and psychology is fundamentally a red herring. As I have stated before psychology is a very new field of science with numerous conflicting theories about almost everything, remains mostly unproven and unlike other sciences does not have any definite or even particularly probable outcome. Whereas for example in chemistery we know that if you x and y together you will get z, in psychology this simply isn’t possible due to the complexities of the human mind and our lack of knowledge about it.
Ultimately when it comes to spiritual directors in the long 2,000 years history of the church we can see that the majority possess an understanding of psychology, in as much as psychology is nothing more than knowledge regarding the mind. They would have known about a persons scruples, the sins they struggled with, their temptations, how they reacted to penances etc… Frankly in many cases they probably knew more about a persons soul than someone trained in psychology would. I believe it is misleading to suggest that somehow our so called new knowledge regarding psychology means that spiritual directors can be more effective.
As for encouraging flagellation, lets be clear ultimately what you are putting forward is nothing more than your educated opinion and the educated opinion of others. Many others disagree with you and still practice such extreme flagellation to this day in particular on feast days in Spanish speaking countries and in religious orders such as Opus Dei. This is not an opinion, rather it is a fact. Further there have been no documents coming out of the Vatican Condemning the practice, rather we see nothing but implicit praise for it through the canonisation of hundreds of saints that practiced it and the approval of their works where they recommend it.
Giving the example of saints or blesseds who did not use the particular form of extreme mortification here is of no relevance to the discussion. I am not arguing that all people should use it or that in some cases it is not suitable but that is a perfectly valid, acceptable and valuable method of mortification and will always remain so.
Fundamentally what you are saying is that those of your opinion or modern man knows better than the testimony of countless saints, the advice they gave and spiritual classics such as The Rule of St Benedict and The Imitation of Christ to name but a few. I cannot support such a claim because I can see it is unsupported by the tradition of the church as well as its history.
Regarding spiritual directors you will note that I said ‘Permanent Confessors’, these are clearly different from just going to a confessor in a confessional, you simply cannot seperate the confessional from spiritual direction. That is I cannot see how a person can give accurate spiritual direction without hearing a persons confession, how else will they know the state of a persons soul? Regardless the tradition of the church is again clear on the matter, a spiritual director is a permanent confessor, the terms are interchangeable. As for anyone but a priest or bishop as a spiritual director, I cannot see this as being anything but a novelty at least one cannot find it prominently in the lives of the saints or classic catholic theology.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Br Jr, If I may add an observation here.
The Assisi gatherings were and remain extremely controversial within the church, numerous theologians, several bishops and traditionalist movements openly or implicitly condemned the gatherings. Indeed Cardinal Ratzinger did not attend them exactly because he was not at all happy with the way they were being carried out and was not happy attending them.
As regards St Francis being the father of ecumenicism, several theoligians and esteemed persons have critcised this and claimed that if anything people were misusing his name. Even assisi III has been criticised by Italian Catholic intellectuals , Ratzinger himself was shocked by Assisi 1 , The Abbe de Nantes and even priests in ‘good standing’ with the church such as Fr Johannes Dorman, Father Joseph de Sainte Marie, the well respected Italian Theologian Romano Amerio, criticised or at least were ‘pained’ by the gatherings. And of course both Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer protested the gatherings as well.
I am sure that you are aware of this of course, but I thought otherwise might not be.
J
JReducation
Guest
You may want to read the works of Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR. We writes very well on this subject and is considered one of the world’s experts on the subject. He is so highly respected in the area of Christian Psychology that Church sought his professional opinion for the beatification of Bl. Teresa of Calcutta and Bl. John Paul II.
That is not what is being said.
Opus Dei has very strict rules on how corporal discipline is to be used. They are not allowed to do harm to the body. This includes drawing blood or damaging the skin in any way. That there are people out there who still go to these extremes is no surprise. It does not make it right.
This is the Traditionalists downfall. We have to be very careful here. The Vatican does not make its job to write official pronouncements on every detail of the Christian life. It’s role is not to micromanage. That’s what the Principle of Subsidiarity and Collegiality are about. These things are addressed on the scene.
When the Church canonizes she is holding up the person’s life of faith, virtue and charity, not the means.
I am very familiar with those writings. The Rule of St. Benedict also encourages the monks to beat the boys under their care to bring them into submission, something which we condemn as child abuse today and which no Benedictine does. Here again, we take these writings in their cultural context and separate what was part of the time from what is part of the faith.
This is not accurate. They have always been separated, even if the spiritual director is a priest. Spiritual directors do hear many confessions. They don’t grant absolution, only the priest can do that. But they do walk through the consciences of those whom they guide and they often prepare them for a good confession. They hear the same sins as the priest in the confessional. That’s how they come to know the state of a person’s soul.
It is not the Tradition of the Church that the spiritual director is a permanent confessor. It is more common, because there are more priests trained in this area, but not a hard and fast rule. Most of the Dessert Fathers were not priests. The Benedictine monks wee not all priests, very few were. The Franciscans were not priests. You have some wonderful spiritual directors who were not priests.
Scholastica
Francis of Assisi
Clare of Assisi
Br. Juniper
Catherine of Siena
Teresa of Avila
Julian of Norwich
Brigette
Catherine De Hueck Doherty
You also have a great deal of spiritual direction that took place through mail. You may want to read the letters between Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal. This was spiritual direction without confession. Francis guided Jane via letters. There are the letters of between Clare of Assisi and Agnes of Prague and the Sacrum Commercium of the Franciscans. It’s not a novelty. It goes way back to the Desert Fathers and Mothers.
J
JReducation
Guest
There have been these claims, yet history tells us differently. Francis negotiated a treaty with the Sultan at Dalmietta that is still in effect today. The sultan would allow the friars safe passage to the Holy Land and allow them to open houses in Jerusalem and Francis promised that the friars would not proselytize to the Muslims or the Jews. Pope Gregory IX ratified this agreement creating the Custody of the Holy Land and gave it to the Franciscans to run.
To this day, the friars preach by their presence and their charity. We have no way of knowing how many converts they have made, because that is classified information. Converts can be executed. They were always available to answer questions, but were never allowed to preach to the Muslims and Jes and are not allowed to do so today. The papacy has always sustained this and those friars are directly under the authority of the pope.
As far as the alleged opposition of Cardinal Ratzinger, we know that Pope Benedict has called for another Assisi gathering this October. Either he was misunderstood or he changed his mind. Pope Benedict is not a foolish man. He is very knowledgeable. As Pope Pius XII once said to Cardinal Montini, “Things will look different if you ever become pope.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status