CONFESSORE – Inscription recalling the “confessor” Quirino Maggiore, commemorated on 10 May in the Martirologia geronimiana (5th century) – Rome, cemetery of Pretestato.
Carmazzola 1852; G. B. Winer, A Comparative view of the doctrine and confessions of the various Communities of Christendom, edited from the last edition, Edimburgo 1873; Ph. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., Nuova York 1877; W. A. Curtis, A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith, Edimburgo 1911; C. Algermissen, La Chiesa e le Chiese, Italian translation, 2nd ed., Brescia 1944. Camillo Crivelli
CONFESSOR (confessor). - From the Latin confessor (from confiteri = to declare openly, a term proper to Christian Latin; Gr. ὁμολογητής), this is the title that today, in liturgy, is given to all non-martyr saints (bishops, doctors, priests, and even lay faithful who are not women). This specific meaning was reached through a threefold evolution.
1. In the first centuries, Christians who had confessed the faith in prison, under torture, in exile, or in the labor of mines without sacrificing their lives were called by the generic title of « martyres », like those who had shed their blood for Christ. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 32; cf. III, 20) thus refers to the descendants of Judas, « brothers » of the Lord, whom Donatian judged harmless and sent back to their homes. In refuting the Cataphrygian heresy, Apollonius (d. 97) denounces Themiso and Alexander, who claim the title of martyrs (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18). Among heretics, the title of martyr served to obtain offerings and money (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18, 7). Another example of this extension of meaning is found in the subscription of a letter by Serapion of Antioch (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 19, 3).
2. In the second half of the 2nd century, the clear distinction—in concept and terminology—between martyrs and confessors first appears in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (A.D. 178), reported by Eusebius (op. cit., V, 2, 2). Although the heroes celebrated therein had borne witness multiple times, having been led to the beasts, exposed to burning coals, covered in bruises and wounds, they did not proclaim themselves martyrs nor allow this title to be given to them; indeed, if someone called them so in a letter or conversation, they would severely reprove them. They gladly gave the title of martyr to Christ... and recalled the memory of the martyrs who had already departed this world, saying: true martyrs are those whom Christ deigned to receive at the very moment they bore witness, having sealed in them, as with a mark, the profession of faith through death. As for us, we are but humble and simple confessors (= ὁμολογηταί).
The distinction, however, did not immediately enter common usage. The two terms « martyr » and « confessor » continued to be used interchangeably. Hippolytus (c. 160–235) contrasts martyrs with confessors (In Dan., II, 37) and gives the title of confessor to Natalios, who had suffered for the faith and later became bishop of a heretical sect (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 28, 8). Tertullian (c. 197), addressing confessors in a book titled Ad martyras, calls them candidates for martyrdom: « benedicti martyres designati » (Ad mart., 1). The term « martyr », in the sense of « confessor », frequently recurs in his writings (De praescript. haeret., 3; Ad mart., 1; De pudic., 22; etc.). Elsewhere, too, the term martyr was used in a broad sense, and Origen (d. 253) noted that the word μάρτυς could justly be applied to all who in one way or another bore witness to the truth (In Ioh., II, 210). In the Passio ss. Perpetuae et Felicitatis (ch. 11, ed. Barra, Turin 1945, p. 66), Quintus, who died in prison, is qualified as a martyr, as are Primolus and Donatian, who die in chains, hastening « ad martyrii coronam immaculato itinere » (Passio Montani et Lucii, ch. 2, ed. Barra, Turin 1945, p. 119). Cyprian (c. 200–258) makes a more precise conceptual distinction. He distinguishes between the confessor Numidicus and those who form the « gloriosum martyrum numerum », prepared for death by his exhortations (Epist., 40, 1). To those who died in prison, even if they had not undergone torture, he wished the same honors to be rendered as to martyrs. This was not, moreover, a novelty. Cyprian habitually calls those who languish in prisons « confessores » (Epist., 32, 1; cf. Epist., 31), sends letters « Sergio et Rogatiano et ceteris confessoribus » (Epist., 6; 13), and receives them from Moses, Maximus, and Nicostratus on behalf of « universi confessores » (Epist., 26). He admits two degrees in confession: a public one before judges and a private one, for those who evade the obligation to sacrifice by fleeing (De lapsis, 3); in De lapsis, 4, martyrs and confessors are clearly distinguished. Yet Cyprian is not always faithful to this terminology. He confuses one term with the other not because he ignores their value, but to cut short or please the recipients of his writings (P. de Labriolle, Martyr et confesseur, in Bull. d'ancienne littér. relig. et d'arch. chrét., 1 [1911], p. 54).
Notable precision in the use of the two terms is found in Dionysius of Alexandria (d. c. 264) and becomes more accentuated in the writers of subsequent ages. In Eusebius, we read of a certain Seleucus, first a confessor and then a martyr (De mart. Palest., II, 20). Optatus of Milevis (4th century) recalls the persecution « quae alios fecerit martyres, alios confessores » (De schism. Donat., I, 13) and elsewhere asks: « quomodo dicitis martyres qui non fuerunt confessores » (op. cit., III, 8); St. Jerome (349?–420) speaks of « Aegyptios confessores, voluntate iam martyres » (Epist., 3, 2).
Confused terminology reappears in the field of inscriptions. At times, the title of confessor is given to martyrs, as in the case of St. Ennatha (also called 1967), who is a martyr but is called ὁμολογήτρια (Mark the Deacon, Vita Porphirii Gazensis, Leipzig 1895, p. 18). The Damasan inscription in the Crypt of the Popes concerning the Greek martyrs should also be recalled: « Hic confessores sancti quos Graecia misit » (A. Ferrua, Epigrammata Damasiana, Vatican City 1942, n. 16), where, however, « confessores »—perhaps (the common opinion after De Rossi)—has no greater value than a metrical necessity. An epitaph from Tarquinia (Bull. arch. crist., 2nd ser., 5 [1874], pp. 101–102) speaks of an « Euticius confessor », in whom De Rossi recognized one of those Christians who survived persecution, having endured torture and imprisonment before being freed at the time of peace. To this may be compared a sarcophagus in Milan prepared for himself, while still living, by a certain Diogenes « confessor », whose now-mutilated inscription begins: « et a domino coronati sunt beati confessores comites martyrum » (ibid., p. 109): Diogenes is a confessor in the strict sense of the word. Another category of inscription attributes the title of martyr to figures who did not shed their blood, such as Pontian, Cornelius, Pope Eusebius, Eusebius of Vercelli, Maximus of Naples, Dionysius of Milan, Apollinaris of Ravenna, and Felix of Nola. In the struggle against heresies, « confessor » (especially in the East, the corresponding ὁμολογητής) becomes the title of one who has suffered for orthodoxy. This is the sense found in the Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Peregrinatio, in Itinera Hierosol., ed. Geyer, CSEL, XXXIX, 62, 65), in Pseudo-Ambrose (Precatio, II), and in St. Augustine when he speaks of a « liberi confessor arbitrii et Dei Conditoris » (Contra Iulian., I, 73). Sidonius Apollinaris remains in this tradition when he gives St. Martin the title of « pontifex confessorque » (Epist., 4, 18, 4), as does the phrase: « Ego Ulfila episcopus et confessor » (Maximinus, Contr. Ambr., 63).
As the rigor of the terms fades, arbitrariness increasingly dominates the distribution of honorific titles. Yet the title of « confessor » tends to be reserved exclusively for saints who did not suffer martyrdom, gradually shifting from its proper sense to a metaphorical and spiritual one of asceticism.
BIBL.:
H. Leclercq, V. Confesseur, in DACL, III, coll. 2669-2700; P. de Labriolle, Martyr et confesseur, in Bull. d'ancienne littér. relig. et d'arch. chrét., 1 (1911), pp. 49-56; P. Franchi de' Cavalieri, Note agiografiche, fasc. 8, Città del Vaticano 1935, pp. 1-102; A. d'Alès, La théologie de s. Cyprien, Paris 1922, pp. 129-135; H. Delehaye, Sanctus. Essai sur le culte des saints dans l'antiquité, Bruxelles 1927, pp. 79-105; Id., Les origines du culte des martyrs, Bruxelles 1933², pp. 63-75; A. Hamman, Naissance des lettres de martyrs, Paris 1951, pp. 11-15; G. Lazzati, Gli sviluppi della letteratura sui martiri nei primi quattro secoli, Torino 1956, pp. 11-20.
Camillo Crivelli
3. Already Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215) speaks of the sage or the Christian who bears witness to Christ through a kind of spiritual martyrdom, consisting in a pure life and the observance of the commandments (Strom., IV, 15, 3). St. Cyprian (Epist., 13, 5) says: « qui pacifica et bona et iusta secundum praeceptum Christi loquitur, Christum quotidie confitetur ». This meaning subsequently becomes established. Confessors are the ascetics (ascetic-martyrdom) who, in a life of penance and prayer, confess the faith, particularly monks or anchorites, whether isolated or gathered in communities.
L. Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, Paris 1920, p. 442) argues, not without reason, that in this sense the prayer of Good Friday should be interpreted: « Oremus, et pro omnibus episcopis... ostiariis, confessoribus, virginibus, viduis et pro omni populo Dei », as well as the canons of the Council of Elvira (ca. 300; can. 25), of Arles (314; can. 9), and of Toledo (400; cann. 6, 9). This opinion has recently been contradicted by B. Botte (Arch. latin. medii aevi, 16 [1941], p. 140), though without convincing arguments.
4. Finally, a last meaning must be noted, which equates « confessor » with « cantor ». This is an opinion that dates back to Hugues Ménard (d. 1644), who formulated it based on can. 11 of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua) and cann. 6 and 9 of the Council of Toledo. Ménard’s opinion was accepted with reservation by Tommasi, contested by M. Gerbert and L. Lesley, revived by Morin, and disseminated by Leclercq (DACL, III, col. 2514). Recently, Botte has demonstrated its lack of foundation (art. cit. in Bibl., p. 145).
In the East, in public worship, the first to receive the title of « confessores » are Anthony (d. 356), Hilarion (d. 371), and Athanasius (d. 373); in the West, the bishops of the 4th century: Eustorgius (d. 331) in Milan, Sylvester (d. 335) in Rome, Martin (d. 397) in Gaul, Severus (d. ca. 409) in Naples, Augustine (d. 431) in Africa, and Apollinaris (5th century) in Ravenna. The bishops of the 4th century were defenders of the faith against Arianism. Though they had not suffered martyrdom, they had often endured violent persecutions; the anniversary of their « depositio » was celebrated, their bodies rested beneath the altar; they bore such resemblance to martyrs. It was fitting that they be given the title of « confessores », in a broader but closely related sense to the original. From bishops, the title extended to non-bishops. At this point, the concept of ascetic-martyrdom must have had an influence. Gregory of Tours, in De gloria confessorum, speaks of bishops, abbots, monks, virgins, and holy women.
CONFESSORE (confessarius). - The priest who administers the sacrament of Penance. His role is clearly defined by the nature of Penance and its place in the general plan of salvation.
It is well known that Confession is a sacrament administered in the form of an absolving sentence upon the repentant sinner, and as an instrument of divine mercy, it aims to make possible for the sinner the attainment of sanctifying Grace and celestial beatitude.
The fact that it is a Sacrament imposes upon the confessor all the requirements for the valid and licit administration of the Sacraments (intention to do what Christ instituted or at least what the Church does; state of grace, etc.).
The fact that Penance is exercised in the form of a judgment immediately implies that the confessor must be endowed with jurisdiction. For the relationship between jurisdiction and the priestly character, and especially for how it is acquired, V. PENITENZA. Here, it suffices to have mentioned its necessity in order to focus on the confessor’s duties.
The judicial form of Penance further requires that the confessor morally assure himself—always with a view to salvation—of the possibility, opportunity, and necessity of granting or denying absolution. In practice, this judgment revolves around three points: a) ascertaining whether the penitent has sinned and to what extent; b) verifying whether he is repentant for the sins committed and has a true resolve not to relapse; c) determining whether to grant, deny, or defer absolution for a time.
The confessor’s judgment is not abstract but concrete. It is not enough that, in the abstract, a certain act is gravely injurious to the norm of conduct to conclude that all who commit it are guilty of grave sin. For such guilt to exist, full awareness and free consent are required in the subject: two conditions that may sometimes be lacking or vary widely from subject to subject and case to case.
In judging the penitent’s sorrow—and consequently his resolve—greater attention should be given to the present will than to the foreseen future: a resolve may be real even if it is foreseen that, due to the weakness of the one making it, it will not be fully realized, at least not immediately, in practice.
In judging absolution, particularly regarding the opportunity to defer it, the confessor must be guided solely by the penitent’s spiritual good, considering his dispositions (cf. CIC, can. 886). Any other consideration would conflict with the general purpose of the Sacraments—and of Penance in particular—to benefit mankind.
This openness to the ultimate objective of the penitent’s greater spiritual good and his salvation introduces the second aspect of the confessor’s work: that which, by analogy with what the professional does to care for bodily health, is called the role of « physician » (cf. CIC, can. 888 § 1). Confession is not an end in itself; it is only a means to attain divine life within us and its blessed fulfillment in heaven. It does not aim merely to erase committed sins; it also aims to prevent new ones.
For this to be truly so, the confessor will strive to identify the roots of evil and suggest remedies. In this regard, he must avoid two equally harmful extremes: an unbridled naturalism and an abstract supernaturalism. Human activity unfolds according to certain laws (consider, for example, the law that ideas tend toward acts and do so all the more strongly the more concrete they are, the law by which acts tend to evoke corresponding ideas, the law governing the formation of habits, etc.). The wise educator—and first among them, the confessor in his role as « physician »—must not forget this if he does not wish to risk failure or demand miracles from God. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that with natural forces alone, it is not possible to observe even the natural law for long. These observations should be kept in mind, especially in structuring what is called « penance » and « satisfaction ». A penance equal for all makes no more sense than a medicine equal for all. For the same reason, a generic penance makes no sense. In indicating or imposing it, the confessor-physician must take into account the penitent’s situation as revealed in Confession.
Thus emerges the answer to certain questions on which casuistry lingers extensively: what must the confessor (c.) say? On what may he remain silent, and on what must he speak? He clearly cannot remain silent on anything whose omission—even involuntary—would bar the penitent from the path of salvation (e.g., the minimum of truth to be believed) or harm others, whether considered individually or collectively (e.g., the restitution of ill-gotten goods or the repair of unjustly caused damages). In the first case, one would contravene the purpose of Confession for the penitent’s benefit; in the second, one would violate another’s right not to be unjustly harmed. The confessor may, however, remain silent when his words would have no other effect than to transform material sins into formal sins—that is, into true faults—acts which, due to lack of awareness or free consent, lie outside the realm of morality.
To fully correspond to his function, the confessor must be endowed with great learning, deep knowledge of the penitent, extensive experience, and profound love for Christ and souls.
First and foremost, great learning. The confessor must know what every individual must do in every particular case. For he could not judge wherein the penitent has failed if he did not know what the latter ought to have done and did not; nor could he securely guide him to his end if he did not clearly understand what that end consists of. And all this not in the abstract, but in concrete terms.
His knowledge must therefore include: a) a profound understanding of natural law, that is, what reason derives with the faculties and means at its disposal; b) of revealed law, that is, what Christian Revelation has added to the natural norm of conduct; c) of general and particular ecclesiastical law, as well as the most common norms of civil law—that is, what the legislator has added to clarify and determine the natural and revealed norm. It is not enough, for example, that he knows what reason dictates regarding one’s attitude toward God; he must also know what God Himself has positively established and the determinations added by ecclesiastical authority (precepts of the Church, CIC, synods, etc.).
To this must be added a deep knowledge of the penitent. For how could he judge wherein the latter has fallen short of the norm of conduct if he did not also know what he has done? How could he form a sound judgment on the penitent’s moral responsibility without knowing the motives behind his actions? How could he securely indicate the path to choose if he does not know the penitent’s condition, tendencies, habits, the environments he frequents, and the people with whom he lives?
This profound knowledge of the penitent is undoubtedly greatly aided by the Confession he spontaneously makes. Yet this will not always suffice. Hence arises the necessity for the confessor to question the penitent. In doing so, however, he must remain within the bounds of Confession’s purposes. Indeed, even within those bounds, he must carefully avoid
anything that might render Confession more burdensome than necessary or give the impression of curiosity or morbidness. The CIC expressly recalls the prohibition against asking the name of an accomplice (can. 888 § 2). He must know how to discern what lies behind a timid or discreet hint, to grasp at once the content of a delicate or painful accusation. Such dignified discretion “is especially required in sexual matters, particularly with regard to women and children. An old axiom states that in materia luxuriae multo melius est in pluribus deficere ratione integritatis Confessionis, quam in uno superabundare.” Alongside the prescriptions of the CIC, can. 888 § 2, the circular of the Holy Office dated 16 May 1943, De agendi ratione confessariorum circa VI decalogi praeceptum, merits mention here, as it provides precise and detailed norms. The sense of nuance is the infallible sign of open and experienced spirits.
The proper fusion of the confessor’s theoretical preparation and its exact application to the lives of those who turn to him will be ensured—or at least facilitated—by experience. Each day, he will see more clearly how difficult it sometimes is to judge the concrete moral value of an action. He will increasingly recognize how complicated life is and how arduous it can be to indicate to a person the goal to pursue and the best way to reach II. Above all, prolonged contact with life will teach the confessor how great human weakness is, especially in certain areas, and how difficult it is to remain faithful at every moment to one’s ideal of life.
He will then not be surprised that differing opinions and sometimes contrasting ways of resolving the same “cases” emerge. As one moves away from the clear light of the supreme principles written in every human heart, the divergence of opinions grows, and the range of views lengthens. In this regard, the confessor will cultivate great modesty. His concern must not be to impose his own way of seeing on everyone and always, but to seek the best path to free the penitent from his state of guilt and lead him to salvation. It is natural that he should tend to prefer his own opinion, but he must always be ready to sacrifice it when this appears necessary for the penitent’s good. In any case, he must remember that the penitent has the right to follow the opinion he prefers, provided it is truly (at least extrinsically) probable (cf. C. Cruysberghs, De conscientia, 5ª ed., Malines 1928, pp. 101-102).
The same applies to different schools of spirituality. The confessor must not seek to align all penitents with his own ideal of spiritual life but must always pursue the greatest good of the souls who turn to him.
Moreover, the experience of the great difficulty inherent in seeking and practicing the moral life will teach the confessor immense kindness toward “sinners.” Usually, he does not face obstinate rebels or perverse degenerates, diabolically devoted to evil and closed to the light. More often, he faces victims of inexperience or concupiscence. Above all, he faces souls that are “contrite” (that is, broken) or at least repentant. He must therefore possess immense understanding, infinite patience, and boundless kindness. He will be patient in receiving, patient in listening, patient in advising, patient in dismissing. He will be gentle in reproving, understanding in correcting. He must constantly draw inspiration from the example of Christ and His conduct with the Samaritan woman, Magdalene, the adulteress, Judas, St. Peter, and the Apostles. According to the felicitous expression of Leo XII, “indutus viscera misericordiae Christi Iesu... sciat studiose, patienter et mansuete cum (peccatori) agere” (bull Charitate Christi). There will be cases in which he must be firm in reproving and strict in demanding. But he will always be one “qui condolere possit iis qui ignorant et errant” (Hebr. 5:2). Traditional doctrine summarizes all this by saying that the confessor, in addition to being a judge and physician, must also be a “father.”
At this point, it is not difficult to see how Penance is the Sacrament that demands the greatest participation from its minister. In the others, it suffices to apply a certain “matter” to a determined “form”—that is, to pronounce certain words while performing certain rites, with the intention of doing what the Church does. It matters little whether the minister is intelligent or mediocre, learned or ignorant, prudent or not. The result in terms of salvation is the same. In Penance, however, the healing action also depends on the priest’s activity. Moreover, the confessor is required to participate in the sentiments and attitude of Christ to a far greater extent than in the other Sacraments.
CONFESSORE (storia)
Il termine c. ha assunto nella storia della Chiesa significati diversi. In origine indicava il cristiano che, avendo confessato la fede di Cristo dinanzi ai persecutori, aveva subito il carcere, la tortura o altre pene, senza però giungere al martirio. In questo senso il termine è usato già da Tertulliano (De corona, 1; De fuga, 1; De pudicitia, 22) e da Cipriano (Ep., 76, 3). Più tardi, quando le persecuzioni cessarono, il termine passò ad indicare coloro che, pur non avendo subito il martirio, avevano dato prova di particolare virtù e santità di vita. In questo senso il termine è usato da s. Girolamo (Ep., 108, 15) e da s. Agostino (Serm., 286, 5). Nel Medioevo il termine c. fu riservato ai sacerdoti che avevano ricevuto la facoltà di ascoltare le confessioni e di assolvere i penitenti. Questa accezione è quella che si è mantenuta fino ai nostri giorni.
BIBL.:
H. LECLERCQ, in DACL, III, coll. 2693-2704; J. DE GHELLINCK, in DThC, III, coll. 896-900; E. VACANDARD, in Dict. de Théol. cath., III, coll. 896-900; G. MORIN, in Rev. Bénéd., XXVII (1910), pp. 365-377; P. DE LABRIOLLE, in Rev. Hist. Eccl., VIII (1907), pp. 465-479; A. D'ALÈS, in Nouv. Rev. Théol., LX (1928), pp. 5-22; V. MONACHINO, I confessori nella Chiesa antica, Roma 1950.
A. VACANT
The Confessor, for all the reasons mentioned, must possess a particular maturity, to which natural balance, grace, age, and experience with souls all greatly contribute. Regarding age, recent provisions aiming to raise the minimum age required to hear confessions—especially for certain groups of people—fall within this line of thought. For the same reasons, the administration of individual confessions requires a certain amount of time. Once the confession is concluded, the confessor’s duties do not end. Indeed, it is precisely from that moment that one of his gravest obligations begins: sacramental seal (v.).
For the Confessor of the Pontifical Family, V. FAMIGLIA PONTIFICIA.
General works: P. Segneri, Il confessore istruito, Venice 1761; classic is the work of St. Alphonsus, Pratica del confessore per esercitare il suo ministero, ed. G. M. Blanc, Rome 1912 (Latin version), ed. I. Pistoni, Modena 1948. Cf. also: F. Chassière, Ego te absolvo..., trans. by C. Cammada, Milan 1914; E. Gombart, s.V. in DDC, IV, cols. 14-46; A. Grazioli, La pratica dei confessori, Colle Don Bosco 1946.
Regarding the confessor’s conduct with certain categories of penitents, cf. the individual entries (FANCIULLI; OCCASIONARI; SCRUPOLOSI; etc.).
On the instruction of the Holy Office, cf. I. Pistoni, De agendi ratione confessariorum circa sextum decalogi praeceptum, 3rd ed., Modena 1948.
G. Battista Guzzetti