CONFESSOR (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, aims to enable even the sinner to attain sanctifying grace and heavenly beatitude.
The fact that it is a sacrament imposes upon the confessor all the requirements for the valid and lawful 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 possess jurisdiction. For the relationship this bears to the priestly character and, above all, for how it is acquired, see PENITENCE. Here it suffices to have noted its necessity in order to focus on the tasks of the confessor.
The judicial form of Penance further implies that the confessor must always be morally certain—with a view to the salvation of the penitent—of the possibility, the opportunity, and the necessity of granting or withholding absolution. In practice, this judgment revolves around three points: a) ascertaining whether the penitent has sinned and to what extent; b) determining whether he is truly repentant of his faults and has a firm purpose of amendment; c) deciding whether to grant, withhold, or defer absolution.
The confessor’s judgment is not abstract but concrete. It is not enough, in fact, that a given act, abstractly considered, gravely violates the norm of conduct to conclude that all who perform it incur grave guilt. For such guilt to exist, full advertence and free consent are required—two conditions that may sometimes be lacking or vary widely from person to person and case to case.
In judging the penitent’s sorrow—and consequently his purpose of amendment—the confessor must attend more to the present will than to future expectations: a purpose may be genuine even if it is foreseen that, due to the penitent’s weakness, it will not be fully realized, at least immediately, in practice.
In judging whether to grant absolution, especially with regard to deferring it, the confessor must be guided solely by the spiritual good of the penitent, attending to his dispositions (cf. CIC, can. 886). Any other consideration would run counter to the general purpose of the sacraments—and of Penance in particular—to benefit humanity.
This focus on the ultimate goal of the penitent’s greater spiritual good and his salvation introduces the second aspect of the confessor’s work: the so-called “medical” task (cf. CIC, can. 888 § 1), by analogy with the work of a physician who cares for bodily health. Confession is not an end in itself; it is merely a means to attain divine life within us and its blessed fulfillment in heaven. It does not aim solely at removing committed sins; it also seeks to prevent new ones.
To fulfill this role effectively, the confessor must strive to identify the roots of evil and suggest remedies. In this regard, he must avoid two equally harmful extremes: unchecked naturalism and abstract supernaturalism. Human activity follows certain laws (consider, for example, the law that ideas tend toward acts and do so more strongly the more concrete they are; the law by which acts tend to generate corresponding ideas; the law governing the formation of habits, etc.). A wise educator—and first and foremost, the confessor in his role as “physician”—must not forget this if he wishes to avoid failure or demand miracles from God. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that even the natural law cannot be observed for long by human strength alone. These considerations are especially pertinent when establishing what is called “penance” and “satisfaction.” A penance that is uniform for all is as meaningless as a medicine that is uniform for all. For the same reason, a generic penance is meaningless. In prescribing or imposing it, the “physician” must take into account the penitent’s situation as revealed in Confession.
This clarifies the answer to certain questions on which casuistry dwells at length: what must the confessor say? On what may he remain silent, and on what must he speak? He cannot, of course, remain silent about anything whose omission—even if unintentional—would bar the penitent from the path of salvation (e.g., the minimum truths to be believed) or harm others, whether individually or collectively (e.g., restitution of stolen goods or repair of unjustly caused damages). In the first case, he would contravene the purpose of Confession to benefit the penitent; in the second, he would violate the right of others not to be unjustly harmed. The confessor may, however, remain silent when his words would merely transform material sins into formal sins, i.e., true and proper offenses—acts that, due to lack of advertence or free consent, fall outside the realm of morality.
To fully correspond to his function, the confessor must possess great learning, deep knowledge of the penitent, extensive experience, and a profound love of Christ and souls.
First and foremost, great learning. The confessor must know what each individual person must do in every single case. He could not judge in what the penitent has failed unless he knew what ought to have been done and was not; nor could he guide him securely to his end unless he clearly understood what that end entails—and not in the abstract, but concretely.
His knowledge therefore requires: a) a profound grasp of natural law, i.e., what reason discerns with the faculties and means at its disposal; b) revealed law, i.e., what Christian Revelation has added to the natural norm of conduct; c) general and particular ecclesiastical law, and the most common norms of civil law, i.e., what the legislator has added to clarify and specify the natural and revealed norm. It is not enough, for example, for him to know what reason says about the attitude to be maintained toward God; he must also know what God Himself has positively established and the determinations added by the authority of the Church (precepts of the Church, the Code of Canon Law, synods, etc.).
To this must be added a deep knowledge of the penitent. How could he judge in what the penitent has fallen short of the norm of conduct if he does not also know what the penitent has done? How could he render a sound judgment on the penitent’s moral responsibility without knowing the motives behind his actions? How could he confidently indicate the path to choose if he does not know the penitent’s condition, his tendencies, his habits, the environments he frequents, and the people with whom he lives?
This profound understanding of the penitent is undoubtedly greatly aided by the confession that he spontaneously makes. But this will not always be sufficient. Hence the necessity arises for the confessor to question the penitent. In doing so, however, he must remain within the scope of the purposes of confession. Indeed, even within that scope, he must carefully avoid anything that might make confession more burdensome than necessary or give the impression of curiosity or morbidness. The *Codex Iuris Canonici* expressly recalls the prohibition against asking the name of an accomplice (can. 888-92). One must be able 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 incumbent in matters of a sexual nature, particularly with regard to women and children. An old saying holds that “in matters of lust, it is far better in most cases to err on the side of safeguarding the integrity of confession than to err by excess.”
Worthy of mention here, alongside the prescriptions of the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, can. 888-92, is the circular of the Holy Office dated 16 May 1943, *De agendi ratione confessariorum circa VI decalogi praeceptum*, which provides precise and detailed norms. A keen sensitivity to nuances is here the infallible mark of open and experienced minds. The proper blending of the confessor’s theoretical preparation with the practical application to the lives of those who come to him will be ensured, or at least fostered, by experience. Day by day he will come to see how difficult it can sometimes be to judge the concrete moral value of an action. He will increasingly realize how complex life is and how arduous it can be to point a person toward the goal and the best path to reach II. Above all, prolonged engagement with life will teach the confessor how great human weakness is, especially in certain spheres, and how difficult it is to remain faithful at every moment to one’s ideal of life.
He will not then be surprised when differing opinions and sometimes conflicting ways of resolving the same “cases” emerge. As one moves away from the clear light of the supreme principles written on every human heart, divergence of opinion grows and the list of opinions lengthens. In this regard, the confessor will cultivate great humility. His concern must not be to impose his own way of seeing things on everyone and at all times, but to seek the best way to free the penitent from a state of guilt and lead him to salvation. It is natural that he should prefer his own opinion, but he must always be ready to set it aside 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*, 5th ed., Malines 1928, pp. 101-102).
The same must be said of the different schools of spirituality. The confessor must not seek to align all penitents with his own ideal of spiritual life, but must strive in all things for the greater good of the souls who come to him.
Experience of the great difficulty involved in seeking and practicing the moral life will then teach the confessor an immense kindness toward “sinners.” Usually he does not face obstinate rebels or depraved degenerates, diabolically devoted to evil and closed to the light. More often he faces victims of experience or concupiscence. Above all, he faces souls that are “contrite” (that is, broken) or at least repentant. He must therefore show 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 kind in reproving, understanding in correcting. He must constantly take his inspiration from the example of Christ and His conduct with the Samaritan woman, Mary Magdalene, the woman taken in adultery, Judas, St. Peter, and the Apostles. In the felicitous words of Leo XIII, he should be “indutus viscera misericordiae Christi Iesu... sciat studiose, patienter et mansuete cum (peccatoribus) agere” (bull *Charitate Christi*).
There will be cases in which he must be firm in reproof and severe in demanding amendment. But he will always be one “qui condolere possit iis qui ignorant et errant” (Heb 5:2). Traditional doctrine sums this up by saying that the confessor, besides being a judge and a physician, must also be a “father.”
It is not difficult to see, at this point, how the Sacrament of Penance is the one that demands the greatest participation from the minister. In the other sacraments, 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 otherwise. The result in terms of salvation is the same. In Penance, however, the healing action also depends on the activity of the priest. Moreover, in the confessor a greater participation in the sentiments and attitude of Christ is required than in the other sacraments.
For all the reasons mentioned, it is necessary that the confessor possess a particular maturity, which is greatly aided, besides natural balance and grace, by age and experience of souls. With regard to age, certain recent provisions aimed at raising the minimum age required for hearing confessions, especially of certain groups of persons, fall within this context. For the same reasons, the hearing of individual confessions requires a certain amount of time. Once the confession is concluded, the duties of the confessor do not end; rather, from that moment begins one of his most grave obligations: that of the sacramental seal (v.).
For the confessor of the Papal Household, V. FAMIGLIA PONTIFICIA.
General works: P. Segneri, *Il confessore istruito*, Venice 1761; and the work of St. Alphonsus, *Pratica del confessore per esercitare il suo ministero*, ed. G. M. Blanc, Rome 1912 (Italian version), ed. I. Pistoni, Modena 1948. Cf. also: F. Chassière, *Ego te absolvo...*, trans. by C. Cammada, Milan 1914; E. Gombert, s.V. in *DDC*, IV, cols. 14-46; A. Grazioli, *La pratica dei confessori*, Colle Don Bosco 1946.
Regarding the manner of acting of the confessor with certain categories of persons, 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
CONFISCATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL GOODS:
V. SECOLARIZZAZIONE; USURPAZIONE.