Who can receive Holy Communion?

Posted on May 13th, 2012 by Father John Bartunek

Dear Father John, It is my understanding that only Catholics who are in the state of grace may receive Holy Communion. I know that only God really knows the state of a person’s soul. I am also aware that there have been hurts inflicted by very fallible and imperfect members of the Church that may prevent a person from fully and outwardly embracing the Church. If a person is not a member of the Catholic Church, but believes that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, why should they not receive Holy Communion?

I am honored to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. I have been approached while in this position by just such a person. I have given him the Holy Eucharist, but am feeling more and more uncomfortable because I have been told that that someone who is not a Catholic should not receive.  I do not want to drive a further wedge between him and the Church, but feel that I need to talk to him about it. What can I say? How can I explain to this person why he should not receive the Holy Eucharist?

A: This question is extremely difficult for me to answer. I can only provide general observations, but you are referencing some specific situations (or at least one) without detailing them. I apologize ahead of time if my answer doesn’t satisfy. I am also wondering a bit about what they explained to you in this regard when they prepared you to become an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. Perhaps during that preparation you met someone closer to home that you may be able to approach about the specific situation you reference. Here also is a good summary of the biblical and Catechetical passages that are involved in this issue. Now here are a few more thoughts.

An Intimate Encounter

Receiving Holy Communion is a deeply personal encounter with Jesus Christ, who is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine, within Christ’s family of the Church. When Jesus gives himself to us in Holy Communion, he is saying many things, things like the following: “I know you and I love you. I long to share your life and to allow you to share my life. I want you with me, and I want my grace to heal, strengthen, enlighten, and guide your difficult journey through this fallen world. I give you this spiritual nourishment as a sign of my love for you and my commitment to you. All that I lived, taught, and suffered, I did for you…”

When we receive Holy Communion, we are accepting Christ’s love and Christ’s grace. That includes accepting all that he has taught, and all that his Church teaches, about the meaning of life and the path to fuller and fuller “union with” (this is what “communion” means) our Lord and Savior here on earth, and to a complete union with him forever in heaven. When we receive him, we are telling him: “Lord, I believe in you, and in all you have taught, and in all you have done for me. I believe in your Church, through which you give me this Blessed Sacrament. I long to follow you more closely. I long for my life to give you glory and to be a mirror of your goodness in this dark world. I promise to do everything I can to obey your commandments, since that is how you have asked me to show you my love (cf. John 14:15). I want to live in true friendship with you, today, tomorrow, and forever.”

Avoiding a Lie

Now, someone who does not accept what the Catholic Church teaches about faith and morals, cannot actually say those things. They cannot be in full communion with Christ in the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church believes that Christ continues to act in the world through his Church. A Lutheran, an Episcopalian, or a Buddhist, for instance, does not accept all the basic teachings of the Gospels as explained in the Catholic Catechism, and so they are not in “communion” with Christ in his Church – if they did accept those teachings, they would become Catholic. So, for someone in that position to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is, in a sense, for them to say something that they really don’t believe (i.e., “I am in communion with Christ and his Catholic Church”) – it’s a kind of lie. (Here is a short essay I wrote explaining the differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, and here is another short essay I wrote explaining the Church’s view of non-Christian religions.)

If someone who does believe what the Catechism teaches about faith and morals (and the Catechism is simply a systematic explanation of what Jesus taught in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit teaches in the rest of the Scriptures), but refuses to live by that teaching, they would also be contradicting themselves by receiving Holy Communion. Someone who is having an affair, for example, would need to repent of the sin, confess the sin, and make a firm resolution to break off the affair before receiving Holy Communion. An affair is a grave sin against marriage, against God’s plan for marriage, against God’s plan for the people having the affair. To receive Communion without repenting from and confessing that sin is like saying to Jesus, “I want to follow you, but I think you are wrong about the meaning of marriage and the evil of adultery, so I am just going to keep doing my own thing in that area.” It’s a contradiction; it’s saying that I am in communion with Christ, but then, in my next breath, turning around and rejecting him, slapping him in the face. It’s, again, in a certain sense, a lie.

Dealing with Difficult Situations

If you know people who really want to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, but who are not currently in a position to be able to do so, I would encourage you to begin a relationship of spiritual friendship and instruction with them. Explain to them that Jesus too wants to give himself to them in this Blessed Sacrament. But explain to them that the Sacrament doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is a central part of a relationship in which we must accept Christ for who he truly is: the Lord of the universe and the one Savior. And so, we must acknowledge our dependence on him, and we must “repent and believe in the good news!” as he said in his first homily (Mark 1:15). We must help people in this situation to undertake and persevere on a journey to the fullness of faith. Otherwise, we invite them to live a kind of lie every time they receive Holy Communion, and we only make the situation worse.

While they are on this journey, we should encourage them to come to Mass, to participate in the Liturgy, to receive blessings and to join in the prayer of the Church. But until they have repented from their sin or professed the Catholic faith, they really can’t receive Holy Communion in the way that God desires, and in a way that will nourish their souls with his grace.

“Speaking the Truth in Love” (Ephesians 4:15)

This may be a difficult process. People may be offended. We have to try and understand where they are coming from, and be gentle and respectful and patient, and explain, and not condemn – but at the same time, we must believe deeply in the power of God’s grace to change hearts, and in the power of the truth of our holy faith to “set us free” (cf. John 8:32). We do no favors to anyone by obscuring or disobeying the teaching of our Lord and of his Church. In this area, we need to ask for God’s grace to give us prudence and compassion, so that we don’t “break the bruised weed or put out the smoldering wick” (cf. Matthew 12:2). This is what St. Paul meant, at least in part, by the phrase “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). It’s what St. Peter exhorts us to do: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Sometimes we will make mistakes. But God can use even our clumsy efforts to build his Kingdom.

St. Paul was very clear about the reverence and right-heartedness required for worthy reception of Holy Communion: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:27–28). Let us all pray that we will receive Jesus with the love he longs for, and help others do the same. He wants that – passionately.

Christ’s Last Supper – “Take and Eat…” What did Jesus really mean?

Posted on April 21st, 2011 by Kathryn Marcellino OCDS

On Holy Thursday, we celebrate Jesus’ last supper before his death. On that night, “He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.’” (Luke 22:15) “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:19-20)

Throughout the centuries the Church has fulfilled Jesus request at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me” through the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrament of Holy Communion.

What does Jesus actually mean by his words at the Last Supper? Not every Christian or even every Catholic agrees on their meaning; however, the Catholic Church officially teaches that the Gospels mean just what they say and are literally true.

It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior. The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John… Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. (Dei Verbum Chapter 5, 18 and 19)

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Communion is not merely symbolic and that in this sacrament Jesus gives us his very self to nourish us spiritually and to help us become more united to himself so that we might have “life”. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” The Church teaches that when we receive Holy Communion we are receiving Christ’s actual body, blood, soul and divinity.

The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’ In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. (CCC1374-1375)

That is why the Church teaches that “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ ‘The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself…’ ” (CCC 1324)

Despite these very clear official teachings of the Catholic faith, there was a Gallup poll taken in 1992 of Catholics regarding Holy Communion of 519 U.S. Catholics and in this poll only 30% of those asked said they believed that in Holy Communion we actually do receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine (also known as the Real Presence). For this reason I would like to go into some logical reasons that we can accept this teaching (even though if we really understand our Catholic faith we come to understand that the Church has infallible teachings, and this is one of them, so really each Church teaching does not need to be proven, rather as the Catechism states that having the Catholic faith means that: “We believe all ‘that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed’ ” CCC 182.)

So what other evidence besides Church teaching do we have that Jesus actually meant what he said literally at the Last Supper? Below are some reasons and even some miracles supporting this teaching.

Many or most Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but the question remains, what is the correct interpretation? Why do many denominations believe something different if the Bible is easy to understand? The answer is that we have other information (including Sacred Tradition) about Jesus that is not contained in the Bible and that sheds light on what he meant.

To me it is reasonable to believe that Jesus would make sure through his personal instructions to his apostles and also through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that Peter and the apostles would understand what He taught and meant so they could teach these truths to the world. So it is logical to believe that the apostles and those whom they personally instructed would understand what Jesus’ words at the Last Supper meant as well as his other teachings… and if they did not understand right away, Jesus would make sure they understood through the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and before he commissioned them to preach the Gospel to the whole world.

So what did the apostles and early Christians believe about Holy Communion? We have both the Bible and early church writings to see what they meant. Below are some examples.

In the Bible we see what St. Paul’s said in Corinthians:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor. 10:16-17)

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:23-29)

Also in the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, we see that Jesus has already introduced the idea of eating his body and blood before the Last Supper:

Jesus said in John 6:48-65:

‘I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’ These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, ‘Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’ Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.

If Jesus really meant what he said literally we would expect the early Christians to also believe this way (having been taught by the apostles and their successors) and we find historically that they did take Jesus’ words about Holy Commuion literally and not just symbolically as some do today. Below is a short sample of what some of the Early Church Fathers of the first few centuries said about the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr: “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus: “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33?32 [A.D. 189]).

St. Augustine: “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Sermons 411).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life? flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid. 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria: “?Eat my flesh,? [Jesus] says, ?and drink my blood.? The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

We also have the witness of some early Christian martyrs who gave up their lives because of their believe in this teaching.

Besides the official teaching of the Church, the Bible and Early Church Fathers, there have been various miracles throughout the centuries to point to the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist. Some of these miracles have been scientifically validated in modern times like the one at Lanciano where in the presence of an unbelieving priest and those present the host actually took on the appearance of real human flesh. To find out more click here. To read about other Eucharistic miracles click here.

Also the Saints through whom God has worked many miracles had a great devotion to Jesus in the Eucharist. Here are a few examples:

St. John Vianney: “If we really understood the Mass, we would die of joy.” “There is nothing so great as the Eucharist. If God had something more precious, He would have given it to us.”

St. Jerome: “Without doubt, the Lord grants all favors which are asked of Him in Mass, provided they be fitting for us; and, which is a matter of great wonder, ofttimes He also grants that also which is not demanded of Him, if we, on our part, put no obstacle in the way.”

St. Leonard of Port Maurice: “Be now confounded for very wonder, reflecting that the proposition just laid down is indeed most true; a soul assisting with adequate devotion at holy Mass renders more honor to God than that which all the Angels and all the Saints put together render with all their adorations.”

The above examples are just a few quotes from Church teachings, Early Church Fathers, teachings of the Saints, and also miracles associated with the Eucharist. So what is one to make of all this? Perhaps some Christians who believe in the Bible and take it literally don’t take these words of Christ literally, but upon in-depth study of the sources mentioned, if one takes the time to study them it seems most reasonable to take Jesus’ words literally remembering that God can do all things. It is just a matter as to what Jesus really meant by his teachings, not whether this is possible or even probable, because the Bible says that “with God all things are possible.” (Matt. 19:26)

Our Catholic faith teaches us when we go to Mass that Jesus is not only there in spirit but is actually physically present in Holy Communion and that we can be united to Jesus in this special way by receiving him. After all it is Jesus himself who said in the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, that we must eat his body if we want life within us. The disciples didn’t understand what Jesus could mean when he first said this and some of them left, but we find out at his last supper what he meant. Jesus was referring to Holy Communion and repeated this teaching at the Last Supper when he said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Matt 26:26) and said to do this in remembrance of him which we do at each Mass.

We can be united to Jesus in a very special way here on earth through the reception of Holy Communion. This is what Jesus desired. I can see no other way we can be closer to Jesus on this earth both physically and spiritually than receiving him with devotion and love in Holy Communion.

There is so much to say about Holy Communion that a short article like this cannot cover. I would invite everyone to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is online here at: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm  At my website at www.catholicspiritualdirection.org there is a page with links to Church documents and writings of the saints here. There are also some very good talks and books on the Mass and Eucharist such as Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. If we want to really know our faith we need to take time to study.

If you are not sure if Jesus really meant what he said at the Last Supper to be taken literally and/or about any other Catholic teachings, I invite you to study the actual teachings of the Church (i.e. the Catechism, papal encyclicals, teachings of the saints, writings of the Early Church Fathers, and solidly Catholic books on the subject), and also to ask Jesus in prayer with an open heart to show you his desire and the truth regarding this and other teachings. For those of us who do believe, let us have a greater devotion and reverence to Jesus in this Sacrament and faithfully attend Mass at least each Sunday.

Does the Holy Spirit work with those outside of the Church?

Posted on July 27th, 2009 by Father John Bartunek

Q: Dear Father John, I thought I understood, more or less, how the Holy Spirit works in our lives. But in a recent faith sharing group, a question came up that made me wonder. Someone asked if the Holy Spirit would or would not be with un-baptized persons if they ask Holy Spirit to dwell in them or to give them fortitude in a difficult situation. This came up while we were discussing how God’s grace can touch the lives of those who have never even heard of Jesus. I was hoping you could shed some light on this for me.

A: I am glad you asked this question. It reminds us that the vast treasure of theological reflection that our Church has accumulated through the centuries isn’t just irrelevant abstraction. It has grown up organically, in order to help us understand better and better how God works, so that we can cooperate with him more and more effectively.

In the first place, remember that God is not limited to working through the sacraments. Therefore, he can make saints without them if he so pleases; he can pour his grace into souls however and whenever he sees fit. At the same time, however, he himself established the sacraments as the normal, ordinary way to communicate his grace. For us to belittle them or treat them as optional, therefore, is presumptuous. He established them because in his wisdom he knows that human nature always experiences and expresses spiritual realities through material realities. And so, something real changes in our souls at baptism: God comes to dwell in us, adopts us, and actually alters (elevates) our souls at a deep, ontological level. In other words, it is not indifferent whether or not someone gets baptized.

“Types” of Baptism

The Church has long pointed out, however, that this grace of baptism can come in three ways: through the validly administered sacrament of baptism; through baptism by blood; and baptism of desire.

• Baptism of blood refers to the martyrdom of someone who dies for the Christian faith before actually receiving the sacrament of baptism. In this case, the effects of martyrdom include some of the effects of baptism: the complete remission of sin and the privilege of immediate entrance into heaven. This concept of baptism of blood came into focus during the first centuries of the Church’s existence. During the many waves of Roman persecution, men and women who were still only catechumens (receiving instruction in the faith and preparing for baptism), and pagans who suddenly converted to the faith (for example, upon seeing the heroic courage of a martyr) were often executed along with baptized Christians.

• Baptism of desire is a bit different, a bit more mysterious. It too is the equivalent of sacramental baptism, and therefore sufficient for obtaining the state of grace and the promise of salvation. Yet the circumstances by which it comes to pass or known only to God. Here’s how the Second Vatican Council explained it: “Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictate of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Constitution on the Church, I, 16).

As you can see, we simply cannot fathom all the wonderful ways in which God works in the souls of us sinners. God’s action is so rich!

The “Types” of Grace

As regards your specific question, about someone who is not baptized asking for help from the Holy Spirit, it may be useful to recall the different types of grace.

• There is sanctifying grace (the state of being in friendship with Christ, of being an adopted child of God, of having been redeemed from original sin). This is introduced into our lives at baptism, and it is increased, or deepened, through prayer, fidelity to God’s will, and the other sacraments.

• There is also sacramental grace, a specific strengthening or benefit unique to each sacrament. For example, the sacramental grace of confession is the forgiveness of personal sins and the strengthening of our will towards future fidelity. The sacramental grace of marriage is the marriage bond which helps both spouses grow in communion with God through living their communion with each other, etc.

• Then there is what is commonly referred to as actual grace. This is a boost of supernatural help that comes to assist us in a specific situation. When we talk about “graces,” this is usually what we mean – a light from the Holy Spirit, an added dose of patience when I really needed it… These actual graces are distinct from sanctifying grace. So, when non-baptized persons, who probably don’t have sanctifying grace, ask for help from the Holy Spirit, they are asking for this kind of grace, actual grace. And God is always ready to give actual graces, even when we don’t ask, to draw us closer to him.

These distinctions may seem persnickety. But let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Reflecting on the many ways in which God reaches out to us and stays involved in our lives reminds of the most important thing: that he is our Father, passionately interested in the smallest details of our little, limited world.

Yours in Christ, Father John Bartunek, LC

What is the difference between confession and spiritual direction?

Posted on June 22nd, 2009 by Father John Bartunek

Q: Dear Father John, what is the difference between confession and spiritual direction?

A: Confession and spiritual direction are like partially overlapping circles: they share some common characteristics, but their centers, their essences, are distinct.

The Distinction of Confession

The essence of confession is the sacramental grace that Christ gives to our soul through the ministry of his priest. When we open our hearts to him through sincere repentance and honest confession of our sins within the sacrament of reconciliation, we receive an infusion of grace that forgives our sins, strengthens our spiritual weakness (especially regarding the behaviors that we confessed), and increases the bond of our supernatural friendship with Christ. It also exercises and therefore increases the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity. In confession, God acts on our soul the way a surgeon acts on a patient: directly, profoundly, in ways that we could never reproduce by merely natural efforts.

This is why we don’t have to worry even if the priest who hears our confession is taciturn, deaf, grumpy, in mortal sin, or even (God forbid) harsh. The priest is God’s instrument of grace within this sacrament, not the source of that grace.

The Distinction of Spiritual Direction

The essence of spiritual direction is solid advice. The spiritual director helps us see more clearly what God is asking of us and how he is acting in our lives. The director also helps us see objectively the quality of our response to God: are we being docile and humble, or are we just tricking ourselves into doing what we feel like? The spiritual director is like the physical therapist that helps us identify the exercises we need to be doing in order to grow spiritually, and then helps us adjust our spiritual program of work in order to keep it effective and on track. This is invaluable advice, but it is noticeably different than that surgeon who actually reconstructs a torn ligament or rebuilds a broken lung.

This is one of the reasons why nothing inhibits lay people from becoming excellent spiritual directors. Ordination is not required, just solid training in spiritual theology, ample personal experience in the spiritual life, and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of knowledge (discernment) and counsel. But God has reserved the sacrament of confession to his ordained priests, in order to guarantee that he acts directly therein.

The Overlap

Nevertheless, although the essences differ, the secondary characteristics of confession and spiritual direction can often overlap. A good confessor gives more than absolution; he also utilizes the sacred moment in which this person is opening their heart to God to remind them of God’s goodness, love, and wisdom. If he detects some confusion or frustration, he can also give sound advice, just as a spiritual director would do. If the penitent has questions or doubts, the confessor answers and resolves them. The atmosphere of faith in which the sacrament takes place is incomparably propitious for the action of the Holy Spirit and the penitent’s docility to that action. In past centuries, in fact, lay people usually received spiritual direction within the sacrament. They would go to the same priest regularly for confession, and this “confessor” became their spiritual father, their spiritual director. In more recent times, however, the practice of having separate spiritual direction, which used to be reserved for consecrated religious, has spread to the laity as well. This is linked to the Church’s growing emphasis on the lay vocation as a vocation to holiness, just as much as a religious vocation is a call to holiness. Only the states of life differ.

Some priests who are excellent confessors even prefer to give spiritual direction within the sacrament of confession. Combining the two makes for a longer stay in the confessional, but it can be fruitful. If you are having trouble finding a spiritual director, you may want to ask around to find out which priests in your area have a reputation for being wise confessors. You can then go to confession with them, and in addition to confessing your sins, you can also mention in the sacrament that you are trying to follow a program of spiritual growth. Then include as part of your confession the areas of spiritual work in which you have had difficulty in recent weeks. These difficulties may be imperfections (unconscious faults) more than sins, but by confessing them you express the delicacy of your love for Christ, and you give the confessor a greater understanding of the state of your soul. Then he will have a chance to give you solid advice and guidance before giving you absolution. You can use that advice to adjust your program of spiritual work for the coming weeks. In this way, your confessor can double as your spiritual director. The disadvantage of this arrangement, however, is the lack of time to converse. Often what is most helpful in spiritual direction is the focused conversation about spiritual things. Necessarily, the parameters of the sacrament curtail this kind of discussion.

Of course, the contrary situation also arises. Oftentimes, if one’s spiritual director is also a priest, it is quite natural to finish spiritual direction with the sacrament of confession. In this case, the priest will take less time to offer advice and encouragement, which has already been given in spiritual direction. The disadvantage of this arrangement (which is certainly not a requirement), is the tendency to dilute one’s awareness of God’s action through the sacrament, a penchant for considering, the sacrament merely as the frosting on the cake of spiritual direction, at least on a subconscious level.

Keep in mind the essential difference between confession and spiritual direction. If you do that, then the overlap of secondary characteristics, which can take as many different forms as there are people, will always enhance and never confuse your experience of both.

Yours in Christ, Father John Bartunek, LC