Canon 630 and Choosing Confessors

About a year ago I instituted an innovative way to put forward topics for discussion on the Catechist Café. [Remember that any reader is free to submit a topic for the Café for my expert team to research and address in a blog.] I used AI to list at random all 1752 Codes of Canon Law, the official collection of laws and procedures of the entire Roman Catholic Church’s life—including sacraments, religious orders, property, etc. After the Café post earlier this week which ran to almost 4000 words, I thought a round of “Canon Law Bingo” might be easier and better digested. The AI wheel stopped at Code 630. The subject: Can Religious Superiors hear the confessions of their subjects? Code 630 opens many doors of discussion for every baptized Catholic. The Code breaks this down into five components, and we will discuss each.
 
Before we progress, I should note that the Code of Canon Law currently in use was published in 1983; the previous Code is from 1917. Sadly, the abuse crises in the Church have uncovered several cases in the U.S. where a priest solicited sex from a man, woman, or child in the confessional setting. That abuse is covered in Canon 1387 in the present code. Our discussion today will not address Canon 1387 because of its complexity. But know that if such a thing happens to you, every diocese is prepared to help you with spiritual and traumatic counseling, among other services. As the penitent and victim, you are not bound to confessional secrecy if you report.
 
CANON 630
 
[1] While safeguarding the discipline of the institute, Superiors are to acknowledge the freedom due to the members concerning the sacrament of penance and the direction of conscience.
 
The term ‘superior” can apply to the local bishop or religious superior of a monastery, a friary, or a women’s community of religious. The point of this sentence is to maintain opportunities for religious to always have access to confession but also protecting the right of the penitent to choose the confessor best suited to the individual’s age, personality, and spirituality.  
 
The word “institute” here applies to the specific order or religious community. The “discipline” of an institute is a reference to superiors’ responsibility to provide all his or her charges with opportunities to confess. It is not stated that the subject must confess to appointed confessors, or for that matter, to anyone at all. Admittedly, it is a little hard to imagine a dedicated priest, religious, seminarian, or practicing lay person never going to confession at all. The Church Council IV Lateran [1215] mandated that all Catholics must confess and receive the Eucharist once a year, the “Easter Duty” as it was referred to prior to Vatican II. Although IV Lateran’s mandate was a considerable improvement for the Church in 1215, today we hold to a much higher standard for sacramental engagement.
 
In summary, this sentence obliges church authorities to make confessors available for religious orders—and by extension, the faithful at large—but it does not rule to whom or how often one confesses.
 
[2] According to the norm of proper law, superiors are to be concerned that suitable confessors are available to the members, to whom the members can confess frequently.
 
Two important takeaways from this segment. The first deals with the competency of the confessor and his authorization, the latter called “faculties,” from the local bishop. [Priests cannot freelance, and after the abuse scandals, the paperwork/legal checks for a priest to hear confessions or do other kinds of pastoral work outside his diocese is more scrutinized.]  Regarding the word “suitable” it is safe to say that when priests and religious are on retreat, for example, it would be suitable to bring in confessors with experience in the spirituality of religious life and the order’s particular spirit, or with the unique lifestyle of a priest.
 
Having said that, I must admit that I gave my first week-long retreat for sisters in New Hampshire in 1975, about five months after I was ordained, and I heard many of their confessions despite my “rookie status.” I did religious order retreats for about four years before going to Florida in 1978; I think the reason I was constantly invited around the Northeast was precisely my youthfulness. In the 1970’s, religious communities of women were theologically and ministerially far ahead of those of men in the reform process, and there were openings for those of us priests with post-Vatican II education and an openness to respect the blooming feminine spirituality.
 
But this brings us to more questions. We know that, all things being equal, absolution administered by an ordained priest in good standing forgives sin, regardless of respective ages, cultures, and devotions of the priest and the penitent. Are Catholics free to select a confessor with whom they spiritually “resonate?” 630[2] makes a clear statement that penitents should have a choice of confessors to the degree that this is possible. The question is whether one chooses a specific, regular confessor because he is “easy” and content with one’s routine, or because he takes the time to work with the penitent to grow in holiness and/or provide personal advice for moral living. It is probably wise to ask yourself this question from time to time.
 
630[2] uses the adverb “frequently” regarding confession. Two factors in making determination of “frequency” for yourself: [1] Do you have spiritual input from other sources, such as Bible studies, personal meditation, religious societies, and even personal spiritual direction? Some parishes have laity with special training to offer spiritual advice and ways to grow in holiness. [2] In the present day the Penitential Rite at Mass is observed so quickly and without reflection that its significance to forgive venial sins is totally lost. [That is the responsibility of the celebrant, not the congregation.] If you are free from mortal sin, the Penitential Rite [“I confess to Almighty God….”] in the context of the entire Mass frees or “remits” the guilt of venial or lesser sins. All my sources recommend, though, that confession remains a part of your life for the purpose of maintaining moral purpose and strength, even if you do not sin mortally. Here’s how one Catholic DJ handled the confession question.
 
[3] In monasteries of nuns, in houses of formation, and in more numerous lay communities, there are to be ordinary confessors approved by the local ordinary [bishop] after consultation with the community; nevertheless, there is no obligation to approach them.
 
During my novitiate year [1968-69] prior to entering the major seminary, the novitiate staff consisted of only three priests. The custom was for two other religious priests from my order to drive to our cloistered residence on the mountaintop to hear confessions as outsiders. They came every week or every other week to be available for us to confess. One day our novice master told us as a group that the two priests—fine gentlemen—were concerned that their services were not needed, as no one was coming to them for confession.
 
The novice master was not angry with us—Church Law is clear that you can’t force anyone to go, even seminarians and religious order candidates. The novice master sounded somewhat torn himself about the decreasing frequency of confession, not just in the novitiate but in the Church in general. While I was in novitiate, Pope Paul VI issued [1968] his teaching Humanae Vitae, prohibiting all forms of artificial birth control, which impacted all Catholic married couples, not just thirty friars in training on a mountain. A strong argument has been made that Humanae Vitae discouraged Catholics from confessing, that it imposed significant hardships on couples. As I have not heard confessions in over thirty years, I can’t say whether fewer or more people are confessing, and how they are doing it.
 
I confess twice a year, outside of my parish, usually on retreat at a Trappist monastery and to a religious order priest about an hour away from my home. In those instances, I make a “general confession.” The explanatory link here underscores the importance of getting to one’s core spiritual sinfulness and deficiencies while at the same time tracing one’s efforts to cultivate personal acts of goodness and a desire for closer communion with God. [General Confession, because it takes longer, is best done by appointment; most priests will be happy to help you.] I once made a general confession at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington—there is a chapel with four confessors for tourists—and when I was all finished, I discovered the priest did not understand English. All he said was “say the rosary.” That, fortunately, was my only "general confession mishap."
 
I would add that my 26 years of regular three-month sessions with my psychiatrist [for prescription and counseling management of depression] continue to serve as a building block to inner honesty and hence, richer spirituality. Intense counseling cuts to the core of motivation, which has a way of bringing honesty to religious observance. An experienced spiritual director will not let you off the hook easily, either, if you are open and honest with such a director.
 
[4] Superiors are not to hear the confessions of subjects unless the members request it on their own initiative.
 
This clause reinforces earlier teachings on the freedom of those in religious life to choose their confessors. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law [2000] explains this in detail [p. 793], but it goes on to another dimension of the issue, whether bishops can or should hear the confessions of the priests incardinated [incorporated] to the bishop’s diocese. The New Commentary agrees with several AI searches I conducted that a diocesan bishop enjoys the faculties to hear the confessions of diocesan priests.
 
ChatGPT did raise a cautionary note. “There can, however, be a pastoral reason for the priest to choose another confessor—especially if the bishop has to make decisions concerning the priest’s assignment, discipline, or other matters where maintaining a clear distinction between sacramental confession and governance would be prudent.” And what about lay ministers and employees who must, by the nature of their work, develop close ties with pastors?
 
The pastor—employee relationship demands closer examination from Catholic sociologists. Over the years I had to discharge several employees. Such moments are never pleasant. The problem is that the bishop or pastor represents the “official Church” to many people locally. Being discharged is sometimes interpreted as a repudiation by the pastor personally or by the institutional Church as whole.
 
A partial solution to this dilemma would be to place all lay employees on contract, with six month or annual job evaluations, so that promotions or demotions have a concrete basis and possibly less impact upon the spiritual relationship between a pastor and a parishioner and/or employee. My diocese does not offer the contract option, except for the parish school personnel. Nationally, dioceses have the option regarding contracts and due process regarding termination for lay employees.
 
[5] Members are to approach superiors with trust, to whom they can freely and on their own initiative open their minds. Superiors, however, are forbidden to induce the members in any way to make a manifestation of conscience to them.
 
This rule, written explicitly for religious in 630, holds true for all Catholics in their relationships to their local clergy.