Rev. Dr. Oliver Subotic,
Missionary Department, Archdiocese of Belgrade-Karlovci
On the Need for
Spiritual Health
Among the Serbian people there
exists a well-known proverb that we often hear, especially among the elderly.
It says: Health comes first!
This proverb is entirely correct
if we clarify and precisely determine which type of health is being referred
to. Namely, most people who cite this saying think exclusively of bodily
health, which, we will all agree, is undoubtedly very important. This form of
health enables us to live a quality life and to carry out our daily activities
without hindrance; as such, it represents a gift from God that should be
carefully preserved and nurtured. Yet external, bodily health, however
significant and necessary it may be, has its own “expiration date”—sooner or
later it will leave us. Ultimately, earthly life itself has physical
limitations that will one day bring an end to bodily health even for the
healthiest person in the world. There is, however, a form of health that has no
temporal limitations and that is incomparably more important. This is spiritual
health, that is, the health of our soul. If we struggle constantly to achieve
bodily health until the grave, then we should struggle even more intensely for spiritual
health (which must be distinguished from psychological well-being), since it
endures beyond the grave, for the soul is immortal. This means that the
attainment of spiritual health is our primary task, and it is precisely in
relation to this form of health that the proverb is fulfilled in its fullest
sense: Health comes first!
What constitutes the health and
illness of the soul? Simply put, a healthy soul is adorned with virtues and all
its faculties operate properly, whereas a sick soul is disfigured by sin and
vices, and its faculties are distorted and function improperly. Therefore, the
logic of attaining spiritual health is quite simple: it consists in adhering to
the natural, virtuous way of life and turning away from the unnatural, sinful,
and vicious one. The aim of such a life is not merely that we become moral
people, but that we become people of God (let us recall here the well-known
words of our holy Patriarch Pavle: Let us be people!). If, however, we
choose the opposite path—that is, if we violate God’s commandments and live in
sin—then we will only have the name that we live, while we are dead
(Rev. 3:1). For although the soul is immortal (by the grace of God), there is
also a certain kind of death of the soul, namely its darkening by sin, which
deprives it of true communion with God if it remains in such a state eternally.
At this point it is instructive
to recall a thought of the great saint of the Church, St. Gregory Palamas, who
in a homily for the feast of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the
Temple, speaking about the mystery of the hypostatic union of the divine and
human nature in Christ the God-man, says that “for God, in truth, only one
thing is impossible—that He should unite Himself with what is impure before it
has been purified.” In another homily for the same feast, the saint states that
“it is not possible to become truly close to God unless we are purified […]”.
These are words that are both clear and admonitory, reminding us how essential
it is to cleanse ourselves of the impurity of sin and to acquire spiritual
health as soon as possible. Yet this cannot be achieved without God’s help and
without our own effort.
In all of the above, the key
issue is our encounter with God in eternity—those whose souls are healthy will
experience that encounter as eternal light, while those whose souls are sick
will experience it as eternal darkness. Let us use here a natural analogy to
explain how an encounter with God, who is Light, may be experienced by someone
as darkness. In our created world the primary symbol of light is the sun, which
illuminates and warms all people without distinction. Nevertheless, we do not
all experience its rays in the same way: for healthy eyes they produce a
pleasant sensation, while for diseased eyes they cause discomfort and pain.
Spiritual health, however, is of
great importance not only for eternity but also for this present world, into
which we have been born and which we inhabit for a time. Indeed, spiritual
health is the foundation for bodily health and for the inner peace, joy, and
tranquility that so many people seek in this life. Put differently, spiritual
illness is directly reflected both in the emergence of bodily diseases and in
inner unrest and anxiety. How many cases are there in which people have fallen
physically ill and suffered from so-called psychosomatic diseases because their
souls had previously become sick with pride, selfishness, resentment, envy, or
vainglory? How many examples are there of the direct impact of spiritual
illness upon the body through sins such as drunkenness, drug abuse, and sexual
immorality? How many instances are there in which “the fathers have eaten sour
grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezek. 18:2), so that because
of the sins of their ancestors various bodily ailments appear in their
descendants even to the third and fourth generation? Such cases are as frequent
as they are admonitory, and they clearly testify both to the superiority of
spiritual health over bodily health and to the connection between them.
Cleanliness is half of health—this
is another proverb worth mentioning. We hear it somewhat less frequently,
mostly in medical circles. It is also true, and not only when the body is
concerned but when the soul is concerned as well. We have already stated that
spiritual impurity is sin, which functions as a kind of parasite that pollutes
and poisons our inner being. If this parasite is not removed from the soul,
over time it produces a spiritual disease that becomes more difficult to heal
the longer it lasts. Particularly difficult to heal is the condition in which a
person becomes accustomed to sin to such a degree that it becomes his second
nature—in that case we are no longer speaking merely of a committed sin, but of
a passion that has taken root in a person and attached itself to his soul. In
medical terminology, if a person commits a particular sin only occasionally, it
is an acute condition; if he commits a certain sin regularly over a long period
of time, it is a chronic condition of the soul’s illness; and if a person
becomes enslaved to sin to the extent that it has become his second nature,
then we are dealing with the terminal stage of a spiritual disease.
Just as the need for cleanliness
is obvious when it comes to the body, it should be all the more evident when it
comes to the soul. If, in the case of the body, the signal for cleansing is
given by contact with dirt, the appearance of the skin, or an unpleasant odour,
in the case of the soul the signal is given by the conscience, which is an
unfailing teacher that should always be heeded. Every human being possesses a
conscience, whether believer or unbeliever—it is the first and fundamental
educator of the soul. If the voice of conscience is not sufficiently audible,
this is a symptom of a serious spiritual illness; and if the conscience has, as
it were, been seared (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2) and no longer signals the need for the
purification of the soul from sin, then this is a grave spiritual condition
from which only the Lord can rescue a person through extraordinary
intervention. And such “surgical” interventions from above can indeed be
painful…
If, as the proverb says,
“cleanliness is half of health,” where then is the other half? When it comes to
the body the answer is clear, but where, figuratively speaking, is the “other
half” of health when the soul is concerned? It lies in the action of the divine
energy of God, which comes to dwell in a person steadily when he has made
sufficient effort to cleanse himself from sin and to turn towards the path of
keeping God’s commandments. In fact, that first half—our effort to cleanse the
soul—is only the prerequisite for receiving the second, principal “half,”
through which we become whole human beings in the true sense of the word. If
the “first half” is our effort to purify ourselves from the filth of sin, the
“second half” is the divine grace that is given as a reward for our effort and
that makes us truly healthy, sanctified, and enlightened human beings, exactly
as we are meant to be. The attainment of such a grace-filled state is the
principal goal of human life—for man was created precisely in order to acquire
the grace of God steadfastly and, as such, to enter eternity. Whoever attains
this is successful, even if in this world he were homeless and achieved nothing
else; whoever does not attain it is unsuccessful and, spiritually speaking,
utterly impoverished, even if he were to gain all the goods and honours that
this world can offer.
The goal of acquiring the grace
of God is achieved through a kind of “spiritual treatment” that takes place
within the greatest healing institution in the world—the Church—in which every
spiritual illness, weakness, and wound can be healed. In the “treatment”
offered by this healing institution, the first step is repentance and
confession, which must be accompanied by the awareness that our soul is, to a
greater or lesser extent, diseased by sin, and that the wounds of sin can be
healed only within the ascetical and liturgical embrace of the Church.
(End of Part 1)
https://orthochristian.com/178126.html
Repentance as the
Need for Purification and a Change of Life
Our Lord Jesus Christ began His
earthly mission with the words: Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at
hand! and these very same words had previously been proclaimed by His
Forerunner and Baptist John (cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17). This means that repentance
is of particular importance for all of us, without exception, and that we must
understand it properly.
Unfortunately, most Christians
today understand the word “repentance” in a superficial way, and a considerable
number even believe that they have no need of repentance at all. Repentance is
not merely a matter of feeling sorry for having committed a sin—that is only
the beginning of the penitential process, and although it is undoubtedly
important and necessary, it is nowhere near sufficient. True repentance is
precisely what the original word signifies—a change of mind—meaning the
acquisition of an entirely new way of thinking and acting. In other words,
repentance is a spiritual turning point. It is never too late for this
fundamental transformation of life so long as we are alive, though it is
certainly advisable to begin it as early as possible, for none of us knows when
we shall pass into eternity. I shall judge you in whatever state I find you—these
are sobering words that should always be kept in mind.
Let us illustrate this turning
point with a simple example, one well suited to our own time, in which certain
vices have multiplied on a massive scale. When a man dominated by the passion
of gambling at some point becomes aware that frequenting betting shops is
ruining his life, consuming a considerable portion of his energy, making him a
tense and irritable addict, endangering his family relationships, and so forth,
he will, if he has even a little sense, feel sorrow over such a state. Yet in
order to free himself from the vice that is poisoning him and destroying his
life, a firm decision is also needed—to break with his former behavior at any
cost. In practice, this means keeping a wide distance from places of vice and
severing every association with the company with whom he used to go to betting
shops (in the words of the Lord: If your right hand causes you to sin, cut
it off and cast it from you… [Matt. 5:30]), as well as breaking every
mental bond with the sin of gambling (again, in the Lord’s words: If your
eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you… [Matt. 5:29]). At
the same time, active repentance also requires that one begin doing something
wholly contrary to one’s former sinful life: in this particular case, that one
henceforth live exclusively by earning through the labor of one’s own hands and
by applying one’s acquired knowledge in blessed occupations (gambling and
betting are certainly not among them). This would be the proper and integral
approach; after becoming aware of the sin committed, one must cut off its
further practice and establish entirely new, virtuous habits. At the beginning,
it is absolutely necessary for a person simply to flee from sin, until, through
prayer, fasting, contemplation of God, and the like, he encounters Christ more
deeply and comes to love Him with all his heart. When that happens, he will no
longer need to flee from sin—sin will flee from him. For we are in sin
precisely because we are not sufficiently Christ’s and do not belong to Him
with our whole being, but are instead spiritually divided and intellectually fragmented
persons. As such, what we need is not deep psychoanalysis, but deep
psychosynthesis.
Repentance, then, is the first
step in the healing of the soul; a step which, in essence, should direct us
away from sin and towards Christ. A particular difficulty on this path arises
when a sin has passed into habit and thus become a passion—in that case it is
repeated again and again, especially if repentance is not sufficiently deep.
The ideal state is that sin be cut off at the root and never repeated again,
yet the weakness of human nature is such that repetitions do occur. In this
sense, our Christian life consists in “walking” along a spiritual path on which
we rise, fall, rise again, cleanse ourselves, and continue on, while repentance
ought to remain our constant companion for as long as we live. What matters is
that the falls along this journey become weaker, less frequent, and less
painful; that we do not keep stumbling over the same stone (only fools do that,
as the ancient proverb says); and that repentance become ever deeper and more
intense. And we must never forget that throughout this journey, the One who is
the Way, the Truth, and the Life is always beside us, ardently desiring in the
end to bring us into the promised joy (cf. John 14:6; Matt. 25:21). All that He
asks of us is the effort to remain faithful to Him, and, if we go astray, to repent
and amend our lives.
Just as repentance is often
understood superficially, so too sin is generally understood in a moralistic
sense. In its essence, however, sin is not a moral transgression, but a
misdirection of our will—that is, the orientation of our being towards a course
that leads us astray and distances us from God, who is the goal and meaning of
our life. Sin occurs whenever we do something that is not in accordance with
the will of God. In its original meaning, the word “sin” would be translated
precisely as “missing the target”—in other words, the moment we miss what is
according to God’s will, we find ourselves in a sinful state that ought to be
corrected as soon as possible.
Sin is, in fact, an energy that
has not been rightly directed and that requires redirection. For example, a
person who suffers from hatred towards other people should redirect that energy
into hatred of the evil he perceives within himself; a person who longs for
passing human glory should redirect that energy into striving for imperishable,
eternal glory, the glory of the Kingdom of God; a person who constantly thinks
about what others will say about him and how to attract their attention should
redirect that energy into the effort to attract God’s attention and to please
Him. The energy of sin, therefore, must be transformed into the energy of
virtue. This will often not be an easy task, and in order to succeed in it, it
is essential that we have spiritual guidance from those who are experienced in
the spiritual battlefield.
When we were children, we were
guided by our parents, who counselled us to do what is good and to avoid what
is bad; when we grew up, the Church, as a caring spiritual mother, began to
counsel and direct us in how we should live. If we heed her, we shall preserve
the purity of our soul; and if we fall into sin, she will receive us when we
come in repentance to be cleansed in her embrace. If a bodily mother always
awaits her child with open arms, especially when that child weeps in her
embrace over something wrong that has been done, no matter how many times it
happens, how much more love and patience will our spiritual Mother, the Church,
have towards us? Here we arrive at the theme that naturally follows the process
of repentance, namely confession before a priest—the spiritual physician—who
will listen to us, cleanse the spiritual wound, and prescribe for us an
appropriate “therapy” which, in time, if we apply it, will bring health to our
soul.
(End of Part 2)
https://orthochristian.com/178172.html
Preparation for
Confession
There is no man who lives and
does not sin, as one Church prayer says. This, however, must be understood
rightly: as a call to cleanse ourselves from sin as thoroughly as possible, to
repeat sins as rarely as possible in the future, and never repeat mortal sins
once we have confessed them. When we acquire such an awareness of the need for
purification, and then bring forth active repentance, it is time to prepare for
confession and to seek out an experienced priest. Let us begin, therefore, with
preparation for confession.
Preparation is always necessary
for confession, since confession is (let us emphasize this once again) a
therapeutic act intended to cleanse and heal the wounds of our soul, so that
they may not fester, putrefy, and—God forbid—be carried into eternity in such a
state, when they will no longer be able to be healed. In this sense, as we
prepare for confession, we should bear in mind that the priest is not a police
officer who will interrogate us in order to establish some kind of guilt, nor a
judge who pronounces punishment for a proven offense, but a physician who
carefully listens to the nature of the sinful wound upon the soul, so that,
accordingly, he may cleanse the wound, apply balm to it, bandage it, and then
offer concrete spiritual therapy by which we ourselves may continue to treat
that wound. Here the analogy with medicine is almost complete, with the priest
being only a servant of the True Physician of soul and body—the Lord Jesus
Christ. It is therefore very important to find a priest who is spiritually
experienced, so that he may adequately treat the wounds of our soul.
Every priest should be shown due
respect, because every priest (provided that he is canonical and holds to the
true faith) has the grace to perform sacred rites. Nevertheless, not every
priest is also a spiritual father, for that is a special gift and in part also
requires experience; thus, it is advisable to choose one’s confessor with care.
On the other hand, this does not mean that one should be excessively selective
about where one will make one’s confession, since in the end one may easily
remain unconfessed. Often it will be sufficient simply to turn to our parish
priest, to whom the Church has entrusted the care of a particular parish. If he
is only a “general practitioner,” that will still be enough for him to heal
most of the wounds of our soul, while for those that are grave and complex he
will give us a “referral,” that is, he will send us to a “specialist doctor”
who is more spiritually experienced.
All of us have at least once in
life needed to go for an ordinary medical examination, and we know that it is
sometimes desirable, and at other times necessary, to come prepared with
laboratory tests and everything else that might help the physician determine
the diagnosis as precisely as possible and prescribe the proper therapy. It is
also understood that during such an examination we ourselves describe our
medical condition, our symptoms, and everything we believe the physician should
know—everything that makes his work easier and enables him to determine the
best possible diagnosis. If the physician has something additional to ask, he
will ask it, and we will answer sincerely—for our own benefit.
Now let us imagine an entirely
different scenario: that a patient comes to the doctor completely unprepared,
brings none of the necessary documentation, and, when asked by the doctor about
his condition, speaks only in vague terms—perhaps something hurts, though he
himself is not sure whether it hurts or where it hurts—and yet, on the other
hand, knows precisely who in his family, extended family, and neighborhood has
which ailment, while he himself (unlike them) is, in principle, healthy and
suffers only from everyday minor complaints. When asked why he came for the
examination and took an appointment that others are waiting for, the patient
replies that he came merely in order to fulfill a certain formal requirement of
having an annual checkup (in other words, he came just for the sake of
formality). However bizarre such a situation may seem, something similar occurs
every day in Church life when it comes to confession.
If we were to conduct a survey
among priests and ask them what is most difficult in their vocation, we would
almost certainly find that in most cases the answer would be confession. But
not because of sinners who truly repent, that is, those who come prepared for
confession and seek healing for their soul; rather, because of self-proclaimed
“righteous people,” who come to confession either unprepared, or in order to
boast of their supposed spiritual health, or to speak about the spiritual
illnesses of their neighbors (or all of these things combined). Yet when a
person comes prepared to confess sincerely, the priest is completely
unburdened, and all that remains for him is to listen attentively, with inward
prayer, to the one standing before him, offer concrete spiritual counsel, and
read the prayer of absolution for the specific sins that have been confessed.
The most difficult situation for
a priest is when he must expend the greater part of his energy trying to
persuade a believer that he really ought to confess something concrete, given
that he has already come to confession, and that he ought not to speak about
the sins of others. After only one such ordeal with a conceited, so-called
“righteous man” who feels no need for repentance yet has nevertheless come to
confession, a priest usually loses as much strength as he would need to confess
ten sincere penitents, and not infrequently he feels the need to change the
shirt he wears under his cassock, because it is often soaked with sweat from
“wrestling” with the proud, self-appointed “righteous man” (which is why in
such situations a priest also needs a glass of water to recover a little).
Therefore, if one comes to confession, one should not permit oneself the luxury
of requiring the priest to persuade one to confess—such a situation is in
itself bizarre.
If we truly do not know what we
ought to confess, yet still feel the need to go to confession, then at the
outset we should ask ourselves who the people are that know us best, and what
they believe ought to be corrected in us. The family environment in particular
is a good starting point for self-criticism, and so, to begin with, we may ask
ourselves some initial questions while preparing for confession: Do I honor my
parents? Do I set a good example for my children? Do I fulfill my marital
duties conscientiously? Do I remain faithful to my spouse? Such matters are
understood by almost everyone, and people generally recognize them in
themselves.
There is yet another simple
criterion that can help us at the very beginning to prepare ourselves, even
before we enter into the deeper questions of confession. It concerns whether we
are merciful, or whether we are ruled by stinginess, contempt for the poor,
insensitivity, hardness of heart, and indifference towards the suffering of
others. A Christian is a person who, in addition to confessing his faith, tests
himself by the work of mercy. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Christ warns us quite
clearly that mercy will be the fundamental criterion when we are judged at the
Last Judgment, when it will be asked whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to
the thirsty, and visited the sick and the imprisoned (cf. Matt. 25:31–46).
These are only some of the questions we may ask ourselves at the very
beginning, if we truly do not know where to start.
It is always advisable before
confession to consult some handbook for confession as well, after which it will
become much clearer to a person what ought to be confessed and what ought not
to be confessed, and he may then reflect accordingly. And when a person is
aware of what he needs to confess, he should also be practical, and agree with
his parish priest or spiritual father on a time when he may come for
confession. This is because a thorough confession requires a substantial amount
of time, and it cannot be carried out on the assumption that the priest is
available “at the push of a button.” The priest must be given enough time to
organize himself properly, just as one would with a chosen physician, if we are
already using simple and understandable analogies from daily life. Moreover,
the appointed time for confession should be used in the best possible way.
Therefore, when we go to confession, we do so solely for confession and for
nothing else. If we feel the need to meet with the priest and speak with him
about various matters, including spiritual conversation, we shall set aside
another day and a different context for that apart from confession. This is
precisely the point at which something should be said about proper and improper
confession with regards to the confession of specific sins.
(End of Part 3)
https://orthochristian.com/178194.html
Proper and
Improper Confession
At the outset of this
consideration of proper and improper confession, let us briefly address the
fairly common practice of confessing during the Divine Liturgy, something
especially noticeable in our churches during the fasting periods, when many
people come who have not attended services during the rest of the year. This
phenomenon is an extreme concession and, essentially speaking, an irregularity,
even a contradiction of the sacramental order of the Church. This kind of
confession should be avoided at all costs and resorted to only in cases of
utmost necessity, with the awareness that it is a great act of condescension of
the Church towards those who are not sufficiently instructed in the meaning and
process of confession, and who may be coming to it for the first time.
Particularly troubling here is the phenomenon of Christians who, for years,
regularly come to the Divine Liturgy and from time to time make their
confession during the service itself (which means that under ordinary
circumstances they are using an approach proper only to an emergency),
something that is both a mistake and a sin, and that causes enormous harm to
Church life. Here matters must be stated quite openly—if a liturgical Christian
persists in the practice of confessing during the Divine Liturgy, then this is
not only a form of spiritual schizophrenia, but also the sin of irreverence
toward holy things and a deliberate disruption of the holiest service in the
world. Furthermore, the priest who hears confessions during the service is also
drawn into this schizophrenic state, because by the nature of things he ought
at that time to be concelebrating with his brethren. Besides, let us also ask
something entirely practical: what can a person possibly confess in the two or
three minutes that these “liturgical confessions” last on average (and they
cannot last any longer, since during the fasts dozens of people are usually
waiting before the confessional stand)? Therefore, even if it exists in
practice for certain reasons, confession during the Divine Liturgy is a kind of
extraordinary circumstance that should be reduced to a minimum, by liturgically
enlightening the faithful, and eventually abolished altogether. [1]
A second aspect of the improper
approach to confession is a serious problem frequently present in our time,
namely the superficial confession of sins. A considerable number of people who
confess in this way begin their conversation with the priest with words of
self-justification that sound approximately like this: “I haven’t killed
anyone, I haven’t stolen anything, I haven’t committed adultery…,” after which
there usually follows something like: “I have nothing particular to confess; I
only have everyday sins.” Let us ask ourselves: are things really as they are
presented in these familiar “formulas”?
To begin with, let us confirm
that in confession one should certainly first mention mortal and obvious
sins—if such sins exist—with the knowledge that there is no sin God will not
forgive if a person has repented, confessed, and come to hate that sin. How
many former murderers, robbers, fornicators, and libertines, after deep
repentance, have undergone a thorough transformation and become people of holy
life! Indeed, the first man to enter Paradise was the repentant thief (cf. Luke
23:42–43). If, however, a person has no such grave sins upon his soul, then
there is no need to underline the fact that he does not have them—in confession
one states what one does have, not what one does not have to confess. Yet when
it comes to the well-known formula, “I haven’t killed, I haven’t stolen, I
haven’t committed adultery,” the vast majority of those who utter it do not at
all reflect deeply on what they are saying, because closer examination often
reveals a very different reality.
Let us begin with the sin of
murder, which is one of the gravest sins—so grave that an average priest, over
the course of his life, has heard it confessed only a few times (not counting,
of course, prison chaplains, who hear it regularly). Is not deliberate and
intentional abortion also murder? How many millions of unborn babies in Serbia
have been killed since the end of the Second World War until the present day,
under the influence of the godless ideology that was violently imposed upon
these lands? Moreover, the sin of killing an unborn child is not only the sin
of the woman, but also of the husband who consents to it. How many husbands in
Serbia today are even aware of that?
A similar conclusion may be
reached with regard to theft, which, after murder, is often cited as one of
those sins whose non-commission supposedly “absolves” a person from making a
thorough confession. But is there any one of us who has never cheated on an
exam at school or university? Is cheating not a theft of another’s knowledge
and a dishonest means of obtaining grades? And what shall we say about the
widespread cases of systemic corruption and controversial business
“arrangements” in which contracts are secured by bribing officials? Is that not
a dishonorable way of acquiring income? Or how should one comment on the
especially destructive practice of the habitual embezzlement of the state
(which in recent decades has assumed an endemic character in the Balkans),
whether it be the “borrowing” of minor production materials from factories by
workers or the “arranging” of major sales contracts by those in managerial
structures? St. Bishop Nikolaj, in his famous homily Do Not Steal from the
State, for It Was Dearly Paid For (which ought to be introduced into
Serbian secondary schools as compulsory reading, and at the same time printed
in a million copies and distributed throughout Serbia), eloquently explains
that stealing from the state is a far graver sin than stealing from an
individual. The reason is simple: when a man steals from the state, he sins not
against one person, but against millions; and what is most grievous, among them
he also sins against the blood of the martyrs with which the soil of the state
has been soaked, and against the tears of mothers, widows, and orphans of those
who perished in defense of the faith and the homeland (Serbia is in this case a
particularly striking example of a state that was dearly paid for). Does anyone
in a society in which the mentality has long prevailed that “state property
belongs to no one,” and that everyone should “grab” from the state as much as
he can, even reflect on such matters during confession?
The same applies to the sin of
adultery, whose non-commission, alongside the previous two sins, is likewise
usually presented as a kind of “absolution” before the priest, who is evidently
not perceived as a physician, but as a criminal investigator. To be sure, a
priest will from time to time hear the confession of actual adultery; yet far
more often he will hear that it has not been committed (and this will be
emphasized at the very beginning of the confession, so that it is clearly
established). What is usually forgotten, however, is that adultery is not only
a matter of an outward act, but also of what takes place in the heart—the Lord
Jesus Christ clearly warns us that everyone who harbors in his heart the desire
to enter into an intimate relationship with someone who does not belong to him
according to the law of God is already guilty of adultery (cf. Matt. 5:28).
Here the logic of this world is entirely different, for before an earthly court
someone who has never in deed betrayed his spouse, but who daily and
consciously fantasizes about other persons and entertains lustful thoughts
towards them, would be declared innocent—yet before the Judgment of God such a
spouse is unfaithful, because he commits adultery in his heart, which is the
spiritual center of the human being.
Equally problematic is the second
of the aforementioned “formulas,” of the type: “I have nothing in particular to
confess; I only have everyday sins.” What is forgotten here is that even these
“everyday sins” can be dangerous if they accumulate to such a degree that at
some point they become a person’s second nature. A man, for example, tells
small lies every day, make up stories, speaks half-truths, and in the end
becomes a liar and a deceiver, so that this becomes a trait of his very
character—or rather, lack of character. Another quarrels every day, argues,
raises his voice, and at some point becomes so difficult for those around him
that it is very hard to live with him, and everyone avoids him by a wide margin
because he constantly causes emotional pain to others. And so on and so forth,
with each of those seemingly “small” sins that are somehow taken for granted.
In this sense, it makes no difference whether a man carries in his bag a single
stone weighing one hundred kilograms (that is, some grave sin upon his soul),
or a thousand pebbles weighing one hundred grams each (that is, a thousand
accumulated “small” sins that have piled up): on his back he will be carrying
the same weight.
When a fish is pulled ashore, it
makes no difference whether it was caught in a great net or drawn out on a
small hook that caught its fin—once it has been caught, the method by which it
was pulled out of the water loses its importance. Therefore, it is important
that we approach confession in such a way that we confess not only the great
“nets” in which we have been ensnared, but also the little “hooks” on which we
are so often caught, though we frequently pay them no attention. This means
that there are no “customary” sins to which we ought to grow accustomed—every
sin is filth that must be washed from the soul, and none should be neglected as
a danger, however insignificant it may seem to us.
Particularly problematic is
another sentence that has likewise become common (alongside the previous two),
namely: “I only need the prayer of absolution in order to receive Communion,”
together with its many variations, which priests also regularly have occasion
to hear. Let us begin with the absurd notion that it is possible to read the
prayer of absolution without the confession of specific sins. But from what,
precisely, is a person to be absolved if he is bound by nothing? In any case,
even a brief initial examination of conscience will show that we always have at
least something to confess, since we sin in word, deed, and thought,
consciously and unconsciously. If we leave aside unconscious sins and focus
only on conscious ones (those of which we are aware and for which we recognize
our responsibility), let us ask ourselves how many times we have sinned with
our tongue alone. Who among us has never lied or spoken a half-truth at some
point in life? Who has never gossiped or judged another? Who has never uttered
an obscene word or cursed? Who has never quarreled or raised his voice against
someone? Who has never insulted another or wounded him by a word? Is there
anyone who has never engaged in idle chatter? Is there anyone who has never
mocked or said something amusing yet inappropriate? Is there anyone who has not
reacted improperly in traffic? Here, “at first glance,” are so many obvious
sins from which almost none of us is free. For that reason, the idea of reading
the prayer of absolution without naming the sins from which one seeks
absolution should be freely dismissed as a harmful absurdity.
The fundamental problem with a
superficial and improper approach to confession is that it keeps a person in
the false conviction that he has healed his soul, whereas in reality he has
only placed a filter over a festering wound and created an even greater
problem, because the wound will only continue to fester. It must therefore be
emphasized that proper confession presupposes the sincere, concrete, and
personal confession of sins. First of all, it must be sincere, accompanied by a
feeling of repentance. Confessions reduced to the mere reading of various lists
without any sense of sorrow for the sins committed are certainly not such. This
does not mean that one should never write one’s sins down on paper—on the
contrary, this may sometimes be helpful (especially if a person has not
confessed for a long time, so that such a list serves as a kind of
reminder)—but confession cannot be reduced to the mere recitation of what has
been written.
Second, confession must be
concrete, which means neither overly general nor excessively detailed. For
example, when a person says in confession only that he quarrels, that is
extremely general and does not mean very much. It remains unclear with whom he quarrels,
whether he himself initiates the quarrel or merely reacts, how often he falls
into quarrels, whether he reconciles afterwards, and so forth. But when a
person, for instance, confesses that he has a quarrelsome disposition, that he
often finds himself quarreling with family members, colleagues at work, and
close friends, and briefly explains the typical situations, then that is
already very concrete and very well confessed, and it gives the priest room to
determine an appropriate therapy proportionate to the depth of the wound, after
discerning whether there is also resentment, a desire for revenge, and the
like. There is, however, another extreme as well: when a person begins to
recount in detail every individual situation, to deliver the entire “script,”
and to quote in full everything that was said. Listening to such accounts
completely consumes the priest’s attention and energy, so that the trees (the
multitude of words) soon obscure the forest (the totality of the sin), and the
time allotted for confession is quickly exhausted, leaving much else
unconfessed.
One must be especially careful to
avoid both the extreme of vagueness on the one hand and the extreme of
excessive detail on the other, particularly when speaking of sins of impurity.
It is not enough to confess the sin of fornication in a general manner, because
a great many things may be included under that term: from a lack of continence
within a lawful marriage on certain days, or the sin of self-abuse, to
incomparably graver transgressions, such as entering into extramarital sexual
relationships or unnatural fornication (which is publicly promoted today). Not
everything can be subsumed under the single term “fornication,” nor is the
gravity of every form of fornication the same; one must therefore be concrete
in naming it. People usually struggle with shame when it comes to the precise
naming of this sin, and for that reason it is important that they bear in mind
that every true priest (especially a spiritual father) deeply respects those
who sincerely and directly confess their sins, because this bears witness to
the sincerity and depth of their faith. Let us repeat once more: the priest
never has a problem with repentant sinners, but with proud “righteous men.” On
the other hand, entering into details during confession must likewise be
avoided when sins of impurity are concerned, because this rekindles the
imagination of the one confessing and introduces unnecessary descriptions of a
sin that ought to be loathed, while for the priest hearing the confession such
content is unnecessary—he is not there to listen to the particulars of impure
acts, but to heal a person of the passion of impurity.
Finally, it is very important to
stress that confession must be personal, which means that a person comes to
confess his own sins, not those of others. This ought, one would think, to be
self-evident, although in practice it is quite common for people first to
“confess” the sins of their neighbors, thereby often committing during
confession a grave sin—judgment of others—without even being aware of it. Here
too the same rule applies as when entering a doctor’s office: we come to speak
about our own medical condition and symptoms, and about the health of others
only if the doctor asks us about it.
Lastly, in confessing one should
adhere to the strategy of naming first the gravest and most serious sins that
afflict one. It would indeed be inappropriate, for example, first to confess
idle talk, and only afterwards the psychophysical abuse of another person. It
could even be said that if some particularly serious and grave sin is present,
then precisely because of the depth of the wound, a separate confession ought
to be arranged for that sin alone, so that full attention may be devoted to
addressing the problem in question.
In the next article, we shall
turn our attention to the classification of sins, their interrelation and
sub-variants, as well as the difference between outward, visible sins and
inward sins, which are more difficult to discern, thereby completing the themes
within this brief and practical guide to confession.
[1] This is very often practiced in Russia, simply because
the Russian Church requires Confession before Communion, and there may be so
many worshippers that it is not realistic to confess them all the night before.
But this is only practiced when there are enough priests to do it without
distraction.—O.C.
End of Part 4
https://orthochristian.com/178232.html
Confession of
Visible, Bodily Sins
In the first part of this brief
guide to confession, the essential matters concerning repentance, preparation
for confession, and the distinction between proper and improper confession were
outlined concisely. In this part, we shall say something more about the
specific sins that ought to be confessed (if, of course, they have been
committed), their variations, as well as their interrelation and genesis. We
shall not present a concrete method for the eradication of particular passions
(i.e., sins that have become habitual), except in certain cases briefly and
incidentally—the focus of this text is confession as such.
Generally speaking, the
classification of sins may be carried out in several ways. According to their
manifestation, sins may be divided into those committed by deed, word, and
thought; according to their perceptibility, into visible, clearly discernible
sins, and into sinful states that are internal and therefore more difficult to
perceive; according to their gravity, into so-called mortal sins and those that
are not; according to the degree of awareness of the transgression, into
conscious and unconscious sins (although in confession, of course, we mention
only those sins of which we are aware—there is no place in confession for the
phrase “perhaps I have sinned in this or that way”).
For practical reasons, we shall
divide the sins that ought to be confessed into two major groups: those that
are external, visible, and bodily, and those that are internal, invisible, and
mental. This division is, naturally, of a relative character, since some sins
possess both dimensions (external and internal) or inseparably connect them;
nevertheless, for the purposes of this text, we adopt the aforementioned
categorization for the sake of a simpler systematization. Within this
framework, we shall introduce an additional subdivision, concerning the
gradation of sins according to their gravity and specificity.
Confession of
Visible, Bodily Sins
Let us begin with the confession
of external, visible, bodily sins, and thus those that are easily discernible.
Some of the grave sins belonging to this group—such as murder, adultery,
fornication, and theft—have already been mentioned in the first part, along
with an explanation of their narrower and broader context. If these grave sins
have been committed in a literal and direct sense, they should be confessed in
a separate confession devoted solely to the act in question. A similar logic,
we may observe, is present in bodily health—if there exists a severe primary
wound on the body, it is always treated first, and only thereafter do we attend
to lesser wounds that do not immediately endanger life.
If, however, we have participated
in these sins indirectly or to a lesser or greater degree, or if they are
present in us only on the level of thought, then they should be mentioned
together with the other sins being confessed, since in that case the gravity of
the transgression is not the same as in the case of a direct offence in the
strict sense.
Among the aforementioned mortal
sins, one stands out in our time by its frequency, to such an extent that it
has become a kind of malodorous hallmark of our epoch. This is fornication.
For this reason, we shall begin with it in enumerating all that is sinful and
ought to be confessed. To begin with, we may observe that, under the influence
of the mass media, the passion of fornication today assaults everyone
incomparably more intensely than in earlier epochs: both the young and the old,
the married and the unmarried, the educated and the uneducated. The mass-media
sphere has caused people to become accustomed to fornication as a “new normal”
(to employ the peculiar terminology of contemporary newspeak), which is why a
considerable number of people no longer perceive it as a grave sin, and in some
cases even regard it as justified.
For example, cohabiting unions,
in which young people lived as though in a kind of “trial period” before
marriage, were once rare in these regions and were considered not only sinful
but also a cause of scandal. Today, however, such unions are increasingly
common, and are understood by the wider social environment as something usual,
even advisable, supposedly so that the young might come to know one another
better before marriage (if marriage even occurs). Yet this is nothing other
than the sin of concubinage, that is, a specific form of fornication
which ought to be confessed if it exists, and the situation resolved by the
young man and woman (or the man and woman, if they are older) proceeding
unambiguously towards a relationship legitimized by the bond of marriage.
When it comes to the sin of
fornication, everything begins with lustful fantasies. This is the
initial stage, which is not as grave and belongs to the category of internal
sin, which over time leads to the external, bodily form. This is a classic
example of how a sin may have both an internal and an external operation,
constantly intertwining and influencing one another. With regards to lustful
fantasies, it is important to emphasize that a lustful thought as such does not
constitute a sin if it is not retained in the mind—it is then merely a
suggestion which should simply be cut off and rejected as soon as it appears.
However, if the suggestion is accepted and begins to develop into a kind of
mental “film,” this already represents the sinful stage of the union of the
mind with the thought, from which a person is but one step away from consenting
to and actualizing the sin in practice, bodily. Yet even if a person does not
realize this sinful mental desire outwardly, he has committed sin in his heart
and has committed mental fornication, which as such ought to be confessed.
Lustful fantasies should be confessed concisely, without entering into details,
by simply indicating the degree of intensity and frequency of such mental
states.
At the next level of gravity is
the sin of viewing pornographic content, which in our time has escalated under
the influence of the internet. This condition is considerably more serious than
lustful fantasies and greatly weakens one’s character if it is not cut off. If
these two sins take root in a person, they are usually followed by masturbation
(onanism), which already represents a state of a certain enslavement to the
passion of fornication, one that is far more difficult to heal than if the
lustful thought had been cut off at the very beginning.
As the great spiritual father of
our time, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), observes, all the wartime
“slaughters” of biblical Israel depicted in the Old Testament are but a
prefiguration of the mental annihilation of sinful thoughts, so that no trace of
them remains—if a person acquires such a combative disposition of spirit, he
will cut fornication off at the root and will not allow it to develop into
spiritually dangerous forms. If he does not do so, it will soon lead to
fornication in the strict sense, that is, extramarital relations with persons
of the opposite sex for the sake of satisfying the sexual drive. This is
already a developed stage of the sin. In some cases, the sin of fornication,
after this phase, develops into debauchery through constant changes of “sexual
partners,” which constitutes an extremely serious stage of the spiritual
illness of the soul.
To avoid any misunderstanding,
all of the above does not mean that the sin of fornication is “reserved” only
for extramarital relationships. On the contrary, fornication may also occur
within marriage if spouses lack proper discernment. This occurs, for example,
when there is no abstinence during feast days or fasts; although this, on the
other hand, is subject to mutual agreement (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5), since the
principle holds that the spiritually stronger adapts to the weaker (in order to
avoid a marital crisis). It also occurs when there are no sound practices
regarding the temporary cessation of marital relations—for instance, during a
woman’s pregnancy, when it is necessary to preserve the well-being of the
child, which implies abstaining from conjugal relations throughout the duration
of the pregnancy. Finally, it occurs in cases of unnatural [contrary to nature]
forms of sexual relations between spouses.
The gravest form of fornication,
which should not even approach a Christian, is connected with unnatural
fornication, ranging from incest (which is a sin in itself, though it may
loosely be placed within this category), through same-sex sexual relations, to
bestiality (relations with animals, which represents a terminal stage of
spiritual illness). In general, with regards to fornication, one must bear in
mind the clear limitations concerning the reception of Holy Communion, that is,
the fact that a person dominated by this passion cannot be thoughtlessly
admitted to the Holy Chalice, as the Holy Apostle Paul especially warns us (cf.
1 Cor. 11:27–30). The measure of penance (epitimia) will be determined
with discernment by the spiritual father, depending on the degree of the sin
and the repentance offered, since the aim of confession is not the rejection of
the sinner, but the healing of his soul, through repentance and the rejection
of sin. In any case, when considering the gravity of the sin of fornication and
its variations, one should keep in mind the clear message of the aforementioned
Apostle, who says: Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor masturbators, nor those who practice homosexuality […] will
inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10).
One must distinguish adultery from
fornication. Namely, the root of adultery lies in fornication (that is, in
sensuality), yet it constitutes a far graver transgression, since it implies a
concrete betrayal through infidelity and a profound injury inflicted upon
another person, dealing a serious spiritual blow. This sin is particularly
grave in the case of marital unfaithfulness, since the family is a “small
church”—one who dares to destroy a marital union thereby strikes at the Church
itself. Therefore, in the case of this sin, as with any mortal sin, there can
be no justification for its continued commission—the illicit relationship must
be terminated immediately after confession, all contact with the person
involved in the forbidden relationship must cease, and, proportionate to the
transgression, the priest will make a discerning decision regarding the
penitential measure that should accompany the process of healing the spiritual
wound. As in the case of fornication, the sin of adultery is confessed
concisely, without entering into the details of the specific act.
With regards to the sin of
adultery, particular attention must be paid to subtle behavioral patterns that
indicate the danger of falling. In addition to the presence of the passion of
fornication (or sensuality in a broader sense), a catalyst for this type of sin
consists in bad habits collectively described by the term flirting
(coquetry), which especially includes lustful gazing and the boldness of
looks and gestures. These harmful habits should be confessed if they are
present—hay and fire cannot long remain together, and harm must be prevented in
time by a change in behavior.
Besides fornication and adultery,
something has already been said in the first part about the grave sin of theft
(specifically, about its various forms and the differences in the gravity of
the offence). This time, let us add that in our civilization, in which a
primitive form of capitalism prevails, sins akin to theft have proliferated,
becoming evident in disloyal attitudes toward workers, employees, and business
partners. Such sins include, for example, dishonest gain, withholding wages
from workers, appropriation of another’s property, failure to repay debts,
business fraud, and negligence in work, while the first “relatives”
of these sins are speculation and usury. All these sins
essentially arise from the passion of avarice, which will be addressed in the
section dealing with internal sinful states. If such sins are present, they
must certainly be confessed, and the manner of correction will be determined by
the spiritual father.
There is one particularly coarse
and grave, yet increasingly prevalent visible sin of our time, to which special
attention was drawn by the Serbian Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica. This is the
lack of respect for parents. The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to
Timothy, says that in the last times people will become lovers of
themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to
parents… (2 Tim. 3:2). Unfortunately, today we are faced not only with
disobedience to parents, but also with an utterly unacceptable attitude towards
them, to the extent that some children allow themselves the audacity to sever
all contact with their father and mother, some to raise their voices and utter
inappropriate words against them, and some even to raise their hand against
those through whom God granted them life. Yet the Fifth commandment is entirely
clear: Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee (Exod. 20:12). In other words, one
who does not honor his parents comes under the stroke of God’s righteous wrath
already in this life.
It should also be borne in mind
that honoring one’s parents implies not only refraining from improper and
unseemly behavior towards them, but also cultivating a constant habit of
respectful, appropriate, and proper conduct towards them, gratitude for all
that they have done for us, and active care for them in their old age.
Moreover, as Elder Thaddeus wisely teaches, one must reject every form of
mental warfare waged against one’s parents, such as judging them in one’s
thoughts. Summa summarum: one’s relationship towards one’s parents must
be preserved at all costs, and the sin of disrespect towards parents—whether
committed by deed, word, or thought—should be confessed as soon as possible and
followed by active repentance.
On the other hand, let us not
forget that parents also have obligations before God towards their children and
must take care not to fail in their parental duty entrusted to them, given that
children are a gift from God and that the parental mission must be fulfilled as
befits Orthodox Christians. The Apostle Paul reminds children to honor their
parents and, at the same time, warns parents not to provoke their children
(Eph. 6:4). In this sense, it is understood that parents are obliged to provide
a proper example for their children, to raise them, nourish them, care for
them, not to neglect them, and that any form of abuse or mistreatment of
children is entirely unacceptable. Accordingly, every form of failure in the
parental role should be confessed, and one’s conduct must be corrected
without delay.
Indirectly connected with the sin
of disrespect towards parents is the sin of disrespect towards the elderly,
teachers, benefactors of our family, and especially disrespect towards
spiritual fathers and the clergy in general. In our time, under the influence
of so-called social media and the subcultural language prevalent upon them, the
sin of disrespect towards the Church hierarchy has particularly escalated,
manifesting itself in brutal condemnations and insults directed at clergy of
various ranks, all under the guise of freedom of opinion and critical
reflection. Let us be clear: no one disputes the right to express a view on
matters concerning Church events or to voice disagreement with a particular
opinion, stance, or action of the hierarchy; however, it is well known how
critical thought should be expressed and what kind of language should be used.
Every form of insulting message directed at the Church hierarchy is a grave
sin, since such messages are directed towards persons who have been placed by
God in their respective positions, whether they live saintly lives or possess
ordinary human weaknesses (by the way—who among us is without weaknesses?).
Here again, we are best
instructed by the Holy Apostle Paul, through his own example. In the Acts of
the Apostles, there is recorded an event in which the high priest Ananias
commands that the Apostle be struck on the mouth immediately after he had begun
his God-inspired speech before the Roman commander and the Sanhedrin. Paul,
indignant at such unjust treatment, responds to the high priest with a sentence
beginning with the words: “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” Those
present, offended by such a sharp reaction, said to the Apostle Paul: “Do you
revile God’s high priest?” to which he replied: “I did not know, brethren, that
he was the high priest; for it is written: You shall not speak evil of a
ruler of your people” (Acts 23:1–5). This is a very important and
instructive passage for our theme, indicating that we have the right to raise
questions of truth and justice whenever and before whomever it is necessary,
but that we must respect the Church hierarchy and use language that is
appropriate.
This leads us to the theme of the
grave sin of judgment (condemnation). Namely, whether the condemnation
of a person (rather than of a specific act) is expressed in polite or impolite
language, it nevertheless belongs to those sins that devastate the soul and
deprive it of the grace of God. This sin is particularly grave because we
generally observe a person only externally and see (figuratively speaking) his
face, while forgetting that God looks within, into the human heart. In this
way, we come into conflict with God’s knowledge of a given person and imitate
the spirit of the Antichrist, who will seek to appropriate the Judgment that
the Father has entrusted exclusively to the Son (cf. John 5:22). We, therefore,
see someone’s sin outwardly, but we do not see his inner repentance (if it
exists), which takes place in the heart, the spiritual center of our being.
Moreover, it often happens that we judge someone for external sinful acts of
which we are aware, while at the same time there exist in that person far
greater deeds of mercy of which we are unaware. Ultimately, if we are honest
and self-critical, we will notice that for most of the things for which we
judge others, we ourselves are not entirely free. In this regard, the Lord
clearly warns us, saying: Judge not, that you be not judged, reminding
us first to remove the beam from our own eye, and then to remove the speck from
our brother’s eye (cf. Matt. 7:1–6). The sin of judgment must certainly be
confessed, and once confessed, one must struggle against it consistently and
persistently, so that it may be uprooted.
Sometimes the sin of judgment is
combined with slander, especially when a person does not know all the
facts about an event or an individual, yet assumes the right to speak about
them. In this sense, a clear distinction must be made as to whether, in
addition to judgment, slander is also present, and it should be confessed as
such. Slander is false testimony against another person, by which the Ninth
commandment—Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
(Exod. 20:16)—is directly violated. The observance of this commandment is not
important only in earthly courts, but must be applied to the everyday context
of our lives, such as the professional environment, where we must take care how
we bear witness concerning our colleagues, safeguarding not only their moral
character but also their professional integrity, which may be jeopardized by
our false testimony. Slander may also take the form of a thoroughly malicious
falsehood from the very outset, when a person is fully aware that he is lying
and does so deliberately and intentionally—this is by far the gravest degree of
this sin and requires bitter repentance. In any case, if we are aware that we
have slandered someone in any way (consciously or unconsciously), we are
obliged not only to repent and confess it, but also, as far as possible, to
remove the slander from the name of the one who has been harmed.
At this point, we come to an
entire group of sins related to weakness of character, which include hypocrisy,
duplicity, and double-mindedness. Weakness of character is a great
affliction and manifests itself in various ways, but hypocrisy is its principal
expression. Let us note that in the New Testament we cannot find a single
example of Christ exposing a sinner, regardless of the sin in question, whereas
in several places He directly exposes the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Jewish
leaders—besides them, he very sharply rebukes only the merchants in the Temple
(cf. Matt. 21: 12–13; 23:13–29). It is sufficient on this occasion to mention
the Gospel account of the woman caught in adultery (cf. John 8:1–11). The woman
was, therefore, found in a grave sin for which, in the Old Testament, the
strictest punishment—stoning—was prescribed. But how can one who is himself
bound by similar or even graver sins pass judgment on such a person? This is
precisely what happened to the Jewish leaders. When they, testing Christ, asked
Him what should be done with the woman, He called for the one among them who
was without sin to cast the first stone at her. Meanwhile, He was writing
something on the ground with His finger. Interpreters of Holy Scripture reveal
to us what He was writing: nothing other than the sins of each of the accusers
individually. This is why, convicted by their own conscience, they all withdrew
one by one (cf. John 8:3–11). Taking this account into consideration, let us
ask ourselves: by what right do we judge others when we ourselves are in sin?
And this kind of hypocrisy occurs regularly: we demand that our children be
well-mannered, while we ourselves behave improperly; we expect our colleagues
to be diligent in their work, while we ourselves are lazy; we expect the clergy
to lead holy lives, while we are immersed in vices. Therefore, if we are prone
to hypocrisy and duplicity, as we often are, we should at least muster the
strength to openly confess the weakness of our character and ask forgiveness
from God.
Among the sins of weakness of
character is also cowardice, whose principal manifestations are fearfulness
and excessive anxiety. Cowardice is a weakness of character that is
likewise incompatible with the Christian calling, which is why the fearful are
placed among those who have suffered condemnation in eternity (Rev. 21:8).
Closely connected with this sin is betrayal, and alongside it sometimes
ill will, deceitfulness, and incitement.
Anger is a very common sin on the
list of external, observable sins. It is noteworthy that it is almost regularly
accompanied by judgment and fornication, and that these three sins are
connected by certain peculiar threads, drawing strength from one another.
Furthermore, behind anger and judgment, as coarse external sins, there lies an
exceedingly dangerous internal sin—pride—which will be discussed later;
for now, it suffices to note that anger and judgment outwardly reveal the
presence of this insidious enemy of our soul.
Anger has various manifestations,
such as irritability, quarrelsomeness, intolerance, rage, and harshness.
At times, anger is accompanied by less pronounced passions such as impatience,
grumbling, complaining, and nagging; therefore, when confessing, one
should take all these nuances into account. If anger is constantly present on
the mental level, and not only in outward manifestations, then the spiritual
problem is more serious, as this condition is usually accompanied by resentment
and vindictiveness, that is, the desire to repay evil with evil.
These passions are more difficult to heal than anger itself, since anger
usually flares up and subsides quickly, whereas resentment and vindictiveness
(as internal states) smolder for days, months, or even years. This distinction
is particularly important for recognizing the spiritual affliction—anger is
generally easy to perceive even from one’s facial expression, but sometimes it
happens that a person does not outwardly erupt at all, while inwardly he burns,
which belongs to the problem of internal passions that will be discussed later.
Among the external, coarse, and
evident sins are also various forms of sensual indulgence, although it
too may have its internal manifestations, since there are subtle forms
expressed through inward delight, which requires discernment in each particular
case. As an external passion, sensual indulgence is usually connected with
fornication (which falls within its scope), and then with gluttony,
overeating, and drunkenness. The sins of excess in eating and
drinking should not be underestimated, however insignificant they may seem to
us—they are often the first step towards more serious sinful states. Moreover,
a person can gain mastery over other coarse passions only after he has mastered
his tongue, throat, and stomach, which is the beginning of the formation of a
firm will and character.
All those who underestimate the
sins of excess in eating and drinking should recall the Gospel account of the
insensitive rich man, who delighted in earthly pleasures, whereby his heart
became hardened to such an extent that he did not see the poor Lazarus lying
before his gate, covered with sores which the dogs licked. After death, the
unnamed rich man cries out from Hades to Patriarch Abraham to help him by
sending poor Lazarus to dip his finger in water and cool his tongue (cf. Luke
16:19–24). Why does he ask for help in such a characteristic manner?
Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), relying on the ascetical tradition of the
Church, explains that this is because the rich man suffered from the passion of
gluttony (which was joined with insensitivity to Lazarus’ suffering), and the
tongue was the organ upon which this destructive passion was based—a passion
that could not be satisfied in eternity. At this point, it is worth once again
recalling the imperative of cleansing the soul from sin through repentance and
confession while we are on the way (Matt. 5:25), that is, in this
earthly life—once we pass into eternity, this will no longer be possible.
The confession of sins of excess
in eating and drinking is, as noted, necessary also for the prevention of more
serious sins, since this form of excess in the natural needs of the body leads
to spiritual insensitivity (cf. Luke 21:34), spiritual insensitivity to
debauchery, and debauchery to the gravest sins. Here it is also necessary to
mention one unnatural passion, namely smoking. We shall pose only one
question in this regard: If a person sins when he satisfies the natural needs
for food and drink beyond measure, how much more does he sin when he creates
unnatural needs such as smoking cigarettes, which seriously endanger bodily
health? As for the use of harder drugs [smoking being a form of a “lighter”
drug], there is no need for further comment—the gravity and consequences of the
sin of drug addiction are already clearly visible here and now, both in
addicts themselves and in their families. In particular, with this type of sin,
a firm resolve for a change of life is indispensable—without it, a person will
destroy both bodily and spiritual health. In our time, there are also new forms
of addiction (such as addiction to video games, the internet, and other
electronic content), which should likewise be mentioned in confession if
present.
If a person lacks self-restraint,
then he most likely does not observe the Church fasts, which in turn very
likely means that he does not attend the Divine Liturgy regularly (or at all),
that is, he is absent from the entire rhythm of ecclesial life. This is a state
of spiritual laxity, which often manifests itself through specific sins such as
indulgence of the body, laziness, idleness, and excessive rest.
These states, which outwardly may not appear dangerous, often over time develop
into severe depression. Let us not forget that laziness is treated as a mortal
sin and that it has a destructive effect on a person’s salvation if it is not
healed—the Gospel account of the “wicked and slothful servant” who buried his
talent instead of multiplying it (cf. Matt. 25:13–30) is more than sufficient
to stir us to repentance and zeal.
Someone might think that this is
excessive and that the rhythm of prayerful life is reserved only for priests.
But do we truly believe that we shall not be called to account before God for
allowing ourselves to lie in bed on Sundays instead of being at the Divine
Liturgy? Do we truly think that we shall not be judged before God for knowing
by heart countless tavern songs, while not knowing the Trisagion, the Lord’s
Prayer, and the Creed? Do we truly suppose that we shall easily justify
ourselves if, throughout our entire life, we have not even once read the entire
New Testament, while out of idleness and empty curiosity we have read who knows
how many thousands of pages of worthless material? The sin of negligence in the
spiritual life must inevitably be confessed, and one’s condition corrected.
A particular group of external,
easily observable sins concerns transgressions committed by words. Keep thy
tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile, counsels the Psalmist
David (Ps. 33:13). Within this group of sins of speech are also some grave sins
that we have already mentioned, such as judgment and false witness; although
they are usually treated separately due to their gravity. Here we shall mention
others which, though lesser, should not be underestimated. These include sins
such as idle talk, jesting, gossip, mockery, profanity, and lying.
The first thing to bear in mind regarding these sins, which are considered
“lighter,” is that a so-called minor sin more easily becomes a grave one if it
is not addressed in time, as was explained in the first part using the example
of lying. The second thing to consider is the gradation according to the
consequences that sins of speech produce in our surroundings—The tongue has
no bones, yet it breaks bones, says an old proverb which sufficiently warns
us. What may seem to us an entirely insignificant remark may have broken
someone’s heart (or even bones, if the word led to a more severe outcome), for
the tongue can indeed be a sharpened razor (Ps. 51:2). In this sense,
one should carefully reflect not only on whether we have sinned with our tongue
in any of the aforementioned ways—it is almost certain that we have—but also on
whether we have thereby caused some serious harm. In this group of sins, the
context of the transgression is also very important—it is not the same whether
we sinned with our tongue at a football match, in traffic, or in our own home;
this relational context should also be mentioned during confession. Finally, a
person may also blaspheme God with the tongue, which is a grave
transgression requiring a particular penitential discipline. It goes without
saying that, when confessing certain sins of speech, such as profanity, one
should not literally quote the indecent expressions that were uttered—it is
sufficient to describe briefly what is meant and to aim at the essence of the
sin, without repeating it verbatim.
At the conclusion of this
categorization of coarse external sins, let us also mention public scandals,
by which confusion is introduced into the souls of many through the promotion
of immorality or through improper behavior in public. At a time when
there are ever fewer authentic media channels and ever more media “sewerage,”
such phenomena have seriously poisoned our already morally declining society.
In this sense, besides those people who directly commit such sins (such as
irresponsible actors, presenters, and the like), equal responsibility is borne
by the owners of media companies, directors, producers, program editors, and
all those involved in enterprises that generate profit through the mass
promotion of sin and the corruption of human souls. This also includes every
form of participation in the advertising of sin, such as the public promotion
of gambling and betting, which in our time exacts a heavy toll, especially
among young people (it is difficult even to provide an approximate estimate of
the number of those addicted to the plague of betting in Serbia). A particular
form of the sin of public scandal is a life that does not correspond to the
level expected of a person who holds a responsible public service, whether he
be a teacher or a clergyman, a physician or a politician. In this regard, a
simple rule applies: the higher the office, the greater the responsibility.
End of part 5
https://orthochristian.com/178255.html
Confession of Sins
That Are Not Externally Visible
External, visible, bodily sins
are most often manifestations of internal sinful states, or are directly
connected with them. In the example of fornication, which is a coarse external
sin, we have seen how everything in fact begins with simple thoughts, which
over time develop into a serious spiritual problem if they are not rejected at
their inception. Every sin, therefore, is usually preceded by a simple thought,
depending on a person’s particular weakness. If there is no habit of cutting
off such thoughts, they gradually grow and develop, eventually enslaving the
person.
Sinful thoughts are
confessed concisely during confession, to the extent necessary for the priest
to discern the state of the soul—that is, what the mind of the person is
struggling with and the measure of success or failure in that struggle. Here it
should be especially emphasized that so-called blasphemous thoughts
(indescribable thoughts related to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God,
the Saints…) are confessed in a very simple manner as blasphemous, without any
description whatsoever, since they are not truly ours but are imposed by the
enemy of our salvation in order to cast us into despair and despondency.
Moreover, as the watchful Fathers observe, the very fact that such thoughts
disturb us deeply and produce an unpleasant feeling in us already indicates
that they are an external suggestion, which we should simply reject and not
accept, lest at some point they become our own.
In the matter of internal sinful
states, the fundamental problem lies in distraction and inattention
on the one hand, and in the lack of noetic prayer on the other. This classical
combination of spiritual laxity enables sin to grow within us and to
imperceptibly occupy ever greater portions of the inner space of our being. If,
in addition, there is carelessness and a lack of discernment,
then sin gains a wide field in which to operate.
Given all that has been said, it
is particularly striking that we usually fail to perceive our own inner
desolation, yet we often presume to judge the inner sinful disposition of
others. The reason is clear: We are negligent in prayer, hurried and distracted,
and therefore we do not properly see our own inner state. Here a seeming
paradox arises—the more a person advances in the purification of the soul, the
more sins he perceives within himself, and vice versa. This, however, should
not surprise us; on a clean wall even a small stain is clearly visible, whereas
on a wall already covered with graffiti one may add as much dirt as one wishes
and little will stand out. Thus, our own state of spiritual laxity, manifested
primarily in inattention and distraction, often leads us into sins of thought.
If our mind were to invoke more
frequently the most powerful Name, with the words Lord Jesus Christ, Son of
God, have mercy on me, we would crush sin at the very level of the initial
suggestion, and it would have no opportunity to develop further, but would
instead melt like wax before the fire (as it is said in the prayer to
the Holy Cross). Unfortunately, since we are generally not in a state of
attentive prayer, we chronically suffer under the tyranny of thoughts, which
swarm in our mind like bees in a hive—this being a primary indication that the
mind is not functioning as it should. Such a condition must certainly be
confessed, and one should seek healing from a spiritual father, who will
introduce us to the method of noetic prayer in a spirit of repentance.
Since we already struggle with
prayer, we should ask ourselves whether we also struggle with faith. To begin
with, each of us should examine whether we sincerely and firmly believe and
confess as the Orthodox Church believes and confesses, or whether we believe
according to our own personal notions. This is important, because everything
begins with faith, including our ethical life, however often we may be unaware
of it. Therefore, if there is weak faith (that is, doubt in the truths
of Orthodoxy, in the power of God, or in divine providence) or false belief
(heterodox thinking), such a condition must be recognized and confessed.
Likewise, if we believe correctly but are ungrateful to God or blaspheme His
Name in times of distress, we also commit a sin that must be confessed.
A particular problem in this
domain is the betrayal of God through the acceptance or practice of
various superstitions. There exists a multitude of superstitious habits
by which God is betrayed: from reading coffee grounds and horoscopes (which
many regard as harmless entertainment, but which in fact constitute a primitive
superstition incompatible with Orthodoxy), to visiting various gurus, psychics,
sorcerers, fortune-tellers, and practitioners of so-called white or black
magic, all the way to the use of so-called “imam’s charms” (which are
themselves a forbidden practice even among Muslims). All of the above is absolutely
unacceptable for Christians and represents nothing other than an act of
spiritual betrayal, which as such must be bitterly lamented, promptly
confessed, and never repeated. Unfortunately, most people have no awareness
whatsoever of the depth of the fall in such cases, nor of the fact that by
engaging in such superstitions they effectively renounce the true faith. This
kind of betrayal is especially grave if a person lives a liturgical life—for
how can one even conceive of reconciling such sins with participation in the
Divine Liturgy and communion in the Holy Mysteries of Christ?
It is also necessary to mention
the increasingly widespread use of meditative techniques originating in the Far
East, which, simply put, are not compatible with Orthodox spirituality. For
example, in the case of practicing the meditative system of yoga, a Christian
finds himself in a kind of schizophrenic spiritual state—he employs a method
that is fundamentally anthropocentric (rather than Christocentric) and thereby
drives away the grace of God instead of steadily acquiring it. Moreover,
various meditative “states” may over time lead to serious spiritual delusions
(collectively referred to as prelest), since the practitioner lacks the
experience necessary to distinguish between created and uncreated
energies—something that can have very grave spiritual consequences. If, in
addition, these Far Eastern meditative techniques are combined with the philosophical-religious
traditions upon which they are founded (such as ideas of intellectual union
with the cosmos or with an impersonal Absolute), then one arrives at a
spiritual fall equivalent to classical idolatry and an open betrayal of the
True God. All such delusive states and experiences, if present, must be
confessed in repentance, and the aforementioned meditative practices must be
abandoned and replaced with noetic prayer within the liturgical life of the
Church.
In considering the topic of
internal sinful states that are not externally visible, particular attention
should be given to two sins that inevitably assail each of us: pride and
self–love (egoism). These two sins are by far the most dangerous and, at the
same time, the most insidious enemies of our spiritual health. Moreover, this
“duo” stands in direct opposition to humility and love—where pride and
self-love reign, there is no humility or love, and conversely, where true
humility and love prevail, these sins simply have no place. For this reason, we
must struggle against pride and self-love without mercy, until they are
eradicated: either they will endure, or our spiritual health will.
Let us begin with pride,
our chief enemy among the passions. It is a grave spiritual illness in which a
person places himself at the center of the world, exalts himself above others,
and becomes both his own idol and a mental obsession to himself. There are,
moreover, various forms of pride. The most easily recognizable is the pride of
falsely so-called reason, which particularly affects those who possess
knowledge in certain fields, hold high titles, are renowned for something, or
are simply talented, and thus come to hold an excessively elevated opinion of
themselves. Yet even simple and uneducated people may suffer from pride, though
this form is more difficult to detect (it may be discerned, to some extent,
through external sins such as the habit of judging others). A particularly
severe form of pride afflicts those who possess virtues but lack humility, and
therefore hold an exceedingly high opinion of themselves in a spiritual sense.
From pride there directly proceed various sinful states, which should likewise
be confessed if they are present. Among these are arrogance, conceit,
narcissism, haughtiness, vanity, insolence, boldness, mockery, contempt,
and oversensitivity to offence.
One might ask: Is pride, with all
its derivatives, truly a greater sin than murder? Let us respond: if pride were
not the root, would there be murder at all? History is replete with proud,
arrogant, vain, and audacious leaders who imagined themselves above others and,
as such, led entire nations into catastrophic mass destruction (the two World
Wars are a classic example). On the other hand, there is no known example of a
humble ruler who initiated wars of conquest or tyrannized his own people.
Therefore, pride is the most grievous illness, which must be treated
uncompromisingly, for it is the foundation of the most serious sins.
Admittedly, there are times when we fail to recognize pride within ourselves
(especially if we possess certain virtues or are zealous, and are thereby
carried away); yet this is precisely why the role of the spiritual father is
indispensable—he can discern our pride when we ourselves cannot, and thus guide
the healing of our spiritual wounds.
Self-love (egoism) is the
second, equally dangerous sin that regularly assails us. We have all, from
childhood, become accustomed to this sin, when those around us placed us in the
role of being the center of the world (a child-centered mentality, especially
in our time, exacts a heavy toll), teaching us that it is natural for all
manner of gifts to be offered to us, from toys and sweets to attention and
applause. Later, as adults, we become further habituated to this pattern
through the framework of consumer society, in which everything is tailored to
our needs and preferences, since, as consumers, we have become the focus of
corporate attention (not because corporations love us, but because they seek
profit from us). Thus we grow accustomed to self-love as to a warm bath. The
most troubling aspect is that we sometimes mistake self-love for genuine love,
imagining that we love others when in fact we love only ourselves, forgetting
that true love is always sacrificial in character. The sin of self-love also
manifests itself in various forms, including selfishness, self-centeredness,
self-pity, self-justification, stubbornness, and self-will. It goes
without saying that we must examine ourselves in light of each of these sinful
states, and if we recognize them within ourselves, confess them.
Self-love is somewhat easier to
recognize than pride for one simple reason: it is felt directly by those who
live with us. How many marriages have collapsed because spouses were unwilling
to struggle against egoism, each seeking only what was his or her own? In this
regard, it has been rightly observed that the principal cause of the breakdown
of contemporary Christian marriages lies in the unwillingness of spouses to
struggle against their own passions (we emphasize: their own, not those of the
other). Among these passions, egoism often occupies the foremost place, which
is why it must be resisted with all one’s strength, as in the case of pride. As
a beginning, one might at least serve the members of one’s household, learn to
rejoice in their joys and to grieve in their sorrows, until in time we
ourselves become their joy (through selfless giving) and cease to be their
sorrow (through selfish infliction of pain).
A frequent companion of pride and
self-love is envy, which, let us recall, was the cause of the first
murder in the history of mankind, when Cain slew his brother Abel (cf. Gen.
4:3–8). There is scarcely a person who has not at least once experienced envy
or succumbed to it. Interestingly, very few are willing to admit that they
suffer from it. Like self-love, envy has its roots in early childhood, when we
envy a brother or sister for having a larger toy, a classmate for success at
school, or a teammate for achieving a better result in sport. Indeed, if we believe
that we are free from this passion, let us ask ourselves the following: Why do
we not sincerely rejoice in the success of our neighbor as in our own? The
reason is envy and nothing else. It is sometimes accompanied by malicious
joy, a particular spiritual ailment manifested as a strange and unhealthy
inner satisfaction at another’s misfortune.
Another frequent companion of
pride, self-love, and envy is vainglory, that is, the desire for human,
empty glory, which manifests itself as the need to be recognized, respected,
and seen (in our time: to be “followed” on social media). This passion also
includes its indirect manifestations, such as the love of honor (the
desire to receive special recognition), boasting (the inclination to
display one’s achievements before others), and the striving for precedence,
which the Lord Himself pointed out to His disciples and apostles as a worldly
temptation incompatible with the perspective of the Kingdom of God (cf. Mark
10:35–45).
There is yet another serious
internal passion, which has become especially widespread in our time and must
certainly be mentioned in confession if it is recognized. This is avarice,
which consists in an insatiable thirst for acquisition and enrichment. Avarice
was the illness of Judas the betrayer, who, failing to recognize it, ultimately
betrayed his Lord for thirty pieces of silver (cf. Matt. 26:15). This passion
should not be confused with the natural need to increase material goods and to
manage one’s household responsibly. It is something quite different—avarice is
a form of idolatry that places the acquisition of money at the forefront of
life, even above God, which is clearly evident in the occupation of one’s
thoughts with the pursuit of wealth, to the extent that it burdens even one’s
prayer. Because of its destructive effect on the soul, the Apostle Paul calls
avarice the root of all evils (1 Tim. 6:10). Avarice is closely
accompanied by greed and acquisitiveness, while its other
“companions” include people-pleasing, flattery, and sycophancy,
as these serve as indirect means of attaining wealth or positions of power.
Where pride, self-love, envy,
avarice, and vainglory are present, hatred easily takes root as well. It
is a particularly grave spiritual wound. If we openly hate someone, can we
truly be called servants of Christ? For the Lord calls us to love even our
enemies (cf. Matt. 5:44), in the sense of sincerely desiring their salvation,
as He Himself did from the Cross (cf. Luke 23:34). The opposite of hatred is
love, which is the surest mark of a healthy soul. Here we arrive at the central
point of our reflection—if the two greatest commandments are to love God with
all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves (cf. Matt. 22:37–39; Mark
12:30–31), then our greatest sin is precisely that we do not possess such a
measure of love. He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who
loves Me (John 14:21), says the Lord, giving us a clear criterion by which
we may assess whether we truly love God. On the other hand, in the parable of
the Good Samaritan (cf. Luke 10:25–37), we are given a clear framework for
evaluating whether we possess genuine love for our neighbor. Does any one of us
fulfil these measures? Hardly anyone. And have we ever confessed that we lack
sufficient true love for God and for our neighbor? Here is an opportunity to
reflect deeply and to consider what our essential sin is—the one from which all
our sufferings proceed.
At the end of this list of sins,
let us say something about despair. It is a grave sinful state in which
many have lost their souls, ultimately even raising their hand against
themselves—the example of Judas Iscariot is the most tragic (cf. Matt. 27:3–5).
Despair is preceded by states of hopelessness, faint-heartedness, excessive
sorrow, and despondency. All these conditions must be confessed
without fail if they are present, and help should be sought from a spiritual
father, in order to prevent the final outcome of despair, which through
suicidal thoughts may lead a person to eternal destruction.
A person may fall into despair
due to the loss of health, family problems, or the collapse of one’s work. Yet
especially grievous is the state in which one despairs because of a serious
sin, believing that there is no salvation for him. Therefore, let us remember
well that even if we have committed every sin, even if we are the most sinful
of all people, we must never allow ourselves to fall into despair—the mercy
of God is immeasurably greater than all our sins, and God is always ready
to forgive us, provided that we, for our part, are ready to offer Him active
repentance. If we fall into any sin, let us repent as quickly as possible and
confess before a priest, so that we may receive spiritual consolation and the
strength to move forward again, towards Christ. If the Lord God would have
forgiven even Judas the betrayer had he sincerely repented and sought
forgiveness, He will surely forgive us as well, if we possess sincere
repentance, are ready to confess our sins openly, and are prepared to struggle
against them to the very end.
Finally, bearing in mind that the
first man to enter Paradise was the repentant thief (cf. Luke 23:42–43), let us
also cry out to the Lord with the words Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom,
and let us sincerely have recourse to the Holy Mystery of repentance and
confession, without doubting for a single moment the mercy of God. If we act in
this way, God will receive us into His fatherly embrace (cf. Luke 15:11–32) and
lead us into eternal joy.
Glory and praise to our God!
End of Part 6 / Final
https://orthochristian.com/178324.html
This concise guide to confession was written on the basis of
fifteen years of experience in spiritual work with Orthodox Christians of
different ages, educational backgrounds, professions, and ethnic origins. The
purpose of the guide is to present the subject of confession in as
understandable a way as possible to a broader circle of believers, so that they
may prepare themselves properly for the Holy Mystery and thereby make easier
for the priest the responsible duty of hearing confessions. The text represents
“first aid” on the subject of confession, which is why it has been written
concisely, in accessible language, with many accompanying examples and with as
little entry as possible into complex theological themes.
The text was originally published in the newspaper Pravoslavlje
(1 March 2026), as part of cooperation with the Missionary Department of the
Archbishopric of Belgrade-Karlovci in the area of publication of missionary
texts.
