A Short Guide to Confession

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.