The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional

by Charles Paschal Telesphore Chiniquy

We have the life of Paul, the hermit, of the third century, by one of the early fathers of the church. But not a word is said in it of his confessing his sins to any one, though a thousand things are said of him which are of a far less interesting character.

So it is with the life of St. Mary, the Egyptian. The minute history of her life, her public scandals, her conversion, long prayers and fastings in solitude, the detailed history of her last days and of her death, all these we have; but not a single word is said of her confessing to any one. It is evident that she lived and died without ever having thought of going to confess.

The deacon Pontius wrote also the life St. Cyprien, who lived in the third century; but he does not say a word of his ever having gone to confession, or having heard the confession of any one. More than that, we learn from this reliable historian that Cyprien was excommunicated by the Pope of Rome, called Stephen, and that he died without having ever asked from any one absolution from that excommunication; a thing which has not seemingly prevented him from going to Heaven, since the infallible Popes of Rome, who succeeded Stephen, have assured us that he is a saint.

Gregory of Nyssa has given us the life of St. Gregory of Neo-Cæsarea, of the 3rd century, and of St. Basil, of the 4th century. But neither speak of their having gone to confess, or having heard the confession of any one. It is thus evident that those two great and good men, with all the Christians of their times, lived and died without ever knowing any thing about the dogma of auricular confession.

We have the interesting life of St Ambrose, of the 4th century, by Paulinus; and from that book it is as evident as two and two make four, that St. Ambrose never went to confess.

The history of St Martin of Tours, of the 4th century by Severus Sulpicius of the 5th century, is another monument left by antiquity to prove that there was no dogma of auricular confession in those days; for St. Martin has evidently lived and died without ever going to confess.

Pallas and Theodoret have left us the history of the life, sufferings and death of St. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who died at the beginning of the 5th century, and both are absolutely mute about that dogma. No fact is more evident, by what they say, than that holy and eloquent bishop lived and died also without ever thinking of going to confess.

No man has ever more perfectly entered into the details of a Christian life, when writing on that subject, than the learned and eloquent St Jerome, of the 5th century. A great number of his admirable letters are written to the priests of his day, or to some Christian ladies and virgins, who had requested him to give them some good advices about the best way to lead a Christian life. His letters, which form five volumes, are most interesting monuments of the manners, habits, views, morality, practical and dogmatical faith of the first centuries of the church; and they are a most unanswerable evidence that auricular confession, as a dogma, had then no existence, and is quite a modern invention. Would it be possible that Jerome could have forgotten to give some advices or rules about auricular confession, to the priests of his time who asked his counsel about the best way to fulfil their ministerial duties, if it had been one of their duties to hear the confessions of the people? But we challenge the most devoted modern priest of Rome to find a single line in all the letters of St Jerome in favour of auricular confession. In his admirable letter to the priest Nepotianus, on the life of priests, vol. ii, p. 203, when speaking of the relations of priests with women, he says: "Solus cum sola, secreto et absque arbitrio vel teste, non sedeas. Si familiarus est aliquid loquendum, habet nutricem majorem domus, virginem, viduam, vel maritatam; non est tam inhumana ut nullum præter te habeat cui se audeat credere."

"Never sit in secret, alone, in a retired place, with a female who is alone with you. If she has any particular thing to tell you, let her take the female attendant of the house, a young girl, a widow, or a married woman. She can not be so ignorant of the rules of human life as to expect to have you as the only one to whom she can trust those things."

It would be easy to cite a great number of other remarkable passages where Jerome shows himself the most determined and implacable opponent of those secret "tête-à-tête" between a priest and a female, which, under the plausible pretext of mutual advice and spiritual consolation, are generally nothing but bottomless pits of infamy and perdition for both. But this is enough.