Psychological models of the search for and experience of DF

Two main psychological models have been proposed to explain how people seek and experience DF following the recognition of a personal transgression. Firstly, Fincham and May [3] propose a heuristic model for seeking DF, designed for use across faith traditions but modulated by each tradition’s specific emphases. This model describes a series of decisions shaped by cognitive, emotional, and cultural factors. It begins with the perception of a transgression, which elicits emotions such as guilt or shame and motivates the pursuit of DF. The first decision point refers to whether or not the person chooses to seek DF [8]. This decision may be influenced by factors such as the image of God, spiritual attachment, perceptions of divine justice, self-control, and cultural norms [1,9,10]. If they proceed, the second decision concerns whether DF is perceived as unconditional or contingent upon factors such as rituals like confession or repentance [11]. Upon making these decisions, individuals may experience DF, often accompanied by relief, peace, shifts in self-perception, and changes in the relationship with God. The model is dynamic, potentially involving repeated cycles of seeking and context-dependent variations, with outcomes subject to individual interpretation [3].

Secondly, Cook and Cowden [7] recently approached DF within Christianity as a relational experience of reconciling with God following instances in which the individual has become aware of personal sin. Drawing on the framework of relational spirituality [12,13], their model posits that believers can cultivate an active, meaningful relationship with the sacred. DF is conceptualized as arising from a dynamic system in which intrapersonal (e.g., beliefs), interpersonal (e.g., relationships with others), and transpersonal (e.g., perceptions of God) factors interact to support relational homeostasis with God. In the context of religious transgression, individuals engage in cognitive-emotional appraisals involving the self, God, personal sin, and others implicated, as well as the connections among them. These elements are represented in a pyramid structure (see Fig 1), which depicts the relational dynamics of seeking and experiencing reconciliation with God after a personal sin. Based on interdisciplinary insights from theology and philosophy, Cook and colleagues also introduce the notion of experiencing reconciliation with God as involving two interrelated dimensions [14,15]: engaging in repentance (internal acknowledgment of wrongdoing and openness to transformation) and experiencing absolution (a sense of receiving forgiveness from God after not fully experiencing it), both in dialogue with the individual’s perceptions of God, sin, and others. The model emphasizes that awareness of personal sin may be experienced as a form of rupture to the person’s relationship with God, but also marks the start of a relational, contextually embedded process of restoration.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Relational spirituality model of a Christian’s reconciliation with God after recognizing personal sin.

The figure illustrates Cook and Cowden’s [7] Christian-sensitive relational spirituality model of personal sin. The vertices represent the self (the individual who has transgressed and seeks divine reconciliation), God (the transcendent figure who offers forgiveness and whose image shapes the experience), personal sin (the specific act or attitude perceived as a rupture in the relationship), and others (such as the religious community or those affected by the sin). The edges depict appraisals of the relationships among these elements following a transgression, highlighting the systemic and relational nature of DF.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347608.g001

Although the two previous DF models are beginning to receive empirical support, their applicability across different cultural and denominational settings remains largely unexplored. Fincham and Maranges [8] provided initial evidence for the Fincham and May [3] model with predominantly White, English-speaking U.S. Christian university students, while Cook, Cowden, and colleagues [7,14] developed their theologically-informed model through an initial qualitative phase with Christians from 10 different countries, followed by a pilot study with U.S. Christians, all in English. The authors of both models explicitly encourage future research to examine these frameworks in diverse cultural and religious contexts. Within Christianity, Cook and Cowden [7] note Catholicism as a specific case due to its emphasis on sacramental confession in receiving DF.

The experience of DF in Catholicism

DF holds a central place in Christianity [14], and within it, Catholicism emphasizes a distinct and significant mode of experiencing it through the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation [16]. This sacrament, required at least once a year for Catholics, involves confessing sins to a priest as a condition for receiving God’s forgiveness [17], thereby making the relational nature of forgiveness explicitly manifest through the presence of an intermediary and situating reconciliation within a broader communal horizon [18]. It aims to restore the relationship between the believer and God, allowing the penitent (i.e., the person who wants to confess a sin) to experience acceptance and reconciliation after failure [19], and it may also influence well-being [20–23]. The rite follows a structured sequence: conversion (awareness and repentance), confession (verbal admission to a priest), penance (acceptance of a reparative act or intention), and absolution (receiving DF). The experience is mediated by the confessor, who represents both the religious community as a human and, during absolution, acts in persona Christi—in the person of Christ—thus acquiring a divine role [16,17,24,25].

Concerning existing models of seeking and experiencing DF, Catholic confession could present distinctive features. In Fincham and May’s [3] model, sacramental confession could be a clear example of conditional DF, involving both the decision to seek absolution and the belief that rituals—such as confessing to a priest and performing penance—are required. In the relational spirituality model of personal sin [7], the sequential stages of confession (conversion, verbal admission, penance, and absolution) could be seen as corresponding to the movements of repentance and absolution that drive the experience of reconciliation [14]. In addition, confession could bring together all the key elements of the model and their relationships: the self (penitent), the confessed sin, the others (the community and those affected by the sin), and God. Thus, an open question is whether the confessor is perceived to belong within the pyramid model shown in Fig 1, as he could be placed in several positions—for example, as a member of the community (the “others” vertex), as a representative of God (“God”), or as a fourth foundational vertex, creating a quadrangular pyramid that links and integrates all dimensions of the sacramental experience. However, these possibilities remain unexplored.

Despite the centrality of confession in Catholicism, qualitative research on the psychological experience of DF in this sacrament is scarce. Some studies explored confession or disclosure to spiritual leaders’ experiences in other Christian contexts [26], but these practices differ from the Catholic context, where confession constitutes a formal sacrament, is doctrinally required, and is institutionally embedded as a core element of religious life [17]. One exception that specifically examined experiences of Catholic confession is Wise’s [27] doctoral dissertation, which identified themes such as motivation, guilt, shame, scrupulosity, and absolution in experiences of DF, although it focused solely on the perspective of penitents, not confessors. Moreover, those studies have focused on English-speaking contexts. However, findings from these settings should not be uncritically generalized to predominantly Catholic, Spanish-speaking contexts, where cultural factors like family centrality, communal values, and relational orientation are deeply rooted and may shape the way religion is lived, including the experience of confession and DF [28–30].

Examining Spanish-speaking priests’ understandings and experiences as both confessor and penitent (confessing their sins with other confessors) from their own perspective could offer a unique lens [24], helping to clarify the confessor’s perceived relational significance [7] and the conditional nature of seeking and receiving DF [3]. To our knowledge, no prior studies have examined these dynamics in Spanish-speaking, predominantly Catholic contexts from the confessor’s own perspective. The lack of research from this perspective likely reflects both the relative infancy of empirical research on DF and the sensitivity of the topic due to the sacramental seal, which requires the confessor to keep information about the content of the confession and identity of the penitent completely confidential [17]. Nonetheless, research that respects confidentiality may illuminate crucial gaps.

This study focuses on experienced priests who are native to Spanish-speaking contexts, a population underrepresented in psychological research [31] but especially relevant in the present study for two reasons: the predominance of Catholicism in these countries [32] and their communal cultural values, which give religious experience a particularly relational and interdependent character [29,30]. Our work seeks to contribute a more culturally grounded understanding of the experience of reconciliation with God in Catholic contexts, expanding the emerging field of research on DF and informing the development of theoretical models that are sensitive to the particularities of specific faith traditions.

Objective

This study aimed to explore how Spanish-speaking Catholic priests understand and experience DF within the Sacrament of Confession, considering their perspectives both as confessors (when administering the sacrament) and as penitents (when confessing to other priests). The main goal was to illuminate how the elements of the relational spirituality model of personal sin (i.e., the self, God, the others, and personal sin) [7] are both manifested and interrelated within the experience of confession, and to examine the particular role of the confessor among these elements. It further aimed to broaden understanding of how priests experience and conceptualize DF, considering the relational, cognitive, and emotional factors they identify as facilitating, hindering, or conditioning it—thereby contributing insights that may also complement the DF model proposed by Fincham and May [3] within the specific context of Spanish-speaking Catholicism.

Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

Epistemological approach and methodological design

This study employed theory-informed framework analysis design within a constructivist framework, focusing on how priests experience and make meaning of a spiritual phenomenon from a psychological perspective within specific cultural and relational contexts. Instead of addressing DF as a theological doctrine, it explores how Catholic priests experience their role as mediators of forgiveness within the sacrament of confession, as well as how they live out DF when they are penitents with fellow priests.

Framework analysis [34] was particularly appropriate because our study was guided by the Christian-sensitive relational spirituality model of personal sin proposed by Cook and Cowden [7], while remaining open to inductive development. In practice, the analysis was theory-informed, similar in spirit to a theory-driven qualitative content analysis [35], but it retained the structured, matrix-based, and interpretive logic of framework analysis. The analytic framework served as a flexible reference point, allowing new categories to emerge inductively and accommodating denominational and experiential particularities that might not align neatly with the guiding model [7].

Participants

Participants were ten Catholic priests, including both diocesan priests (i.e., serving in parishes under the authority of a bishop) and members of religious communities (Jesuits, Franciscans, and Opus Dei), which differ in their spiritual traditions and community life. Eligibility criteria required participants to be native Spanish speakers, to be currently serving as priests and confessors in a Spanish-speaking country, and to have at least 15 years of experience since ordination. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. All communication was conducted in Spanish, using email, telephone, and WhatsApp. Initial contacts were established through personal networks, followed by referrals from participating priests and outreach to diocesan offices in various cities. As a result, some participants were previously known to the researchers, while others were not. Recruitment was guided by previously defined diversity criteria to ensure a range of perspectives relevant to the aims of the study.

Participants were based in different cities across Spain (n = 7), Peru (n = 1), Chile (n = 1), and Mexico (n = 1); their country of origin matched their current place of ministry. Ages ranged from 46 to 66 years (M = 55), and time since ordination ranged from 16 to 39 years (M = 25). On average, they reported hearing about 25 confessions per week, though this number varied considerably across participants.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore priests’ experiences and understandings of DF both as confessors (when administering the sacrament) and as penitents (when confessing to other priests) as well as their perspectives on how other penitents experience confession. The interview guide was developed with input from two Spanish-speaking Catholic priests who were not subsequently interviewed as participants. In addition, two pilot interviews (not included in the analysis) were conducted with other priests to gather feedback on the semi-structured interview and refine the guide before the final round of interviews.

The interviews began with an open-ended question (“Could you tell me about your experience or the process of DF in confession, or anything you would like to share about this topic?”), allowing participants to share their experiences freely, followed by more specific semi-structured questions that built on these accounts to explore how they experience DF as both confessors and penitents, the actions they carried out during confession, their relationships with penitents and other confessors, and their reflections on different types of sins as well as on well-being (the full list of interview questions is available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) website; see Data availability statement).

Interviews were held either in person at the university or online via video call from the priests’ parish or community residence, depending on their location. Each lasted between 60 and 99 minutes (M = 74 minutes). All interviews were conducted in Spanish between April 2024 and April 2025. Initial contact was made via email, which included an information sheet and a consent form. Interviews were scheduled only after receiving signed consent and began with recorded verbal consent. All interviews were audio-recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized. Participants chose the following unrelated pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality: 17 Junio, Cercanía, Corazón, Felicidad, Independencia, Juan Pablo II, Lic, Piedra, Sacristán, and Santa Rosa. The fully anonymized interview transcripts in Spanish are available (see Data availability statement).

Data analysis and credibility strategies

Data were analyzed using the framework analysis approach [34,36]. The analytic unit was each meaningful segment of text at the sentence or short-paragraph level, which was identified and segmented within each transcript. First, two researchers (CC and MC) independently familiarized themselves with the data and conducted initial inductive open coding using Taguette (https://www.taguette.org/). After three interviews, an initial analytic framework was collaboratively developed and iteratively refined as new data emerged. The coded data were then indexed within the framework, charted across cases, and clustered into higher-order categories, which were discussed, named, and organized into thematic matrices by category and participant. Finally, we created a table including the various codes (Level 1: specific; Level 2: broader; Level 3: overarching categories) organized into broader narrative themes (see Supporting Information S2 Table).

The analysis was guided by Cook and Cowden’s [7] Christian-sensitive model that conceptualizes personal sin within a relational spirituality framework, while allowing new categories to emerge inductively beyond this structure. Thematic saturation—the point at which no new themes or relevant information emerge—was reached after the eighth interview, and analysis of the final two interviews confirmed that no new themes were identified, consistent with qualitative research standards [37].

To support reflexive rigor, ChatGPT-4, a large language model developed by OpenAI [38] was used as an auxiliary analytic aid exclusively for robustness checks and not for primary coding or interpretation. The model did not generate primary codes or analytic categories, nor did it contribute to the development of the interpretive framework. Instead, it was prompted with summaries of our three-level codes and categories, and asked to propose potential reorganizations or refinements. A typical prompt was: “You are assisting with qualitative data analysis. The following are three-level codes derived from interview data, which have been organized into broader thematic categories. Please evaluate this organization indicating if any codes should be moved, merged, or redefined, and briefly explain your reasoning.” The outputs were systematically compared with our own interpretations, and suggestions were incorporated only when consistent with the data corpus and theoretical framework. This step resulted in minor adjustments; for example, the model suggested that the ‘confession frequency’ code might belong to more than one thematic domain, prompting us to discuss whether it fit better within dispositional preparation or the dynamic process of reconciliation. All analytic decisions remained under the full control of the research team and no AI-generated content was included verbatim in the final results.

To ensure analytic credibility and ethical integrity, we used several credibility strategies. Coding was independently conducted by two researchers (MC, CC) and compared with a third (MRG) to resolve discrepancies and reach consensus. Participant validation occurred through in-interview member checking, in which participants were asked to confirm that our interpretations reflected their intended meanings. At the end of each interview, participants were also invited to clarify, retract, or add any statement—either immediately or within subsequent weeks. All confirmed that their contributions were accurately represented. Theoretical triangulation was also pursued by discussing our emerging themes with KC and RC, the authors of the relational spirituality model of personal sin [7], to assess their coherence with the model’s theoretical framework.

Reflexivity and positionality

The research team was diverse, comprising researchers primarily based at Catholic universities in Spain (CC, MC, MRG, and MPMD), several of whom lead Ibero-American psychology projects and maintain collaborations across Latin America. This subgroup, which conducted the data collection and primary analysis, was immersed in a Spanish-speaking Catholic context that facilitated access to participants and enabled a nuanced understanding of the lived meanings of DF. Because all participants were male priests, interviews were conducted by male researchers (MRG and an external collaborator) to enhance participant comfort and openness. While this shared linguistic, cultural, and institutional background supported rapport and interpretive sensitivity, we recognized that it could also influence theoretical framing and data interpretation. To balance this, we engaged in continuous reflexive dialogue and included two coauthors (KC and RGC) from the United States: One from a Christian but not specifically Catholic institution and another from a secular university. They are also the original authors of the model used in the present study. Their involvement provided deeper conceptual coherence and theoretical warmth. The first author (CC) completed a research stay with the last author (RGC) during the development of this study, which fostered ongoing theoretical dialogue and cross-cultural reflection throughout the analytic process. This intercultural collaboration enriched the analysis and situated the findings within the wider field of DF research. No conflicts of interest or competing interests were reported.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Comillas Pontifical University (approval no. 39/23–24). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation, both in written and verbal form. Participants were informed of their right to decline to answer any question or to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Special care was taken to ensure confidentiality and respect the seal of confession. Data were handled in compliance with Spanish law (Ley Orgánica 3/2018) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679).

Theme 1. Living confession: The relational fabric of experience

According to the inductive analysis, and in subsequent comparison with the relational spirituality model of personal sin [7], confession within the Catholic tradition was described by participants as a complex relational process in which DF is experienced as being integrated through the dynamic interaction between the self, sin, God, and others—supporting the core elements of the model—but also suggesting a potential extension by introducing the confessor, who could be experienced as occupying an irreplaceable role. The main categories of this thematic axis are presented below.

Theme 2. Dynamic movements of reconciliation

Various movements emerge during the process of experiencing reconciliation with God, each corresponding to different phases of confession. These dynamic shifts include moments of self-examination and contrition, the courageous act of confessing, the receiving of DF, and finally, the experience of inner peace and renewed relationship with God.

Theme 3. Perceived barriers and facilitators

Theme 4. Cognition and emotion in the experience of DF

Theme 5. Integrative axis: The relational fabric and the dynamism of DF

Bringing together the relational, processual, and experiential dimensions identified in the previous themes, this integrative axis highlights how these elements converge into a coherent understanding of DF. The experience of DF in the Catholic tradition was not described by participants as consisting of separate processes or dimensions, but rather as a fabric in which the different axes interrelate and mutually influence one another. Axis 1 (the relational fabric) highlights how participants described the self, God, others, sin, the community, and the confessor as connected in an organic network. As one priest put it, “we cannot conceive of ourselves outside of relationship, because if we are made in the image of God, then we are relationship, just as God is relationship in his very nature” (Felicidad). In this way, personal identity was described as being mediated by the gaze and relationship with others: “You cannot look at yourself with tenderness except through the gaze of another who looks at you with tenderness” (Felicidad).

Within this fabric, the movements of forgiveness (Axis 2) were described as unfolding in dynamic and reciprocal ways. The process of experiencing reconciliation was often described as beginning with a call from God, who “always needs a response from me, even if it may often seem very simple or very small” (Lic). This response may be either facilitated or hindered by facilitators and barriers (Axis 3), such as the community, liturgical moments, or the confessor’s attitude. Difficulties increase especially when sin has affected others: “people have more difficulty experiencing God’s forgiveness in sins that have affected other people” (Cercanía). Sometimes, it is the confessor who helps the penitent become aware of the impact on others, inviting them to consider “not only their actions, but how those actions affected others, to promote true contrition” (Sacristán).

In this process, one’s image of God could reflect one’s self-image and shape the experience of forgiveness: “The person identifies with what they have done. It’s a vision of God, that you think God looks at you that way” (Felicidad). The welcoming climate created by the confessor was referred to as a key—a distant attitude can make the encounter more difficult, whereas “creating a context of dialogue with God, of God’s presence, helps a lot” (Cercanía). Finally, Axis 4 (the experience of forgiveness) was described as taking concrete shape in various ways: sometimes it is lived as an intense emotional experience, while at other times it is simply a rational certainty upon hearing the words of absolution. For these participants, the assurance of having been forgiven often comes through the words of the priest who grants absolution in the name of God, and emotion is not required to receive DF. Thus, confession appears in participants’ accounts as a relational and dynamic process in which all four axes—the relational fabric, the movements, the facilitators/barriers, and the subjective experience of forgiveness—intertwine to create a unique and ever-evolving experience.

Implications

These findings have implications for both psychological theory and pastoral practice. Our findings build on Cook and Cowden’s [7] model of reconciliation with God and suggest possible contextual extensions when considering the perspective of Catholic priests, in which the confessor may be conceptualized as a distinct and irreducible node within the relational dynamic, a suggestion that requires further empirical support. Additionally, our findings contextualize elements of Fincham and May’s [3] model, such as the role of conditionality in DF within Catholicism. These insights can inform future frameworks on DF, highlighting the role of relational mediation and ritual. Practically, the results suggest that the priest’s empathetic and nonjudgmental approach has the potential to support the penitent’s experience of DF, which has relevance for clergy formation and pastoral care in line with current pastoral proposals [24,43]. Moreover, the study highlights the value of qualitative methods in revealing culturally embedded experiences of DF, and calls for greater intercultural awareness in research and pastoral training, particularly in increasingly diverse Catholic contexts.

Limitations

This study has some limitations. The sample consisted of experienced Spanish-speaking Catholic priests, offering rich, theologically grounded insights but representing a relatively homogeneous group, with most participants based in Spain, which may have influenced the scope of the findings. This limits perspective diversity and may constrain the transferability of findings to other contexts (e.g., laity or younger, less experienced confessors). The results should therefore be understood as specific to Catholic priests in Spanish-speaking settings under the sacramental rite of confession, rather than generalized to lay Catholics or other Christian or linguistic contexts. The proposed preliminary expansion of Cook and Cowden’s [7] model may likewise reflect this population’s experience, potentially overlooking dimensions more characteristic of less theologically formed individuals. Responses may also have been shaped—consciously or not—by social desirability, given the sensitive nature of the topic and participants’ institutional roles. Internal diversity (e.g., age, country, or years of ministry) introduced variation, though it also enriched the analysis. Finally, while the study considered related practices such as spiritual direction, its primary focus on confession may limit how reconciliation is understood in other moments in the DF-seeking process. Moreover, the cross-sectional design restricts insight into how this experience of reconciliation may evolve over time.

Future research directions

To deepen understanding of DF in the Catholic context, future research is needed. Regarding theoretical models of DF, first, further qualitative and quantitative work examining how Catholics (both laypeople and priests) conceptualize and situate the role of the confessor within the Christian-sensitive relational spirituality model of personal sin [7], could test and assess the scope of our proposal of the confessor as a potential additional node in the model. Second, mapping the sacramental process step by step, and analyzing this processual experience from contrition to confession, penance, and absolution, would clarify the applicability of Fincham and May’s [3] framework for seeking DF. To gain a deeper understanding of the role of confession in the experience of DF and other psychological variables, dyadic studies including both priests and penitents would be especially valuable for capturing the relational dynamics of confession and offering deeper insight into how reconciliation is co-constructed. Finally, further longitudinal studies (e.g., testing key variables before and after confession) might identify facilitators and barriers to experiencing reconciliation with God after a personal sin in Catholics, as well as clarify the effects of confession and the experience of DF on well-being.