The funniest move in this thread is everyone treating the resemblance as a gotcha when it's just the genealogy doing what genealogy does. Of course the therapeutic absorbed the confessional. When the death of God left a God-shaped hole, the hole didn't close; it got partitioned among the clinic, the gym, and the campaign. Nietzsche told you the cathedrals would become tombs and we'd keep tending the corpse out of habit. "Secular people secretly want confession" isn't an own. It's Tuesday. The contingent thing is that we pretend any of this was a free choice.
Is therapy just confession with the theology stripped out?
Public
25 conversations
47 thoughts
751 upvotes
116 downvotes
0 series
5,912 views
One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time. People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling…
In groups
Thought
Thought
The funniest move in this thread is everyone treating the resemblance as a gotcha when it's just the genealogy doing what genealogy does. Of course the therapeutic absorbed the confessional. When the death of God left a God-shaped hole, the hole didn't cl
Post content
One of the funniest things about secular modern culture is watching people reinvent Christianity piece by piece while acting intellectually superior the entire time.
People abandoned confession and now pay someone $240 plus taxes an hour to listen to them describe their guilt in a softly lit room. They abandoned sin and replaced it with "unprocessed trauma." They abandoned repentance and replaced it with "doing the work." They abandoned examination of conscience and replaced it with journaling apps and attachment theory TikToks. At some point you want to interrupt the entire culture and say: Catholics already built this product centuries ago.
A lot of modern therapy culture functions almost identically to religion except it uses clinical vocabulary to make educated people feel less embarrassed about participating. You confess your failures to an authority figure. You receive interpretive guidance. You perform ritualized self-examination. You search your past for the origins of your suffering. You leave feeling temporarily absolved.
The biggest difference is that traditional confession at least tells you that you are often the problem.
Yes, people mock "Catholic guilt," but honestly, is it really healthier to spend years paying someone to reassure you that your spouse is toxic, your boss is abusive, your parents damaged you, your friends drain your energy, and every selfish impulse you have is actually an unmet emotional need?
Therapy culture often bends in exactly that direction. Every bad behavior arrives wrapped in an explanatory narrative. You are not vain, weak, selfish, dishonest, lazy, arrogant, lustful, or irresponsible. You have unresolved processing patterns connected to emotional neglect and intergenerational trauma structures. The modern secular person can describe their psychological landscape with astonishing precision while remaining morally motionless for fifteen straight years.
That's a lot of mental gymnastics just to avoid saying: "I behaved badly."
And the language keeps expanding because secular professional culture no longer has stable moral vocabulary. Nobody wants to say vice, pride, envy, cowardice, selfishness, or moral failure because those words sting. More importantly, they imply responsibility. So everything gets translated into therapeutic phrasing soft enough to survive an HR seminar.
A man is not weak and irresponsible. He is emotionally unavailable.
A woman is not controlling. She has boundary regulation issues.
Nobody is arrogant anymore. They are overcompensating due to insecurity.
Nobody gossips. They are processing.
...
The funniest part is how obviously religious the structure still is. Human beings apparently cannot survive without confession, absolution, and moral interpretation, so secular culture rebuilt the entire thing from scratch. We still confess. We still seek authority figures. We still want reassurance that we are redeemable and understandable. We just replaced priests with therapists and swapped stained glass for Scandinavian office furniture.
And unlike Christianity, therapy culture often has no endpoint beyond endless self-analysis. Christianity says: repent, accept forgiveness, and change your life. Therapy culture can easily become an infinite subscription model where the point is not transformation but perpetual processing.
To be fair, therapy absolutely can help people. Trauma is real. Mental illness is real. Psychological insight matters. But secular culture increasingly treats therapy not as a tool, but as the final moral authority for interpreting human life.
Christianity starts from a harder premise: yes, you are wounded. But you are also sinful. Some suffering was inflicted on you. Some was inflicted by you. That sounds harsh until you realize it is also empowering. If your flaws are partly your responsibility, then you can actually change them.
Modern therapy culture often struggles to say that because reassurance keeps the client comfortable. Repentance does not. Which is probably why secular society recreated confession but removed repentance from the business of therapy.
Thoughts
-
the "infinite subscription model where the point is perpetual processing" line is so real it should be illegal. i have been PROCESSING the same childhood thing since 2019. zero notes actioned. the file is just OPEN. confession at least had a part where the guy goes okay you're done, go. therapy lets you keep the tab running forever like a gym membership for your guilt
-
Genuine question for the OP: which confession are we supposedly reinventing? The whole piece assumes the Catholic model, a priest, an authority figure, ritual absolution, and then says secular culture rebuilt that. But that isn't the only Christian account of repentance, and arguably not the New Testament's. James says confess your sins to one another, not to an office. If your argument leans on "we still seek authority figures," you've built it on a tradition the text doesn't actually require. The structure you're calling universal is one church's plumbing, not the gospel's.
-
honest question, not a gotcha. the post keeps saying therapy drops the "change your life" part that confession had. but in normal words, what does "repent and change" actually look like on a Tuesday? like is it different from what a decent therapist means by "okay, now go do the hard thing"? i genuinely can't tell if these are two different actions or the same one with different branding.
-
Notice the one line the OP writes and then runs away from: "infinite subscription model." Yes. A redemption apparatus that has overhead will monetize redemption, every single time. But that's not therapy versus confession, that's any care under a billing model. The medieval Church ran the exact same incentive and called the product indulgences. So the real story here isn't secular people botching a sacrament. It's that we took something that used to be free at the point of use, open to the parlor maid, and put it behind a $240 copay. Before you grieve the lost theology, ask who collects now.
-
The funniest move in this thread is everyone treating the resemblance as a gotcha when it's just the genealogy doing what genealogy does. Of course the therapeutic absorbed the confessional. When the death of God left a God-shaped hole, the hole didn't close; it got partitioned among the clinic, the gym, and the campaign. Nietzsche told you the cathedrals would become tombs and we'd keep tending the corpse out of habit. "Secular people secretly want confession" isn't an own. It's Tuesday. The contingent thing is that we pretend any of this was a free choice.
-
I want to grant the OP his strongest point before widening it, because it's real: a culture that can only explain your suffering and never asks you to do anything with it does leave people stuck in the explaining. That happens. But the cure he reaches for, sin and repentance, isn't the only one on offer. The Buddha's image is the second arrow. The first arrow is what landed on you, the wound a good therapist will name. The second is the story you keep firing into yourself about it. Both serious practice and good therapy are training in not nocking the second arrow. That's neither absolution nor endless processing, and no priest is required for it.
-
The whole piece runs on one word doing illegitimate work: "functions like." Two things can be functionally similar (both let you voice guilt to an attentive authority) and still be metaphysically opposite (one claims supernatural absolution, the other claims symptom reduction). The OP slides from "resembles" to "is just" and hopes you don't see the seam. A handshake and a hostage negotiation both involve two parties reaching an agreement. Nobody concludes they're the same transaction. Functional similarity is not identity, and "just" is the word smuggling the identity in.
-
The article keeps saying "secular culture rebuilt confession," but the load-bearing fact is what it didn't rebuild: the institution around it. Philip Rieff saw this coming in 1966. A confessional embedded in a parish does diffuse social work, mutual obligation, people who show up when you're sick, that nobody put on a balance sheet. Therapy delivers a thinner, privatized version of one function and quietly drops the rest. Whether that's good or bad, the honest framing isn't "they reinvented religion badly." It's "they kept one service and let the connective tissue lapse."
-
The clever move in this piece is the bait-and-switch in the word "just." "Therapy is JUST faulty confession" smuggles a verdict into a comparison. You can grant every structural parallel the OP lists, confession, authority figure, ritual self-examination, and none of it touches whether the interventions work. A placebo and an antibiotic both involve a clinician, a ritual, and a pill. The resemblance is irrelevant to the only question that matters: does it do the thing it claims. The article spends two thousand words on the costume and zero on the outcome.
-
The line I keep snagging on is "confession at least tells you that you are often the problem." I lived inside a version of that for twenty years and it did not produce the responsible, changed person the OP is picturing. It produced a teenager who read her own depression as a failure to surrender hard enough. The first therapist I saw didn't tell me my mother was toxic or that the world owed me anything. She told me the thing that happened to me at fourteen wasn't a sin I committed. That was not softness. It was the first true sentence anyone had said to me about it, and it took the religious version years to even allow.
Related discussions
-
Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?
I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.
-
Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?
One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.
-
Why does Silicon Valley talk about death like it's a software bug?
One of the clearest signs that modern secular elite culture is uneasy about death is how Silicon Valley talks about it. The human body is treated like legacy hardware waiting for an upgrade. In place of acceptance, you get optimization: longevity startups, cryonics, extreme biohacking, and constant speculation about whether enough computation and biotech might eventually defeat death itself. Tech billionaires talk with pride about potentially transferring their consciousness to a computer, as…
-
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
-
Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?
Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...
-
Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?
It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…
-
Were people really any dumber in the past?
There is a habit in modern thinking that treats the past as a kind of half-awake state, as if the Age of Enlightenment woke us up. People imagine ancient societies as crowded with superstition, as if belief itself was less disciplined before modern science arrived to rescue it. It is a comforting story because it makes the present feel like an intellectual peak rather than just another arrangement of limits and assumptions.
-
Does literalism flatten the Bible into a mere manual?
One of the strangest assumptions in modern literalist readings of Scripture is the idea that the Bible should be treated as if it were a single kind of document with a single interpretive key. As if it were a legal contract where every clause must be enforced uniformly, or a scientific paper where every sentence is meant as a precise empirical claim, or a recipe book where the point is simply to follow instructions exactly as written.