Confession tracker booklet?

[Mattapoisett64]

The only priests I’ve met refuse to identify who has and who has not been in their confessional. They have a set way they answer certain kinds of questions so as to never reveal who was or who wasn’t there in any situation, no matter how inconsequential the circumstances seem. I imagine it would be a gross violation of confession for a priest to pick up his cell phone and text to his best buddy “guess who’s in my confessional, the President of Podunk” as soon as the priest recognizes the voice. To me it seems little different to reveal to the religious education director that so and so was in his confessional also, but I am not a canon lawyer.

However, he can reveal stuff if the penitent waives the seal, and clearly having a book stuffed under the grille with a demand that it gets signed seems like a waiver, but then again, to me it sort of doesn’t seem like one since the person presenting the book may well feel forced to do that under threat of never receiving the full set of sacraments, which he or she normatively needs for their soul. (or possibly were made to do it by their parents).

Also, one might be inclined to say that it is the penitent who reveals the thing by handing in the book to the DRE?

I think the larger point is that no one should be forced to reveal their identity to their confessor unless they so choose. Voluntary use of such a booklet - which still seems bizarre to me - is one thing, but back at the beginning of the thread, the issue seemed to be that it was mandatory.

 

[Regina7]

Our pastor is from Poland, part of the diocese’s plan for the priest shortage, and we have no such requirement.

Well, considering the responses from mostly orthodox Catholics on CAF, I’m guessing the priest knows that wouldn’t fly here in America. Or perhaps he didn’t use it or like it. Or perhaps he hasn’t seen these booklets. I’d be very curious to see what your Polish priests says about it. There is a Polish priest at my parents’ parish. I’ll ask him next time I see him. However, I am positive that at least one church in Poland uses these for confirmation and that other churches have them (though I can’t be sure how they are used).

I find it very interesting that even though the Church is universal, there are wide variances in certain aspects around the world.

 

[Regina7]

I think the larger point is that no one should be forced to reveal their identity to their confessor unless they so choose. Voluntary use of such a booklet - which still seems bizarre to me - is one thing, but back at the beginning of the thread, the issue seemed to be that it was mandatory.

I saw a copy of the book. The priest wouldn’t know who the person was, though the Catechist or DRE or whoever obviously would have to know whose book was whose.

This conversation is very interesting. I honestly didn’t think about many of the points raised here. I think of my pre-Cana meeting with my priest at the time. I had to go to confession, so said the priest. I don’t recall it being a suggestion. It was part of his process: meeting with couple, retreat, couple meeting with marriage couple in parish, then individual meeting with priest including confession. I don’t know what the priest would have said had I refused confession (could he have refused to marry us?), and I truly wasn’t upset or indignant that I was being asked to do this, just like I didn’t question the weekend retreat.

 

[Pug]

I think the larger point is that no one should be forced to reveal their identity to their confessor unless they so choose. Voluntary use of such a booklet - which still seems bizarre to me - is one thing, but back at the beginning of the thread, the issue seemed to be that it was mandatory.

Don’t think it would have to reveal who the person is, other than they are young and seeking confirmation. You could have no name on it, with a number on the last page. The priest could sign the front (not turning to the back) and hand it back. The DRE could figure out whose book it is by the number or code when handed in.

 

[Pug]

I saw a copy of the book. The priest wouldn’t know who the person was, though the Catechist or DRE or whoever obviously would have to know whose book was whose.

This conversation is very interesting. I honestly didn’t think about many of the points raised here. I think of my pre-Cana meeting with my priest at the time. I had to go to confession, so said the priest. I don’t recall it being a suggestion. It was part of his process: meeting with couple, retreat, couple meeting with marriage couple in parish, then individual meeting with priest including confession. I don’t know what the priest would have said had I refused confession (could he have refused to marry us?), and I truly wasn’t upset or indignant that I was being asked to do this, just like I didn’t question the weekend retreat.

I had to go to confession shortly before marriage, too, no exceptions. However, the priest took my word that I had gone to a different priest (yes, I did go ).

 

[Usige]

Don’t think it would have to reveal who the person is, other than they are young and seeking confirmation. You could have no name on it, with a number on the last page. The priest could sign the front (not turning to the back) and hand it back. The DRE could figure out whose book it is by the number or code when handed in.

It is not just a question of the penitent being anonymous to their confessor, it is that no one should have to reveal that they went to confession to ANYONE. There is no such requirement for receiving confirmation and is adding an unnecessary burden to receiving the sacrament.

Let move this out of the DRE confirmand territory with a little thought experiment.

Let’s say the Church decides to have a large central repository of those eligible for the sacraments. To keep it anonymous, every church will be equip with thumb print readers which is tied to a random ID. When entering church you place you thumb on a reader and it opens a door to one of two parts of the church; worthy or unworthy. The worthy section allows you to receive the Eucharist, baptize your children, and get married. The unworthy section only lets you see the mass or place your thumb on a door to the confessional. The central computer determines your worthiness to receive the sacraments purely based on the time from your last confession.

Would you support implimenting an anonymous gate keeper like this in place of individual discernment?

 

[Pug]

It is not just a question of the penitent being anonymous to their confessor, it is that no one should have to reveal that they went to confession to ANYONE. There is no such requirement for receiving confirmation and is adding an unnecessary burden to receiving the sacrament.

Let move this out of the DRE confirmand territory with a little thought experiment.

Let’s say the Church decides to have a large central repository of those eligible for the sacraments. To keep it anonymous, every church will be equip with thumb print readers which is tied to a random ID. When entering church you place you thumb on a reader and it opens a door to one of two parts of the church; worthy or unworthy. The worthy section allows you to receive the Eucharist, baptize your children, and get married. The unworthy section only lets you see the mass or place your thumb on a door to the confessional. The central computer determines your worthiness to receive the sacraments purely based on the time from your last confession.

Would you support implimenting an anonymous gate keeper like this in place of individual discernment?

Nowhere did I say I support the idea of booklets. I am a strong proponent of getting rid of all the absurd obstacles that seem to be routinely put in the way of the reception of the sacraments, despite canon law being against putting up such obstacles.

However, I know most people (not you obviously) think I’m nuts, so I didn’t state my opinion at all. I despise the idea of mandatory booklets, and thus I reject the thumb print reader idea as well.

 

[Regina7]

It is not just a question of the penitent being anonymous to their confessor, it is that no one should have to reveal that they went to confession to ANYONE. There is no such requirement for receiving confirmation and is adding an unnecessary burden to receiving the sacrament.

Let move this out of the DRE confirmand territory with a little thought experiment.

Let’s say the Church decides to have a large central repository of those eligible for the sacraments. To keep it anonymous, every church will be equip with thumb print readers which is tied to a random ID. When entering church you place you thumb on a reader and it opens a door to one of two parts of the church; worthy or unworthy. The worthy section allows you to receive the Eucharist, baptize your children, and get married. The unworthy section only lets you see the mass or place your thumb on a door to the confessional. The central computer determines your worthiness to receive the sacraments purely based on the time from your last confession.

Would you support implimenting an anonymous gate keeper like this in place of individual discernment?

Obviously the idea of thumbprints is silly, though I do wonder why this idea of “requiring” certain components is different than that of a parent “requiring” things of their children.

For example, I require that my kids eat (relatively) healthy food. This is in the hopes that they one day truly understand the importance of fueling the body with good stuff.

I require that my children do schoolwork. While this is also a law of the state, I’d require it anyway. Even though my kids would rather play video games, I do this so that they gain knowledge needed for their vocation.

I require that my kids are respectful of adults (e.g. Calling Mr. Or Mrs, not first name), hoping that one day they truly understand the necessity of respect for all people.

I could go on and on- I require my children to do things that I know are for their own good, in hopes that one day they see that and do it on their own.

Taking aside the invalidity of confession if one is not truly repentant, how is this any different from a parent requiring things of their kids?

 

[1ke]

Obviously the idea of thumbprints is silly,

So is the idea of requiring confession signature cards.

how is this any different from a parent requiring things of their kids?

You have the authority to require those other things. You do not have the authority to require confession.

NO ONE has the authority to require confession of a child (or adult) on some arbitrary schedule or basis nor to require they get a signature card. Catholics have rights under canon law. We must respect them.

 

[pianistclare]

That’s right.
You can’t force the issue. But more disturbingly, I would question the judgment of a person who thinks it’s a good idea to make such demands.
The thing about teaching… is that you need to actually teach. A properly formed student begins to understand the importance of remaining in a state of grace, and realizes that he has a vehicle for forgiveness that is always available and there is nothing to be afraid of in seeking it.
When these “requirements” are advanced you present something as beautiful as this Sacrament as just a “thing that you do to get over”.
It’s not just a thing, or an excuse, or a card you get marked or punched.
It’s about your relationship with Christ. Teach that, completely, thoroughly, and sincerely and see if those kids line up to get right with God. No wonder parents have a laissez faire attitude about church in general. We present it like it’s a series of hoops that we make people jump through just because we can.

But the thing is, we CAN’T.
It’s wrong, ineffective, and it grossly misrepresents what the Church has in place to get us to heaven. It’s totally the wrong attitude about catechesis.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The requirement for the sacrament is NOT that high of a bar-- of the age of reason, able to renew baptismal promises, suitably instructed, properly disposed.

And not even that in danger of death, if the bishop has determined an earlier age, or if the candidate is of an eastern rite.* The only requirements to receive confirmation are to be baptized, and to not already be confirmed.

tee
(* Yes, I read your signature.
And I Remain: Not A Canon Lawyer.)

 

[Pug]

Taking aside the invalidity of confession if one is not truly repentant, how is this any different from a parent requiring things of their kids?

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

and more basically

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

So, if a baptized Catholic at the appropriate time who is properly disposed, etc., etc. ought not be put off with a list of requirements that they must fulfill before they are allowed to be confirmed. (I said they were properly disposed already).

 

[Phemie]

I have never seen nor experienced a “fixed grille” that did not also have a fabric component or a weave of dense metal - thus obscuring the person’s features or making them otherwise physically unrecognizabld. A grille through which a person could easily be recognized by their facial characteristics defeats the whole point of a grille. If the priest recognizes someone by voice, so be it. That it doesn’t prevent the transmission of sound is self-evident from the nature of the Sacrament, not sure why you’d mention that.

The “fixed grill” in my parish is a simply a perforated metal grate. We can see the priest and he can see us.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

The “fixed grill” in my parish is a simply a perforated metal grate. We can see the priest and he can see us.

Then what is the point of the grille? Or is there a difference between “see” and “recognize?” If the “grille” is visually transparent, then the Canon requiring the availability of anonymous Confesson is being violated.

 

[Rosebud77]

Small points. If a child is being prepared ,should not the parents take the onus? eg take the child to confession with them?

Anonymity is easy here in Ireland; simply go to a different church each time,

Although when I was exploring Orthodoxy, the idea of confession being part of spiritual direction appealed.

 

[Phemie]

Then what is the point of the grille? Or is there a difference between “see” and “recognize?” If the “grille” is visually transparent, then the Canon requiring the availability of anonymous Confession is being violated.

I never really thought of anonymity but rather of preventing physical contact between the priest and the penitent.

The penitent’s side of confessional when I was growing up was dark. While there was a door in the center part where the priest sat, heavy red velvet curtains covered the penitents’ sides. They were short enough to allow you to see the feet of anyone kneeling there but they shielded the penitent from the view of anyone in the church and blocked off enough light to prevent the priest from seeing you. You could see him through the grating though when he slid back the panel that covered the grating on his side.

 

[Usige]

The penitent’s side of confessional when I was growing up was dark. While there was a door in the center part where the priest sat, heavy red velvet curtains covered the penitents’ sides. They were short enough to allow you to see the feet of anyone kneeling there but they shielded the penitent from the view of anyone in the church and blocked off enough light to prevent the priest from seeing you. You could see him through the grating though when he slid back the panel that covered the grating on his side.

In those type of confessionals it always seemed that you knelt facing the grill while the priest was 90 degress to you with the side of their head towards you. You might see him in profile, but you would have been in their peripheral vision which is not good at details. That added to the darkness would have tended to obscure the physical features of the penitent.

My current pastor only does confession through a grill and he sits at something like 120 degrees to the grill. In essence you are talking towards the boney part behind his left ear. This is dispite the fact that the grill is fairly tight metal mesh you can’t see through. This kinda gets back to what I posted from the canon lawyer at the Saint Joseph Foundation. Even if the grill is more open, the priest should be focused on what the penitent says and doesn’t have a good reason to be looking at them through the grill.

 

[AnnArbor]

Don’t think it would have to reveal who the person is, other than they are young and seeking confirmation. You could have no name on it, with a number on the last page. The priest could sign the front (not turning to the back) and hand it back. The DRE could figure out whose book it is by the number or code when handed in.

Except that the DRE has no right to know who has and hasn’t gone to confession.

 

[Phemie]

There’s no such thing as mandatory confession.

I have to ask, doesn’t Canon 914 mandate confession before First Communion?

 

[Pug]

Except that the DRE has no right to know who has and hasn’t gone to confession.

I don’t support the booklets, nor do I support a DRE tracking monthly confession before confirmation. I was posing a hypothetical in response to another poster.

However, the whole issue of the booklets most likely came up because someone feels they have a duty before God regarding the preparation of the children for the sacraments, confirmation in particular on this thread. One general example of this that I know of is Can. 843 section 2:

§2. Pastors of souls and other members of the Christian faithful, according to their respective ecclesiastical function, have the duty to take care that those who seek the sacraments are prepared to receive them by proper evangelization and catechetical instruction, attentive to the norms issued by competent authority.

Mostly likely your average diocese requires first confession before first holy communion (I know, this thread is about confirmation, so you probably were not thinking of this when you typed), this does put a burden on someone, somewhere to deal with being sure that confession happens. That isn’t quite the same thing as having a right to know if someone has confessed, though. But it will cause people to attempt to talk to people about confession. Presumably that is why my priest made me go to confession before marriage, out of a sense of duty to be sure I was prepared for marriage.