History of face-to-face confession

[FrancescaMaria]

Thank you everyone for such great and informative answers.
My original question was simply: Was face-to-face confession practiced before Vatican II ? If so, why do so many Americans consider it a novelty with no basis in history and tradition, and if not, how come we see it depicted in art and see old confessionals that seem to accommodate for this option.
The discussion really helped me understand a lot of things. Thank you, Father Ruggero, for sharing your experience; it is invaluable. It means a lot to people like me who are two or three generations removed from the last practicing Catholics in my family, and have not had a chance to hear what practicing the faith was like in pre-Vatican II times. If I understand correctly, it seems that the change was that the option of face-to face confession was extended to women, while it was always available to men. It appears to me that in this respect, Vatican II simply reacted to the change in social norms regarding the interaction of men and women, and the previous rule of women being required to use the grille simply reflected particular gender issues of the pre-Vatican times.
Babochka: thank you for posting all the beautiful pictures. Especially the Roehne painting expresses so much trust, mercy, and peace. It is pictures like these that I find most inspiring.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

/…/ I tried to make clear earlier that I was addressing the issue of confessionals, not confession itself. I did scroll through my responses, and I posted earlier that there were other ways of hearing confessions outside a confessional /…/

What I am trying to articulate here is that because someone sees a confessional in-use today, that just because the overall structure might be (even centuries) old, that doesn’t mean that they’ve been used in exactly the same way throughout their history. Whether or not someone could see through the grate, it was still there.

/…/ What I am trying to say is that a contemporary photograph of a confessional is not an indication that it was used in exactly the same way from the year it was built. /…/

Likewise, I’m saying that we cannot rely on artistic representations to answer this question because they don’t always reflect the literal reality. In any case, since the painting by Roehne is set inside a private home, it doesn’t address the topic-at-hand which is about the confessionals themselves. /…/

I hope you would agree that using art from different centuries depicting events sometimes centuries before they were painted, is really not the way to answer the OPs questions in post #1. That method might be somewhat useful in a different context, but given the question itself, the artwork just doesn’t address the topic

/…/

Looking forward to your response

Father, you’re correct that many old confessionals in Europe – and in places I visited in the United States and Canada – have undergone modifications. Sometimes happily. Sometimes to less satisfying result. That’s not the issue of discussion in “History of Face to Face Confession.”

Personally, I think belabouring this is of dubious merit but since you’ve asked for my response, I extend gladly the fraternal courtesy of doing so.

The original poster asked, in her first post:
My impression is that a lot of Americans say or assume that the practice of face-to-face confession is a relatively new trend that started after Vatican II. However, when visiting churches in continental Europe, I often see old confessionals (obviously predating Vatican II) that are built to allow for a face-to-face option. Usually, the screen is only on the sides of where the priest sits, and the front is open with a kneeler for the penitents to kneel directly in front of the priest, if they wish.
Her impression is correct. People who hold the view derived from her impression are wrong…as, frankly, is often the case with those viewing the past in terms of what they imagine instead of what we actually lived

She’s not describing at all what you refer to as a confessional that has been modified. She’s describing a confessional functioning as it was built. That’s the basis for my answer. She’s describing exactly the photo I posted…a frestanding confessional with a screen in each alcove but the possibility of de facto confessing face to face, as Pope Francis is doing

Her question was, essentially, did people do what Pope Francis is doing before the reform of the Rite of Penance and the answer is an unqualified yes, we did. Without any modification to the confessional at all. We did what Pope Francis is doing…although it could be that the penitent either knelt or stood. We did both

(Now, technically, when the confessor is inside “the box” we should have our compartment doors closed, opening them when someone knocks – be it 60 years ago or today. The reality is that some of us are more claustrophobic than others and the reality is that when we do so, there is no air circulating at all. Also, it really isn’t a kneeler; it’s simply the threshold of the lower door, which happens to conveniently serve the function of kneeler)

She asked further
So I am wondering, contrary to what many people think, was face-to-face confession always practiced as an option?
The answer is an unqualified yes

The point of the post, as the plain text conveys, was about face to face confession. You wrote:
When I write about “the law” I’m writing about this specific topic, which is about confessionals. Confessionals were (and still are!) required to have a screen That’s not the question of the poster

Having yourself referenced the law, the Pio Benedictine Code made it clear that face to face confession was always possible for men; it was possible for women. Following the reforms of Trent, the Church had far more reservation regarding confessions by women and added precautions and precautions again in universal law and particular law that were in place to preserve moral integrity

But again, the heart of the matter of the law is: Did the law permit men and women to confess face to face…and again the answer is yes

It was perhaps unfair of me to use your posts to resolve several points that one reads with disturbing frequency in this forum but I did so because of the language used, to wit:
…but still, denying the faithful the opportunity for anonymous confession (after so many centuries) represents a true rupture from the existing practice.
To which the response is

• That Confession face to face was an invention of Vatican II and that it did not occur before is patently and egregiously false, and the law itself testifies against such falsehood
• That the screen gave the penitent “anonymity,” as it was always and everywhere impossible to see through it, is patently false. That was not even the original purpose of the screen, which was an unmovable physical barrier between confessor and penitent. Anonymity was incidental in the way certain screens were constructed

I’ll address the artwork in my response to Babochka. In short, no…I don’t agree with you in the specific case of the Roehne painting

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Although the OP used confessionals apparently without screens as potential “evidence” for face-to-face confessions, the question, to me, seemed to be more about face-to-face confessions and less about confessional design. Perhaps I misunderstood it.

No, Babochka. You did not misunderstand. To the contrary.

The original poster, if I may say, was not clearly stating her terminology because she was speaking of confessionals with which she does not have intimate familiarity. But she is speaking of confessionals I have used as a penitent and as a confessor for decades.

Thus: she describes a confessional with screens on either side of the confessor but not in front. She writes:
*Usually, the screen is only on the sides of where the priest sits, and the front is open with a kneeler for the penitents to kneel directly in front of the priest,
*
There would never be a screen in front since it is the door to the confessional.

The kneeler is simply the threshold of the bottom door which extends out.

Since she clearly says on the sides, when she says that the front is open, what she is describing as “open” means that either one or two or the three doors – or the upper of two doors – is not closed to the compartment where the confessor sits (as in the photo I posted) or, as in some models, the door is closed (which is the lower half of the priest’s compartment) but the curtain is pulled back, which is the upper half of the way the priest enters the confessional. One sees this latter sort in frequent photos of Padre Pio’s confessional…the same was true of the confessional of the Cure d’Ars and in poorer places where the confessional is more rustic.

Our old confessions were not really “open” in the front as much as the closure was simply not always used, for a variety of reasons.

The photos do not give a good gauge of how small these spaces really are. When you have completely enclosed yourself in the confessor’s compartment, you are in a very tight space.

There are actually a variety of models of “boxes” from the pre-conciliar days in Europe.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Here’s another interesting one, by Jean Alphonse Roehn, from the the 19th Century

http://spiritualdirection.com/wp-co...cene371367PenanceConfessionReconciliation.jpg

The Roehne painting is deeply significant to me and I am pleased that you chose to post it, Babochka. It brings back many memories related to a special work in my life that was not realised, sadly, but that will come to pass in the decades ahead through good work of others better suited to the labour, even if I won’t see it

I thank you very much for posting something that touches me in a singular way

It is an art treasure that, if I may say, I am sorry is no longer on the continent – although I am happy that the Americans are able to enjoy it and hopefully profit from its presence in their country. It was significant enough to me to seek it out in a visit to the States because of what it evokes

Roehne was born in the immediate aftermath of the revolution but his father, of course, lived through the revolution and all the tumult. He also was an artist who had focused on historical painting. I don’t want to turn this into a post on art history…but one has to understand the product in the light of the one who produced it, in this case above all

The painting has its proper value as a work of art…but that is beyond our scope

The events of the revolution produced a result that continued to touch France long after Roehne’s untimely death. I remember his father survived him and that he (the son) died young but I am not going to research points that would take me a disproportionate amount of time to the good that would be served

My point is that a comparison of this painting to an artistically poor quality and sentimental depiction of a Guardian Angel on a bridge is simply grotesque from a perspective of art history. I am sorry if that offends but I was the one first offended such a comparison could even be contemplated

The scene you chose, on the other hand, depicts the incredible reality of what members of the Church – priests, especially women religious, and also laity – lived as sacramental life was forced underground at the time of the revolution, in the decade before Roehne’s birth. We are not talking about a subject from centuries past or from a different country, both remote to the artist.

In a way that mirrors England of the 16th and 17th century, priests were in hiding and subject to arrest and execution. For those who did not flee for their very lives – such as many Sulpicians who went on to become the bedrock for the Church in the United States, after the erection of its first diocese – their ministry was precisely in rooms such as Roehne here depicts.

When one is analysing a painting for its relative value to a historical discussion, one must consider many points. One thinks of the depictions of El Greco or even Fra Angelico as they relate to scenes and people that are both far away from them geographically and temporally.

That is an entirely different reality from a member of the École des Beaux Arts who is specifically doing historical painting for the Church (at this stage of his career) concerning his contemporary epoch and concerning his own country.

His genre is not that of mythic events of the remote past. This is not a depiction of the Danaë, for goodness sake!

Anyone of those viewing this painting in le Salon of the Académie des Beaux-Arts who was over the age of what…thirty-five?..would have known from their own memory what the scene they were seeing. It is a history in the lived memory of most who are viewing it, as it was originally shown.

This post reminds me of our famous Veduti paintings. It is true that many of them give you lines of sight that cannot exist in situ in real life or that would require you to do the impossible, such as to levitate 20 feet in the air to have what is depicted as a ground level perspective. They are not photographs, after all. But…they nevertheless accurately reproduce what is there, even if they are combining several angles simultaneously to achieve what one painting depicts as one contiguous scene.

It’s too many years since I read art history in my youth to recall all the details about this work of Roehne…but it is certainly depicting a lived reality that, for example, those who were martyred as well as those who survived would have lived during the revolution.

Personally, I do not read European history in translation…however, this epoch in French history and what it was like to be an underground priest ministering the sacrament of penance and offering Mass in hiding must exist in English. The blessed martyrs of Compiègne, for example, have a following even among those who are only Anglophone. And, there are always the memoirs of Simon Guillaume Gabriel Bruté de Remur. I know, for a fact, they exist in English, thanks to a very special American archbishop…who himself deserves never to be forgotten in the annals of Church history.

The family of Bishop Bruté distinguished themselves for aiding priests in danger and he memorably recounts various episodes regarding these priests…who were sheltered and supported in their ministry by the family in spite of the fact that the family was at risk of ruin as well as death for doing so.

And with that. I wish to retire from this discussion as I feel it has become thoroughly derailed. I added this point only because the original poster seems satisfied with her answers and I hoped s/he might pardon this bonus excursion that was not at all part of the journey of passage she originally booked by the question she posed.

 

[FrancescaMaria]

And with that. I wish to retire from this discussion as I feel it has become thoroughly derailed. I added this point only because the original poster seems satisfied with her answers and I hoped s/he might pardon this bonus excursion that was not at all part of the journey of passage she originally booked by the question she posed.

Yes, sometimes we get so much more than what we have asked for.
Now the beautiful and loving message of the Roehne’s painting stands out for me even more with the knowledge that it was painted on the background of the horrific events that have accompanied the French Revolution. Whatever the turmoil, violence and cruelty happening outside, in that room and at that moment there was peace, trust, mercy and love…
I am very grateful, Father Ruggero, that you took me on this “bonus excursion”. Thank you!

 

[Vico]

My impression is that a lot of Americans say or assume that the practice of face-to-face confession is a relatively new trend that started after Vatican II. However, when visiting churches in continental Europe, I often see old confessionals (obviously predating Vatican II) that are built to allow for a face-to-face option. Usually, the screen is only on the sides of where the priest sits, and the front is open with a kneeler for the penitents to kneel directly in front of the priest, if they wish. I have also seen old pictures and paintings of people using the confessionals in this way, and I have also observed such open confessionals in the old Spanish missions in America. So I am wondering, contrary to what many people think, was face-to-face confession always practiced as an option? Or was there a cultural variance between countries before Vatican II with the tradition of screen-only being an American thing? It is only a historical curiosity question for me, but I will appreciate any thoughts on that. Thank you.

Mandatory private confession became the norm from the time of the Fourth Lateran Council yet the non-mandatory practice of private confession was established in the Church from her beginning, but confession was still mandatory. St. Pope St. Leo I (the Great) wrote a letter to the bishops of Campania, Magna indignatione that had:

With regard to penance, what is demanded of the faithful is clearly not that an acknowledgement of the nature of individual sins written in a little book be read publicly, since it suffices that the states of consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession.

 

[Rasoleil]

I prefer face-to-face confession. I just feel more comfortable.

 

[Faith1960]

I prefer face-to-face confession. I just feel more comfortable.

I’ve only gone face to face once. I prefer the screen.

 

[CB_Catholic]

The funny thing is, the last time I went to Confession it was behind the screen,( as there was no other choice as it was in a Maronite church and face-to-face was not provided for), the grille was so open that I clearly saw the Bishop and he clearly saw me! It was almost no different than going face-to-face, except I was kneeling in a confessional booth instead of sitting in a chair facing the priest. I don’t know if this is the usual way that Confessions are heard in the Maronite Church, but I was quite surprised that we could see each other so clearly.

I do prefer face-to-face as I find it more humbling to look another person in the eye and admit my sins, but that is just a benefit I have found helps me. When I was a kid I was embarrassed to confess my sins, so I liked the screen. I have always found it hard to admit when I am wrong, so face to face Confession helps me in that respect.