MERGED: Confession: Why long Lines/Hard to get to?

[mkdl_v17]

I’ll admit that there’s definitely an element of that.

I’ve gone both ways, but I will note I definitely prefer a screen. But I did grow up with that.

Indeed, I prefer the old style confessionals where you enter a completely different and separate part of the confessional and the Priest is in a different compartment.

Same sentiments with you. In one of the parishes I undergo confession in, the confessional is located inside the “reconciliation room”. In two more parishes, I underwent confession in the sacristy (beside the confessor, sitting down on chairs) (both have confessionals but the confessor would prefer to use the sacristy), and in another one located inside a shopping mall, there is no confessional, just a simple room with a couch that can also host a counselling session with the confessor.

I have yet to undergo confession in the Extraordinary Form but I would be very happy to do so. I would like to ask something: may a confessor using the old style say the words of absolution in English instead of Latin?

 

[babochka]

Prior to the 1983 Codeof Canon Law, it was strictly prohibited for priests to hear the confession of women face-to-face/outside of a confessional except when grave necessity required it (ie: bedridden, dying, etc).

So? Prior to 1564, nobody had ever heard of a confessional or a screen between priest and penitent. Until the early 20th century, Fridays of Advent were fasting days, and all Catholics were expected to fast every day during Lent. The Council of Nicea forbade kneeling on Sundays. The canons of the Council of Trent deal with women who wish to enter religious life between the ages of 12 and 16, which would most certainly not be allowed today. Societal sensibilities change, as do the disciplines of the Church.

It wasn’t what the priests were doing that made it a requirement, but for the sake of propriety between men and women, especially given the nature of confession.

How did the nature of Confession change in 1564, when a screen was first introduced?

My priest will not do face-to-face confession. He doesn’t like it, and that is his canonical right. With the seal under attack, it would be best to get rid of reconciliation rooms and face-to-face confession altogether to protect priests.

You are correct, of course. It is his right. It is also available to the priest and penitent to choose face-to-face. Some of us prefer it. Rituals are important. The physical act of kneeling to confess one’s sins has impact. The priest makes gestures in giving absolution. It is helpful, to me, to see that gesture. In the Byzantine Rite, the priest places his stole upon the head on the penitent and places his hands upon his stole. This gesture has an impact on me, and when I confess to a Latin Rite priest, I miss it. We also have confessions out in the open, in plain view of everybody. While that idea, and the perceived lack of privacy, might horrify some, it ensures propriety pretty well. I also don’t like “anonymous” confession. If the priest knows me, he knows me being behind a screen isn’t going to change that. The fact that you prefer one way is fine; it is also perfectly reasonable that others will have preferences that differ from yours.

 

[babochka]

As I explained, the purpose of the grille is twofold, privacy and physical separation. The grille in the image provides no real separation at all.

You claimed that such a setup is a violation of Canon Law. This is a serious accusation.

While it might not be to your personal preference, the Reconciliation Room pictured has a fixed grille. The fact that one can easily walk around doesn’t mean that it violates canon law. It protects privacy just as well as a confessional with a curtain that can be easily moved aside. As for the physical separation aspect, it provides more physical separation than does this confessional.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This provides neither anonymity, privacy, nor meaningful physical separation.

Also, that’s an ugly crucifix!

On that, we can agree completely.

 

[TimothyH]

In the Byzantine Rite, the priest places his stole upon the head on the penitent and places his hands upon his stole. This gesture has an impact on me, and when I confess to a Latin Rite priest, I miss it.

I have had a bi-ritual Roman/Syro-Malabar priest place his stole on my shoulders, stand above me and pray with his hands on top of my head.

I’m not what can be called charismatic but there was something very special about it and I started to shake and was almost overcome as he prayed. It was amazing.

Unfortunately he is a canon lawyer assigned to the chancery and was only filling in for a priest on vacation. I would love to experience this again. It was very powerful.

-Tim-

 

[Elizium23]

You claimed that such a setup is a violation of Canon Law. This is a serious accusation.

While it might not be to your personal preference, the Reconciliation Room pictured has a fixed grille. The fact that one can easily walk around doesn’t mean that it violates canon law. It protects privacy just as well as a confessional with a curtain that can be easily moved aside. As for the physical separation aspect, it provides more physical separation than does this confessional.

It is a serious accusation, and so when you say I claimed it you should be careful to read all the words. I did not claim this at all. I quoted your post and wrote an explanation, but I never directly made this accusation. That belongs to Deo_Gratias42, who said that reconciliation rooms are a violation. So please properly direct your own accusations in the future. Thank you!

 

[babochka]

It is a serious accusation, and so when you say I claimed it you should be careful to read all the words. I did not claim this at all. I quoted your post and wrote an explanation, but I never directly made this accusation. That belongs to Deo_Gratias42, who said that reconciliation rooms are a violation. So please properly direct your own accusations in the future. Thank you!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It can get a little complicated, with some posts quoted and others not.

I asked: “How is this a violation of canon law?”

And you provided and answer that begins, “As I explained…”. It gave me the impression that you agreed with the original assertion, and I erroneously believed it to have been yours.

Obviously, you don’t think such a fixed grille is adequate to provide privacy and propriety. Do you agree that it is adequate to comply with canon law?

 

[JimG]

The confessionals in my own parish, I suppose, would be called “old style” confessionals, in that there is a complete separation between priest and penitent, with walls making the confessional essentially three private room—priest in the center, penitent on each side. There is a fixed grille, with a curtain on both sides of the grille, and both curtains are closed. So it would be impossible to make a face to face confession, without making an appointment for one.

When the lines are long, there will often be one or more priests hearing confessions at the altar rail. That would be considered “face to face,” but not really, because the priest is always looking down, not at the penitent.

If one of our priests were subpoenaed to give testimony about a confession, he would not be able to even if he wanted to break the seal of confession. He could not testify that any particular individual had confessed to him.

 

[Elizium23]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It can get a little complicated, with some posts quoted and others not.

I asked: “How is this a violation of canon law?”

And you provided and answer that begins, “As I explained…”. It gave me the impression that you agreed with the original assertion, and I erroneously believed it to have been yours.

Obviously, you don’t think such a fixed grille is adequate to provide privacy and propriety. Do you agree that it is adequate to comply with canon law?

Thank you. While I think it can safely be said that the image you provide, and indeed it is the stereotypical reconciliation room very much like my own parish, fulfills the letter of the law just fine, if we delve into the spirit of the law - which is what? - if the spirit of the law is to provide a barrier which makes physical contact impossible, then such a partial barrier can in no way fulfill that spirit. If the law is solely for privacy and anonymity, then it may or may not. But I don’t think that is the case with this canon.

With that being said, I think that grievous mistakes in liturgical architecture are very difficult to fix, and should be met with a large amount of latitude and merciful forebearance. Any pastor seeking to renovate the church building should always first ask himself, “which liturgical wrongs can I right” and thus make the celebration of Penance or Mass or Baptism etc. more bearable.

 

[babochka]

Thank you. While I think it can safely be said that the image you provide, and indeed it is the stereotypical reconciliation room very much like my own parish, fulfills the letter of the law just fine, if we delve into the spirit of the law - which is what? - if the spirit of the law is to provide a barrier which makes physical contact impossible, then such a partial barrier can in no way fulfill that spirit. If the law is solely for privacy and anonymity, then it may or may not. But I don’t think that is the case with this canon.

With that being said, I think that grievous mistakes in liturgical architecture are very difficult to fix, and should be met with a large amount of latitude and merciful forebearance. Any pastor seeking to renovate the church building should always first ask himself, “which liturgical wrongs can I right” and thus make the celebration of Penance or Mass or Baptism etc. more bearable.

I guess I’m just not sure what the spirit of the law is. What exactly is intended? Frankly, it is not really clear. We know that the screen was originally used for propriety. Over time, it also came to be associated with anonymity, but it really doesn’t guarantee that. Most people “of a certain age”, in this country, became accustomed to a particular style of confessional that was prevalent for generations in this country - “the box”. “The box” provided all those things you mention - a physical barrier that makes physical contact impossible, reasonable privacy, and a hope of anonymity. But if you do a google search for images of confessionals, you will see that such a style is only one among many “traditional” styles. Often, the grate is see-through. So much for anonymity. Often, both the priest and penitent are visible. So much for privacy. Many confessionals provide no more of a barrier than that in most Reconciliation Rooms. Did we see them in the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s? Apparently not, since many here seem to think that only “the box” is traditional option.

For the record, I don’t like Reconciliation Rooms that are set up like living rooms or lounges, though I prefer face-to-face Confession. I don’t want to get too comfortable during Confession.

 

[JimG]

I guess I’m just not sure what the spirit of the law is. What exactly is intended? Frankly, it is not really clear. We know that the screen was originally used for propriety. Over time, it also came to be associated with anonymity, but it really doesn’t guarantee that. Most people “of a certain age”, in this country, became accustomed to a particular style of confessional that was prevalent for generations in this country - “the box”. “The box” provided all those things you mention - a physical barrier that makes physical contact impossible, reasonable privacy, and a hope of anonymity. But if you do a google search for images of confessionals, you will see that such a style is only one among many “traditional” styles. Often, the grate is see-through. So much for anonymity. Often, both the priest and penitent are visible. So much for privacy. Many confessionals provide no more of a barrier than that in most Reconciliation Rooms. Did we see them in the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s? Apparently not, since many here seem to think that only “the box” is traditional option.

For the record, I don’t like Reconciliation Rooms that are set up like living rooms or lounges, though I prefer face-to-face Confession. I don’t want to get too comfortable during Confession.

Well, then, I recommend the type of confessional which is found in my own parish. It provides absolute privacy and anonymity. Priest and penitent do not see each other. No one sees inside the confessional. There is no possibility of physical contact between priest and penitent.

 

[Yeoman]

.

I have yet to undergo confession in the Extraordinary Form but I would be very happy to do so. I would like to ask something: may a confessor using the old style say the words of absolution in English instead of Latin?

Was there an Extraordinary Form for Confession? I thought that was only true of the Mass.

 

[Elizium23]

Was there an Extraordinary Form for Confession? I thought that was only true of the Mass.

Vatican II reformed the Rites for all seven sacraments. So yes, there is an extraordinary form for each one, in Latin; the vernacular is not permitted except in limited cases such as repeating the Scripture readings at Mass.

 

[MissRose73]

Only the recent Code of Canon Law and it’s an old custom. Actually, reconciliation rooms are also a violation of Canon law, as the grille is required to be “fixed” (ie: a confessional).

My parish church and many others in my diocese have a reconciliation room, but penitents have the choice of the kneeler with screen for anonymity or the face to face option. I have gone to older churches that have the confessional only with no option for face to face. I prefer the screen option but I have done the face to face option.