Oral versus Written Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
Several years ago I attended a local retreat for men. The priest conducting the retreat invited us to confess our sins in writing without signing our names. We presented our sins to the priest one at a time, and he glanced briefly at our lists, then gave us all absolution.

I know this is not traditional. Is it lawful? Certainly the priest thought so.

Has anybody else had this experience?

What say you as to the efficacy of oral versus written confession?

Does written confession defeat the efficacy of confessing?

If so, in what way?
 
Confession is Good for the soul.

Confession is a “conversation” between 2 entities: the Confessor … and … God.
The priest is only there to witness the event.
After that Confession by the Sinner, the priest exercises the Power he is entrusted with, and grants Absolution (in God’s name).

I personally knew a woman who wrote-out her Confessions.
She was all-but-Unable to talk.
She handed the Priest her list of Sins to Confess.
The Priest read them out loud, and asked her if this was all of her Sins.
She said “Yes” … then she mouthed her Act of Contrition, and was granted Absolution.

So, at least in cases where communication is difficult, a written Confession is acceptable.
And, in this case, the Sins WERE said out loud.
I have no idea if this practice is OK when the Sinner has NO problem speaking.
 
This from Thomas Aquinas

"Article 1: Whether it is sufficient for someone to confess by writing, or is it necessary for him to confess by spoken word?

On the first we proceed as follows: it seems that it is sufficient for someone to confess in writing. For confession is required for the manifestation of a sin, but a sin can be manifested in writing as well as by spoken word. Therefore, it suffices if he confesses in writing.

But to the contrary: in Romans 10:10 it is said, “Confession is made orally for salvation.”

I answer: it must be said that confession is part of a sacrament. So just as in baptism something is required on the minister’s part, namely that he cleanse and speak the words, and something on the part of the one submitting to the sacrament, namely that he intend to and be cleansed, so in the sacrament of penance it is required on the priest’s part that he absolve under some form of words, on he penitent’s part it is required that he subject himself to the keys of the Church, manifesting his sins through confession. Therefore, it is essential to the sacrament that he manifest his sins, and no one may dispense from this as neither may anyone dispense from baptism. But it is not essential to the sacrament that the manifestation be made by spoken word, otherwise no one could receive the effect of this sacrament in any case of necessity except by confessing orally, which is clearly false, for it is sufficient for mutes or for anyone who cannot confess orally to confess by writing or gestures. However, in no case of necessity can anyone be baptized except by water, because water is essential to the sacrament.

But from the Church’s decree a man who can is bound to confess by spoken word, not only because the one confessing orally blushes more in confessing so that he who sins orally is cleansed orally, but also because in all the sacraments that whose use is more common is always accepted. So in the sacramental cleansing of baptism water, which men more commonly use to wash with, is accepted, and in the Eucharist bread, which is a rather common food, and so also in the manifestation of sins it is fitting to use spoken words by which men are more commonly and with more clarity accustomed to signify their concepts.

And in this sacrament a character is not imprinted, but grace for the remission of sin alone is conferred, which no one obtains by sinning. However, he who ignores the Church’s degrees sins; so in baptism he who preserves what is essential to the sacrament while overlooking the laws of the Church obtains the character of the sacrament but here, however, nothing follows.

However, the reasons which are introduced for both sides are not very compelling. For manifestation of sins cannot be so expressly done in writing as in spoken words, nor is what is said in Confession is made orally for salvation” meant with regard to the confession of sins, but rather with regard to the confession of faith."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top