Priest offers drive-through confessions during coronavirus

[Tis_Bearself]

We established earlier in the thread that the laying on of hands doesn’t usually happen for Latin Rite priests in most US and European cultures.
Some Hispanic priests might do this, but the canons apparently don’t call for it and many confessionals have a barrier between priest and penitent, and even when they don’t, priests touching the penitents (except for maybe a handshake as you said) would likely be viewed as a no-no in today’s Western culture.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think this is great! There is nothing uncanonical about it, and the optics, as someone put it, are actually very good — they see people going to confession, which can send the image “you can do this — people still go to confession — there’s not a thing hard about it, see the lengths the priest is willing to go to!”. Confessions are very often heard in open-air situations.

As for physical contact between priest and penitent, I have on occasion shaken the priest’s hand if it was a particularly needed confession and I was going face-to-face. Aside from that, it is possible that in 40+ years of making confessions, the priest has put his hand on my head or shoulder, but I don’t recall for sure. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

 

[babochka]

And what about the pastor placing his hands on the head of the penitent and pronouncing the Absolution to them?

I’ve never had that done in the Latin Rite.

 

[CRV]

nder his white top

the white top is called a surplice. I agree with Tis - he’d probably be wearing layers under his cassock, and the surplice over that.

 

[Gorgias]

And what about the pastor placing his hands on the head of the penitent and pronouncing the Absolution to them?

Umm… what about it? As I think back, through my life – especially back to the days when confession was always behind a screen – I can recall no time when “placing hands on the penitent” was part of the rite! (Nor is it part of the rubrics in the past 40 years!)

But I think we should think about the image of the drive-thru confession and what the communicates to the body of Christ about this sacrament.

You mean that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is so important to Catholics that we celebrate it even in the midst of a pandemic? Yes – I agree that this communicates something critical to the world!!!

 

[Phemie]

My friend, a military chaplain, held drive-thru confession today, after he finished celebrating a live-streamed Mass. I think it’s great that he’s doing what he can to still minister to his flock. I see no problem with drive-thru unless the confessor has a hearing problem.

 

[babochka]

My friend, a military chaplain, held drive-thru confession today, after he finished celebrating a live-streamed Mass. I think it’s great that he’s doing what he can to still minister to his flock. I see no problem with drive-thru unless the confessor has a hearing problem.

Even with a hearing problem, it’s better than nothing.

I once knew an elderly priest who was practically deaf. He generally only heard confessions behind a screen and I’m not sure that he ever really heard anything in detail. Pretty consistently, after 2 1/2 sins, he would interrupt you to say, "Is that all, then? " His advice was always the same: “Remember that God knows you and loves you.” His penance was always the same. His confessional always had the longest line. He was such a loving and holy priest. Telling this story makes me miss him.

 

[tafan2]

This reminds me of my hometown priest as a boy. He had a brain tumor right behind his ear, the operation destroyed his hearing. Confessions definitely changed after that. He was a wonderful, wonderful man.

 

[dochawk]

but I’m fairly certain a lot of Eastern Catholic practices are identical.

When the EC practice differs, it is almost always wrong . . .

I once knew an elderly priest who was practically deaf. He generally only heard confessions behind a screen and I’m not sure that he ever really heard anything in detail.

A priest about whom I will otherwise say nothing, keeping Thumper’s daddy in mind, once announced that he had brought in several priests to hear confession that day–and not to worry, they were all deaf and blind, so . . . :crazy_face:

 

[babochka]

When the EC practice differs, it is almost always wrong . .

Different is not necessarily wrong.

In a few instances in which our practice differs from the more common Orthodox liturgical practices, it is because the Ruthenian Rescension retains a number of practices from the pre-Nikonian times, before the reforms. It doesn’t make either one wrong, but it does make ours older.

There is much legitimate diversity in the Byzantine Rite.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Hodos:

But I think we should think about the image of the drive-thru confession and what the communicates to the body of Christ about this sacrament.

You mean that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is so important to Catholics that we celebrate it even in the midst of a pandemic? Yes – I agree that this communicates something critical to the world!!!

That’s exactly what it conveys.

I think “drive-through confession” — where the penitent calls the priest on a posted cell phone number, the priest has his cell phone, the confession is made over the phone within sight (and possibly even earshot) of the priest, and the priest absolves from a short distance — is great! It’s just like Father Damien confessing his sins to a priest in a boat in the distance. You could almost think of it as a kind of public penance — pulling up in your car, where people see you, possibly even people driving by, telling the world “yes, I’m a sinner, and I need to go to confession”, doesn’t have a downside. Non-Catholics might think “hey, that’s pretty special, maybe they’re right and we’re wrong”.

We can all make great spiritual hay out of this crisis if, with the help of Almighty God, we handle it right. I have a holy card (created on my printer and self-laminated) for protection of one’s home in pestilence, and when I leave the home, I say “Lord, deliver our home from this plague, and keep us safe”. That’s good. Helps us to remember Who’s in charge. (I’ll post the card separately.)

 

[babochka]

It’s just like Father Damien confessing his sins to a priest in a boat in the distance.

This is exactly what it reminded me of.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Not if you’re at home and the priest is somewhere else, but why couldn’t a phone be used if you are, say, ten feet away from the priest — you’re in your car and the priest is sitting in a chair on the sidewalk — he sees you, he is listening, he sees your lips moving, he knows it’s you making the confession? How is that different from the set-up in some confessionals where a dedicated telephone receiver is on the wall for use by the hard-of-hearing? I’ve seen that before. (It’s also possible that the priest is the one who is hard-of-hearing, and it’s for his benefit.)

Even where general absolution is used, when there is a grave need for the faithful to receive absolution, the priest might be all the way on the other end of the nave from people receiving the absolution he gives. That could be 50-100 feet.

 

[dochawk]

Different is not necessarily wrong.

No. But in practice, when EC and EO practice differ, it is almost always latinization rather than any legitimate reason (which could indeed exist)

In a few instances in which our practice differs from the more common Orthodox liturgical practices, it is because the Ruthenian Rescension retains a number of practices from the pre-Nikonian reforms.

I don’t mean Ruthenian Catholic compared to, say, Greek Orthodox, but rather, for example, Ukrainian Catholic and Ukranian Orthodox.

However, the Nikonian reforms themselves aren’t a good benchmark. It was an attempt to undo drift from Greek practice–but as it would turn out, it was greek, rather than Russian, that had made the significant drift (that is, Russian praxis was closer to ninth century Greek praxis than the greeks of +Nikon’s time).

There is much legitimate diversity in the Byzantine Rite.

Yes, and it is good.

I’m referring to when there is a difference between EC and their corresponding EO.

 

[Gorgias]

I think “drive-through confession” — where the penitent calls the priest on a posted cell phone number, the priest has his cell phone, the confession is made over the phone within sight (and possibly even earshot) of the priest, and the priest absolves from a short distance — is great !

Hmm… I haven’t heard of this take on it!

However, I think that this approach would run afoul of Church requirements. After all, it would open up the possibility that the penitent’s confession could be intercepted and heard by those who run the phone network. That’s a big no-no. It’s the reason that “confession via phone” is prohibited.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yes our Priest speaks of these 2 often and how they spent HOURS hearing Confessions. Yes we may be walking through the valley of the shadow of death but we will be up on the mountain top soon.

Fat her edward george answered it her in this thread

I read the article. This passage is the solution I had in mind, and the AD of Kansas City agrees with my reasoning:

The Archdiocese of Kansas City last week suggested that priests might use cell phones to amplify conversations during sacramental confession, if social distancing policies required a distance or barrier between priest and penitent. The archdiocese told priests that cell phones would be permissible for confession if priest and penitent were within eyesight.

I did see what the AD of Hartford said about security issues, but there is always a possibility that a third party will overhear a confession, such as when priests and/or penitents speak loudly and the people in line can hear what is being said. I really do humbly ask that both priests and penitents speak softly to avoid or mitigate this possibility. It can also happen when the priest sits in one of those old-time confessionals with penitent booths on either side of him — the other penitent can hear. I don’t like that setup either.

 

[babochka]

but as it would turn out, it was greek, rather than Russian, that had made the significant drift (that is, Russian praxis was closer to ninth century Greek praxis than the greeks of +Nikon’s time).

This is a good example, though, of what I am saying. Sometimes, how and when that drift occurred isn’t exactly clear. Sure, sometimes something is a clear Latinization. But sometimes it is just a drift and after 400 years some drift can be expected.

One example that I can think of regarding this is the Holy Wednesday Anointing. This has fairly recently begun to be practiced in our churches because it is practiced in our corresponding Orthodox churches and is seem as a return to authentic praxis. It was not practiced in the Slavic churches at the time of union and its history is unclear. It seems to have been adopted somewhat recently by Russian Orthodox in th US, who picked it up from Greek practice. But nobody seems to know when it began. But we Eastern Catholics in America see it practiced in Orthodox churches and assume that we don’t do it because of Latinization. So we adopt a practice that was previously unknown in our churches. Does that make us right or wrong? Not at all. It just means that different practices legitimately developed in different places.

Our adoption of this practice is similar to us revising our centuries-old Typicon to reflect the Nikonian reforms.

I don’t have a problem with Holly Wednesday anointing at all, but I do wonder that it is seen as a return to a more authentic practice.

 

[dochawk]

We’ve been Nikonicised!

:crazy_face:

[and in my snakier moments, I sometimes thingk that just the level to which it offends some RC polemicists is enough to justify the anointing! {For those not familiar with it, some Easterns have full sacramental anointing for everyone present after Holy Wednesday’s liturgy}]

 

[on_the_hill]

In the livestream Mass from our church this morning, the priest’s homily included teachings that a spiritual communion and confession are both possible in circumstances such as these, as taught all the way back in Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As you noted, the Archdiocese of Kansas City is doing this and is even suggesting priests use a Google number so they don’t have to give out their cell phone number to all the parishioners.

However, there’s another diocese, I think in South America, where an area is under lockdown and the bishop allowed what you describe and then later stopped it because he had grown concerned that it might not be permitted by the Vatican even though priests and penitents can see each other.

The Vatican might end up having to address this, but for now maybe it’s easier for dioceses to just do it until told not to do it.