Should parishes consider eliminating face-to-face confessions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EnglishTeacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
babochka said:
I think this is probably right on. Perhaps the hidden away Reconciliation Rooms were the result of bad renovations in the wake of Vatican II. They tried to use an existing space to create something. Newer churches, built from the ground up, have thoughtfully integrated Reconciliation Rooms and Confessionals into the design from the beginning.
Click to expand...
The story I often see is that of old janitor closets being converted into reconciliation rooms.

I live on the west coast where even 1970s churches can be considered “old”. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
EnglishTeacher said:
40.png
babochka:
I think this is probably right on. Perhaps the hidden away Reconciliation Rooms were the result of bad renovations in the wake of Vatican II. They tried to use an existing space to create something. Newer churches, built from the ground up, have thoughtfully integrated Reconciliation Rooms and Confessionals into the design from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yes, now that you say that, I think that is entirely correct. I live in an area with many older churches, the newest being from the mid-1960s and the oldest being from the late 1800s. The ones built in the 1960s have nice built-in confessionals that are easy to find and use. A few of the very old churches have free-standing confessionals that they have either kept or restored after the post-Vatican II wreckovations ceased. A few more of the very old churches got rid of their free-standing confessionals in the wake of Vatican II and then tried to squeeze Reconciliation rooms into whatever existing spaces they had, and as a result, you often have to hunt for them.
Click to expand...
I live in a Gold Rush city that had rapid expansion in the 50s and beyond. So you have the “older” churches, built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Then, as the area expanded after WWII, we have a bunch of parishes that were established during the 50s and 60s. Some of those parishes built “temporary” churches, meant to be converted to gyms, etc, after a new Church was built. Those parishes built new church buildings in the 80s and 90s, in addition to all the new parishes established.

So, totally different dynamics going on.

In your area, you were thankfully spared some of the architectural choices so popular in the 1980s. Count your blessings while you hunt for that Reconciliation Room!
 
babochka said:
Really, though, why is this “Traditional Confessional” better than this “Reconciliation Room”?
Click to expand...
When the priest is yawning, it probably isn’t. 😁

My original point as to why a traditional confessional would be better is because the reconciliation rooms have only one door and a walk-around screen (if there is one at all). Therefore, for accountability in the wake of current scandals, that is a not great set-up. While the more traditional confessionals often offer the option of walking into the priest side and making a face-to-face confession there, that option could easily be eliminated if desired.

Aside from the issue of the scandal, I will fully admit to preferring more traditional ways in general, including confessional styles. It just seems as though we lost so much meaningful, age-old beauty in our churches with the post-Vatican II wrecking ball, and confessionals are but one part of that. I am out to restore it wherever possible. 🙂
 
Last edited:
EnglishTeacher said:
Priest and penitent being on the same side behind a closed door , whether in a confessional or reconciliation room
Click to expand...
Every reconciliation room I have seen has a window in the door, or else the priest leaves the door open during confessions.

Even in the churches that have old-fashioned confessionals, I’ve noticed a trend to add windows to the door. Some of them also have curtains instead of doors, and the curtain doesn’t reach all the way to the floor.

This is for the priest’s own protection from accusations, as well as for the protection of anyone confessing. If I were a priest in this day and age, I would not want to be alone with ANYONE behind a closed, windowless door, unless perhaps it was my mom.
 
Last edited:
EnglishTeacher said:
My original point as to why a traditional confessional would be better is because the reconciliation rooms have only one door and a walk-around screen (if there is one at all); and so for accountability in the wake of current scandals, that is not great. While the more traditional confessionals often offer the option of walking in the priest side and making a face-to-face confession there, that option could easily be eliminated if desired.

Aside from the issue of the scandal, I will fully admit to preferring more traditional ways in general, including confessional styles. It just seems as though we lost so much meaningful, age-old beauty in our churches with the post-Vatican II wrecking ball, and confessionals are but one part of that. I am out to restore it wherever possible. 🙂
Click to expand...
I think that the translucent glass, as I posted earlier, is a better option than taking away the face-to-face option altogether.

I also prefer traditional ways. As an Eastern Catholic, my traditions are different than yours, but I do appreciate the traditions of the West.

But along those lines, why is a confessional that has only existed for a few hundred years considered traditional, while face-to-face is considered innovation? Does tradition not go beyond the memories of our great-grandparents? And cannot traditions that have gone from living memory be revived without antiquarianism?

I think we have to be careful to not generalize our own experiences as normative, as we both did earlier in this thread. There is more than one “traditional” confessional design. People often talk about “going into the box”, yet the majority of confessionals I’ve seen in Europe are not boxes, with separate and private “rooms” for the penitent. And a confessional can certainly be designed of materials that are not aesthetically pleasing, but of the same design as a beautiful wooden confessional. Think steel and plastic.
 
Last edited:
The confessionals at my parish church are modernized traditional type confessionals, i.e. three separate rooms, without windows, but no one, priest or penitent, can ever be alone in the same room. They can only hear each other through the curtained grille. A penitent can kneel in front of the grille, or can sit in a chair, for those with bad knees. It’s not dark, it’s well lit and spacious, but entirely anonymous.

The average confession time from entering the confessional to exiting, is about 2 to 3 minutes.
 
brian_custer said:
does anyone remember the dark, quiet confessional “booths” with a kneeler & a dark screen?
Click to expand...
We have those.
But because I can never remember the Act of Contrition, I have to use one of the little prayer cards. And because it’s dark in there and my eyes aren’t what they used to be, I have to either use the light from my iPhone or take a little flashlight in with me. 😑 And then I apologize, “Uh, sorry Father, just a sec, but I need to get out my light so I can see what I’m reading . . .” 😁
 
I believe option for a face to face or a screened confession should be there. I have done both. I have no preference.
 
babochka said:
But along those lines, why is a confessional that has only existed for a few hundred years considered traditional, while face-to-face is considered innovation?
Click to expand...
Probably because when something has been the standard that long (400+ years?), it feels like an innovation to try to do something different, even if that “something different” happens to be older than the current tradition.

Also, for what it is worth, the more ancient form of face-to-face confession (such as the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox practice) is done out in the open, in front of the church (although quietly). It was not done, to my knowledge, with priest and penitent sitting together in a closed room. That part is the innovation.
 
Last edited:
Definitely. Less than 5% of Catholics attend Reconciliation. The doing away of confessionals and the relative anonymity that came with them was at best, an I’ll-considered decision and at worst, an attack on the sacrament itself. It probably makes the priest’s job more difficult, too.
 
Never heard those words in my life. Are you Catholic?

Actual words of absolution:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself

and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit
 
I’ve seen reconciliation rooms that had both options available. The room was set up so that you could remain behind a screen OR you could go around and sit face to face.
 
tafan2 said:
Never heard those words in my life. Are you Catholic?
Click to expand...
Googling those words, it appears to be a Lutheran formula for absolution. Interesting; I didn’t know Lutherans did private confessions. I wonder how common that is.
 
His_helpmeet said:
I’ve seen reconciliation rooms that had both options available. The room was set up so that you could remain behind a screen OR you could go around and sit face to face.
Click to expand...
Yes, they usually do; that is what I have seen, too. That set-up is fine for making an anonymous confession, but it doesn’t solve the issue of accountability in the wake of the current scandals. My original proposition in this thread was to eliminate confessions where the priest and penitent are together in a closed room where physical contact is possible. The old-fashioned kind of confessional prevents this because there are separate doors for the priest and the penitent and a complete divider between the two sections that it is impossible to go around.
 
Last edited:
That is an excellent point. Another option (and I have seen this done in the past) is to have an option for either one with the priest in a more public area, such as a side chapel or off to the side of the sanctuary. This allows for the priest and penitent to be visible but allows enough privacy for Confession.
 
I prefer face to face confession. I have been Catholic for five years and in those five years I think I have only done a screened confession once and I did not really like it because I got cut off and granted absolution before I could finish confessing and I felt this was because Father could not see me and take a visual cue that I wanted to continue in confessing my sins. Then I got use to face to face and it’s what I prefer.

With that said, if The Church h felt it was for the best to only have anonymous screened confession then I would be okay with it. However, there were many times I saw my spiritual director and we would meet in a back room of his monestary and he would allow me to confession then and there. That is how I did my confession to him. It would be a shame if even a situation like that was not allowed. I guess we could have walked to The Church and gone to the confessional if it was required. Still, there was something great about Father asking me if I wanted to confession, me saying yes, and him immedietly making the sign of the cross and just like that, bam, I was in confession even in just a waiting room in a Carmelite monestary
 
Last edited:
People must be confessing much ‘nicer’ sins than me to do face-to-face!

I don’t think I would ever be able to look my priest in the eye again if I wasn’t anonymous. Even if he has ‘forgotten’, I wouldn’t know that. I might always be “that young woman who once…”
 
Oh, I confessed at least a few mortal sins before, some quite embarrassing. I just went to a different parish and confessed to a priest that I did not know.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top