Should parishes consider eliminating face-to-face confessions?

[babochka]

What do you base this on? A number of people on this very thread have acknowledged that they prefer face-to-face confessions. Do you discount the personal experience of all of us in claiming that it is awkward and uncomfortable for both parties?

 

[babochka]

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.

Where does your 5% number come from? According to the latest Pew research, over 40% of Catholics go to confession at least once a year.

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/09/02/u-s-catholics-open-to-non-traditional-families/pg-2015-09-02_uscatholics-25/

 

[babochka]

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.

This wasn’t clear in your thread title and your initial post was ambiguous. It doesn’t seem to be the face-to-face confessions that are a problem, but the “two people in a closed room together”, right? I can definitely see the concern with this. The fixed grille was originally introduced for a similar reason. It had nothing to do with anonymity. There were accusations and concerns about improper behavior between priests and female penitents.

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.

Yes, but our feelings don’t dictate reality. And the “traditional confessional” developed further still from the fixed screen introduced by St. Charles Borromeo. Based on those developments, many have now come to expect anonymity and complete privacy as well.

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.

I don’t claim to have any particular knowledge about how Confession was originally done when private Confession was developed in the monasteries, but I have always imagined a private encounter between a monk and his spiritual father, not necessarily in the open Church. I realize that the early Church practiced public Confession, but this was quite different from the practice that later developed in the monasteries.

Perhaps it was done in the nave of the Church, as is common practice today. But this isn’t the only Eastern practice. There is quite a bit of variety, even in the Byzantine East. This cute animated video shows confession apparently taking place in the priest’s office.

What is common to all is that no screen is used and no anonymity is expected.

 

[babochka]

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.

This seems like an excellent compromise.

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree with the divider, which is not necessary without face to face with the priest. In many churches that I came across and especially in our diocese, the conventional confessional is separate doors for the priest and penitents, with partial glass screen divider when both can dialogue face to face. Usually the priest would not look at you in the eye but listen to your confession and give absolution without looking at you. It, however, gives him the option to know who the penitents are, if he wants to, or to speak to the penitent directly.

I do not want to speak to a screen, not knowing who is at the other side.

 

[babochka]

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.

It is embarrassing and really, really humbling. I have had a regular confessor for a very long time and I only go to someone else if he is unavailable or if what I’m confessing would affect him personally.

It is like going to the doctor. I could visit a different doctor every time and if I’m not seriously ill, that might work fine. But if I develop a serious illness, it is extremely helpful if the doctor knows something about my past medical history, other conditions present, lifestyle, etc. This helps him to make a better diagnosis and treat the illness, not just the symptoms.

Having a regular confessor who knows me well is very much the same thing. When he prescribes “medicine” for the ailments of my soul, he knows better than a stranger what has been tried and what might work in my situation.

I realize that not everybody has the ability to develop this sort of a relationship with a confessor, but it has really helped me.

And yes, I have had to confess some sins that were really difficult to confess.

 

[brian_custer]

this is a thoughtful & eloquent post; but i am not 100% sure i am going to have to have had agreed with the “doctor” analogy

people do not “choose” to have medical issues; and yes it is “comforting” to have the same doctor seeing you & prescribing meds, etc, etc

but “mortal sin” is a voluntary choice (by definition); mortal sin is something to be absolutely “ashamed” of

eyeballing “a” “the” priest is not going to help me be forgiven of it…

frankly, “face to face” confession is a little bit creepy, imho… ABSOLUTION is forgiveness

 

[babochka]

this is a thoughtful & eloquent post; but i am not 100% sure i am going to have to have had agreed with the “doctor” analogy

people do not “choose” to have medical issues; and yes it is “comforting” to have the same doctor seeing you & prescribing meds, etc, etc

Confession is a sacrament of healing. You might not agree with the doctor analogy, but it is the teaching of the Church that the priest is both judge and physician in the Sacrament.

This is from my favorite document from the Church on confession, a guide for confessors and spiritual directors.
http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2011-08/08-13/sussidio_per_confessori_en.pdf

1. The confessor is a pastor, a father, a master, teacher, a spiritual
   judge and a physician who diagnoses and cures. “In hearing confessions
   the priest is to remember that he is equally a judge and a
   physician and has been established by God as a minister of divine
   justice and mercy, so that he has regard for the divine honour and the
   salvation of souls”.70

And sometimes it is not just comforting to have the same doctor seeing you. Sometimes, it is critical to proper diagnosis to have a doctor who understands your medical history.

people do not “choose” to have medical issues; and yes it is “comforting” to have the same doctor seeing you & prescribing meds, etc, etc

but “mortal sin” is a voluntary choice (by definition); mortal sin is something to be absolutely “ashamed” of

Many illnesses are caused by voluntary actions. Heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancers - many of these are commonly brought by our lifestyle choices. The list goes on and on.

It was St. John Chrysostom who said:

“Be ashamed when you sin, not when you repent.”

 

[brian_custer]

“Be ashamed when you sin, not when you repent.”

i get that 100% ; by why is it "necesaary to “eyeball” the priest when you go to confession?

it didn’t use to be that way

at a Marian shrine where i sometimes attend Mass ( where the chaos over the absence of kneelers exists); the chaplain said openly; “i don’t do face to face confession”

yet he performs the sacrament EVERY DAY; which is a lot more than i can say about my “home parish” with their half hour window on saturday; a half dozen people waiting on line and one person taking 20 minutes of the “window” to explain to priest “face to face” their life history…

 

[babochka]

i get that 100% ; by why is it "necesaary to “eyeball” the priest when you go to confession?

Some people say that it helps them to focus more when they are behind a screen, even if their identity is known to the priest. They say that it makes them more easily remember that they are confessing to Christ.

I find it disconcerting and disorienting to speak to a screen without any sign of the human behind it. God has ordained that we confess to a human being for a reason and I find that it helps me on a purely human level to come face-to-face with the human being who has been charged with the task of hearing my confession, the Father who will forgive me in God’s own name.

it didn’t use to be that way

In some times and places, that is true.

For a millennium and a half, nobody ever used a screen. Then a great saint saw it as a solution to a problem and implemented it. The idea caught on and eventually became the most common way - the only way it had ever been done in living memory. It went on that way for centuries. It became enshrined as a right of the faithful in the Latin Church.

Yet, the old way didn’t die. It was always practiced in the Eastern Churches and was practiced even in the Latin Church, out of necessity or sometimes convenience. The Church decided to encourage a renewal of the old way, giving both the faithful and the priests the right of refusal.

You can argue that face-to-face confession is good or bad, but you can’t really argue that it is new.

at a Marian shrine where i sometimes attend Mass ( where the chaos over the absence of kneelers exists); the chaplain said openly; “i don’t do face to face confession”

Good for him. That is his right and I’m sure he has his reasons. If I had an urgent need, I would go to him in an instant, but I would not seek him out.

; a half dozen people waiting on line and one person taking 20 minutes of the “window” to explain to priest “face to face” their life history…

You seem so sure that face-to-face confession is the cause of the delay and the fault of the penitents. How do you know that they are explaining their life history to the priest and how you know they are going face-to-face?

In my experience, it is the priest who sets the tone and pace for the confession. An experienced priest should be able to move things along if he needs to.

I occasionally attend an FSSP (Latin Mass) parish. The confessionals there only allow for confessions behind a screen. Even there, one hears complaining about “confessional hogs” and “people who need to share their life stories in confession”.

Finally, a word from Fr. Z’s blog, sharing his advice for priests:

And FATHERS! Be BRIEF! You ramble too. Oh how many times have I pounded my head gently against the grate thinking, “Just give me absolution”

Bearing wrongs patiently is a spiritual work of mercy.

 

[Gorgias]

You can not “force” a law on one group and not others. If priests have to break confidentiality, then so do lawyers, doctors, mental health professionals, counselors, and anyone else who deals with the private lives of people. One law for everybody.

Be careful what you ask for. These other professionals are already mandated reporters, too. The only question is whether we can assert that there’s a context in which a minister is exempt from mandated reporting requirements. In general, priests are mandated reporters – but they aren’t required to report what they hear in the confessional.

 

[Nigel7]

Every f2f (face-to-face) confession that I’ve ever given has been done from a seated position and not kneeling, whereas my regular behind-the-screen confessions are always done kneeling (which I much prefer).
I share the opinion too that it’s often irreverent/inappropriate when a f2f confession turns into a conversation about this or that following the confession, particularly for some confessional situations.

Yeah, I’m not crazy about the casualness of f2f in the parish setting. I much prefer kneeling behind a screen.

 

[AKDee]

I would absolutely oppose the elimination of face-to-face confession. In my parish, we have the option of either one. When you walk into the confessional, which is a room, there is a kneeler behind a screen. The priest cannot see who enters the room. If you choose, you can walk around the screen and seat yourself across from the priest. I choose face-to-face confessions because I find it adds to the penitential aspect for me, something I value. I feel it helps me. I absolutely support people having the option of screened confessions, because I’m aware some people would never confess face-to-face. But I sure hope they don’t do away with the face-to-face option for people like myself who prefer that.

 

[twf]

They still exist and are still used in many places. I’ve confessed using these old style booths. They’re the type used at St Peter’s in Rome.

 

[brian_custer]

yes, father pacwa has said the same thing;

so my brother who travels to various parishes & shrines to confess to different priests is doing something wrong?

 

[brian_custer]

of course “i’ve done” face to face"; i don’t like it; and i mostly got the impression the priest didn’t either

 

[TexasLoneStar]

I see pros and cons in both.

A pro would be that if you know your confessor well, doing a face-to-face confession can allow him to give you much better spiritual advice and penance.

A con would be that many people turn these rooms into therapy sessions.

I would have to think about this one a bit more. Personally I confess face-to-face sometimes, even to traditionalist-order priests… but I do love the sacramental feel of the closed booth.

 

[AKDee]

Where in my response did you get the impression I thought you hadn’t done it? I gave you MY preference, that is all. I’ve had one priest that appeared uncomfortable with face-to-face, the rest seem fine with it, and the one priest who was uncomfortable was a visiting priest.

 

[JimG]

I recall a conversation between two guys younger tha me, one Catholic, one non-Catholic. They had been discussing their teenage years, and the non-Catholic was curious about confession to a priest. “Well, what did you tell him?” he asked. “Not the truth, for sure,” said the Catholic. “Because I knew him too well and we only had face to face confession.”

 

[babochka]

yes, father pacwa has said the same thing;

so my brother who travels to various parishes & shrines to confess to different priests is doing something wrong?

No, of course not.

The Church used to allow confession only to one’s pastor, centuries ago. This is no longer true and the person is free to choose any Confessor that he wants yes.

I am not attempting to impose what the Church does not impose. I personally find it spiritually beneficial to stick to one Confessor, but it is definitely a personal preference and one that is probably driven, in part, by mild social anxiety.