Why do you prefer face to face confession?

[Gertabelle]

I go behind the screen, but not for anonymity.

The priests at my parish know my voice, and even behind the screen will often address me by name.

I go behind the screen so that I can focus on confessing my sins to Christ, instead of to the man behind the screen. And I also find it easier to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest.

On the occasions when I go to confession at a parish where it’s easier to go face-to-face, I usually find myself staring at the priest’s shoes to whole time

 

[Dymphna82]

I think a lot of us want to be transformed. However, I don’t think all of us feel transformed by our confession experience. I think transformation for me works more through the rosary and the Eucharist. I think penance is more a way to scrape off all the gunk that’s holding me down, close a chapter and move forward in my life. I should repent because I owe that to God, but I should also repent because of how my sin harms me.

So I hope in my being candid about how I feel, that nobody is looking down on me.

ETA:

I go behind the screen so that I can focus on confessing my sins to Christ, instead of to the man behind the screen. And I also find it easier to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest.

I agree with this too. So much.

 

[shepherd_girl]

If the confessional box has only been in existence for 400 years what was the Church’s reasoning behind it? The anonymity factor? I always find it fascinating and sometimes frustrating when changes are made. I will never get over the eucharist in the hand; I was taught the Host was so sacred only priests could hold it. I am one of the few I think who refuses to take communion in the hand.

 

[babochka]

I suspect that people who are more introverted prefer the screen.

I’m an introvert and I prefer face-to-face, but… I have a regular confessor with whom I am completely comfortable. He knows me inside and outside of the confessional. I think that definitely makes a difference with introverts.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m an introvert and I prefer face-to-face, but… I have a regular confessor with whom I am completely comfortable. He knows me inside and outside of the confessional. I think that definitely makes a difference with introverts.

I agree. I’m as introverted as they come. I also have a regular confessor I know well and always go face to face.

 

[babochka]

If the confessional box has only been in existence for 400 years what was the Church’s reasoning behind it? The anonymity factor? I always find it fascinating and sometimes frustrating when changes are made. I will never get over the eucharist in the hand; I was taught the Host was so sacred only priests could hold it. I am one of the few I think who refuses to take communion in the hand.

It is hard when we believe that something has always been done just one way, and have been firmly taught that it is the “right” way, but then we learn that there is legitimate variety within the church.

The point of the fixed screen was propriety; it protected both the priest and penitent from actual or alleged improper physical contact. It was originally invented by St. Charles Borromeo around 1565, and mandated for use in his diocese; the idea caught on, and the Pope later required them for the entire (western) church. Old-style confessionals in Europe do not particularly protect anonymity, as the priest has an open view of what is going on outside, and the screens are often see-through. Even with the mandate that confessionals have a fixed grate, there have always been different ways of doing things. The Eastern Churches have never adopted the screen or confessional; instead, we have confessions “out in the open”, but face-to-face (sort of - we face an icon of Christ, and the priest stands slightly to the side). Padre Pio used to hear the confessions of women in the confessional, but men’s confessions were often heard in the sacristy. It seems like the screen might still be a good idea to protects priests and penitents, particularly when children’s confessions are involved. The screen can certainly aid in anonymity, and people have perhaps become used to the perceived anonymity and prefer it, but there is certainly no guarantee.

Both ways are acceptable. Both ways are good, even. Each of us has preferences and they are formed in many ways - what we are used to, our own fears and biases, how we were taught, and our own experiences. We can just rejoice that the Church really isn’t hung up on extraneous details like how and where, but allows great latitude so that people will avail themselves of this sacrament often.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScShhcHPPmgMAzHWsAmhUNe-D3NNAwO78HkchFXrIkEXKioXQjhttp://www.sacredarchitecture.org/images/uploads/St._John_Nepomuk_hears_the_confession_of_the_Queen_of_Bohemia,_oil_painting_by_Giuseppe_Maria_Crespi,_1740,_idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com.jpg

 

[davetv]

I generally do what’s hardest. So I go face to face.

 

[EasterJoy]

It does matter that confessions are heard in the church, when possible, and a fixed grate is to be made available for those who want it:

*Can. 964 §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory.

§2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely.

§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause.*

A penitent who wants to have the fixed grate there is to have it available. That is the norm.

 

[babochka]

It does matter that confessions are heard in the church, when possible, and a fixed grate is to be made available for those who want it:

Can. 964 §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory.

§2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely.
**
§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause.**

A penitent who wants to have the fixed grate there is to have it available. That is the norm.

“Just cause” can legitimately be interpreted quite broadly, and is. Yes, confessions should be made available in a church or oratory as a matter of course, but there are many, many legitimate reasons to hear a confession somewhere else. “Just cause” sets a pretty low bar.

 

[tafan]

I go behind the screen so that I can focus on confessing my sins to Christ, instead of to the man behind the screen. And I also find it easier to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest.

Our pastor has made the statement he prefers the screen to face-to-face for this very reason.

I would note that it is not just up to the penitent if they go face-to-face. The priest gets to make the ultimate decision, my understanding is that a priest is not required to hear face-to-face confessions.

 

[tafan]

I’m not sure if I have a preference…but, face-to-face poses no problem to me.

If as Catholics we believe priests are acting in the person of Christ, we shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed, because it’s not the man we are confessing to, but to Christ in person.

Even if in a confessional, are we hiding from Jesus? No. We can’t. As God he sees all…remeber Nathanael in john 1:45-51 and how Jesus saw him under the fig tree?

Why would we not feel embarrassed to confess to Christ? I realize that God knows all of my sins, that certainly does not mean I am not embarrassed/ashamed of them. It is quite the opposite, is it not?

 

[johnmann]

I don’t care either way anymore but I used to like face-to-face only because when kneeling behind the screen, your face is uncomfortably close to the priest’s. I wish there were a position where you kneel with your side to the priest and facing maybe a cross.

 

[clem456]

I prefer behind the screen. I work in parish ministries and I want all that separated from confession. If I had to go face to face, I would not go as often. The priests give great counsel either way.

 

[GereOMH]

I will go either face-to-face or behind the screen, but I have had to insist, several times, when our parish was planning “penance services” that the faithful are entitled to what its denigraters call “the box”, and that anonymity-preserving confessionals MUST be made available to them.

I think f2f is becoming more popular because catechists are violating Church law and insisting that children “learn” the sacrament f2f, just as there are some who try to insist that children must receive in the hand, (also an indult, not the norm.)

Religious Ed leaders, IME, are in many cases well-meaning but not very knowledgeable about what they are supposed to be “handing on”.

One reason i sometimes prefer behind the screen is that the priest, and my wondering how he might react can be distracting.

It is easier to focus on speaking Christ if the PRIEST is, in a way, “anonymous,” in his role as alter Christus. (That’s probably declined wrong.)

Confession is not Spiritual Direction.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

 

[GereOMH]

Why would we not feel embarrassed to confess to Christ? I realize that God knows all of my sins, that certainly does not mean I am not embarrassed/ashamed of them. It is quite the opposite, is it not?

God is everywhere, and I’m not embarrassed to be walking around naked in front of Him, either, but that doesn’t mean…

(Save the Liturgy, save the World)

 

[clem456]

Confession is not Spiritual Direction.

Spiritual direction is not the purpose of the sacrament, but it is a fruit, thank God. The priest never simply absolves me, there are always some words of direction given.
When I go to confession I am directed toward the good.

 

[babochka]

I will go either face-to-face or behind the screen, but I have had to insist, several times, when our parish was planning “penance services” that the faithful are entitled to what its denigraters call “the box”, and that anonymity-preserving confessionals MUST be made available to them.

I think f2f is becoming more popular because catechists are violating Church law and insisting that children “learn” the sacrament f2f, just as there are some who try to insist that children must receive in the hand, (also an indult, not the norm.)

I think you are absolutely right here. I nearly always confess face-to-face. It is the only option in my rite, but even when I confess in a Latin church, I prefer it. That said, it bothers me greatly when those who think they no better feel free to ignore the law. I once taught a First Confession class in a Latin-rite parish. I explained to the kids how to go to confession. I took them into the church and showed them their options. I assured them of their right to privacy and told them that they could choose either. Even though I have my own preference, I took pains to present both options equally. Much to my dismay, on the evening of their first confessions, the two priests were arranged in chairs near the sanctuary, so the kids had to confess out in the open, with no option for a screen. When I brought it up to the DRE, she just said that kids prefer it this way, and the parents, too. When I brought up the kids’ rights, she looked at me as if I had two heads.

In the case of penance services, in which there are usually many priests present, it is perfectly acceptable to have priests hearing confessions in the pews, or in various stations throughout the church, as long as there are also options available to those who wish to use the confessional.

Not in the strictest sense, but providing spiritual direction to penitents is an important part of the role of the confessor. For more information, consider reading the works St. Alphonsus Liguori (the patron of confessors) or this more recent document from the Vatican. clerus.org/clerus/dati/2011-08/08-13/sussidio_per_confessori_en.pdf

 

[JimG]

I think you are absolutely right here. I nearly always confess face-to-face. It is the only option in my rite, but even when I confess in a Latin church, I prefer it. That said, it bothers me greatly when those who think they no better feel free to ignore the law. I once taught a First Confession class in a Latin-rite parish. I explained to the kids how to go to confession. I took them into the church and showed them their options. I assured them of their right to privacy and told them that they could choose either. Even though I have my own preference, I took pains to present both options equally. Much to my dismay, on the evening of their first confessions, the two priests were arranged in chairs near the sanctuary, so the kids had to confess out in the open, with no option for a screen. When I brought it up to the DRE, she just said that kids prefer it this way, and the parents, too. When I brought up the kids’ rights, she looked at me as if I had two heads.

In the case of penance services, in which there are usually many priests present, it is perfectly acceptable to have priests hearing confessions in the pews, or in various stations throughout the church, as long as there are also options available to those who wish to use the confessional.

It does seem rather disturbing that while you took the trouble to explain both options and demonstrate both options, the DRE and priests in effect removed their options.

 

[quilisma]

I can only speak for myself, but I prefer the screen for several reasons:

As some previous posters have mentioned, it helps me to focus on Jesus rather than the particular priest, and it makes it easier for me to remember I’m speaking to him as alter Christus instead of as “my friend Fr. X” when I have the Face of Jesus in my mind’s eye rather than the priest’s individual face before my bodily eyes.

In the “box”, I can also speak more quietly since there isn’t so much distance between mouth and ear, and I can hear his questions and counsel better for the same reason.

The “box” also serves as a reminder to me that this is a sacrament, not a psychotherapy session. I spent some years in therapy, and chatting face to face can get to resemble therapy so much that I get way too chatty and waste the priest’s precious time, not to mention that of all the people still waiting behind me!

 

[babochka]

I have a question for those who prefer behind the screen specifically because it allows you to focus more on the fact that you are confessing directly to God.

Why do you believe that God has given us this sacrament in which we are called to confess to a human being? We can use the screen to momentarily forget about the fact that there is a person on the other side, but God has established this sacrament in a particular way for a reason. We’re not allowed to confess by phone, by letter or by internet. We must confess in person, to a human being. It just seems that using a screen for the purpose of blocking out that reality is circumventing the purpose of confession. I think that the human element in confession is critically important. Please note, I’m not criticizing the use of a confessional or a screen at all, I’m just wondering about this specific reason for preferring a screen.