Reconciliation Rant, In Four Parts: Part III

This 4-part series, on use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka Penance or Confession, is simply a view from the pew. It is an opinion, although making an effort to be consistent with Catholic Teaching. It is presented without being aware of any inconsistency with Catholic Teaching, and will be corrected promptly if any conflict with Catholic Teaching is brought to the author’s attention. Nevertheless, please note that the author’s opinion claims absolutely no “teaching authority,” with or without “correction.”

In the prior two parts, privacy was mentioned in several different contexts. The reason is not because “privacy” is the goal, but rather it is a key element for protection of that most precious aspect of the Sacrament of Reconciliation: The Seal of Confession. Priests have been tortured and died for refusing to divulge what they heard in Confession. Every time he sits down in the confessional, on a quiet Saturday afternoon, a priest is putting his whole life in danger, to bring us God’s forgiveness. Really, think about it. His promise is to die rather than compromise The Seal. Who else did anything like that for you lately?

To die for the Seal is not some medieval threat; it is very real in our day and age, as the evil one assails the priesthood constantly. Breaking the seal can cause a priest to be removed from the clerical state. If a government can break through the Seal even one time, all priests are at ultimate risk. Penitents also are at risk if a priest ever violates the Seal – penitents would fear having their testimony forced, they can lose access to forgiveness of their sins,  remaining in unabsolved sin rather than risk confession. This concern is not far-fetched. A few years ago, a series of court judgments in Louisiana was handed down to force a priest to divulge the contents of a confession. This case shows that there are NO EXCEPTIONS to allow divulging a confession. And it shows the persistence of the evil one, through civil government, to destroy souls. (Note: not all links are functional, but the thread can easily be found in an online search.)

Baton Rouge: Priest Won’t Break Seal of Confession to Testify  7/14

Given the absurd Louisiana case, and the tightening noose around transgender and same-sex counseling, treating certain aspects as matters of ‘sin’, protecting the Seal of confession is not meaningless and should be treated by penitents as vital and deserving of great care and attention in every situation, mortal or venial. Here are some considerations regarding how privacy affects the way the Seal of Confession is viewed:

1. Face-to-Face confession should be a mutual decision of penitent and priest. A confessor should not hesitate (IMO) to refuse to accommodate face-to-face. It is his own protection against forced disclosure. If he doesn’t know who confessed, he should be somewhat less at risk. Moreover, there are sometimes sensitive and intimate sins which might call for more modesty in confessing, and be helpful to the penitent not to be required to confess face-to-face. But that means adequate screening and not a “make-believe I can’t see you” divider.
2. The screen should always be an option: If a priest does decide to offer “face-to-face” confession then “behind the screen” should also always be offered, as not every penitent should be required to confess face-to-face. During the Year of Mercy I ran into a situation where the priest had set up the room being used for confessions improperly (or it had been set up that way for him) so the kneeler/screen/confessor’s chair (with the screen still recessed) all faced the confessor sitting in another chair. The penitent could either kneel or sit, both positions facing the confessor. There was no “privacy” option. And, of course, whenever anyone needs to find a confessor, to ask him to hear one’s confession, so likely when hours for confession are inconveniently short, leaves no secret about the identify of the penitent!
3. Lack of Visual Privacy: Privacy is impaired with “new” confessionals that are converted cry-rooms, or have “picture windows,” so anyone walking down the aisle can see inside, and even read lips. Far-fetched? Not in a city with a National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT). I know several priests and others who do lip read quite well. At least shades and screens should be used when confession is in progress. There are also people who cry in confession, even at the joy of coming back to the Church! A picture window on the confessional? Really?
4. Lack of Aural Privacy: There is much today which implies lack of confessional privacy, even “behind the screen.” Examples of intrusion include people who sit too close to the confessional or line up too close to it. Laity should stand well away from the confessional and pews nearby. Some churches block pews or show where the line should start. That is helpful. One problem is that hearing is one of those senses which may deteriorate with age. Some older priests may talk excessively loud, as do some penitents. Those with hearing problems sometimes speak louder than necessary if they have trouble discerning the volume of their own voices. One can’t assume everyone can whisper at an appropriate level for privacy.
5. Then there are also issues such as confessionals made from “sound reflecting materials” which resound, like glass or tile or linoleum floors, echoing sound instead of absorbing it. One local church has confessional doors sawn off a few inches above the floor (one priest stuffs fabric or outerwear into the space to muffle sound!) A simple carpet and long drape (or a ‘sweep’ on the door) would help a lot, sending the message that privacy is important and the Seal is taken seriously, so as not to impede any penitent’s desire to go to confession. Anything which is a deterrent to going to confession is regrettable, and further explains the falloff in frequency of confession.
6. It is helpful in some churches to play religious music while confessions are being heard, but for some penitents it creates a background disturbance which complicates their hearing (like distinguishing human voices in a noisy restaurant). If penitents feel they can be overheard, it is easy to see why they would avoid confession, or be reticent to bring up some sins; i.e. even to the point of risking an invalid confession. Privacy is appropriate to enforce the sense of sin, and the importance and value of being cleansed promptly and completely.
7. Keeping up with technology or scary addition to the confessional?  Some years ago a pastor told what he thought was a funny story but which didn’t get many laughs from the laity present. It seems he was showing someone through the church (a Protestant, I believe) who asked many questions, how penitents could be sure that the priest wouldn’t tell others their sins. The pastor opened a confessional door to show him the “screen” and they both discovered at the same time that the parish tape recorder was temporarily stored there!  Ha, ha, ha?  Well fast forward to the smart phone era. With that technology priests seem to be ‘on call’ 24/7. Perhaps some feel they can’t be without their smart phone. Others who spend a lot of time waiting for the next penitent to arrive don’t want to waste their time, but a penitent can be intimidated by realizing the priest is using his smart phone (even if only to catch up with the liturgy of the hours.) Quite frankly, a priest with a breviary or a rosary seems far more reverent and comforting than a penitent’s worrying if the priest is using his smartphone as a phone or a recorder, checking email or texting. Please don’t think it isn’t happening! Admittedly, the smart phone can also be a convenient source for daily prayer, but among those unfamiliar with the app, there may be some misunderstanding. As doctors used to be warned (before the legalization of abortion): “First, do no harm;” e.g. don’t scare people away!

An evangelical friend pointed out to me recently how she can dictate to her smart phone, and it converts to text.  I realized that what she had shown me meant that a smart phone in the confessional with that voice activated app could also form a text message of the conversation. In my opinion, the smart phone should be banned from the confessional on either side of the screen.  And a sign on the confessional should say so. At least it could be a defense in some states against the recorded conversation mentioned earlier; i.e. that recording was explicitly forbidden, and a false penitent entered on false premises. Our treating the Seal with respect is part of our defense against government coercion.  And sometimes that requires taking extra special precautions. Don’t believe it? See here.

A Protestant friend said to me one day: “You Catholics don’t know how blessed you are. When you finish with a confession you absolutely know you are forgiven.” He said that his own pastor assured him that if he knelt down and prayed for forgiveness that God would forgive him. But the pastor had no authority on which to speak. And, I realized, my friend was never ‘really as sure’ as he longed to be. We are so blessed, sometimes we don’t even notice.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2018 at 6:26 PM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.