SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION
Introduction
There is no life without conflicts; conflicts are inherent in our existence; often they are a cause of destruction. Reconciliation, for Christians, is the renewal of a love relationship between the person and God and between the person and others. Sin has to do with a state of alienation between God and the person. Sin is essentially the free and deliberate disobedience of a person to the known will of God.
Penance
Originally the word penance meant the same as the Greek metanoia, which means conversion, but it later came to be applied to outward acts of repentance and to the whole ecclesiastical discipline of public penitence. The sacrament developed through the centuries: from “penance” pointing up the external works as a sign of sincerity (early stage), to “confession,” stressing a repeatable, private, one-to-one encounter (medieval stage), to “absolution” representing a more juridical exchange between two anonymous people alone in a confessional (post-Trent stage to modern times). Because each one of these terms described but an aspect of the sacrament, a new word has been revived in our day to encompass these aspects and to indicate the broader perspective of the sacrament: reconciliation.
Sacrament
Because of God's merciful grace, the sacrament of reconciliation is described as "quiet dynamite." It can change lives. But the fuse still needs to be lit for the power of this sacramental reconciliation to explode in the hearts of our people. It is we ministers who have the best opportunity to light the fuse that unleashes the power of God's word of pardon and peace within the hearts of our people.
Please note that the notes below are a compilation of excerpts and paraphrasings of excerpts from the above books and the works of other authors and their use is strictly confined as reading material for the students of Class 3a and Class 3b in Tangaza College in the first semester of the academic year of 2010/2011.
Chapter One OLD TESTAMENT
Laws
The most ancient laws of Israel were religious laws, handed down from Yahweh through Moses and the other prophets. Transgressions of those laws were seen as sins, as violations of the covenant between Yahweh and his people. Sin is primarily a religious reality. The penalties for those transgressions were not merely punishments meted out by society but sacraments of moral rectification and reconciliation. Sacrifices and sin offerings, prayers and lamentations, fastings and fines, property restitutions and corporal punishments were all intended to restore the covenant relationship between a holy God and a people who had fallen from holiness. The Torah, the Law of Moses, was therefore a written sacrament through which the personal will of Yahweh was revealed to his people.
Mercy
The Mercy of God is greatly emphasised in the OT: Micah 7:18-20, Ps 86:15-16, Jer 31:31-34, Ezek 18:23, Ezek 36:25-28.
Yom Kippur
Yom Kippur is the ‘Day of Atonement’ during which the high priest has to confess his sins and the sins of the people to God before offering a blood sacrifice of a animal to symbolise their sincerity and willingness to rectify their lives and their renewal of the covenant (Lev 16:21; Neh 1:6-7).
Time of Jesus
Around the time that Jesus lived, many of the penitential practices prescribed by the Torah were still in force. Individual breaking of the law had to be rectified through individual acts of repentance that were described in the scriptures or prescribed by the rabbis who tried to clarify the law where the Torah was vague. Confession was also prescribed by the Torah for certain individual sins (Lev 5:1-6; Nm 5:6-7), and some early rabbinical books suggested that the confession of sins to a rabbi was a sign of sincere repentance. Since sacrifices could be offered only in the Temple at Jerusalem, Jews living outside that city sought reconciliation with God through other means, and the rabbis recommended prayers, fastings, sleeping on the ground, wearing sackcloth and ashes, and almsgiving as penitential practices. The Torah ordered idolators to be expelled from the community (Dt 13:16) and the rabbis expanded on this practice by excluding notorious sinners from the synagogue and readmitting them when they repented and mended their ways.
Chapter Two JESUS CHRIST
The problem of evil touches on the very essence of what it means to be human. From their very beginnings people have always known the estrangement and alienation that we call sin. At every time and place they have yearned to be made whole again, to be restored, renewed and reconciled. Since sin and its attendant evils have been such a deep part of the human experience it was impossible that Jesus would not deal with it. In fact, he made it the theme of his ministry, a ministry which he sees as accomplishing the work of reconciliation of his Father (2 Cor 5:18). The very name ‘Jesus’ is a translation of the word ‘Saviour’, for, as the angel told Joseph, “He shall save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). To those who showed sorrow for their sinfulness he announced that they were forgiven by the power of God (Lk 5:18-26, 7:36-50). Jesus reconciles the adulterous woman (Jn 8). He told stories about the merciful father in his account on the Prodigal Son and left as his dying legacy that blood “which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt 26:28).
Preaching
Jesus described his mission not as calling the just, but sinners (Mk 2:17). His first words were, “The time has come; the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Good News” (Mk 1:15). Repentance and faith are the two requirements for entering the kingdom of God. Jesus preached a call to conversion and showed that faith in him essentially meant to turn away from sin.
Table Fellowship with ‘Sinners’
Jesus identified with sinners; he went out of his way to mix socially with beggars, tax collectors and prostitutes. In the Middle East sharing a meal at table with someone is a particularly intimate form of association and friendship. People, there, would never even out of politeness eat and drink with a person of a lower class or status or with any person of whom they disapproved. The scandal Jesus caused in that society by mixing socially with sinners can hardly be imagined by most people in our world today. That Jesus did mix socially with sinners is an assured historical fact (Lk 15:2, Mk 2:15, Mt 9:10; Lk 5:29, Lk 7:34, Mt 11:19).
By accepting them as friends and equals Jesus had taken away their shame, humiliation and guilt. By showing them that they mattered to him as people he gave them a sense of dignity and released them from their captivity (Jn 13:25, Lk 7:38-39). Because Jesus was looked upon as a man of God and a prophet, they would have interpreted his gesture of friendship as God's approval of them. They were now acceptable to God. In reality, Jesus' table-sharing with sinners was a form of forgiveness of their sins.
In those days, sins were perceived as debts owing to God (Mt 6:12; 18:23-35). Forgiveness meant the cancellation or remission of one’s debts to God. To forgive in Greek means to remit, to release, or to liberate. Jesus' gesture of friendship made it quite clear that this was precisely what he had in mind. He overlooked their past and refused to hold anything at all against them. He treated them as people who were no longer, if ever, indebted to God and therefore no longer deserving of rejection and punishment. They were forgiven.
In the story of the woman who washes Jesus' feet, we see how faith leads towards forgiveness and the effect of forgiveness is love, joy and celebration (Lk 7:48, 50). She has shown great love as a response to her forgiveness. She is liberated. We refuse the liberation and restrict her like Simon. Jesus – love – confuses – includes. Simon – law – pure – excludes. In the story, the Good News is the letting go of our stereotypes.
Joy was in fact the most characteristic result of all Jesus' activity amongst the poor. The meals he had with them were festive celebrations; they were parties. Jesus obviously had a way of ensuring that people enjoyed themselves at these gatherings. The Pharisees were scandalised by this. To explain this rejoicing and celebrating to the Pharisees, Jesus told three parables - the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son (Lk 15:1-32). The point of each of these parables is that the finding or recovery of what was lost (forgiveness) is a natural enough reason for rejoicing and celebrating. There can be no doubt that Jesus was a remarkably cheerful person and that his joy was infectious. The poor and anyone else who was not too hung up on "respectability" found the company of Jesus a liberating experience of sheer joy. He made them feel safe and secure. Like the father in the parable of the prodigal son Jesus had imposed no conditions, no qualifications, no works and no achievements on those around him. They lost their fear of evil spirits and evil people. They did not have to worry about how they would be clothed or what they would eat or about falling sick. It is remarkable how frequently Jesus is said to have reassured and encouraged them with words like: "Don't be afraid," "Don't worry" or "Cheer up" (Mk 5:36; 6:50; Mt 6:25, 27, 28, 31, 34; 9:2, 22; 10:19, 26, 28, 31; 14:27; Lk 12:32; Jn 16:33; Mk 4:19, 40; 10:49; Lk 10:41). In this broad sense, Jesus was a sacrament of divine forgiveness to many of those who met him. His table fellowship and friendship with ‘sinners’ bears witness to the centrality of reconciliation in his ministry.
Healing
Because sickness was one of the consequences of sin, healing came to be seen as one of the consequences of forgiveness. Sickness was thought of as a punishment for sin, the price that one may be called upon to pay because of one's debt to God. If one were liberated from the sickness, it showed that one's debt must have been cancelled. Mk 2:1-12 - If the man can get up and walk, then it shows that his sins must have been forgiven. The Jewish people perceived the human person as a unified whole; and so, the healing of the visible dimension of the person, the body, became a sign of the healing of the invisible dimension, the soul, and of the person as a whole.
Still, nowhere in the gospels does Jesus claim to be able to forgive sins directly. In each place where he speaks of this power in relation to his ministry (Mk 2: 1-12, Lk 7:36-50) he claims no more than the power authoritatively to declare sins forgiven by God on the basis of the perceived disposition of the recipient. In the Marcan passage and its parallels, Jesus does appear to claim direct power to forgive sins. But there is wide agreement among scholars that the entire verse in which he does this (v. 10) is a statement stemming from the evangelist rather than from Jesus. It reflects Mark’s post-resurrection faith in the messiahship and divinity of Jesus. Jesus also appears in John 20:21-23 to hand on to his disciples the power to forgive sins, a power, so the argument goes, which he must have had himself. But here too it is the risen Jesus who speaks; the evangelist and his community came to recognize this power in him on the basis of his resurrection. This does not mean that Jesus did not possess a ministry of forgiveness of sins. He did possess this ministry, but it is evident from what he was remembered to have said in his earthly life that he understood it as a ministry of authoritative declaration of forgiveness by God rather than of forgiveness stemming directly from himself.
Last Supper
Jesus endows the Last Supper with a sacrificial and saving character in constituting it a ritual anticipation of his death. He says: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). Of the four Last Supper accounts this is the only one containing the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins." The OT text on which this verse draws is Ex 24:8, in which Moses is said to sprinkle the people with the blood of sacrifice. Jewish tradition interpreted this act as expiatory and it is evident from Heb 9.19- 22 that this view was still current in the first century. So, just as Moses' ritual act participated in the expiatory character of the sacrifice offered by the Israelites, so does Jesus' ritual act at the Last Supper share in the expiatory character of his forthcoming death (Rom 4:25).
Death.
Jesus deliberately lays down his life for our sins (Rom 4:25) First, he gives this interpretation of his death at the Last Supper. Secondly, in undergoing the death of a sinner under the Law, a manner of death he could have avoided, Jesus affirms his identification of himself with sinners, in order that they might be saved, in a way that is consistent with his living and ministry.
Forgive Seventy times Seven
Jesus constantly encouraged people to forgive each other, and linked this to the forgiveness they might expect of God, as he expressed in the ‘Our Father’, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”(Mt 7:12). He spoke of the need to be reconciled to one's neighbour before bringing a gift to the altar (Mt 5:23). There is no limit to such forgiveness, it is demanded not seven times but seventy times seven (Mt 18:21-22). The author of I Peter continues this exhortation (1 Pet 3:9). Jesus gives the supreme example of forgiveness on the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Stephen follows his example (Acts 7:59).
Power to Forgive
Jesus gives to Peter (Mt 16:16-19) and, later, to the disciples (Mt 18:15-18) the power to ‘bind and loose’. These are rabbinic terms which denote the exclusion and reintroduction of a member of the community. Jesus gives a mandate to his disciples to forgive sins through the power of the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22-23). This is the text to which Catholic doctrine has traditionally appealed in asserting the sacramentality and divine origin of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. By itself, the text does not prove that Jesus instituted the sacrament, as we know it today, or that he conferred the power to forgive sins only on the Apostles, their successors, and their chosen delegates. We have no basis even for concluding that these are the “very words” of Jesus. On the other hand, the text is entirely consistent with Jesus abiding concern about sin and his readiness to forgive and to heal.
Apostolic Times
After his resurrection, his apostles would heed his words and spread the Good News: “In his name, penance for the remission of sins is to be preached to all the nations” (Lk 24:47). On Pentecost day when the people asked Peter what they should do, he naturally replied that they should be baptised for the forgiveness of sins (Act 2:38). The forgiveness of sins is also prominent in the preaching of the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18). So, even though John (in 20:22-23) does not tell us how or by whom this power was exercised in the community for whom he wrote, the very fact that he mentions it shows that it was exercised.
In summary, Jesus encouraged his disciples to forgive each other and he gave them authority to forgive sins. Right from the beginning the Church had and used this authority to forgive sins in the name of the Lord.
Chapter Three THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
Forgiveness, Conversion, Reconciliation
Forgiveness is a very central theme in the NT. Mark begins his Gospel by saying: ‘John the Baptist appeared in the desert, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (1.4). At the Last Supper, Matthew reports Jesus saying: ‘This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (26:28). It is surprising how rarely the theme of covenant appears in the Gospels. It appears in two places: in the song of Zacharias (Lk 1:72) and in the account of the institution of the Eucharist. The theme of forgiveness replaces it quite naturally because forgiveness implies a renewal of the covenant.
Forgiveness is an essential part on the journey towards conversion. Forgiveness exists in God before we have asked God for it. To be converted is to change one’s course, to ‘return home’. In the OT, the great image has been the return from exile, when the people, remote and lost in a foreign land, took the way back to Jerusalem. This corresponded at the same time to a renewal in the life of faith, and was a rediscovery of a friendship with God.
The word, reconciliation, does not appear in the Gospels, but Paul uses it to indicate a peaceful intimate and good relationship between two partners. Reconciled existence has to be lived at the human level and with God, 2 Cor 5:17-20, Eph 2:13-18. Reconciliation is at the heart of salvation; Jesus came to reconcile human beings among themselves and with God.
Penitential Practices
Awareness of Sin
While the Church’s leaders proclaimed the good news of divine pardon to all and encouraged believers to live redeemed lives and believed that the community contained the means for forgiving sin, they had no doubts about the sinfulness of Christians. Paul - Rom 6-8; Eph 4-6. John - I Jn 1:8-10. James - Jms 5:16. This recommendation that Christians declare their sins “to one another” gives meaning to individuals participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where they confess their sins to the priest.
Pure Community
We see an anxiety to keep the community pure in the way that the early Church dealt with public, scandalous sin (adultery, murder, apostasy). All sin, of course, could be forgiven, but some sins were construed to be so scandalous and such bad publicity, that they were considered incompatible with what Christianity was about. The early Church seemed to entertain some doubts about her power to forgive such sins, and even if she decided that she could, she was unwilling to do so. She would not compromise the high ideals of the faith. Note how long it took the story of the woman caught in adultery to be accepted as part of John 8.
When the Church went out to preach the forgiveness of sins, it had in mind non-Christians, not themselves. Still, even with the expectation that one who was deeply converted in baptism had therefore forsaken all sin for life, the facts of life set in. Baptised Christians actually committed open, public, scandalous sins. Some went back to their old pagan ways; some during persecution time denied the faith. Of these, some repented and wanted to return to the Church, but now the Church was at a loss as to how to deal with these public sins.
One fleeting possibility was argued over and then dismissed forever: rebaptism. Baptism was an incorporation into a believing community which took a person into its midst and promised to give all the support needed to grow in the life of Christ. The community therefore felt that in so pledging itself, it was reflecting the fidelity of God and how could God’s fidelity by its very definition, ever falter?
Excommunication
Since the Church would not and could not rebaptise and was not sure that it had the power to forgive the more open, public sins, it hit on the last resort which was to last almost a hundred years: throw the public sinner out of the Church! Public sinners were, in the strong words of St. Paul, “handed over to Satan” (1 Cor 5:1-15); that is, they were excommunicated. Paul was unrelenting - Tit 3:10, 1 Tim 1:9, I Cor 5:1-13. To bolster his own stricture, Paul quoted from the OT where it says, “Expel the wicked from your midst” (Dt 13:6). Evidently they took his advice, because a short while later he wrote again telling them to reinstate someone whom they had ostracised (II Cor 2:5-11). In Paul’s mind the purpose of such treatment was fraternal correction, to let the sinner know he was in the wrong, and so it was not to be done indiscriminately but only after a fair warning had been given (II Thes 2:6-15, Tit 3:10). Indeed, the same notion is found in the Gospels - Mt 18:15-17, Jn 20:22-23.
Originally Jewish
In fact, the earliest Christian penitential practices did not differ greatly from their Jewish predecessors. The practice of restricting someone from normal contact with the community and later lifting the restriction was known in rabbinical writings as “binding and loosing.” The rabbis did it on the authority of Jewish law, and the early Christians saw themselves as doing it on the authority of Christ - Mt 16:19; 18:18. Neither the Gospels nor the other NT writings indicate that there was any specific ritual connected with this discipline, although Paul does say that it should be done “by the power of the Lord Jesus” when the community is gathered together (I Cor 5:4-5). These practices of fraternal correction were sacramental in the broad sense, since they opened a door to reconciliation for the repentant sinner with the community, with his/her own conscience, and ultimately with God. In this same broad sacramental sense the early Christian community was a sacrament of reconciliation to those who heard its message of salvation and to those who tried to live up to it.
The Unforgivable Sin
Still the whole tenor of the NT was one of mercy for repentant sinners; there does not seem to be any sin which God would not forgive. Yet there are a few texts which seem to say the contrary - Mt 12:32, I Jn 5:16, Heb 6:6. This “unforgivable sin” seems to be unrepented sin, the sin of turning away from God without asking for forgiveness. Because no pardon was asked, no pardon could be given. In concrete terms, it was the sin of leaving the community of those who had been saved through baptism and the Spirit.
Conclusion: Compassion, Correction & Challenge
The pastoral strategy of the NT Churches seems to have been one of compassion, correction, and challenge - Mt 5:23-24; Jms 5:16. In some few cases, a form of excommunication seems to have been practised (1 Cor 5:3-5; 1 Tim 1:19-20). In their minds, there was nothing to do for such public sinners but cast them out and commend them “to the mercy of God.” The prayers for sinners we find in the early liturgies are not for non-Christians but are precisely for these former Christians for whom there is no hope now, except that mercy for which they are praying. The hope was that excommunication would help to keep the Church holy and would wake up the sinner to his/her plight.
From the NT Church, we learn two important facts: First, the Church has always been conscious that she could forgive sins through the power of Spirit. Secondly, the Church has traditionally always provided a variety of ways of forgiving sins.
Chapter Four SACRAMENTS OF RECONCILIATION
Baptism
The main celebration of forgiveness of sin in the NT Church was baptism. This was the sacrament of forgiveness that brought salvation. When the apostles preached forgiveness they meant baptism. When Peter told the people that they must repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), this is exactly what he had in mind. He was not thinking of a repeated confession of sins, but rather of a one-time, lasting baptismal conversion forever to God. In fact, some commentators say that the words of Jesus in Jn 20:22-23 refer to baptismal forgiveness. It did not enter the mind of the early Apostolic Church to announce such a message to those already cleansed in baptism. Ananias and Paul - Acts 22:16.
The conviction was strong that the cleansing of baptism was so final, it brought one so much into a community of high self consciousness of being “in the Lord,” that sin was not even considered as a possibility, and it was almost unthinkable that those who had been converted to Christ and abandoned their old life of sin would return to sin after they had been baptised (Rom 6:2, 6, 11). That is why there are so many texts in the NT urging assistance, spiritual aid, mutual concern and help lest a brother or sister of the Lord fall into sin.
The only ritual of forgiveness known to the earliest Christian community was baptism. There is no evidence of a ritual for penance in the NT and there is no account of a reconciliation of any sinner with the community in the NT. Scholars view almost all the texts which speak of a call to repentance as a call to baptism and to moral rectitude after baptism.
The primary sacramental ritual for the forgiveness of sins is still baptism. In baptism, we are washed clean of all sin and clothed in a new garment to signify the complete purity of the newly baptised state. When we recite the Nicene Creed we remind ourselves that we believe “in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This primacy is upheld in the new Rite of Penance, No 2. The Catechism of Catholic Church states, ‘Through Baptism we are freed from sin’ (CCC 1213). So, baptism retains for us, as for the early Christians, its initial and powerful place as the first forgiveness of sins.
Eucharist
The second sacrament of reconciliation is the Eucharist. Indeed, we may rightly say that the Eucharist is the traditional sacrament for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins.
Table Fellowship
The 3rd century theologian, Origen, stressed the importance of the Eucharist as the place for the forgiveness of sins. His teaching was based on the many fellowship meals which Jesus had with publicans, outcasts and sinners. Jesus was anticipating that final banquet where all would be in harmony (Mt 8:11). Origen sees the Eucharist as a memorial and a continuation of all the fellowship meals which Jesus shared with sinners and regards it as a sacrament for the forgiveness of sins. So there is an exceedingly long and ancient tradition in perceiving the Eucharist as a sacrament of reconciliation.
Words of Consecration
The Eucharist celebrates the very acts of Jesus by which we are saved. The words of the consecration prayer “so that sins may be forgiven” were added to the eucharistic prayers in the early centuries of the Church to reflect the insight that the Eucharist is a real sacrament of reconciliation.
Ritual of Unity
It is obvious that the Eucharist is a communal activity whereby all share in the one bread and the one cup precisely in order to be reconciled with each other by this sacrifice.
Severity of Penance
In the first centuries of the Church, the official public penance was so severe, extended over so many years and forbidden to clerics that it is open to doubt whether ecclesiastical penance in practice extended much beyond notorious cases of capital sin. Other means must have been present to remit sins, mortal but not notorious. In the absence of any reference whatsoever to any private Sacrament of Penance we may conclude that it was at the Eucharist that such mortal sins were forgiven. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that “the reception of the Eucharist is enough to efface all sins where no real malice is apparent.”
Eastern Churches
The Eastern traditions strongly perceive that the Eucharist forgives sins. In their eucharistic prayers there are freely embedded penitential rites for the forgiveness of all sins. These Eastern practices do presume a high sense of community and a tradition of a public display of one’s sinfulness. Still, this tradition is there and remains so to this day.
Tradition
The tradition of the forgiving nature of the Eucharist was never entirely suppressed and has found itself vindicated time and time again to this very day. Many theologians list the forgiveness of sins as one of the hallmarks of the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, CCC 1416, and Pope John Paul II all perceive that the Eucharist brings forgiveness of sins. The 2004 curial document on the Eucharist is entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum. In summary, the Church constantly teaches this belief.
Words of Reconciliation in Mass
We find many references in the eucharistic rite to what the Mass is all about: reconciliation. This theme is presented, not accidentally, but as the principal reason for the existence of the Mass. In addition to the inclusion of the words, “so that sins may be forgiven,” to the eucharistic prayers, the Eucharist includes the rite of blessing and of sprinkling holy water or the penitential rite, the prayers, “May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life,” “You were sent to heal the contrite.... Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy. ... In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.... See the victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself,” “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil… In your mercy keep us free from sin,” “Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church.” The sign of peace itself is a profoundly reconciling sign and the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, repeated three times and then once more as the sacred species are held up, are perfectly clear as regards the reconciling nature of the Eucharist.
New Rite of Reconciliation
Even the new rite of penance speaks in its opening lines of the reconciliation effected in Jesus’ blood: “The Father has shown his mercy by reconciling the world to himself in Christ… by the blood of Christ... On the night he was betrayed and began his saving passion, he instituted the sacrifice of the new covenant in his blood for the forgiveness of sins.... In the sacrifice of the Mass the passion of Christ is made present; his body given for us and his blood shed for the forgiveness of sins are offered to God again… for the salvation of the world. In the Eucharist, Christ is present and is offered as ‘the sacrifice which has made our peace’ with God and in order that ‘we may be brought together in unity’ by his Holy Spirit.” The Church is once more affirming the ancient tradition that forgiveness of sins occurs at the Eucharist and that the sacrament of penance is to be seen in the perspective of the Eucharist.
Legacy from Trent
The Council of Trent put great emphasis on the sacrament of penance, on private one-to-one confession to a priest, because this was the form being attacked by the reformers. In so defending this one particular form of reconciliation, Trent did not mean to exclude the other traditional forms, but in practice this is what happened and what we inherited. It will take some teaching to help Christians be more aware of these old ways of forgiveness and to place them in a fitting context for them.
Peace
The Eucharist is pre-eminently the liturgy of reconciliation precisely because in a unique fashion it is the sharing of Christ himself, the ultimate source of reconciliation. It is not accidental that “peace” is a recurrent theme in eucharistic liturgy. It is the peace of Christ that comes when Christians recommit themselves to the new covenant. What most awakens Christians to their infidelities and motivates them to love one another with greater fidelity is their relationship as individuals and as a group to the risen Lord. In the Eucharist, Christians share the bread transformed into the body of Christ as the sacrament of their being reconciled to one another in a truly compassionate community of persons.
Many Catholics may not think of the Eucharist as a means of reconciliation due to our legacy from Trent and the current ecclesial discipline that requires anyone aware of having sinned mortally to receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving Holy Communion (CCC 318). Yet the history and teaching of the Church, and the many references to reconciliation in the eucharistic prayers, emphasise the reconciling nature of the Eucharist.
Anointing and Good Works
Other sacraments of reconciliation are anointing and viaticum. The Sacrament of Anointing is rooted in James 5:13-15, where the apostle says that if the sick person has committed any sins they will be forgiven through the prayer and anointing with oil of the community. Viaticum facilitates healing, forgiveness and nourishment for its recipients. We should add to these sacraments the understanding and the ancient tradition that charity covers a multitude of sins; and therefore good works, almsgiving, fasting, and prayer were used as precisely the means of having one’s sins forgiven.
A Specific Sacrament
So, naturally, with three sacraments plus Christian good works as exact and precise means for the forgiveness of sins, all attested to in unbroken scripture and tradition, then we will want to ask the obvious question: where did we get what we call the sacrament of penance and what does it add to or do in reference to the other means of forgiveness?
1 The fading of the intense eschatological expectations which had been there at the birth of Christianity. Some Christians had been baptised in the expectation that the end was almost upon them. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for them to think that they might survive till the end without committing any grave post-baptismal sins. But if they were going to live for twenty or thirty more years, then committing sins would become almost inescapable.
2 The emergence of infant baptism. If people were going to live many years after baptism, and if entire new generations were going to be born, live and die before the eschaton, then surely it was necessary to provide some institution that would meet the problems of post-baptismal sin.
3 The Church was beginning to distinguish between grave sins and sins that are less serious (I Jn 5.17). Some sins were regarded as grave and called for some definite act of repentance and forgiveness, before those who were guilty of them could be reconciled to the Church.
4 There is a human need to confess and to receive personal forgiveness and reconciliation. The natural instincts of the people wanted a concrete and real experience of forgiveness from God and reconciliation with the community. So the instinctual call for a ritual of forgiveness and reconciliation assisted the advent of the sacrament. Even more so, Christians have a responsibility to seek reconciliation with the community and to work at their personal conversion – these responsibilities can be facilitated by a sacramental ritual.
Chapter Five CANONICAL PENANCE
Shepherd of Hermas
When the Church was facing this challenge, an unusual document appeared around the middle of the second century. It was called the Shepherd of Hermas, written by a Roman named Hermas, very possibly the brother of Pope Pius I. He writes about visions he had of a woman who reveals to him that she is “Ecclesia”. When Hermas asks her whether there is another forgiveness after baptism, the woman, after much qualification, states that there is one and only one more after baptism. Here we have the first indication of some modification of the former once-and-for-all rigoristic baptismal forgiveness. This news spread like wildfire throughout the Christian communities to the great joy of many. Before it could be stopped, suppressed or qualified by Church authorities, it had already been integrated into Christian life. It seems to have arisen from the natural instincts of the people themselves who wanted a concrete and real experience of being forgiven and reconciled. Now another way exists besides baptism to have public, scandalous sins forgiven.
Conversion
After numerous debates, the Church authorities recognised this possibility of another remission after baptism. This remission only related to serious sins and could take place only once. They called it a “second baptism,” noting that the first baptism was with water, while the second was with tears. A Christian who slipped back into a sinful life apparently had not properly converted the first time. So the sacrament of penance was designed to foster conversion in much the same way as the catechumenate did for those preparing for baptism and its shape was modelled on the catechumenate, the process of preparation for baptism.
This required a visible public penance to foster conversion. By the second century a moderately complex and fairly harsh system of public penance evolved before one was admitted to the Eucharist again. Just as one needed a sponsor for baptism, so sinners needed a sponsor from the community who would work with them in a programme of penance. In this sense, the first “confessors” were those who witnessed the sinners’ sincere repentance and who worked with, fasted with, and prayed with them.
Canonical Penance
This system, known as canonical penance, went in four stages. On the part of the sinner there was 1) an interior admission of sinfulness; 2) recourse to a community authority such as the bishop and perhaps even privately confessing his sins to him or his designated representative. Then the penitent might dress in sackcloth or by some similar public gesture show that he was now a member of that group of public penitents; 3) there would be a long period of doing penance, and then 4) when the penance had been completed and conversion was judged to have occurred, the penitent was welcomed back into the order of the faithful with a rite of reconciliation. This was celebrated by the whole community, often on Holy Thursday, with the imposition of hands by the bishop and re-admittance to the Eucharistic table. As those preparing for baptism formed the order of catechumens, those preparing for “second baptism” formed the order of penitents.
Order of Penitents
While the penitents were in the ‘order of penitents’, they carried out whatever penances had been assigned. During that time they usually had special places in Church, often wore special garments, and commonly left the Eucharist after the homily, just as the catechumens did. Bishops would urge their congregations to share their penances and encourage the penitents lest they give up along the way. So, prayers inside the Church were offered for penitents, and the congregation and clergy themselves underwent some mortifications to obtain the graces the penitents desired. In this public canonical penance, the community had a prominent role and the doing of penance was stressed.
A person could be admitted into the order of penitents only once in his or her lifetime. The most common list of sins requiring that discipline included murder, adultery, and apostasy, but it was not required for all sins. Lesser sins were understood to be forgiven through prayer, personal penance, almsgiving, and the celebration of the Eucharist. If they sinned again after that, they were simply and helplessly handed over “to the mercy of God.” God could always forgive again, but the Church felt she could not or should not admit penitents to the order of penitents a second time. This indicates a constant concern of the early Church not to encourage sin by being too lenient with sinners.
Opposition
Still some groups denied the Church’s and the bishop’s right to forgive those guilty of serious sins. Such “leniency” caused severe schisms in the 3rd century in Africa and Rome. The schismatic rigorists professed to be scandalised at such softness. It wasn’t that they said these sins were unforgivable, but they denied that the Church had the power to forgive them, and disputed her “soft” policy. In the Council of Nicaea, 325, a consensus on some basic attitudes to reconciliation was reached. The rigorists were condemned and reconciliation was not to be denied at the time of death, though with the proviso that in case of recovery such persons would be ranked among the penitents.
Sacrament of Dying
Because it was restricted to once in a lifetime and was such a strict and demanding discipline, the order of penitents was not too popular. Eventually it began to decline and was used rarely, and then usually only at the point of death (thus minimising the lifetime penances expected of the reconciled). It became effectively the sacrament of the dying. By about the seventh and eighth centuries, it was obvious that the order of penitents was not adequate to deal with the need for forgiveness of many of the faithful.
Reconciliation at Death
Reconciliation at the time of death became controversial, because of suspicions concerning the sincerity of those in danger of death, as they seemed to seek absolution only out of fear, and because of the failure to complete the works of satisfaction which seemed indispensable for reconciliation. Still, Pope Celestine in 428 insists on offering reconciliation to all the dying who ask for it. He shows great pastoral concern for the faithful in the decisive hour of their death and has absolute trust in God’s mercy.
Development
1 Few people availed of it for fear of not having another opportunity for forgiveness.
2 Public canonical penance obviously depended on a high community spirit and motivation. When these characteristics waned, so did this system.
3 Public penance became a deathbed affair because it pre-empted the long severe penances, not to mention any more opportunities for further sinning. Obviously, this was not a satisfactory state of affairs.
Chapter Six PRIVATE PENANCE
Anam Chara
The next change in the Sacrament of Penance started in Ireland. In the pagan customs of Ireland, there was a tradition that one had a friend with whom one shared his or her heart. This person, called an anam chara, was a counsellor and advisor. Now it was natural that this custom would pass over into Christianity and the transition was facilitated because the Church in Ireland was organised around the monasteries. The monasteries represented a whole penitential way of life. The monks were alert to sin and its effects. The penitential spirit which characterised their striving for a fuller spiritual life developed into a form of spiritual direction. Monks would talk things over with the other monks who were not priests. They examined the life of the penitent, discerned patterns, discovered sin, and gave reassurance that such sins were indeed forgiven by the great mercy of God. Thus assured, both penitent and advisor prayed and praised God together for God’s great goodness.
Besides, this was not confined to the monks, but was available to students who flocked to the monasteries for higher studies and to other laity. There was no special liturgy, no public act of reconciliation, and no recourse to the Church’s official leader, the bishop. People were attracted to the monasteries, the centres of spirituality, and they accepted the penitential procedures. About this time the Irish monks went to convert the Franco-Germanic tribes and to evangelise mainland Europe. They brought this private, auricular system with them, and so swiftly did it spread that by the year 813 the public, canonical system was almost gone and frequent confessions was urged by no less than the great St. Boniface.
Absolution before Penance
This form of confession originally had no formal rite of reconciliation or absolution. After it became popular, the Church adopted the form and added a ritual expression of absolution. For a while the traditional order of the sacrament was followed. After confessing his or her sins, the penitent was assigned a penance, which had to be completed before returning to the confessor to receive absolution. Practical difficulties with this became apparent when the confessor was a wandering missionary and when the penances often took the penitent on pilgrimage to foreign lands. It was often difficult, if not impossible, to return later to seek absolution. So confessors began to give absolution at the time of confession; the penance would be completed later; a person could be restored to the Eucharist even before completing the penance.
Priest
These “lay confessions” were enacted in the cases of venial sins and even of those grave sins which were considered as privately forgivable. However, in the case of public sins, the strong sense of community meant there was a need for reconciliation with it. So the need arose for a legitimately appointed representative of the Church to reconcile one to the Church and pronounce God’s releasing word in the Church’s name. Here was born the priest confessor and sacramental absolution. The priestly office provided an “official” ecclesial sign of community reconciliation which the private lay confessions did not.
Development
• Confession is not just secret, but also the penance. Public penance no longer exists.
• This ritual of penance can be repeated. One can resort to it as often as one wishes.
• The ‘Sacrament’ of Penance was administered by priests as well as the bishop.
• To help the priests in the selection of appropriate penances, a codification of penitential practices was developed, the so-called penitential books.
• For the tariff to be applied, the penitents need to specify what sort of sin they have committed, in what circumstances and how many times.
• The bishop preserves a certain authority over the sacrament by directing the lists of penances which guide the monk/priest who is a confessor.
• The absolution, which was originally given after penance had been done comes to the point of being given immediately after confession and so before penitents have fulfilled their time and acts of penance; this is so that the sinner does not wait too long for forgiveness.
• The minister was no longer seen as a healer or reconciler but as a judge.
Opposition
Thus a second, distinct tradition grew up unofficially beside the official public penance system. Officially, the Church recognised only the latter and the bishops used it; but the average person opted for the former and went to the priests, not the bishops, for it. Indeed, many bishops and theologians condemned the new form of the sacrament. The 11th Canon of the Third Council of Toledo (589) sternly reasserts the old penitential order with its basic structure of exclusion from the community, satisfaction through a protracted period of time, and finally reconciliation. The Council condemns the new practice of granting reconciliation to penitents as often as they ask for it. Still, private, repeatable confessions gained steady ground and became acceptable to the official Church.
Lenient Penances
For a while the two types of penance coexisted in the Church, and it became a common rule that public sins required public penance (the order of penitents), while private sins could be forgiven through private penance. This two-track system eventually fell into disuse because penitents were reluctant to enter the very demanding order of penitents. The severity of the penances in the private form also lessened over time. The first step was the development of substitutions. Often certain prayers or almsgiving took the place of the assigned penances. From this developed the practice of indulgences, by which certain prayers or pious practices were considered equivalent to so many days of penance (not days in purgatory). Penitents got others to substitute for them in doing the penance. This probably started out as a case of emergency. The penitent who was ill or near death got someone else to do the tariff, but then it became almost a custom. A sum of money could also be paid to substitute the performing of an actual penance. This practice was known as redemption. Besides, if the penance were deemed too onerous, the penitent could ask for a commutation to a lighter penalty. With less severe penances and more frequent celebration, the sacrament of penance took on a form very similar to our present day experience.
Conclusion
Positively, this type of confession was generally private and confidential, celebrated between the confessor and penitent. It could be repeated often in one’s life. However, it would not have been celebrated too frequently, for the penances were still very strict and often long-lasting. Secondly it opened the way to keep the best of the old tradition and lead into a new; it started out in the nature of discernment and praise. There were no declarative words of absolution; there were instead beautiful petitional prayers. The whole event was in the nature of liturgy and praise: praising God for his unspeakable mercy and giving him thanks for his goodness.
Negatively, a system of private penance tended to be less facilitative of creating a deep sense of community. We have the beginning of a mere “Jesus-and-I” relationship instead of community sensitivity. In the first centuries of the Church the emphasis in canonical penance was on reconciliation of the sinner with God and the Church.
In the twelfth century Peter Lombard defined the 4th sacrament as penance, that is, the private repeatable sacrament that he knew and later Trent would confirm his teaching.
Chapter Seven THE MIDDLE AGES TO VATICAN II
Satisfaction, Confession, Contrition, Absolution
From the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, the sacrament of penance becomes satisfaction, confession, contrition, and absolution. The emphasis shifts from reconciliation to the doing of a penance, or the making of satisfaction for sin. When this became too strenuous, the practices of commutation and redemption were introduced. Secondly, the confession of sins originally served the purpose of ensuring that adequate satisfaction was being imposed, but gradually confession came to be considered as having its own efficacy, its own power to reconcile the sinner. Thus, we find at this time the development of arguments urging the necessity of confessing to a priest. Third, there was a shift to contrition. The sinner, if truly contrite, was already forgiven even before confession. So pronounced was this new stress on contrition that the purist Albigensians and Waldensians denied any efficacy whatsoever to confession to a priest, a view condemned by the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. All orthodox theologians came to the defence of the role of the priest, and this led to a fourth shift: to absolution by a priest. The formula “ego te absolvo...” is found for the first time in the 12th century and it soon came to be regarded as essential.
Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
The association of penance with the Eucharist probably was established in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. This Council re-asserts the power of the Church to forgive sins. During this era, participation in the sacraments was at a very low ebb and the bishops were dismayed to note that the people were not receiving communion even on Holy Thursday, the “birthday” of the Eucharist. They wanted all to receive communion often, unless, of course, prevented by serious sin. So the Council prescribes as a minimum the annual reception of the Eucharist. This legislation was possible since at that time repeated absolution of sins in the sacrament of penance was generally accepted.
Annual
The rule of annual confession was also prescribed. This puts an end to the many fluctuations of the previous centuries. The obligation to confess serious sins at least once a year remains (Misericordia Dei 7, 2002).
Sacramental Seal
The Council also exhorts priests to fulfil their spiritual and pastoral office in the administration of sacramental penance. It puts strict sanctions on the breach of the seal of sacramental confession. The seal requires that a priest never, for whatever reason, reveals anything that a penitent has said in the confessional, nor may he imply what he has heard through his speech and behaviour to others. Every respectable priest regards this seal of confidentiality as being precious in his ministry and he will totally resist any threats, coaxings or bribes designed to make him break the absolute confidentiality which he must maintain as regards what he has heard in the confessional. Even in secular society, the right and duty of the priest to preserve this confidentiality is recognised. Those who go to confession need to have the greatest confidence that what is spoken is done without any danger that information will be passed to others. Penitents are not bound in the same way.
The requirement of secrecy is also laid on those who may overhear anything that is said in the confessional and on a person who might have been required, through necessity, to be present as an interpreter between priest and penitent. Still today much of the respect for the sacrament resides on the integrity of the seal, since it allows people to speak without any fear of what they have said being repeated. CIC 983 states, “The sacramental seal is inviolable… it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent.” A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence (CIC 1388, 1). In 1973, CDF decreed that anyone who obtained the contents of confessions and sought to publish or divulge them was excommunicated automatically. CCC 1467 states: “Conscious that he has come to know the secrets of another's conscience only because he is God's minister, the confessor is bound by the obligation of preserving the seal of confession absolutely unbroken.”
Even in the case where the penitent is habitually acting in a criminal fashion against others, the seal of confession must be upheld. Moreover, the confessor cannot look for his permission to reveal the matter to others, so that the victim would be helped. The penitent is the only one who can share the issue with others. However, the confessor may seek advice from other priests on how to help the penitent making absolutely certain that he does not in any way disclose the identity of the penitent. Clearly, the penitent needs professional help. The confessor would like to help him obtain that help, he is gravely concerned for the victim, he wants, above all, to do no harm – which means he does not want to "close doors." As the confessor encourages the penitent to take the next step and consider seeing a counsellor, he must keep the door wide open. The penitent may adamantly refuse to move the issue outside the confessional. But what he is willing to do, at least at this time, is talk to the confessor. Allowing him to continue to feel that he can talk may not resolve the situation. It may be, however, the only way he can and will talk about the matter and therefore the only way of keeping alive the hope that in the future what needs to happen will happen.
Eucharist
Since this Council had mentioned Eucharist and Penance side by side, the connection was made. Both in theory and in practice penance intruded itself before communion. There was a wide span between the age in which people started receiving the Eucharist, which ran the range from twelve to fifteen, and the “years of discretion” mentioned at the Lateran Council, which was officially interpreted as seven. With this “years of discretion” debate, sooner or later the two sacraments would meet. The reasoning would be that if one were “discretionary” enough to receive the one sacrament, then, automatically, one was discretionary enough to receive the other. This actually happened with Pius X’s decree of 1910 which settled the age for first Eucharist at seven. He further stated that the reception of communion is in no way dependent on confession. The only connection is an accidental one: should the person be in mortal sin, he or she would first be obliged to confess. With no mortal sin, even the accidental connection is removed. A child of seven could not commit mortal sin and therefore did not need confession beforehand. In practice the sacraments were joined, and the average Catholic was raised on the assumption that every child would first confess before receiving first communion. Indeed, this is not required even in the Church’s canon law; although the child, if he or she requests penance, cannot be denied it. In any case, penance became, quite by accident, an “intrusion” in the fractured initiation rite.
Integral Confession
The Council required all the faithful to have confessed ‘all their sins’ before receiving communion. The question is whether by ‘all their sins’ the Council meant only serious sins, or absolutely all sins, both serious and slight, and even just the slight sins if there were no serious ones. Though the theologians tended towards the first solution (only the serious sins), piety increasingly brought in the second, as is shown by the 3rd commandment of the Church (fifteenth century): ‘Confess all your sins at least once a year,’ and the fact of systematic confession before the Easter communion.
Martin Luther
Martin Luther’s theology of penance is part and parcel of his doctrine on justification: grace is exclusively God’s gift; it is ours not on account of any work or merit on our part, but only through faith. As regards penance, Luther considered it a sacrament, and he encouraged confession as a means of awakening faith in God’s forgiveness. In the words of absolution the sinner found the assurance of God’s promise. However, Luther objected to the reservation of the power of forgiveness to priests because then the sacrament became a means of clerical domination. Calvin also accepted private confession and absolution as a means of arousing faith and confidence in God’s mercy, but he denied its sacramentality.
Protestant churches believe that no intermediary is necessary between the Christian and God in order to be absolved from sins. Protestants confess their sins in private prayer before God, believing this suffices to gain God's pardon. However confession to another is often encouraged when a wrong has been done to a person as well as to God. Confession is then made to the person wronged, and is part of the reconciliation process. In cases where sin has resulted in the exclusion of a person from church membership due to unrepentance, public confession is often a pre-requisite to readmission. The sinner confesses to the church his or her repentance and is received back into fellowship. In neither case is there any required format to the confessions, except for the steps taken in Mt 18:15-20.
Lutheran churches offer private confession with a Pastor. But it is very rarely used. A more frequent practice is the corporate confession of sins at the beginning of a worship service. The Lutheran reformers held that a complete enumeration of sins is impossible (Ps 19:12) and that one's confidence is not to be based on the sincerity of one's contrition nor on one's compliance with the works of satisfaction imposed by the priest, but on faith which allows one to receive the forgiveness from Jesus. In the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), the sacramental confession before a priest is a sacramental rite, and has a proper place in the Swedish mass-book.
Anglicanism
The Anglican sacrament of confession and absolution is usually a component part of corporate worship, particularly at services of the Holy Eucharist. Private or auricular confession is also practiced by Anglicans. This practice permits a period of counselling and suggestions of acts of penance. Following the confession of sins and the discussion of remedies, the priest makes the pronouncement of absolution. There is no requirement for private confession, but a common understanding that it may be desirable depending on individual circumstances. The classic Anglican aphorism regarding the practice is "All may; none must; some should."
Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism
Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, confession and repentance has more to do with spiritual development and less to do with purification. Sin is not seen as a stain on the soul, but rather a mistake that needs correction. In general, the Orthodox Christian chooses an individual to trust as a spiritual guide. In most cases this is the parish priest but may, in fact, be any individual, male or female, who has received permission from a bishop to hear confessions. This person is often referred to as one’s spiritual father or mother. Once chosen, the individual turns to his spiritual guide for advice on his or her spiritual development, confessing sins, and asking advice. In general practice, after one confesses to ones spiritual guide the parish priest covers the head of the person with his stole (epitrachilion) and reads the prayers of repentance, asking God to forgive the sins of the individual. The person may confess his sins regularly to his spiritual guide and only seek out the priest to read the prayer before communing. In Eastern Catholicism, the spiritual director may be privy to something resembling a confession, and is protected by the same seal as would be any priest hearing a confession. However, one must still confess their sins to the priest before receiving the prayers of absolution.
Council of Trent, 1551
Sacrament
The Council of Treat not only answers the attacks of the Reformers against sacramental penance, but also gives a coherent and complete exposition of the nature and structure of this sacrament and decrees the sacrament of penance as the sacrament of forgiveness of sins. It asserts that penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ, distinct from baptism since it consists, on the part of the minister, in a judicial act exercised on the members of the Christian community. Trent describes the parts of sacramental penance in general terms: the three acts of the penitent are contrition, confession and satisfaction. Then these parts are described in detail: first, contrition, with special reference to imperfect contrition, i.e., attrition, which is vindicated against Luther’s attacks; then confession of all mortal sins; the absolution by the minister, who must be a priest; the need for the priest to have jurisdiction, and the possibility of reserving cases to the bishops; finally the need of imposing a penance, along with the meaning of satisfaction. This is all expressed in the context of the Council’s earlier Decree on Justification which taught that God’s grace is absolutely gratuitous, that we do nothing to gain it. Good works, including the act of contrition, the confession of sins, priestly absolution, and penance after confession, are to be viewed within this framework.
Integral Confession
The Council of Trent further specified certain demands concerning the sacrament of penance. First, there must be integral confession; that is, people must confess all mortal sins as to number, kind, and determining circumstance. Trent speaks of the "complete confession of sins" (integra peccatorum confession) and claims this is what God revealed; it is of divine law. Only "mortal" sins are intended by the term complete or integral. Without integral confession the priest would not be able to exercise properly the discretion to grant or withhold absolution or to act justly in the imposition of penances. It is not only public sins that have to be confessed but secret ones as well. However, the integrity demanded for the sacrament encompasses only those mortal sins brought to memory by careful reflection.
Trent goes on to say that in confessing remembered sins the penitent actually submits for forgiveness all their mortal sins, including forgotten ones, since nothing has been deliberately withheld. This formally integral confession is described as "open and humble." But if forgotten sins are later remembered, they must be confessed at the next confession, since all mortal sins must be submitted to "the power of the keys" (Mt 16:19), that is, to the Church's jurisdiction over sin. But, if a person knowingly withholds a mortal sin in confession, nothing is forgiven. The teaching adds that circumstances changing the kind of sin must also be confessed, as these will affect the sacramental judgment that the confessor must make.
Trent based its position that integrity is necessary because of divine law on Scripture (Jn 20:21-23; Mt 18:17-18; 16:17-19; Jms 5:16). Today the iure divino character of integrity is based not so directly on Scripture, but on the essence of the sacrament: if reconciliation is a sacrament and hence iure divino, then so is integrity, because it is inseparable from its sacramental nature. In his integral confession the penitent is giving a sacramental shape to that inner confession of sins which he makes to God in his heart. He must confess to God in his heart because he has sinned against God and is seeking forgiveness from God and reconciliation with God. But this personal and intimate dialogue between the sinner and God must also be drawn into God's historical plan of salvation which takes visible and sacramental shape in the Church. In other words, the personal dialogue with God must become a sacramental dialogue with God.
This argument establishes the iure divino character both of confession as a necessary element of the sacrament and of integrity as a necessary quality of confession. It also places integral confession in its correct perspective, so that its importance will be neither undervalued nor exaggerated. It will not be undervalued, because the sincerity of the penitent must be truly signified and under normal circumstances this will require an honest and complete confession of whatever has separated them from God. But it will not be exaggerated either. The confession is the bringing of sins to verbal expression; it is not the sins themselves, nor is it identical with the sinful person who is responsible for them. It is merely a sign of the sins that are the true object of pardon and of the person who is ultimately forgiven, in this sacrament.
There should therefore be no excessive concentration on the actual confession by either the penitent or the confessor. Trent recognized this point by requiring only formal, rather than material, integrity. However, by its detailed attention to the precise matter to be confessed it must bear its share of the blame for the misplaced emphasis on objective precision that still exists today. When integral confession is impossible, a penitent can be absolved without it (though when the impossibility is overcome the obligation returns). Note CIC 960.
Integrity is a value that exists concretely in the midst of other values that taken together form a hierarchy. Sometimes those other values take precedence; sometimes they do not. If divine revelation points out a religious value as obligatory, let us not pretend the case is otherwise. If it recognizes that value as coexistent with others, let us not make that value obligatory in all circumstances or without any further consideration. Integral confession would not be able to be relativised if it were not already secondary to the one truly indispensable act of the penitent, repentance/conversion, to which it stands in the relation of a sign.
However, to make an "open and humble confession," Trent saw that the main task was to compile and recount a complete and accurate list of mortal sins committed since the last confession. Eventually this led to form the mentality of bringing the "shopping list" of sins to confession and to the reduction of confession to the level of a relatively impersonal and non-involved exercise and away from entering a discernment process with the confessor.
What matters, as far as confession is concerned, is that the person be truly repentant, that they be sincere of heart, and that in their confession they do their human best (which is not necessarily an absolute best) to express whatever they find in their heart needing to be said on this occasion of grace. If the confessor suspects they need help in doing this, he can and should provide it. The confession of venial sins as well, or of venial sins only (if there are no mortal sins), is neither excluded nor imposed by Trent. In fact this last type of confession, later called "devotional confession," is encouraged. Integral confession, the confession of each and every mortal sin, is still the requirement of the Church (MD 3, 2002; RP 7a; CIC 960, 988).
Absolution
Trent made it necessary to have a form of absolution and one that was declarative, representing the judicial nature of the sacrament. The formula of forgiveness changed from the deprecative (May God forgive you) to the declarative form (I absolve you). This was a change from the earlier tradition. In the first millennium the forms were words of praise, liturgical expressions of petition and thankfulness for God’s mercy. In fact, there were no words of absolution in former centuries, merely a return to the Eucharist. Moreover, the sacrament of penance was not basically a judicial judgement; it was an ongoing process of conversion, a discernment, a growth.
Authorised Priest
Finally Trent said that confessions must be made to an authorised priest following the teaching of Basil, John Chrysostom and Ambrose. However, the kind of confessions Trent is talking about started with monks praying with other monks who were not necessarily priests. Even in scripture no mention is made that the confession of one’s sins must be made to a minister of the Church, only to one’s “brother.”
Confessionals
After Trent, it became customary to celebrate the sacrament in a confessional box set aside for that purpose. The ritual of 1614 defined the norms of private confession, and it further increased its individual and secret character by prescribing that a grill should separate the priest from the penitent. These confessionals increasingly came to be set up in Churches. The Tridentine discipline protected the penitent through the anonymity of the confessional. All that RP has to say on this matter is that the sacrament is celebrated in the place prescribed by canon law. It presumes, however, that confessor and penitent are present to each other in a way that is normal for a human encounter. The rubric accompanying the giving of absolution, in RP 46, prescribes that the priest extend his hands, or at least his right hand, "over" the head of the penitent (thus approximating to the ancient imposition of hands without making actual physical contact). This would make no sense if penitent and confessor were separated by a grill. CL No 964, after stating that the proper place for confessions is a church or oratory, goes on to say that confessionals should be located in an open space and provided, "for those who desire it," with a fixed grill between the penitent and the confessor, and that without a just reason confessions should not be heard outside the confessional.
The law is interpreted as the requirement to provide in churches small chapels or rooms in which penitents are given the choice of either a face-to-face exchange with the confessor or an anonymous encounter through the use of kneeler and grill. The "just reason" for hearing confessions elsewhere does not have to be a strong one, though the normal place will remain that provided in the church. Most confessionals, old, dusty, and dark, which oblige us to whisper, and which convey no sense of the presence of another person, lead to a very negative experience of the sacrament, which is, by contrast, a meeting with a brother in whom Christ makes himself visible and humanly present for us.
This criticism, while not directed at kneelers with grills, applies in some degree to them also, for they provide a means of avoiding a truly personal fraternal encounter. The penitent and the confessor should have a normal "heart to heart" conversation. This means that the confessor should be related to in a human way, and not used as a microphone through which the penitent addresses God or Christ directly. While we are still in a period when the grill must be provided for those who want it, most people realize instinctively that taking refuge behind a grill is not a particularly human way of conducting a conversation. But as we move toward a more open and personally involved form of confession, we need to recognize that many people simply feel unable to cope with this more demanding situation, and therefore avoid it as far as possible. The answer is to provide the grill for as long as necessary and at the same time through public education and re-education to encourage people to adopt the more open form presumed by RP. Experience has shown that very few people, even of the relatively small number still receiving the sacrament, choose the option of open confession, and of these almost none are young people. The challenge to the tact, prudence, and perseverance of Church educators is obvious (Coffey).
After Trent
After Trent, a whole literature was devoted to the question of which confessions were necessary and which were considered merely devotional. It only remained for devotion to insist to ardent Christians that they should make their confessions as often as possible. Still today we have many frequent devotional confessions and the confession of everyday (venial) sins is warmly encouraged by the Church as a way of growing into the likeness of the Lord himself (RP 7, CCC 1458).
So, many men and women who come frequently to the sacrament come confessing frequent, repeated, venial sins. These are good people. Their lives seem to be in order. These are people that often seem to us to be, in the best sense of the word, pious. The operative question to ask is: Why does these people come for confession? Loneliness for some: they know that at least we will listen. Others continue to honour their religious education or family upbringing. Many elderly men and women were formed according to guidelines that called for frequent confession and a minute examination of the failure of one's duties in ordinary life. For some, frequent confession is, quite properly, an important aid to their ongoing spiritual development. Even in the absence of grave sin, the appropriate and regular examination of one's conscience can be of great help in detecting patterns of weakness, imperfection, and apathy; bringing these matters to confession on a regular basis is one way some penitents remind themselves that the power of God's grace far exceeds their limitations.
What can we offer these people? Remember the basic question: "Why is this penitent here?" Priests who minister to men and women in nursing homes or elderly day care centres should remember that these people have plenty of time to think about their past lives. As they address their faults, we might ask them to consider some of the things in their life of which they are proud. Then we may help place those happy memories in the context of God's grace to them, and suggest this as a reason and an occasion for their daily prayer.
Priests who minister regularly to religious communities would do well to acquaint themselves with the community's rule or customary behaviour, at least to the extent that they can refer directly (and in the community's terminology) to values the particular community holds dear. Similarly, "preparing" to hear confessions at a nursing home may mean spending a few moments reflecting on why even the elderly and the sick are important members of the Church. The fruit of our reflections can suggest an appropriate comment or penance, or even a different attitude on our part, that we may wish to offer (Stasiak).
Recent Times
Children
At the beginning of the last century Pope Pius X promoted more frequent reception of communion and moved the age of first communion from fourteen to around seven. Since the link between penance and communion was very strong at that time, first confession was also moved to age seven. Priests, then, have a special reconciliation ministry towards children. Many children come to confession well prepared. They have an understanding of the sacrament appropriate to their age, and they do not need much help in the "mechanics" of going to confession. Other children, however, leave us with the impression that they first heard about confession about a half-hour before they were told to "go in and do it." In ministering to children, please note the following:
First, children (pre-adolescents) can sin and can realize that they have sinned. Anyone who has spent time in a primary school knows that children can hurt and wound each other with their sticks and stones and, yes, with their words. Part of this experience is growing up. And part of the sacrament is helping a child grow up to become more a Christian child and adolescent. While young children may not have a long list of "sins," children of most any age will know they have done things for which they should be sorry. The standard fare of many children's confessions includes disobedience to parents and quarrelling with siblings and friends. These are the "ordinary and daily sins" of childhood and the domestic scene. Seldom are they serious offenses, and there is ordinarily no need for us to treat them as such. But we can and should take a child's confession as seriously as we do the confessions of their elders.
Taking children seriously means beginning with them where they are and, when appropriate, trying to move them forward. With even a little encouragement, children often will be more forthcoming (and therefore more helpful in helping us help them) than many adults. Asking a child "a little bit more" about what he or she is confessing often will clearly suggest the way we might proceed. When a youngster admits to arguing with her brother or sister, for example, it might be helpful for us to ask if her sibling is older or younger than she is, and then ask how they usually treat each other. We might then follow with a question about what it is she likes most about her brother or sister. (Most children will come up with a least one good thing!) Then we might ask what she wants her brother or sister to like about her. As in the case with adults, what the child confesses-and what he tells us about himself or his situation-may suggest an appropriate penance.
Another concern in hearing a child's confession is the language of the sacrament. The formula for sacramental absolution is a fine one when absolving theologians and liturgists, but a bit unwieldy with most others and more than likely incomprehensible when our penitent is an eight-year-old child. We must work with what we have and what has been approved. We can, however, help children better understand the technical, adult language of the formula, and so not only forgive their sins but also promote their understanding and appreciation (and, hopefully, future practice) of the sacrament. We might "introduce" the formula of absolution, for example, and tell the child what it is we are about to say and why it is important. (In line with this, we may wish to review RP, Appendix II, Section IV, nos. 43-53, which provides a model of a non-sacramental communal penance service for children, and so offers prayers written with a child's level of understanding and experience in mind).
Finally, there is a continual need to prepare children and adolescents for the sacrament. Many children, adolescents, and young adults forget and have no idea of "how to begin" and some have no real understanding of the sacrament. A religious education or confirmation class preparing for a penance service is an ideal opportunity for providing instruction concerning the sacrament to young, impressionable Catholics. We can work with our catechists and teachers and prepare these children and young adults for the sacrament. This is the ideal time to explain the sacrament and to speak of sin, grace, and reconciliation, and to provide basic instruction on how to go to confession.
Second Vatican Council
In the centuries after Trent, some private confessions developed into the high art of spiritual direction as they originally started out. There was constant, ongoing dialogue over many years between penitent and pastor or spiritual director, and we read of many lives of the saints in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries which were nourished by this penitential direction. What caused the collapse of this practice was the breakdown of the small parish and the growth of large, urban or suburban parishes of modern times. Personal knowledge, time, and opportunity with one’s pastor were no longer feasible. So confession receded as the place of spiritual direction; it was shortened and all that was left was a stranger, meeting anonymously with some unknown priest in a dark box, anxious only to get absolution. This led to a call for a revision of the rites.
In Lumen Gentium, 1964, presents the sacrament of penance in its ecclesiological context and speaks about receiving both forgiveness from God and reconciliation with the Church simply by approaching the sacrament. The Council makes its own the general pastoral tradition of the Church: priests must be aware of the importance of the sacrament; they must instruct the faithful, and be available for hearing confessions (CD 30; PO 5, 13). They too should frequently avail themselves of this sacrament (PO 18). In SC 72, the Council stated that “the rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they give more luminous expression to both the nature and effect of the sacrament”. Over ten years later Pope Paul VI officially promulgated the revised Rite of Penance in 1974.
Decline in Reception
The 1940s, 1950s and 1960s saw the most frequent use of this sacrament in the whole history of the Church. Changes in sacramental practice usually take a long time and the efforts of Pope Pius X only reached their fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the reception of the sacrament of penance has declined rapidly in more recent decades. The following factors are seen as contributing to this:
• Prophetic: There is an inherent prophetic aspect of the sacrament. Going to confession is never easy and requires the virtue of humility. In our globalised culture, a fiercely competitive society pushes people always to project the most positive possible image of themselves, an image which allows no room for the admission of weakness, let alone failure. This means that confessing one's sins to another is rendered all the more difficult.
• High Expectations: The increasing frequency and ease with which the Catholic faithful turn to scripture in their personal prayer, faith-sharing groups, and liturgical experiences have allowed for a deeper encounter with the ministry of Christ as recorded in the gospels. It has become part of our religious psyche to image God as the incredibly compassionate father of the prodigal son, and the wonderfully energetic woman who goes to great lengths to search for her one lost coin only to go to equally great lengths to draw others into her celebration of joy when she finds it. Finally, it has become the core of our faith to recognise the biblical accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus as portrayals of a sacrificial and gracious act of reconciliation. This scriptural renewal has understandably surfaced within many people of faith a desire to experience the same kind of forgiveness from God that Christ revealed in the stories he told and the words he offered. A crisis in the sacrament of reconciliation exists because of the great disparity between desiring an immediacy of experience with the God of mercy and having awkward experiences in the ritual moments of penance.
• Guilt: For many Catholics the sacrament of penance had become a rather negative experience, in which the sense of guilt was much stronger than the sense of God’s mercy and forgiveness. When Catholics began to recover the traditional sense of God’s love and mercy and the free gift of grace, the sacrament of penance ceased to make sense to many regular penitents.
• Sin: The decline in the sense of sin in our secularised global world means we are not as alert to sin. Some even deny the very reality of sin. And the confusion over what exactly is a sin and what is morally right or wrong, does not help us focus at being prophets for personal conversion.
• No Conversion: For many, confession was a ritual act with little relationship to spiritual growth or conversion. It was required to avoid the flames of hell and promised ‘‘grace’’ to help avoid sin in the future; yet this grace did not seem to work; people frequently complained of confessing the same sins over and over with little sense of growth.
• Availability: Many have difficulties of finding a suitable confessor and of receiving the sacrament especially the elderly, the infirm and those with unusual work schedules.
• Other Ways: Many people are aware that God forgives in many ways besides the sacrament of reconciliation. Some falsely conclude, therefore, that there is no need for the sacrament in their lives.
• Other Reasons: Many people have lost interest for various reasons: some perceive there is an overemphasis on sexual morality above other moral issues, some reject a taboo understanding of sin as a breaking of an absolute law, some question a purely private morality that tended to ignore areas like racial sins, communal issues and economic injustice. Still others understand conversion in a more personal way and perceive penance as linked with an older view of morality.
Hope for Future
Still there are areas where the practice of the sacrament remains consistent or is on the increase. The first, and most difficult one to quantify, is in the field of spiritual direction and retreats. Secondly, the city centre parishes and cathedrals have maintained large numbers of penitents. This would seem to suggest that many people prefer to use this sacrament when their identity is unknown and where that anonymity is all but guaranteed. The third area where the sacrament has maintained, and indeed increased in its popularity is in the Reconciliation Services or Penitential Services which are normally held in parishes during Lent and Advent. A fourth reason for hope is that the Sacrament does fulfil a great personal need for people in our world today.
Chapter Eight CONFESSION
There are three basic elements to the sacrament of penance: confession, penance, and absolution or reconciliation. These elements have been arranged in different orders at different times, but all three are essential. Most people associate the sacrament of penance with confession and even call it simply “confession.” The Church understands confession as an act of praise, an act of repentance and as necessary to receive sacramental forgiveness and assistance on the road to conversion.
Praise
Originally confession referred to an act of praise of God, confessing what God is doing in our lives and how divine grace has led us to recognise our need for conversion.
Repentance
Confession can be seen as an act of penance in itself, involving personal admission of guilt and self-humiliation.
Practical Help and Necessity
1. Prophetic & Symbolic Invitation. Confession is an act of humility. It is an act of honesty and courage; an act of entrusting ourselves, beyond sin, to the mercy of the loving and forgiving God. It is a mark of greatness to be able to say: ‘I have made a mistake; I have sinned, Father; I have offended you, my God; I am sorry; I ask for pardon.’ Confession provides us with an opportunity of showing that we are living our Christian values of trust, humility, honesty, courage, expressing regret, acting contrite and seeking reconciliation.
2. Awareness. Simply expressing one’s current condition often helps to clarify the areas that need conversion and to make the necessary commitment to change. In the context of conversion, we share with the confessor the current state of our relationship with God and the community. This includes admitting our sins, but it also requires a deeper examination of why we do those things, of the underlying attitudes and desires that express themselves in our sinful actions. Confession helps us grow in self-awareness.
3. Relationship with God. A good confession helps us to focus on how God’s grace is being experienced and what growth God has been fostering in our life. Our confession gives an expression of where we are in our continual journey of conversion to Christ’s way of life. Sins are no longer items to be put on a list, but manifestations of the discerned relationship of this person to God, a spoiled or damaged relationship about which the penitent is truly repentant. The penitents say, "I want to confess whatever my heart tells me is an obstacle that I have erected between myself and God." So confession gives a focus to my personal relationship with God.
4. Responsibility. Confession assists the penitents in taking responsibility for their sins and in taking responsibility for their actions they are helped to grow in maturity.
5. Well-Being. It is healthy, spiritually and psychologically, to unburden ourselves in a humble way through this wonderful gift of Jesus to His Church.
6. Confessor. Confessing our sins out loud to a priest is a practical necessity. If the priest is to help foster the conversion process, he must know what areas of conversion are at issue in our lives. If the priest is to facilitate the restoration of relationships with God and the community, he must know the areas where the relationships have broken down.
7. Community. The Catholic Church maintains that there is a social aspect to sin. Sin not only affects our relationship with God, sin also alienates us from other people and the Church. Confession is an admission that our sins affect our relationships with people and cause harm to people. Confessing our sins satisfies the human need of apologising to the community for our wrong-doing; we do this in a real symbolic way in the sacrament in which the priest is the representative of the community.
8. Ritual. The Sacrament of Reconciliation provides us with a way of being reconciled to God and to those we've hurt, and to be strengthened in our connection to God's entire family. The sacrament expresses this spiritual reality through ritual. As true love tends to concrete representation and realization in rituals of love, so also the true desire for forgiveness and reconciliation tends to concrete representation and realization in a prophetic symbol of confession, penance and absolution (M Lawler, Symbol & Sacrament).
9. Incarnation. The Catholic faith is an incarnational one, a sacramental one, a faith which sees God acting through physical objects (water, oil, bread, wine) and by means of human instruments, including a priest hearing confessions.
10. Forgiveness. Hearing the words of absolution for our specific sins confirms for us that the confessed sins are really forgiven by God.
11. Grace & Inspired. By letting myself be forgiven, I learn to forgive others.
Examination of Conscience
The first step in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is called the examination of conscience. Conscience means "judging with correct knowledge." Conscience means having a sense of yourself when you make choices, knowing that you are actively involved in what you do and say. It is your sense of personhood in moral matters. Conscience, like speech or your sense of self, has to be developed. It involves listening to the voices of your parents, your community, your family and friends and your Church in order to hear, as best you can, your own voice as you make your choices in life. Conscience is the most sacred space where you seek to be responsible to God and others for who you are and what you do. Within this space, you judge your "spiritual temperature." Reconciliation, in or out of the sacrament, starts with facing the facts of your behaviour and attitudes honestly and humbly. Socrates said it well: "The unexamined life is not worth living." For Christians, the unexamined life is incapable of moral growth and development. You would remain a "moral infant" if you never reflected on your actions.
An examination of conscience is a review of our life since our last confession, a tool to help us redirect our steps toward Jesus and away from anything or anyone who leads us away from God or God's kingdom. As we review our life and acknowledge we have sinned, we open ourselves to the love of God who is always ready to forgive us. A good examination of conscience helps us reorient our life toward God, who is love, and to correct the actions, habits, attitudes, and motivations that are contrary to the teachings of the Gospel. An action is an isolated deed or occasion of sin. A vice is a sinful action that is repeated. It is a bad habit that is consciously or unconsciously part of a person's regular behaviour. Sometimes a vice is rooted in an illness that requires professional medical treatment, or in an attitude or motivation that, though often subconscious, can exert a profound influence on our conscious decisions. We must work hard to become aware of our own underlying attitudes and motivations so we can make choices and decisions that are conscious and free. The Church encourages us to confess not only sins, but also the habits, attitudes, and motivations that influence our choices and result in sin so we can successfully improve our behaviour. So, the examination of conscience leads penitents to look at the roots of sins in their lives and the patterns of sin that might be there. Penitents are urged to expose to the mercy of God, through confession, those roots and patterns of sin in order to receive the necessary healing.
CCC 1454 states that: “The reception of this sacrament ought to be prepared for by an examination of conscience made in the light of the Word of God. The passages best suited to this can be found in the Ten Commandments, the moral catechesis of the Gospels and the apostolic Letters, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the apostolic teachings.” Another method of examination is to reflect on our relationships: God, self, others, and creation. Note also CIC 988. There are sample examinations of conscience in RP, Appendix III and in the course blogspot.
Guidelines for Confessor (from A Confessor’s Handbook, Kurt Stasiak).
1. Reveal the Compassionate and Merciful Face of Christ – Jean Marie Vianney.
2 Answer the fundamental question: Why is this penitent here?
Why is this person here? Different people approach the sacrament for different reasons. The man who approaches the confessional with "God the judge" peering over his shoulder may be preoccupied with avoiding the fires of hell. The woman who describes her life as tedious and uninspiring may feel that God is more distant than present, and suggesting a different way of proceeding for us. The gentleman of fifty-five and the young adult of twenty-five may confess what are, objectively, the same sins. But while the first may be preoccupied with the future price he will pay for his sin, the latter may be concerned more about his lack of response to God's grace (or vice versa, of course). Why is this person here? To the extent we are able to answer that question, we will understand better what this person needs to be freed from. We will be better able to respond to him as well as absolving him of his sins.
Of course, we may not always be able to answer this question. We should remember, however, that the answers include forgiveness, reassurance, peace, freedom, sympathy, consolation, companionship, a request for prayers for a loved one who is sick, a temporary respite from loneliness and, for some, a "stay of execution." In line with this, it is important to realize that priests differ in their expectations of and experiences with the sacrament of reconciliation as much as their parishioners do. Just as parish¬ioners are more comfortable with certain "styles" of priests, so are priests more comfortable with certain "styles" of penitents. Each priest tends to embrace a particular theology and practice of reconciliation, a theology and practice that has been formed by their experience and education. These preferences will not handicap the penitents or confessors unless they are allowed to dictate the priest’s response to the extent that it is their needs, and not those of the penitent, that are being met.
3. Establish the focus of your remarks
Priests generally are careful not to look upon the particular sins confessed as so many different actions isolated from one another, but as indications of the penitent's overall state in life. They consider a confession of sins as a revealing of actions and attitudes that, taken as a whole, gives some evidence of one's fundamental relationship to God, oneself, and others.
Not a few confessions, however, may resemble a rather substantial list of what are, objectively, rather unsubstantial sins, failings, and foibles. To respond effectively is often difficult, particularly if we want to offer something other than an innocuous "you're doing okay" or "you can do better." We want to respond effectively, and so we try to find the pattern. But often a lengthy list has little or no "pattern" to it and it can be difficult to discern to what, if anything, we might pay special attention.
If the confessor gives helpful advice on each sin, he uses up a lot of time. Spending a lot of time in the confessional may be something that a penitent is neither accustomed nor with which he was comfortable. As the time passes, he becomes slightly annoyed and became somewhat concerned that my priest was "going to go through the whole thing and just how long is this going to take, anyway?" While the confessor certainly may some good things to say, it would probably be better had he not said it all. So the question is: Which sins, then, should he have said something about? When you hear a number of sins that really don't seem to be related, how do you choose which sins you want to comment on? (Again, we need not comment on any, but we want to be more than "hearers, penancers, and absolvers.")
We choose by letting the penitent help us minister to him. Such help can be invited by asking a question: Among the sins you've confessed, which do you think are the most serious? Which of the sins you confessed bothers you the most? Which one(s) would you most like to do something about? Or - You've mentioned a number of things for which you're sorry. You're saying you want to avoid them in the future. Which seems the easiest for you to fall into? Or - What special grace would you like to ask of God in this confession?
These questions are generally found productive and we will be surprised by what some penitents have chosen as "their worst" or "their most workable" sins. Then we can offer a sensible or helpful comment on what we hear. It is much better to invite the penitent to take the first step and give some direction on what we might talk about. More important, the question and response will offer a better perspective as to where this particular penitent is coming from.
Another way of responding to an "ordinary confession" - one in which numerous "daily sins" are confessed-is to offer our parishioners a different perspective on what is taking place in the sacrament. Instead of commenting on the sins they have confessed, we can talk about the sacrament they have approached. This approach is helpful when we see no need or have no desire to ask questions. It may be particularly appropriate when we are ministering to those who approach the sacrament frequently. Some possibilities for responding in these situations:
“You celebrate this sacrament not only to confess your sins, but also to confess, to acknowledge, that you are sorry and want to do better. That's an important part of your confession, too. So, as you confess your sins, also confess, acknowledge, that God knows your confession and your heart... Confessing that, acknowledging that, is important, too.”
“Once again you have come to confess your sins and ask for God's forgiveness. And so, again, let's be thankful that God listens to us. Let's be thankful that God is here, with us every day, every hour.”
“What does your confession (this sacrament) mean to you? What is it you want to receive from this time of prayer and your confession?”
All three examples allow us to take an approach other than commenting on specific sins. And the last example is yet another of those questions that, if answered, may give us some guidance as to how to respond more directly to the situation our penitent feels herself or himself in.
4. Use clear, simple language
Suggesting that we use simple, direct language does not mean we should resort to a spiritual baby talk that would be insulting and condescending. We should not pepper our language, however, with terminology that would baffle us if we had not spent years in priestly formation and education. So, we do not ask the penitent does he experience God as transcendent or immanent, terms that belong to lectures. If it seems good to ask that question, a simple "Do you feel God is close to you?" is likely a better way to proceed. And do not ask, “In view of what you have confessed, is your fundamental option strengthened or weakened?” If necessary, ask “Are you living the way you really want to?" People will understand this. We should use a language that is simple and direct, that will not be Greek to a penitent.
5. Do not get lost in what you are saying
The sacrament is ordinarily not the time for a lengthy lesson in sacramental or moral theology. When it is necessary to offer some insight or instruction in these areas, our words should be to the point. Do not say too much, but do not opt for the "quickie confession.” The sacrament does provide us with opportunities for moral instruction and exhortation, but remember the fundamental question for us and for the penitent: Why is this penitent here? Many penitents are interested in what we have to offer them by way of theological insight and moral guidance. For others, the first and perhaps only priority, however, will be to take care of their business with God. We want to offer as much as we can. But let us not forget that the primary purpose of the sacrament is expressed well in the words of absolution.
6. Do not draw quick conclusions
Assumptions and presumptions are risky anytime, anywhere. In the sacrament, they can be most counterproductive. While we do not pry and we never ask questions that are superfluous or unnecessary, still if we are going to respond to what a penitent has confessed, we must know what it is he is confessing.
7. Consider asking the penitent "why?"
Asking a penitent what led him to commit a particular sin is one question many of us do not like to ask. We fear that to do so is prying into our penitent's life. Or we think that "asking why" could come across as judgmental or condescending. There are times, however, when "asking why" can be a way of helping our penitents help us minister to them. Asking why about something a penitent has told us certainly should not be done in a way that seems to say, "Well, now, what did you do that for?" Our attitude in asking should imitate our reason for asking. And our reason, primarily, is to encourage our penitent to think for himself, to think about himself, in the context of what he has confessed. It will also help us get a perspective on what is happening for the penitent.
8. Do not accuse; do not insult
None of us want to change the sacrament of peace into a time of accusations. Yet, we can ask questions that, well intentioned though they may be, are thoughtlessly worded and so smack of an accusation: "You say you got really upset with your wife a few times and lost your temper. Did you strike her?" If we feel the need to ask a question here, a better and more respectful way should be sought: What happens to you when you lose your temper with your wife? What do you think? What do you do? Questions such as these are more gentle and respectful. They tend to "open up" the possibilities for dialogue. Our gentleman probably will not only answer our question, he may well also tell us something important about the way his life is going.
None of us want to accuse, and none of us want to insult. There have probably been times in the confessional, however, when we wish we could take back something we said. We offered our words with the best of intentions. Or perhaps we just didn't think before we spoke. At any rate, what we said was interpreted in a way we did not, or could not, have envisioned. Consider the following questions: how they might come across to the penitent (in this case, a young adult man), and whether there may be a better way of asking them: “You [young man] confessed having impure actions with someone. Was this with a woman or with another man?” “The sin against sex ... was this just a ‘one-night stand’?” “Do you have sex with this person often? Have you had sex with this person before?”
Let us presume we have asked these questions with good intentions. Because of the way we have asked these questions, however, our good intentions may be overshadowed by our poorly phrased queries. The first question, for example, raises the possibility of homosexual behaviour. This may be the case, but asking that question at the beginning of our dialogue may come across to our penitent as intrusive. Moreover, if our penitent is not confessing homosexual behaviour, he will be offended and insulted by our insinuation.
The second question assumes that the penitent's sexual behaviour was an uncharacteristic lapse, and not a "habit." But the question is far from being complimentary. "Just a one-night stand" sounds flippant and disparaging. Are we suggesting that if it was a one-night stand it really doesn't amount to much? Or are we suggesting that our parishioner would want to involve himself with another person in this way? The third question tends to be blunt and accusatory from the opposite perspective.
If, in this instance, we think we need more information for the benefit of the penitent, i.e., to help us minister to him, a more appropriate way of seeking that information should be considered. The following questions, for example, "open doors." They allow us that possibility while still leaving the penitent "in charge" of his or her admission: “Can you tell me what kind of relationship you have with the person?” “Sexuality is an important (sacred, holy) part of our lives. Can you tell me something about how important this person is to you?” (The necessary follow-up here, of course, is that if the sexual partner is someone impor¬tant to the penitent, the importance of the relation¬ship does not condone the sexual acting-out.) “Can you say something about how the sex has influ¬enced your relationship with this person?” (Again, the necessary follow-up, as above.)
These questions will give us the information we seek in a way that respects the young man and honours his privacy more than the first set of questions. And since questions asked in this way also suggest more clearly the confessor's reasons for asking (a desire and willingness to help, not to judge or satisfy one's curiosity), they allow the penitent considerable freedom as to whether-and how-to answer. Do not insult, do not accuse. We do not intend to commit either of these offenses. By responding in a thoughtful way, in a way to which some thought has been given, we will minimize the chances that we might do so unintentionally.
9 Do not "reconfigure" the penitent's confession-or the penitent's conscience
It is one thing to help our parishioners, when we are asked, with their examination of conscience. It is quite another to "take the ball of sin and run with it," or, even worse, for a confessor to add layer upon layer to the penitent's confession, thus creating a "penitential snowball." Karl Rahner advices that we do not ask questions "to discover a guilt of which the penitent is not aware or which he is suspected to be keeping quiet... For it must not be forgotten that the confession of the penitent is not an object for examination."
10 Do not make the penitent's confession your confession
Sacramental reconciliation is not the same as a mutually intimate conversation with a good and trusted friend. The confessional is a place of intimacy, to be sure; but it is a unique intimacy in that the nature of the encounter defines and determines the intimacy as much as the words that are spoken. Parishioners enter the confessional to confess their sins, not to hear ours. When a priest chooses to "share," i.e., to be self-revelatory in the confessional, it must be done with caution, tact, and prudence.
People need confessors who are compassionate, not perfect. But a compassionate confessor is not one who, in the context of the example, seems to be having as much trouble with sex as they are. If we need to reassure penitents that they are "not alone in all of this," we can offer that reassurance without specifying or inappropriately suggesting whatever particular struggles, confusions, and difficulties we may have. Many people approach the sacrament to lighten their spiritual and emotional burdens. We should not add to their burden by indiscriminate or careless sharing.
One responsibility we have as confessor is to encourage a good confession, in the many ways "good" can be understood, for the penitent. We may think that a particular peni¬tent needs to hear something from us. If so, let us offer it. But if it seems that she is unable to hear it, we should not force it upon her. As confessors, our role is not to assure that this particular celebration of the sacrament is good for us. Our role is to minister God's pardon and peace in a way that these gifts are clearly offered and can be accepted. Some will enter the confessional simply to get: to get forgiveness and then to get out. When it is clear that an individual does not want to, or cannot, move beyond what we might consider the basics, let us respect that desire or inability and waste neither his time and energy nor ours.
11 This isn’t a sin but…
"This isn't a sin, but ... " This can come from a parishioner who is struggling with Church teaching on one hand and his genuine, sincere assess¬ment of his behaviour on the other. Most often this will happen in the context of artificial birth control or a sexual (particularly a homosexual) relationship.
Unlike so many others in similar situations, they are not satisfied with a "don't ask and certainly don't tell" approach. Nor are they completely at ease with the situation they find themselves in. If they were, they wouldn’t have brought it up to us nor would they have come to us in the first place. The people are here. Perhaps the best we can do is to treat them in such a way so that they will return. This means respect, understanding, and not looking upon this particular confession as the only or last chance we have to move them into conformity with the Church's teaching. If we keep the door open, if we see them as people in process and not as individuals who now, right now, must be "converted," we will have opportunities in the future to walk and work with them. And they will know that we are ready and willing to do that.
12 Know the Commandments and Diocesan Policies
Memorize the ten commandments and know them by number. Contact the chancery to learn the diocese's policies concerning the practice of sacramental reconciliation.
13 Be a Spiritual Companion – CCC 1466
The Scrupulous Penitent
One of the dangers of confession is that it may give a disproportionate focus to wrong- doing at the expense of celebrating God’s forgiveness and working towards our conversion. This happens especially for scrupulous people, who worry about the rightness and wrongness of their actions and become overburdened by very minor failures. There is probably a scrupulosity trace in most confessions. Those people with severe scruples are overwhelmed by the failure to attain the desired standards in life and prayer; they see no possibility of being at peace with God; they believe that all their confessions are inadequate, and they are never really sure that God has forgiven them their sins. Generally, it is very devotional people, who become very scrupulous. But also people become scrupulous when they disappoint or shock themselves by a particular incident or sin in life and may feel that it can never be forgiven; life for them becomes a daily failing struggle against guilt.
The cure for scruples is to recognise and accept that God is Love, perfect Love. He longs to forgive us for all that separates us from him. Then, to realise that we are all sinners – every one of us falling far short of the perfection to which we are all invited by Christ. Despite our failure, God's love for us remains constant. Having identified our failings, or at least some of them, we place them before God and ask for forgiveness. In forgiving, God takes all the guilt and the burden of the past away from us; he does not want us to be weighed down by it. The invitation is to begin again, recognising where we go wrong, not worrying about it, and working out ways in which we can move forward in our lives.
Hearing the confession of a person suffering from scrupulosity can be very frustrating as their "spiritual life" must be for them. In these cases it is essential to return to that fundamental question: Why is this person here? In the case of people who are scrupulous, the driving force is likely their fear of condemnation and the fires of hell. Both their fear and those fires are fuelled by the way they think of God. God is for them more the prosecuting attorney driven to ferret out their offenses than he is the father joyfully welcoming his prodigal child back with a loving embrace.
There are many things we would like to tell a scrupulous person. Most of all, perhaps, we would like to assure them that God does not have it in for them, and that they do not need to use the confessional as a place where yet another stay of eternal execution is granted them. At times we may be able to say some of that. But the chances are slim that, in the few minutes we have available, we will change the way she thinks of God or change the way she examines her conscience or goes to confession. We do what we can, when we can. And we make sure that, above all, we do no harm.
The last thing scrupulous penitents want to do is let themselves off the hook. It seems, in fact, that they will do everything possible to force the hook of God's accusation into their hearts all the more deeply. This is both symptom and result of the scrupulosity: terrified that they will forget or overlook a sin, they think the forgetting is itself a further sin. The scrupulous person is obsessed with examining his conscience, and his approach to the sacrament may itself be compulsive. Many priests have had the experience of hearing the same confession by the same person several times within a short time. The penitent returns again, one more time, to make certain that everything has been said, that everything has been understood and, above all, to make sure that everything was all right.
The following are some suggestions to keep in mind when ministering the sacrament to people suffering from scrupulosity: Do not argue with them. Do not criticize the way they go to confession. We are not going to win and, more to the point, neither will they. Criticizing their scrupulosity will likely either give them more "matter" for their examination of conscience and next confession (they will think that now they're not even doing that right), or it will add yet another element of fear into their lives (now they must please not only God, but also us – if, in fact, they return to us).
If we are asked whether a particular action is a sin, we should answer the question as directly and simply as possible. Many of us have been trained to respond to the question, "Father, is this a sin?" by discussing it with the person rather than by simply answering yes or no. The idea is that we are encouraging our parishioner to assess her life as she knows and lives it, and thereby helping her develop an adult's responsibility in forming her conscience and her response to God's grace. But the scrupulous person wants to be accountable because God is her accountant, and the catalogue of sins she is writing had better tally with the one God is keeping. If a scrupulous person asks if "this" is a sin and if it is not, we should say it is not. Attempts to address the penitent's scrupulosity are valuable and sometimes appropriate. Such addresses, however, are better done with brief, simple words of encouragement than with a lengthy question-and-answer approach that itself may resemble a legal hearing.
If the scrupulous penitent says, “This isn't a sin, but...,” then she doesn't think that she has committed a sin, but just wants to "make sure." Remember the scrupulous penitent likely views God as judge and accountant, and so she wants to make sure she doesn't owe anything. Discussions about moral theology and the primacy of conscience are unlikely to be helpful to her. What she wants is assurance that God is not holding anything against her. What we can offer are words that clearly and unambiguously say to her, "I understand your concern; you can put these fears to rest.”
Assign a penance that is as simple and as precisely defined as possible. "Do some act of charity for your spouse" or "spend a few minutes in prayer" may be an effective penance for some, but the scrupulous person may later wonder if the act he has in mind is enough, or how long it should last, or whether he needs to do it once or often, or what happens to his confession if he doesn't do it right, and "exactly how many minutes in prayer was that, Father?" If he returns to us for another confession, we may not remember the penance we assigned but he will, because likely, his "mishandling" of his penance will be another sin he will want to confess. So offer the "standard, traditional" penance (Stasiak).
Chapter Nine CONTRITION, PENANCE, ABSOLUTION
Contrition
The most important act of the penitent is contrition, which is “heartfelt sorrow and aversion for the sin committed along with the intention of sinning no more.” Note RP 6a. There can be no forgiveness of sin if we do not have sincere sorrow in our heart, a sorrow at least to the extent that we regret what we have done, resolve not to repeat it, and intend to leave our sinful life and turn back to God. Our sorrow for the wrong we have done to God, ourselves and others, as well as the rejection of our sinful way of life lead us to desire to be reconciled to God and to the Church through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Contrition is, therefore, the beginning and the "heart" of conversion which brings us back to the Father. Indeed, when we avail of the means God has revealed as his way of forgiving sins, then we are showing that our contrition is sincere.
CCC 1452-1453 states: “When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity).” The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). By itself imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.
Acknowledging our sinfulness and sins is the first step towards conversion and a new life of holiness. The second step has to do with the way in which we look at our sins. Once we realize that we have hurt God who loves us so much, and that we have broken or destroyed our relationship with others (Church) because of our selfishness, it is natural to feel a deep sorrow in our heart. We know that God, in his mercy, forgives us when we repent and show willingness to amend our ways. The very decision to celebrate the sacrament of Reconciliation reveals the contrition that is within us and the prayer that we are invited to offer during the rite becomes the concrete expression of the deep sorrow that we feel in our heart.
True sorrow for sin implies also a firm resolution not to fall back into sin in the future. While we cannot be certain that we will not sin again, our present resolution must be honest and realistic. When Jesus dismissed the woman who had been caught in adultery, he said to her: "Go and do not sin again" (Jn 8:11). The best way to show that we are truly sorry for our sins, is our firm resolution to do all that is in our power to avoid those sins in the future. The gift of forgiveness leads us to be instruments of forgiveness to others. In this way we not only proclaim the wonderful actions of God who reaches out to the sinners with the gift of forgiveness, but we will embody the same forgiveness as we reach out to others in the same way. This is the challenge that comes from the celebration of the sacrament of Reconciliation.
Penance
Satisfaction is the last act of the penitent and it crowns the celebration of the sacrament. Note RP 6c and CCC 1460. The confessor imposes an act of penance or satisfaction on the penitent, keeping in mind the situation of each penitent. The penance should correspond to the seriousness and nature of the sins and may suitably take the form of prayer, self-denial, and especially service to one's neighbour and works of mercy. CCC 1459 states: Many sins wrong our neighbour. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbour. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. Such a "penance" helps the penitent to overcome his or her selfishness and to be more rooted in Christ. Usually the act of penance is carried out after confession, and it can be used as a way of moving in a positive direction in our life, reaching out to others with the compassion of the Lord himself. Keeping in mind that our sins, in many ways, hurt the whole Ecclesial Body of Christ and society at large, the penitents are called to "repair" the damage as far as possible. The "penance or satisfaction" that we carry out is neither a kind of punishment for our sins, nor a way of winning God's forgiveness. It is the concrete way in which we live in an attitude of conversion and holiness. The very fact that absolution precedes satisfaction clearly indicates that the gift of forgiveness does not depend on our efforts, and that in the whole process coming to life God is at work with his saving grace. The satisfaction that they are to carry out reminds us that we are called to be instruments of the compassion, love and forgiveness of God in a broken world (Ronzani, p. 20).
In the early Church it was doing the penance that was seen as the central element of the sacrament, as indicated by the fact that it gave its name to the whole sacrament. The working out of a penance was understood as conversion therapy, as fostering a real change of life. In recent centuries the element of penance has been minimised, and for many people it has been a mere footnote to the sacrament, something to be done in a couple of minutes before leaving the church building. Yet penance is meant to be a central aid in changing our lives and in fostering true conversion. Though God forgives us freely and completely, sin affects us in ways that must be undone over time. If I have been selfish, I need to grow in my ability to love, and the penance should help me to do that. Doing penance really means the hard work of changing the way we think and feel and act. This takes time, whether we do it before we approach the sacrament, after we have been reconciled, or in the process of an experience of the sacrament extended over a period of time. We need to ask ourselves what practical steps we need to take to make a real change in the way we live. We might suggest those practical steps to our confessor or ask him for guidance in deciding how to further our conversion.
Guidelines for Confessors (Stasiak)
1. Focus on Conversion
Most confessors today try to suggest penances that match the area of conversion with which the particular penitent is struggling. Sometimes that may be prayer, but the old standard of ‘three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys’ is often not the best penance. The penance should help the penitent to grow in precisely the areas that God is calling him or her to change. Indeed, the penitential activity has little to do with punishment for the sins committed but has to do with discerning what the Holy Spirit is stimulating in the person to help him or her in the conversion process. If possible, the confessor and penitent could talk about an appropriate and relevant penance for his/her particular situation.
2. Give a penance that will "work"
When considering a penance, we should ask, What do we expect the penance to do? Or, better, what are we expecting our penitents to do with those prayers or good works? Do we understand the penance as a way our parishioners "make up" for the sins they have committed? Do we think of the penance as a challenge, a reminder, an aid, in turning away from sin and turning more toward God? RP 6c states that "The act of penance [should] really be a remedy for sin and a help to renewal of life." With this in mind, we want to offer a penance that is both effective for the person here and now as well as salutary for the world beyond. A simple penance, expressed by simple words, probably has a better chance of fulfilling the ideal than a penance that is clever but complex.
Rather than sending our penitents to the pew to say a few prayers, many of us prefer sending them to the Bible. This is certainly appropriate, for the scriptures brim with stories of compassion, forgiveness, and the loving power of God. When we offer the scriptures as a penance, we should make sure the passage is familiar to our parishioners or can easily be found by them. "Read and think about the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant" may be the best possible penance in a given situation. But if we can't also immediately add, "It's in Matthew 18," we shouldn't expect our parishioner to be able to locate it either. Furthermore, the confessor who suggests spending some time with Ch 8:10-15 or Ch 9:6-15 of II Cor is pointing to true gems of Saint Paul's wisdom. But will his parishioner know where to find them? Will she even remember all those numbers three minutes later-much less twenty minutes later when she returns to her home and her Bible? Will she have access to a Bible?
How can we take advantage of the riches found in the Scriptures? One priest resolved the problem quite imaginatively. He selected a dozen passages from the Bible, and then invested some time and money to have them printed individually on a conveniently sized, good stock paper. When he thinks it helpful, he gives his parishioners this scriptural penance. He likes the fact that he can give an appro¬priate penance for a specific confession. And he reports that many of his parishioners keep the scripture card for their future reference and prayer.
For "ordinary" confessions, an ordinary penance will suffice. RP 18 indicates that the penance "may suitably take the form of prayer, self-denial, and especially service of one's neighbour and works of mercy.” Whichever form of penance we consider, we must offer the penance in a way that is understandable. Our parishioners usually do not go to confession the way many of us were or are accustomed to confessing in the seminary! "Just go out and spend a few minutes thinking about what God has done for you in this sacrament" is a penance that will be quite understandable to a third-year theologian. Offered in a parish confessional, however, we are likely to be asked, "Exactly what is it you want me to think about, Father? or "How long did you say I should think about that, Father?" When this happens, it's clear that our parishioners-and we-are missing the point.
To assign a "creative penance" may be appealing and especially challenging, but a penance does not need to be creative in order to offer some help to our parishioners as they go about the business of trying to live as Christians. Depending upon their individual temperaments or situations, the best approach may often be simply to assign a standard or traditional penance in a creative way. This may include giving some specific suggestions about the penance: 1. Pray the Our Father once. But pray it slowly. Try really to pay attention to the words. 2. Tell your wife that you are sorry. (Tell your wife that although you don’t always say it, you do love her.) Is there something you can take home to give her that will help you do that? 3. Put your bible (prayer book) next to your coffee pot, and for the next week read (pray) from it for a few minutes while you're having that first cup. 4. Promise yourself you'll say something positive about her the next time the gossip starts. And spend a few min¬utes today thinking of two or three of those positive things you might say. 5. Say an Our Father now for this person. And then promise yourself you'll go a little out of your way to be nice to him in the office this coming week. It doesn't have to be anything dramatic. Just try to be nicer to him than he is to you. 6. Come to church fifteen minutes early this Sunday. And spend that time looking at the gospel in the worship aid. Ask yourself what you'd want your son to learn from that gospel. 7. Do you have a favourite prayer (scripture passage)? Say that prayer as your penance. Say it as a prayer of thanksgiving to God for his forgiveness) and say it as your asking for God’s continued help in the future.
People will admit that they have done hurt and harm and occasionally, real damage. The stealing of another's money through theft; the stealing of another's reputation through gossip and slander or of another's peace of mind through envy or lack of charity; these are sins that need to be confessed and that need restitution: restitution not designed simply for the eternal life we hope to enjoy in the future, but restitution for real life, in real time, here and now. The seriousness of the offense, in some cases, the crime, need not take away from the respectfulness of our approach.
1. You’ve admitted that you’ve really done some damage to this person’s reputation and you’re sorry about that. You’ve taken the first step. But that damage is still out there. What do you think you need to do to help this person out? What can you do?
2. It’s clear that you feel bad about the way you treated her. This is one of those bad feelings that’s a good thing to have actually. That feeling lets us know we’ve hurt someone else someone who didn’t deserve to be hurt. Let’s talk a moment about that. What can you do for her that’s going to help her? What can you do that’s going to help both of you?
3. You’ve confessed stealing a large amount of money. As you yourself have said this is a serious sin. You’ve taken the right first step but this is one of those times when it’s important to think about how you can make up for the loss you’ve caused another.
At times we might consider asking our parishioners what they think an appropriate penance would be. This can be particularly effective with those individuals who celebrate the sacrament regularly, and who obviously give some thought to their relationships with God, family, and friends (and enemies!). When ministering to those who have a habit of coming to confession, it is possible to encourage them to develop the habit of asking themselves what they need to do to strengthen their relationship with God and neighbour, and thus carry the power of the sacrament outside of the celebration itself.
3. Do not complicate or "extend" the confession for the penitent
We want to assign a penance that truly is "a remedy for sin and a help to renewal of life." At times our zeal in doing this may end up being counterproductive. A penance that might be helpful from the confessor's perspective can be for the penitent a somewhat torturous extension of an already difficult experience.
Sacramental reconciliation is a means to conversion, a means by which we can continue to grow spiritually and psychologically. It is a way of experiencing God's pardon and peace. It is celebrated ordinarily within a few moments' time. Our hope is that the peace it offers-and the challenge-will last in the person's life long after the celebration of the sacrament has concluded. Our words, our attitude, the penance we offer: these are ways we can help the sacrament "endure" in the lives of our parishioners. But our words should take account of the parishioner's state of life: his age, his probable ability to understand and, as in this case, the real likelihood of his being psychologically and emotionally capable of fulfilling his penance. Above all, we should make sure that our penance does not make things more difficult for our penitent, and that it ends up being a painful and needless preoccupation for him, rather than promoting his desire and his ability to live the Christian life.
Absolution
Absolution suggests a cleansing and a freeing from sin, an official declaration of forgiveness. The sacrament celebrates the healing of relationships not only with God but also with the community of the Church. It is here that the sacramental symbol lies: reconciliation with the Church is the effective sign of reconciliation with God. This includes forgiveness, of course, but reconciliation is a broader and richer reality, focusing directly on the relationships that are being healed through God’s grace. When we approach the sacrament, we need to remember that we are seeking a deeper union both with God and with God’s people.
Confessors must memorize the formula for sacramental absolution. All priests should know the formula for sacramental absolution by heart. People will ask us to hear their confessions at unexpected times and in unexpected places. And your small plastic card will be nowhere to be found! But there is a more important reason: The words of absolution are at the heart of the celebration of sacramental reconciliation. Of all the words we offer our parishioners, these are the words "they wait to hear." So, these words should come from our heart because we have taken them to heart. The more these words are part of us, the more we will speak them calmly, confidently, prayerfully. When the priest stumbles badly through the words of absolution, the penitent becomes distracted listening to his confessor repeat himself and struggle to find the right words. To say that such a confession was canonically valid and sacramentally effective is to miss the point. What is the point is that at the very time the penitent wants to listen attentively to the prayerful proclamation of God's pardon and peace, he becomes anxious whether this priest is going to get through it or not. Committing the formula to heart is helpful because we won't always have the ritual available (Stasiak).
Chapter Ten RECONCILIATION
Now in the revised rites, reconciliation is the name given to the whole sacrament. This gives a proper focus to the action of God, who absolves us and reconciles us. Since the reconciling work of God is the work of the Church, it focuses on the action of the Church in reconciling penitents to the community and thus to the Lord. Reconciliation is the basis for the celebration of the sacrament. The new rites of penance encourage renewed attention to this part of the sacrament, especially in the second and third forms of the sacrament, which involve communal celebrations of the reconciling grace of God.
Grace of Reconciliation
The celebration of the sacrament of Reconciliation brings about healing in the life of the penitents and enables them to live a life of holiness, by being moulded more and more into the image of Christ as they listen to the promptings of the Spirit. The transforming expe¬rience of the forgiveness of the Father leads the penitents to live a new life. In a special way we can highlight some aspects of growth in holiness in the penitents' life.
• The sacrament of Reconciliation celebrates the triumph of God's life and grace over sin and evil. We are renewed and transformed, we are freed from guilt and embarrassment, as we place our sinfulness before the mercy and com¬passion of Christ, the Lamb of God, who has come to take away our sins and to give us the fullness of life (Jn 10:10).
• This sacrament gives us energy and strength in our life-long journey of conversion both at individual and community levels.
• This sacrament makes us experience the joy of being reconciled with God and with the Church after the painful and unhappy experience of "missing the mark" (CCC 1468-1469).
• The sacrament of Reconciliation assures us that we are called to be holy as God is holy, and that even the experience of sin is used by God to lead us to new life and holiness.
• The sacrament helps us in taking up the challenges of becoming compassionate and becoming instruments of God's forgiveness to others.
• The celebration of Reconciliation leads us to celebrate the Eucharist in a new way, as the encounter with the risen Lord who feeds us with his living word and with his Body and Blood.
Conversion
Essential for Christian.
In our current understanding, reconciliation is rooted in the life long journey of conversion, which is central to the baptismal commitment. Christ preached a message that called people to reform their lives (Mk 1:15). Our lives must be converted from sin and selfishness to love and holiness. The Church has always understood conversion as a process that occurs over time. There may be significant moments within that process, moments that can be called “the day of conversion,” but such moments must be supported and affirmed by ongoing growth in Christ. The awareness of conversion as a process is also important for our understanding of reconciliation itself. The conversion that is occurring is celebrated and is fostered by the sacrament.
Frequency
The emphasis on conversion also helps us to grapple with the question of how frequent the sacrament must be celebrated. Indeed, our conversion process and frequency are closely intertwined. First, it is appropriate to celebrate penance whenever there is a significant experience of conversion to celebrate. If there is no conversion occurring, the celebration of the sacrament loses much of its effectiveness. This does not mean that the sacrament can only be celebrated when the movement of conversion is complete; still, the process must be underway. Sometimes a person may sense God’s call to change but be unsure just what the change entails. At other times one might be clear about the direction God wants but be hesitant to make the commitment to change. At still other times the change may be well underway, and the sacrament celebrates what is largely accomplished already. The sacrament could well be celebrated at any of those moments, as long as there is some conversion experience to celebrate. Secondly, the reception of the sacrament provides a ritual way of reflecting on how we are engaging in our conversion process and challenges us through confessing to another person to become real and grounded in regards to ourselves. The assistance we receive from the priest strengthens us in our commitment to conversion. Moreover, the frequent reception brings to our awareness our need for reconciliation with ourselves, with God, with people and with the world and our calling to be reconciliators and peacemakers.
Community Sacrament
The sacrament of penance has a fundamental community dimension. This was more obvious in the early Church, with the order of penitents and the public character of penance. Even with the later private penance, the Church has always insisted on the importance of the priest in the sacrament, not because God will not forgive us directly; God always forgives those who repent, but because the priest is the representative of the Church community. Reconciliation with the Church community is the sacramental sign of reconciliation with the Lord. While the priest is the representative of Christ, his role as representative of the community is fundamental in the sacrament.
Community and conversion are intimately related. Conversion can occur only within the context of Christian community and must be focused on the ministry of reconciliation and works of prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Sins may be secret or private, but they have communal implications. Just as one family member can bring disgrace or glory upon all who bear the family name, so too for the Christian. Reconciliation is not so much a private event between the sinner and a priest, as a life long journey of conversion within the context of the Christian community. Indeed, the conversion to which we are called is precisely a conversion to a fuller life in the community. Moreover, conversion takes place within the community and with the prayers and support of Church members. Though that community involvement and support have been minimal in recent centuries, the revised rites of penance are designed to help us recover a sense of inner conversion and reconciliation with the Church community.
The renewed rites of penance have given many Catholics a sense of the community dimension of the sacrament through communal penance services. Yet, generally, the role of the community is still weak and poorly understood. In reconciliation the community celebrates the forgiveness of God and the conversion of life that the Holy Spirit is accomplishing in the lives of the penitents.
The privacy or even secrecy of the sacrament of penance seems to contradict the communal character. There are good reasons for the secrecy of this sacrament, and yet this very veil of secrecy could defeat the purpose of the sacrament. Let us suppose someone has a troubled conscience and thinks he can easily quiet it by making a confession in Church, but does not bother himself much about becoming reconciled to the people he has wronged. He has forgotten Christ's injunction to leave one's gift at the altar until one has become reconciled to his friend. The penitent must be reconciled to the Church as well as to God. So, the sacrament of reconciliation is radically a communal celebration because it reintegrates us into the community when we have severed our bonds through serious sin and it strengthens those bonds when they have been weakened by lesser sins.
Corporate Repentance
Our growth in understanding sin has been the increased the awareness of corporate guilt. There are many sinful actions we do as groups. As groups we oppress other groups, undertake unjust wars and destroy other people’s lives. We refuse to shoulder the responsibilities that are really ours. Since such corporate guilt and need for conversion exists, some liturgies of reconciliation must be directed to the recognition of this guilt and communities must be converted, as communities, to more authentic discipleship. Without a genuine evaluation, a Christian community will find it almost impossible to hear the word of God for it and to discern the activity of the Spirit in it. What is called for is not some agonised worry about possible faults, nor a pessimistic self-evaluation, but an honest and peaceful facing of the situation. Liturgies in which the gospel is proclaimed as both challenge and consolation can greatly facilitate a community response of grateful conversion.
Again, there is a continuing need for liturgies that can be part of the effort to foster reconciliation within a given Christian community. No human group and no Christian community is without some friction and some alienation of individuals from individuals or groups from groups. One of the most common mistakes we make in communities is to hide such differences, to carry on as if they do not exist, to avoid admitting them lest they openly divide the community. Yet, these divisions can be healed only if they are recognised and dealt with. There could be a form of reconciliation liturgy that would deal quite explicitly with the problem. Its goal would be to help the community discover and confess the inequities, injustices, prejudices and hostilities that mar its existence, and then undertake - perhaps with pain but also with hope - a shared ministry of healing itself. As the process of reconciliation advances, such liturgy could serve as continuing stimulus and thanksgiving for the unity already achieved.
‘Order of Penitents’
Various scholars and pastoral workers have begun to advocate a further revision of the rites to foster a deeper renewal of the sacrament. A number of their suggestions revolve around the re-establishment of the order of peni¬tents in a modern form. Like the ancient order, this form of the sacrament would be extended over time, would involve the whole community, and would be geared to fostering a deep conversion. Unlike the old order, it would be open to others besides serious sinners, it could be celebrated more than once in a lifetime, and it would probably be much shorter and less demanding than the lifetime penances of the past.
Catechumenate
The introduction of an order of penitents would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Recent experience with the RCIA and the catechumenate, however, has shown the viability of having a small group of people within a parish who publicly witness to their conversion process and of inviting the whole community to support them in their journey.
Plan
Those who envision such an order suggest that it might begin on Ash Wednesday, with entrance into the order marked by the ancient symbol of ashes. The penitents would have already met with a confessor and been assigned a penance, which they would carry out during Lent. They might also meet with the confessor or another spiritual director periodically during Lent to reflect on the progress of their conversion and to adjust the penance if necessary. After completing their assigned penance, the penitents would be reconciled with the community in a special ceremony on Holy Thursday. This fuller form of the sacrament might be especially helpful to those who have been living in a negative way of life and need a deep conversion, to those who have been away from the Church for a long period of time and need to re-enter gradually, and to those who sense a call from God to a deeper level of conversion and the need for an extended time to work through that conversion process.
Conversion
Even if one’s parish does not start a formal order of penitents, keeping the model in mind can still help us to renew our personal approach to this sacrament and to understand conversion as the core of Christian life.
Community
This model can also help us deepen our understanding of the role of the community in our whole spiritual life, a community that is affected by every sin we commit and that is involved in every celebration of reconciliation.
Lent
Finally, the model of the order of penitents can help us to understand better the way penance and Lent are linked. The whole Church celebrates penance during Lent because penance is a “second baptism,” and Lent is a time for baptismal renewal.
Prophetic Act of Peace.
The Woman of Great Love, Lk 7:36-50
Luke 7:36-50 presents Jesus in the house of Simon, a Pharisee, associating with a woman who had sinned and was despised by others. However, Jesus confirms that the woman’s sins have been forgiven and that she is liberated. Her gratitude at her forgiveness is to show great love. She is the woman of great love. This gives us the basis for the institution of this sacrament in the public life of Jesus. In this prophetic act, Jesus expresses in a fundamental way the value of peace and reconciliation, which he lived throughout his life. Reconciliation is not limited to receiving pardon. Jesus says: “Your faith has been your salvation. Now go in peace” (Lk 7:50). His confirmation challenges the woman to live in the peace of God and to show mercy to her accusers.
Peacemakers
For Jesus, both the oppressed, who suffered under various forms of injustice, hatred and violence, and the oppressors who were blind and incapable of admitting their iniquity, have a need for divine reconciliation. With his sign of peace, Jesus offers reconciliation to his own oppressors (II Cor 5:18, 20). Reconciliation frees Christians interiorly from behaviour contrary to the values of justice and hope to be reconciliators and peacemakers themselves. Every time the call to justice and hope degenerates into acts of injustice and despair, it is necessary to initiate a reconciliation process. Reconciliation is a call from the Holy Spirit to free others from hatred and violence and to break the power of evil. Christians, representing Christ in his plan for universal reconciliation, have a commitment towards forgiveness and peace. The reconciled Church leads to ecumenical dialogue, reform of the penal system, amnesty, influence for international peace, co-operation and disarmament.
Witness
Today the Church does not just live out the sacrament of reconciliation during her liturgy. She lives it in the witness that Christians proclaim:
• that individuals can take responsibility for their actions without being crushed by their guilt.
• that people, particularly strangers, are not a danger but a source of life and celebration.
• that peace and harmony are possible in our broken world.
Chapter Eleven THE NEW RITES
The new rite of Penance is based on criteria proposed by Sacrosanctum Concilium: (1) the rite should clearly express both the nature and the effect of the sacrament; (2) the role of the Church community must be emphasised; (3) the reading of the Word of God should be central; (4) a public form of worship should takes precedence over a private form; and (5) the rite should be short and clear, free from useless repetitions and not requiring extensive explanation. There are four forms of the new rite: individual, communal with individual confession and absolution, communal with general absolution, and an abbreviated emergency ritual when death is imminent. The rite for the first three forms includes the following: a prayer of welcome, a reading of Sacred Scripture, a reflection on the Word of God, confession of sins and acceptance of satisfaction with an expression of sorrow, the prayer of absolution, and a prayer of praise and dismissal.
First Form: Individual
The rite most Catholics are familiar with is the rite for the reconciliation of individual penitents. This rite takes place in a confessional, which provides a place for the anonymous confession of sin, or a reconciliation room, a place which offers the penitent the option for the anonymous confession of sin or a face-to-face exchange between the penitent and the minister. Once the penitent enters the confessional or reconciliation room, the minister greets the penitent, who then makes the sign of the cross. The minister invites the penitent to trust in the mercy, compassion and forgiveness of God, in words like, ‘may God, who has enlightened every heart, help you to know your sins and trust in his mercy’. Then he proclaims a short passage from the scriptures which proclaims God’s mercy and calls people to conversion. The penitent then describes to the minister the sins for which he or she is sorry, making sure to give the number and kind of all serious, mortal sins. After this the minister offers helpful counsel and encouragement to the penitent and proposes an act of penance, appropriate to the penitent and the sins confessed. The penitent then expresses sorrow for sin by praying one of several prayers appropriate for this. After this prayer, the minister extends hands over the penitent and prays the prayer of absolution. The confession is concluded as the minister proclaims praise for God and dismisses the penitent with words like, ‘Give thanks to the Lord for he is good. Response – His mercy endures for ever. The Lord has freed you from sin. Go in peace.’ Or ‘The Lord has freed you from sin. May he bring you safely to his Kingdom in Heaven. Glory to him for ever.’
Second Form: Communal/Individual
The second form of penance is the rite for reconciliation of several penitents with individual confession and absolution. This form brings to awareness the communal and ecclesial nature of sin and reconciliation. In this rite of reconciliation, the community gathers in the usual place for worship and begins with the introductory rites, which may include a hymn, a greeting from the presider, an introduction to the nature of this particular worship experience and an opening prayer. The community then participates in a liturgy of the word, which may include several readings, a homily and an examination of conscience. The readings selected usually reflect the biblical call to conversion, the reconciling nature of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, and the mercy and forgiveness of God. The community then celebrates the rite of reconciliation. This usually includes a general confession of sin (for example, I confess to almighty God); the Lord’s Prayer; individual confession and absolution; a proclamation of praise for God’s mercy, which may be expressed in a litany of reconciliation or a suitable hymn that communicates heartfelt contrition, desire for forgiveness and trust in God’s mercy; and a concluding prayer of thanksgiving. Sufficient priests must be available for the individual confessions and absolution. The rite concludes with a blessing and dismissal.
Third Form: Communal
The third form of penance, the one Catholics are probably least familiar with, is the rite of reconciliation of several penitents with general confession and absolution. CCC indicates that this form is used only in cases of grave necessity, such as the imminent danger of death or the lack of a sufficient number of ministers. Note also MD 1, 4, CL No 961 §1, 2. This third form is similar to the second form, and begins with the usual introductory rites and a liturgy of the word. The congregation then participates in a general confession of sins, which includes an instruction from the minister on the necessity of general absolution in this particular circumstance and the obligation of individual penitents to make a private confession of all serious, mortal sins at a later date (MD 7). Next, the community recites the Lord’s Prayer. The minister then extends hands over all the penitents and prays the prayer of absolution. The rite concludes with the proclamation of praise, the blessing and the dismissal.
Fourth Form: Urgent
In imminent danger of death, it is enough for the priest to use the form of absolution itself. In this case it may be shortened to the following: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (RP 65). If there is time, the priest is to encourage the penitents to make an act of contrition before receiving absolution (CIC 962, 2).
Diversity of Celebration
All three forms of the Rite of Penance are designed to enable Catholics to reconcile themselves to God and to the Church, to deal with the concrete fact of sin and to engage in a life of conversion. None of the forms of celebration suggested by the ritual exhausts the riches of the sacrament. They are complementary. Individual confession is the best demonstration of personal encounter with God. There are moments in life when conversion can only be individual. Communal celebrations best bring out the ecclesial aspect. Here we can understand better that it is not enough to ask God for forgiveness, but that we must also forgive our brothers and sisters and create a world in which human relations can blossom in reconciliation. These celebrations are also the place where we can become aware that our world contains ‘structures of sin’ for which each of us is partly responsible.
The Word of God
The reading of the Word of God was notably absent from the rite of reconciliation. For communal celebrations, the first part is a Liturgy of the Word, which proclaims a God who loves and forgives us and presents an invitation to conversion. It becomes the mirror which reveals our defects. For individual confessions, the place for reading the Word of God is generally at the beginning. While it is optional, penitents themselves may have chosen a Scripture text which seem suited to their situation and they may begin their confession by saying: ‘I have chosen such and such a passage from Scripture. In the light of it, I confess the following sins.’ When the penitent has not chosen a text, the priest may suggest a Scripture text at whatever moment seems best to him, even at the time of giving the penance.
Celebrations without absolution
Celebrations without absolution or ‘penitential services’ are a good way of indicating that reconciliation is an ongoing process. They involve a liturgy of the word, a call to conversion and an examination of conscience. They fit well on Ash Wednesday or another day at the beginning of Lent. They are very suitable for Christians whose habitual situations have prevented them from participating fully in the sacraments of the Eucharist and reconciliation.
Conclusion
Three main directions of the new rite can be stressed. The Council took up again the old name, reconciliation, to denote the sacrament. The Council wanted the restoration of a proclamation of Holy Scripture in the celebration of all the sacraments, and the new rite has a place for the Word of God. The Council desired that the rites should as far as possible be celebrated in community with the faithful present and actively participating rather than in a quasi-private manner (SC 27).
Chapter Twelve Aspects of Communal Reconciliation Liturgies
1. Reconciliation in Community
First, liturgies of reconciliation must be situated in the broader context of actual human reconciliation going on within a Christian community.
2. Admitting Sinfulness
Secondly, each Christian needs to admit, as part of a mature, realistic approach to life, that he or she has failed somewhat in living out Christian faith and has not been a completely faithful disciple of the risen Lord.
3. Formation
Thirdly, liturgies of reconciliation should foster Christian formation of conscience.
4. Public Promise & Support
Fourthly, the public statement of conversion tends to help us follow through more consistently on promises we make.
5. Celebration
Fifthly, like other sacramental ceremonies, the liturgy of reconciliation is meant to be a celebration and be experienced as celebration.
6. Occasions
There are any number of situations in which liturgies of reconciliation can occur. Often they can be quite short, even informal—before a family meal, among a group of friends, as an element in other liturgies such as anointing or Eucharist. They can be appropriate after some negotiations, to help heal wounds after some particularly aggressive competition in business, or in professional or public life, to welcome a person back into a group. It is important to keep in mind that the Eucharist is and always has been the principal liturgy of reconciliation.
Chapter Thirteen INDULGENCES
Definition
The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the Sacrament of Penance (CCC 1471). “An indulgence as a remission before God of the temporal punishment for sin the guilt of which is already forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.” (CIC 992). An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.
According to the teaching of the Church, "sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God… On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain" (CCC 1472).
The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God and with the Church entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. This is the punishment or purification that is due as a result of the destructive and negative consequences of our sinful actions, choices, omissions, plans and ways of living. These consequences must be undone. Even when we are truly repentant and embark on a journey of conversion, we realize that it takes time to re-orient our life to God, and that much work is involved in changing habits, dispositions, inclinations and attitudes. At the same time we realize that our sins have caused damage to other people and so through works of mercy and charity we try to put right what has been distorted. The penitent is then encouraged to choose adequate and appropriate "works of penance" in order to undo the negative and destructive consequences of sin and to promote peace, harmony, goodness and justice.
History
The early ecclesial indulgences were a remission both of some penance and of the temporal punishment due to sin and were granted by the bishop. At times, the Church drew upon her own spiritual treasury of grace and merit to cancel out some (partial indulgence) or all (plenary indulgence) of the punishment still due to an individual’s sin. At first, some theologians contested the bishop’s right to grant indulgences, but as the actual practice became more widespread theological opposition diminished. Then, the practice itself changed. Where previously the Church only prayed for the remission of temporal punishment due to sin and had excused a canonical penance on that account, now the Church definitively declared that such temporal punishment was cancelled on the basis of the her control over the treasury of grace and merit. By the middle of the thirteenth century, the granting of indulgences became increasingly divorced from the sacrament of Penance, and more and more an act of the Pope. The number of indulgences multiplied and the need for doing some penitential work declined. Any reasonable cause was now regarded as sufficient grounds for granting an indulgence.
Plenary indulgences, i.e., the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin, had come into prominence during the Crusades in the eleventh century when the crusaders were promised complete remission of punishment in return for their military service (Pope Urban II, d. 1099). Indulgences for the dead began to be granted from the middle of the fifteenth century. Their connection with almsgiving was established as early as the eleventh century.
Indulgentiarum Doctrina
In Indulgentiarum Doctrina (1967), Pope Paul VI links the doctrine of indulgences with the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. The Church on earth is united with the Church in heaven and in purgatory. Christians are not alone on their journey of conversion; we are always in communion with our ancestors in the faith, the saints. Thanks to their intercession, we receive help on our way towards union with God and we gain from their treasury of merits to compensate for the consequences of our wrong doing. Because of our belonging to the same body, the Church, we share "so intimately in the life of Christ and of one another that the undoing of evil and the fashioning of a holy people becomes a single project among the participants” (CCC 1474).
An indulgence is “the remission in the sight of God of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been blotted out as far as guilt is concerned.” They are either plenary or partial. However, from now on partial indulgences will be described without reference to numbers of days and years. It is, of course, always required that an individual be truly contrite, be a member of the Church in good standing, perform the work attached to the indulgence, and at least have the general intention of gaining the indulgence.
Obtaining a plenary indulgence has the following conditions: Sacramental Reconciliation (suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences), Reception of the Eucharist and Prayers for the Intentions of the Pope. The condition for praying for the intention of the Pope is fully satisfied by reciting an Our Father and a Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion. A plenary indulgence may be gained only once on any day. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent. If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only.
Faithful Departed
The doctrine of indulgences is best understood in the context of the whole mystery of Christian existence. Death is not the end of life, nor, therefore, is it the end of our relationships with our loved ones or with our sisters and brothers in the Church. Our obligations of concern and mutual assistance do not lapse with their death. We can gain indulgences for the faithful departed.
Conclusion
Indulgences are granted from the “treasury” of the merits of Christ and the saints and are best understood of the context of the ministry of the earthly, heavenly and purgatorial Church in fashioning a holy people. The Church has the authority to grant the faithful the remission of temporal punishments. Indulgences do not replace the essential conversion of life and struggle towards holiness. They are not to be seen as “bargains” through which we get a salvation at a “cheap” price, but rather as means that will foster in us a real conversion. Just as we gain from the merits of Christ and the saints, we are called to assist those in purgatory. We may gain indulgences that can be applied to the needs of the faithful departed.
Chapter Fourteen CONCLUSION
1. History
The Church has always been willing to adapt the sacrament to meet the needs and spirit of the times, but she has never been willing to give it up, for it is too important for the life and growth of true followers of Christ. No one can predict with certainty just how this sacrament will develop in the future. Its history facilitates the integration of local reconciliation processes into the rite.
2. Social
Reconciliation is social and ecclesial in its nature as well as its effects. Modern culture is pervaded with the cult of the personal and private. We are sometimes obsessed with our individual rights and freedoms to the exclusion of our social responsibilities. RP challenges us to recognise the social and ecclesial effects of our sin and our reconciliation.
3. Worship
Reconciliation, as all sacraments are, is an act of communal worship. Penance, as an act of worship, includes praise and thanks to God for his mercy and forgiveness; a celebration of the word of God, which encourages and supports the community of faith in its journey of conversion; and the prayer of the Church.
4. Conversion
The deepest meaning of penance is conversion which goes beyond ritual to the whole of the Christian life.
5. Reconciliation
Reconciliation occurs through the celebration of RP. Reconciliation includes the ability to recognise sin, to forgive oneself, to be reconciled with others and the Church.
6. Liturgy
For reconciliation liturgies to be sacramentally effective, they should be events in which Christians can publicly declare their infidelity to one another and, more importantly, their determination to live more faithfully and more lovingly. Christian groups need to discover and disown together—divisions, animosities, and prejudices within a community, or shared neglect of Christian responsibility for the needs of the world.
7. Compassionate Pilgrim
In celebrating the sacrament of reconciliation, the Church reveals herself as the sacrament of God’s mercy in the world, but also as a sinful community, still “on the way” to the perfection of the Kingdom. Those who sin and who must avail themselves of the sacrament are just as much “the Church” as are those who, in the name of the Church, act to reconcile the sinner with God and the Church. A Church which cannot admit her sin is not the Church of Christ. A Church which cannot forgive the sins of others against her is not the Church of Christ.
8. Peacemakers
The sacrament of reconciliation celebrates the value of peace and empowers Christians to live peacefully and to engage in peace-making activities. Pardon frees Christians interiorly from behaviour contrary to the values of justice and hope to build up a more just and peaceful world. The Church does not just live the sacrament of reconciliation in her liturgy. She lives it in the witness of Christians living and working for peace and harmony in our broken world.
9. Current Issues
Theologians, religious educators, liturgists, and other pastoral ministers continue to discuss several issues: the frequency of confession, the age of first confession, the use of general absolution, the inculturation of local customs and the need to confess privately to a priest. Because the new rite takes more time and care, many believe that an emphasis on frequent confession might encourage a curtailing of key prayer-elements in the new rite. Others are sceptical about the pastoral wisdom of requiring very young children to receive the sacrament of Penance before they are ready and also to make it a precondition for the reception of first Eucharist, as required by present Church practice. Various episcopal conferences differ regarding the use of general absolution.
Doctrine
1 The Church has the power to forgive sins.
2 Penance is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. Jn 20:22-23, Mt 16:19, 18:18
3 It is distinct from baptism as a judicial act.
4 The Church must offer reconciliation at least at the time of death.
5 Contrition, confession and satisfaction are required of the penitent.
6 Through perfect contrition sins are forgiven: Imperfect contrition, i.e., attrition, is a sufficient disposition for confession and is salutary.
7 Confession of all mortal sins committed since baptism or the last reception of the sacrament is required.
8 Catholics must celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation at least once a year.
9 Confession should be private.
10 Sacramental absolution is required of the Church.
11 Cases can be reserved (abortion, heresy, simulating Mass).
12 The minister of the sacrament of reconciliation is the priest, authorised by the bishop (CIC 969).
13 The fruit of sacramental penance is reconciliation with God and the Church.
14 The need to do penance to compensate for the implications of sins is still necessary. This need is completed by gaining indulgences.
15 The formula of absolution is as follows: “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”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment