Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 72

Vatican website translation:

72. The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament.

Latin text:

72. Ritus et formulae Paenitentiae ita recognoscantur, ut naturam et effectum Sacramenti clarius exprimant.

Slavishly literal translation:

72. The ceremonies and texts of [the Sacrament of] Penance are to be so revised, that they might express the nature and effect of the Sacrament more clearly.

By the time of the Second Vatican Council, historical studies had delineated the quite diverse ritual structures by which post-baptismal forgiveness of sins was celebrated in the Church. Although the ordinary post-baptismal sacrament of reconciliation remained the eucharist, need for further structures of reconciliation had arisen when sin separated sinners from Eucharistic communion. The two central structures that developed were: 1) a solemn public process followed by a solemn public reconciliation (so-called “canonical penance”) and 2) a private exchange between a penitent and a confessor, usually a presbyter (so-called “Celtic tariff penance” and forms derived from it).

When the editio typica of the Ordo Penitentiae was promulgated in 1974, it presented three ritual structures for sacramental celebration as well as some models for non-sacramental penance services: a rite of reconciliation of individual penitents (Rite I); a rite of reconciliation of several penitents with individual confession and absolution (Rite II), and a rite of reconciliation of several penitents with general confession and absolution (Rite III). Although initially all three rites were employed fairly extensively in pastoral settings, increasing restrictions have been placed on the use of Rite III.

Pray Tell readers might wish to discuss how well the Order of Penance has been received in the half century since Vatican II; what the ritual, theological and pastoral advantages and disadvantages of each of the rites might be; how well the faithful have been catechized about sin, grace and reconciliation; and what further reforms of this sacrament’s ritual celebration might be called for.

Michael Joncas

Ordained in 1980 as a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN, Fr. (Jan) Michael Joncas holds degrees in English from the (then) College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, and in liturgical studies from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN and the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico of the Ateneo S. Anselmo in Rome. He has served as a parochial vicar, a campus minister, and a parochial administrator (pastor). He is the author of six books and more than two hundred fifty articles and reviews in journals such as Worship, Ecclesia Orans, and Questions Liturgiques. He has composed and arranged more than 300 pieces of liturgical music. He has recently retired as a faculty member in the Theology and Catholic Studies departments and as Artist in Residence and Research Fellow in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

31 responses to “Re-Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium: Article 72”

  1. Fr. Neil Xavier O'Donoghue

    I believe that Penance is the only one of the new sacramental rites to have had two separate rituals prepared after the Council. The initial ritual was prepared and then scrapped before promulgation (some details are to be found in Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, pp 664-671). I heard from someone involved that Karl Rahner was the leading voice in the group. Rahner did a lot of theoretical work on Penance in his theological investigations and is listed by Bugnini as being on that group (the only group of the official liturgical reform he was directly involved in). However I have never been able to see a copy of the unpromulgated rite. Would anyone know if there are any copies in the wild, so that it would be possible at least to see what was proposed and whether there is anything we can learn from this today.

    Reply
    1. Jeff BeBeau

      @Fr. Neil Xavier O’Donoghue – comment #1:

      Neil,

      You have stumbled upon one of the great lacunae of the Vatican II liturgical reform. Apart for the work by Bugnini (which itself is a gold mine), there is very little information on history and evolution of the rites, and even less of the raw texts themselves. It is hard enough to get one’s hands on copies of Notitiae, let alone the actual schemas (which Bugnini makes extensive references to in his footnotes)! I had long believed that they were gathering dust in the archives of CDW, but then I noted in Paul Turner’s work, Glory in the Cross, that he comments extensively on the schemas. So I emailed him and asked him where he got them from. He informed me that ICEL and Notre Dame have large collections of them! So if you are so inclined I’d go asking for:

      -Schema 279: De Paenitentia 6 (March 16, 1968)
      -Schema 356bis: De Paenitentia 11 (Octobe 30, 1969)
      -Schema 361: De Paenitentia 12 (January 31, 1970).

      I wonder if in this digital age, things like the copies of Notitiae and the Schemas could become part of an online library. Does anyone know if St. John’s has these?

      Liturgical Press did us a great service when then published the Documents of the Liturgy 1963-1979, I know that there was a draft of ones from 1980-1989, but I think it got hung up when the mission of ICEL was changed.

      Reply
  2. Peter Haydon

    Father,
    I only know the form of confession as set out in the current books: Bless me Father for I have sinned. My last confession was….etc”
    Has it changed since the Council and what was the previous form? Not knowing what was the previous form, or what changes were made, makes any appreciation of such change challenging.
    I might have made the same comment about confirmation in the previous article.
    The slower pace of your series seems a good idea.

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
      Rita Ferrone

      @Peter Haydon – comment #2:
      Peter,

      “Bless me Father” and “my last confession” do not exist in the current ritual books. Your comment sadly shows how poorly the reformed rites of Penance have been taught to the faithful. You are not alone in this misapprehension. Many Catholics have no idea what is actually in the Rite of Penance, including the proscribed exchanges between penitent and confessor, the proclamation of the Word of God, and the multiple forms of the Act of Contrition.

      Reply
      1. Terri Miyamoto

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #5:

        I find not only “Many Catholics” but “Many priests” have no idea what is actually in the rite. In particular, the insistence on most priests that we teach “Bless me, Father…” when it is not part of the rite, and the lack of of the use of scripture in Form I. If I want a psalm, which I often do, and am going to a priest I don’t know, I have to bring my own bible and insist on being given the time to pray it — even though it’s right there in the rite.

        On the other hand, I find that having a ritual beginning to say, e.g. “Bless me Father…” helps grease the skids and gets the dialogue on its way for people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the process.

      2. Peter Haydon

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #5:
        Rita
        I quote from “A Simple Prayer Book” published by CTS published in 2011. I would be surprised if the publisher has chosen a false text. (Imprimatur Peter Smith Archbishop of Southwark. Excerpt from the English translation of Rite of Penance (c) 1974, ICEL)
        Are you able to point out were the prescribed text can be found?

      3. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        @Peter Haydon – comment #7:
        Peter,

        A look online showed many websites that purport to show the Rite of Penance, but most had only some of the texts. Here is one I found that had the most texts, although it too omits several options for the act of contrition, and it adds the new translation (which is not yet approved for this purpose).

        It shows that the rite begins with the sign of the cross, and it gives the several possible forms of invitation of the priest, none of which include the exchange you have mentioned.

        http://www.ibreviary.com/m/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=227

        I was taught the very formula you cite, when I was a child, before the reform of Penance was published in 1974. Thank you for noting the book in which you found it. I could not find anything on line from England and Wales that offers the official text. Unless your episcopal conference decided something different from the American conference, I assume the book that recommends this opening is not doing so from the rite but according to “custom.” Paul Inwood might know the origin of this.

        As a matter of fact, I’ve often wondered why one would ask a priest to “Bless me, for I have sinned.” Is the sacrament understood to be a blessing? Is this asking for the sign of the cross? I do not know this for a fact, but it seems probable to me that the reform did not regard Penance under the heading of blessing, and so eliminated the expression, if it was ever in the liturgical books at all. Some of this may have been custom all along?

      4. Paul R. Schwankl

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #9:
        In the old rite the priest, on opening the slide, said a blessing over the penitent: “May the Lord be on your heart and your lips, that you may worthily and properly confess all your sins.” That was what was requested in “Bless me, Father . . .”
        This blessing was much in need of reform, because we couldn’t hear it distinctly, it was in Latin, and it was over before we had a chance to open our mouths to ask for it. Some guides for confession suggested saying “Thank you, Father, for your blessing,” which made more sense.

      5. Rita Ferrone Avatar
        Rita Ferrone

        @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #10:
        Paul, thanks so much for this information!

        Now that makes sense.

      6. Paul R. Schwankl

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #23:
        You’re welcome, Rita. I didn’t understand it until I saw the words of the blessing in some book and thought, “So that’s what he says at the beginning!”

      7. Fr Tony Cutcher

        @Paul R. Schwankl – comment #10:
        As a confessor in a small midwestern town, I was often puzzled by older folks beginning with “Thank you, Father, for your blessing”. Since I hadn’t blessed them yet.

      8. Paul R. Schwankl

        @Fr Tony Cutcher – comment #25:
        So they beat you to the punch? I wasn’t sure “Thank you, Father, for your blessing” ever got into widespread use. If it did, it carried the risk that people wouldn’t know what blessing they were being thankful for. Fortunately, that was a long time ago. As I indicated, that blessing-on-opening-the-slide was kindly and humane, but it just didn’t work.
        My dad once told me about making his confession in the really old form, in which the penitent recited his or her sins between the two halves of the Confiteor–a practice that was no longer inculcated when I made my first confession (although it may have survived in Stearns County, where Father Anthony lives). My dad said he changed to the shorter way after a priest patiently waited for him to run through the lineup of Blessed Mary ever a virgin, Blessed Michael the archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, and the holy apostles Peter and Paul for the second time, and then, after a pause, told him, “You know, you really don’t have to say all that.”

      9. Peter Haydon

        @Rita Ferrone – comment #9:
        Thank you Rita. There is too much here and in the subsequent comments to read in one go.
        My own Simple Prayer Book was the 1970 edition (so pre 1974) and has roughly the same words. It is interesting to see how the suggested sins to consider has changed over the years.
        Leaving that aside I suspect that the form with a reading and so on would cause problems where there are queues to confess. I am interested to see the length of queues for the different languages at the Chapel of Reconciliation in Lourdes.
        Thank you other contributors. I will be busy.

  3. Louie Macari

    What a pity that rite III had restrictions placed on it. I believe that when it was used by certain priests the church was packed as many people find difficulty with Rite I and as a result do not use this form at all. In the case of a priest who used rite III I believe that someone reported him to the bishop or even higher up the system and he had to stop.
    Is it not better for those seeking reconciliation to attend an hour long service and receive general absolution than not to attend at all.There was always the option for individual confession for those who were aware that they had committed a serious sin.
    Confession is said to be good for the soul and can have psychological benefits but it is highly likely that not everyone has the necessary makeup to find rite I helpful despite the fact that it is a sacrament.

    Reply
  4. Bill deHaas

    Really is a sad state of affairs. Attended an adult ed class Sunday about *confession* – almost walked out. It was as if time had stopped in 1965 – no mention of the sacrament of penance; all focused on confession and long lists of sins. No mention of the church; the sacrament context, the structure of the sacrament. No focus on conversion or metanoia; only scripture was James and used to legally establish that confession started in the 1st century (bet you didn’t know that).

    Appears that the VII call to reform has either been put on hold, given up, or shifted to the small contingent that continues to want private confession (preferably in a confessional). And yet, still see parishes do large and signficant reconcilation ceremonies in Lent.

    Hope Rory Cooney doesn’t mind but from his blog a few days ago is an excellent reflection on the *tension* or *dissonance* in this sacrament (especially when required for children before 1st eucharist):

    http://rorycooney.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-good-and-bad-of-first-confession.html

    Reply
  5. Paul R. Schwankl

    To me, a very powerful inducement toward more frequent confession is hearing that beautiful reformed formula of absolution (“God, the father of mercies . . .”), words that nearly make me cry.
    By contrast, I don’t recall tearing up in the old days when I heard that I was freed from all bonds of interdict (especially since I was free only to the extent of the priest’s power and my need). Hurray for Article 72!

    Reply
  6. Paul Inwood

    After the Rite was published in 1974, and services with General Absolution began to be used fairly widely, people were returning to the Church in droves. Services were packed.

    Then Rome started to kick back and insist that Rite III was for emergency use only. Not everyone went along with that. I vividly remember being at a meeting with Cardinal Basil Hume when the subject of approaching the Ordinary for permission to celebrate Rite III with general absolution came up. He fulminated: “No bugger in Rome is going to tell me how to run my diocese! Don’t ask me, or I’ll have to say No. Just get on and do it!”

    The final nail in the coffin was JP II’s Misericordia Dei in 2002, insisting that only Rite I was the proper one. No one ever challenged him on what he thought the purpose of the Church providing three rites was if not to make use of them. And certainly no one asked him if he didn’t think that only a seriously dysfunctional Church would close down the very thing that had been bringing vast numbers of people back to the practice of their faith. Probably by that time he was not capable of rational argument in any case.

    Rite III still exists in a few places, but not many I think. In its place, a hybrid form sprang up in the 1980s: Rite IIb. This consists of a penitential service with individual confessions at which absolution is not given, all waiting in the church for a general form of absolution to be pronounced at the end. That was quite popular at one point. It was a response to those who decried (rightly) the idea of having a communal penance service but then fragmenting the community by sending them off to individual confessors all round the church. Those who used Rite 2b thought that bringing people back together again for the end of the service would help. In the end, this, too, died out, and I have not heard of it in many a long year.

    The problem was that Rome always thought of Rite III as an “easy option”, a cop-out. They never saw it as the gateway to a return to the Church, and they certainly never witnessed those Rite III services where, far from it being an easy option, it was actually constructed to be hard-hitting and intense. Judicious scripture choices, an amount of silence…. In particular, it is possible to have an extended sung Litany of Sorrow which names explicitly a lot of our sinfulness in surprising and disturbing detail, and the cumulative effect of such a Litany can be very powerful. I myself used to use it a lot in the late 70s and 80s. And the result was predictable and positive: people felt transformed, and numbers of them would ask the presiding priest at the end of the service if they could come and see him during the succeeding weeks, leading to some wonderful encounters and an upswing in Mass attendances.

    It seems to me that Pope Francis’s attitude to the mercy of God is where we were in the 70s and 80s, but the Roman machine felt that it had to wrest back control, as in so many other areas. It is time for us once again to be lavish dispensers of God’s bountiful grace, not gatekeepers.

    Reply
  7. Paul Inwood

    A few technical comments. It seems to me that the Rite of Penance is a notable instance of the failure of one particular postconciliar reform. Not only the failure on the Church’s part to exploit all three forms of the rite as provided in the books, as outlined above, but also in the practice of the individual rite and the mindset of the penitents.

    The idea was to get away from the mechanical repetition of formulae: “Bless me, Father….” and the recitation of a never-changing laundry list of sins, followed by “for-these-and-all-the-sins-I-have-forgotten-I-am-sincerely-sorry”, then a quasi-automatic formula of absolution and the imposition of a nominal penance.

    The biggest innovation, one which never took off at all, was the idea that, as with all other liturgical rites, a Liturgy of the Word is an integral part. It gives a context, in this case a context for sorrow and forgiveness. The idea was that the penitent would select a passage of scripture that would speak to her or his own life situation. It was an idea ahead of its time, for in the 1970s Roman Catholics were still largely an unbiblical people and the cumulative effect of 40 years of Lectionary readings in the vernacular had not yet been felt. In order to help penitents, publishers produced laminated cards with some suggested scripture readings in case penitents could not think of their own. These cards used to be left outside confessionals, but they soon became crumpled and dog-eared, and I have not seen them for many years. I also know from priest friends that the use of scripture as envisaged by the Rite is almost universally absent. There is no biblically based dialogue with penitents, just the continuation of recited catalogues of peccadilloes.

    Perhaps with Francis the time is right for another catechetical initiative in the practice of the sacrament, with the aim of revivifying it. If not, perhaps we should focus instead on the fact that the Eucharist is in fact the greatest sacrament of reconciliation we have and, as the Catechism points out, forgives all but grave sins. In other words, abandon the sacrament of penance altogether except in the case of those grave sins, and return Rite I to being a private affair.

    I can’t help thinking, though, that celebrating Rite III in the way I described in the previous post would be a much better way to go.

    Reply
  8. Karl Liam Saur

    It should be remembered that Rite III, as promulgated, *required* individual confession for grave sin within a year – it was like the situation in Rite 1 where a penitent recalls an unconfessed serious sin after absolution. The absolution is valid, but the discipline is that if you intentionally avoid confessing that sin, you’ve committed a new serious sin. Just in case people imagine Rite III represented a move away from this discipline, it technically did not. Now, depending on how you look at it, that could be a justification for promoting Rite III – or not.

    One of the problems with the reform of Rite I is that catechesis of adults is difficult. The reform of the rite occurred after my confirmation, and while I am aware of the actual ritual for Rite 1, there was no good way to get that rooted among post-initiatory Catholics.

    Reply
  9. Fritz Bauerschmidt

    Is it really so terrible if someone begins their confession by saying “Bless me father, for I have sinned”? I see no reason to be particularly persnickety about this.

    I have never participated in Rite III, but for me, on a psychological level, the one-on-one encounter with the confessor is so central to the sacrament that I have a hard time imagining it would be very satisfying (however valid my brain told me it was). Also, KLS makes an important point that, as envisioned by the Church, Rite III could never stand on its own, still requiring individual confession and absolution within a year.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #15:
      Full disclosure: Anthony Ruff is a Tridentinist and follows the preconciliar rite of reconciliation! I guess I never thought about it, I’ve started every confession since first day of novitiate with “Bless me Father, for I have sinned.” The priest blesses me (I gather that’s what they did in the old days), so that’s where I learned to do the same when parishioners come to me with the same formula.

      It was Francis Mannion who first pointed out to me that much of the Church has not implemented the reformed rite of penance in its entirety, and the preconciliar rite (or at least many elements of it in the reformed rite) seems to be working quite well in Form I.

      awr

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Anthony Ruff, OSB – comment #16:
        So perhaps we should tell people that we celebrate the rite of penance according to the Extraordinary Form.

    2. Paul Inwood

      @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #15:

      Also, KLS makes an important point that, as envisioned by the Church, Rite III could never stand on its own, still requiring individual confession and absolution within a year.

      Only, as KLS correctly said, in the case of grave sin. In other cases there is no obiligation to see a confessor subsequently.

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Paul Inwood – comment #17:
        Presuming that “grave sin” means “mortal sin” (and since one of the requirements for mortal sin is “grave matter” I think this is a safe presumption), I don’t see what difference this makes, since one is only required to confess mortal sins in any case.

    3. Paul Inwood

      @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #15:

      I have never participated in Rite III, but for me, on a psychological level, the one-on-one encounter with the confessor is so central to the sacrament that I have a hard time imagining it would be very satisfying (however valid my brain told me it was).

      That opens up a really interesting debate.

      I think one of the guiding principles of the postconciliar reform of the rite of penance was to, as it were, “bring it out of the closet”. Prior to the Council, penance and extreme unction were the only sacraments that took place in private on a one-to-one basis, and even then there were often other people present for extreme unction.

      Now we are in a situation where penance is the only sacrament still normally celebrated in private one-to-one. (The majority of anointing takes place in the context of communal services, and even where only person is being anointed, there will frequently be family or friends or nursing or ancillary staff present.)

      My question, then, is whether the Council Fathers foresaw that in order to revivify the sacrament of penance it would be necessary to make it communal like the other sacraments. If that is the case, where does this leave people like Fritz for whom the personal encounter with a confessor is crucial to the efficacy of the sacrament? And where does Fritz’s position leave lots of other people who, for whatever reason (and we have all heard countless horror stories of people being verbally and mentally abused in the confessional and so never returning), find the personal encounter with a confessor is precisely the thing that puts them off making use of the sacrament at all?

      Reply
      1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        @Paul Inwood – comment #18:
        A clarification and a query:

        I did not question of efficacy of Rite III. My point was rather than I found the personal confession to be extremely spiritually fruitful. I do not doubt that Rite III, celebrated according to the guidelines of the Church, is an efficacious sign of grace.

        As to my query, is it really the case that anointing is most frequently celebrated in communal services? Are there data on this? I would would have thought that it is most often celebrated in hospital or nursing home room. True, family and medical staff might be present, but this was the case prior to the reforms as well.

      2. Paul Inwood

        @Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #21:

        is it really the case that anointing is most frequently celebrated in communal services? Are there data on this? I would would have thought that it is most often celebrated in hospital or nursing home room. True, family and medical staff might be present, but this was the case prior to the reforms as well.

        Every day around the world in numerous places of pilgrimage, of which Lourdes would be a good example, tens of thousands are anointed in the course of multiple services of anointing. Apparently these easily outnumber individual “private” anointings in hospitals, etc.

        And yes, at these latter “private” occasions, other people were often present before the reforms, as they often are now. My point is that the only sacrament to be celebrated normally in private continues to be celebrated normally in private. Nothing has changed. It needs to be changed. The Jesuits are very good on the Big Red Bus theory, whereby all but a tiny handful of sins are clearly social in nature, and their effects are felt by society in common and spread through society. If this is so, then they need to be dealt with in common, not behind closed doors.

  10. Terri Miyamoto

    I suspect there is a difference in the fruitfulness of one-on-one confession depending on the situation. I imagine many (most?) of us who are reading and commenting here are motivated and able to choose a confessor, arrange to spend some time with him, and are comfortable with actually initiating a true conversation. My experience with many others, especially in my role preparing adults for the sacraments of confirmation and communion, suggest that the less involved Catholic does not receive that attention and satisfaction in the confessional. So it turns into something awkward and uninviting. It would be nice if all priests who sat in confessionals on Saturday afternoon were able to change this, but time constraints and personality, I think, prevent it.

    Reply
  11. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    To Fritz and Anthony, aka newly confessed adherents of the Tridentine form of Penance, 😉

    I do not at all believe this is a case of being “persnickety.” It’s attached to the larger issue, which is: implementation of the liturgical reform. With the reforms that have “worked” we’ve put in work. Where we’ve not really done the work, they’ve languished.

    Private Penance, because it occurs in private, inside “the box,” has been one of the least touched sacraments in terms of the reform. All of the changes have been quickly suppressed or truncated. There has been fear of change and laxity at work in many cases.

    And look what has happened. “Works just fine” does not describe it as I see it. It is obviously NOT working fine when you look at the community as a whole.

    Now, I expect the usual whipping boys here: loss of a sense of sin, no moral compass, lax indifference to God, the church, the priest, etc.

    What I see, however, is general neglect, and suppression of the very rich texts, alternatives, forms, and gestures — and format — which the reform tried to introduce and implement. If none of the faithful ever even know that there are (A) scripture readings to meditate upon, (B) various expressions of contrition which they may choose, (C) the significance of the extension of hands, they are back to square one:

    Make a list of your sins.
    Go into the box.
    Say the words you were taught as a kid.
    Nothing has changed.
    Nor will it.

    It’s not so much the words of the greeting in themselves, as the fact that we (mostly) never opened up what the reform did, or took it seriously enough to pay attention. When general absolution was suppressed, the progressives threw up their hands, or most of them did. Personally, I think that if we did a better job with this whole thing, the faithful would be better prepared to make use of the sacrament in form 1 and form 2 and to invite their children and others to do the same in a wholesome and not a fearful, anxious way.

    Reply
  12. Karl Liam Saur

    Consider that in Forms I, II, and III, individual confession and absolution for serious/mortal sin is required, and optional for venial sin (with the caveat that, if one treats the preceptual obligation to confess sins once a year as inclusive of venial sins, there is that one odd general exception to this general pattern). So none of the Forms would presents a way to “consolidate” effort with regard to serious/mortal sin. Form III differs from Form II in the timing of the individual confession; Form II provides confessors on site and in real time, and might be more pastoral in that sense. From this, I can see why TPTB saw Form III as not offering anything of value over Form II except in the case of an acute group situation.

    As for the problem of the lack of use of Form I as reformed. When the faithful have widely failed to embrace the reform, might that said to be a case of non-reception by the faithful? One of the more common problems in confession is when confessors get in the way of Christ’s interaction with the penitent (often for good reasons, sometimes out of misplaced ego). That might also be the case with well-intentioned and nobly-principled reform of the ritual. Might not be.

    Reply
  13. Bill deHaas

    KLS raises a good point and question. Thanks also to Rita and to Paul Inwood – you stirred memories.
    1974 – by then had experienced a couple of Form II in seminary which really reframed conversion, use of scripture, penance, restitution, and the mercy of God….it also broadened our thoughts in terms of *social sin*.
    By 1978, had experienced many different forms I, II, III and our specific ars celebrandi of sacraments challenged us to spend time on the reformed rite of penance; planning/executing reconciliation services; exploring the concepts of social sins. But, can also relate that this was not required……the only requirement that I am aware of between the mid-70s to the end of the 1980s in many seminaries was in depth time spent on confession; especially the role of confessor. This focuesed on a form of spiritual advice/counseling rather than the reformed rite of penance.
    Can remember the parish/diocesan internal disappointments as Rome pushed back against *general absolution*; the tensions with Form II (do you have enough priests for a reconciliation service? what to do with first penance? etc.) Rita – we redid to penitential rooms (vs. confessionals); we taught/made available; and used a formula that included the penitent bringing in scripture and starting with that along with silence, some brief meditation, etc. And yes, these cards/books were available outside of the penitential rooms. But, also experienced priests and pew sitters who refused to do this…..along with those who, to be honest, used confession as a crutch – is penance really about a daily or weekly list of the same old, same old? It loses meaning.
    Haven’t been in the parish trenches in 25 years and my most recent experiences were in teaching/handling my own kids qustions about penance (and, unfortunately, they basically got educated in confession – not the sacrament of penance).
    Would agree with some – probably the one sacrament that was most inconsistently implemented (was this because of papal/episcopal changes/whims? or, as KLS asks, is this because Form II/III wasn’t received?)
    Above, stated this is *sad* – think the answer to our questions is complex – seminaries don’t educate because siminaries (some) do a poor job of any type of training in sacraments (they don’t understand the basic sacrament reform of VII – communal, use of scripture, stories, focus on human symbols; sin as social which Paul, Rita, others have already stated)
    Wonder, too, about KLS’ point – reform came after some significant church moment and re-education was lacking?
    Think the approach to this *reformed* sacrament will have to be re-thought and re-introduced and experienced. And somewhere in this process would suggest that we will need to decide whether the sacrament of penance will be private/support spiritual life or will it be an actual communal sacrament that may or may not include private confession?

    Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Michael Joncas

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading