Catholic Sensibility

Reconciliation, one of a liturgist's favorite topics On her excellent blog, Karen Marie Knapp comments on Elena Curti's piece in the 29 May 2004 Tablet. Here's the full article. A friend of mine suggests that Pius X, not Vatican II, instigated the most substantial liturgical reform of the last century. This article suggests that frequent confession was a byproduct of weekly Communion. To the degree this is true, are we only seeing a settling back to a "traditional" Catholic approach: people going once a year? Was frequent confession the same kind of blip that the clergy wave of 1930-70 was? Lots of people say frequent confession is good, even without committing mortal sin. But is that the real reason for the sacrament? Without weighing in definitively yes or no, let's extend the thought. If one of the purposes of the sacrament is to strengthen moral character, would further reform be needed to expedite this in the process? A traditionalist-leaning priest suggested, "The confessional is not a place for counselling or a general chat. People have to clearly understand that the sacrament is for the forgiveness of sins. If somebody wanted to talk generally about their life, we would need to go somewhere else." Liturgically speaking, I generally agree with this, but part of me wonders. Is morality so divorced from the other aspects of life that sins can be easily separated from their context? An extreme example: is it important for a confessor to know that when a penitent confesses killing someone, the circumstances could vary: a soldier on duty, a home intruder, a fetus, a robbery, or a careless accident. I imagine, of course, a competent confessor will ferret out the truth of the grave sins. But consider that so many routine sins are also hooked up with circumstances. Maybe the notion of confession for forgiveness only is a better liturgical fit. If so, I wonder if the so-called "devotional" confession is hanging out in the breeze. Can we really say that one of the purposes of the sacrament is to toughen one's moral fiber if all that's getting communicated is a laundry list? Fr Allen Morris, of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, criticizes the approach of pure listing, "That is a travesty of what the sacrament is about. We have got away from reciting a formula like an automaton and that is a good thing." A St Blog's priest criticized me for saying something similar, that some Catholics still approach the sacrament as something magical. Say the correct incantation (the exact number and kind of sins) and one is forgiven. The penitent conveniently controls both priest and God. I think back to that Australian priest who admitted he confessed hundreds of instances of molesting children. What was confession for him? A release valve for guilt that served to maintain a persistent and grave sin. Another good quote from Curti, "Fr Christopher McCoy ... says students may go to confession less frequently but the quality of it can be better. 'It often starts as a conversation for 45 minutes or half an hour, then turns into confession. It can come out of a ‘let’s look at my life and where I am going’ sort of conversation. It is a more fluid kind of relationship.'" McCoy recounts the openness many people feel when they are involved in a "special" spiritual experience: a pilgrimage or retreat. This resonates with both my own experience as well as what I've seen in ministry over the years. Liminal experiences, planned and unplanned, can be a profound means of drawing out the desire for the sacrament. Is it enough, I wonder, for parishes to just offer more hours, or the usual Lent and Advent "extras?" In a Catholic culture in which people were accustomed to frequent confession, that might have worked. Will it gain anything today? The article mentions lay advocacy for the sacrament, a good development I think. Sarah Lindsell of Caritas Social Action is quoted "... many priests leave the seminary ill-equipped to address the social needs of their parishioners. In her view, the range and complexity of problems today make such knowledge vital." Is this true? Does a good confessor also need counselling skills? I'm glad today's confessors have the flexibility to operate in different ways with various penitents. The best of them probably have the savvy to discern the interface of forgiveness of sin and human psychology, and are able to direct penitents accordingly. What do you think?