Catholic Sensibility

Post-Council Reconciliation A commenter named "camilam" and I were involved on a thread elsewhere about the finer points of exactly what the Cincinnati priests said or didn't say about ordaining women. From there, it was an easy step to a substantial list of everything wrong with the Church since Vatican II. (What else?) I invited the person over to my blog (since a link isn't listed on camilam's posts) to continue. camilam wrote, "Here are a few practices that have been introduced into parishes which have no basis in the council decree and in some instances are opposed to them. The council nowhere says: 1) That children’s confessions are to be omitted before first Holy Communion and postponed several years beyond the age of reason; 2) That general confessions and general absolutions are to replace individual confessions;" In the interests of focus, I've left off at the first two points. That's enough to chew on for a day. Almost everywhere pastors and DRE's have moved First Reconciliation prep from 5th grade or so to 2nd. My problem is that the sacramental preparation was moved, instead of adding one extra catechietical time for younger children. Here's why. Child development specialists are right. Children don't develop a real sense of right and wrong until grade 4, 5, 6. Their sense of sin, if carefully cultivated, should deepen around age ten. I think they need a new way of preparing for the sacrament at that age as well as at age 7. I have no problem with Reconciliation being "taught" at the age of reason. It's probably a good idea for your active Catholic family. But to suggest that a person needs formation in Penance only at grade 2 is about as silly as thinking a single preparation at grade 5 is adequate. So your friendly internet liturgist gives thumbs down to the pre-Vatican II practice, the early post-Vatican II practice, and the JPII practice. That's right: all of them are messed up. For the record, I think teens are ready for another quantum leap in reconciliation awareness, but that's another story. General confession with general absolution is form III in the Rite. It was deep-sixed on John Paul's insistence about ten years after it was promulgated. I think the Holy Father chickened out theologically on this issue. I think form III deserved a try. It works for "devotional" confessions. I think form III is wholly inadequate for people who are serious about using the sacrament as a means of purging themselves of sin and really working on their moral life. But I think venial sins, the routine venial sins that never seem to go away, are a good subject matter for communal celebrations. Priests in Chicago and a few other places report form III functions as it was envisioned. In concert with form I, it might actually work to bring people back to the sacrament. My most serious present concern about putting all our hopes in the form I basket is the sex abuse scandal. We're seeing anecdotal and some statistical reports about dropping Mass attendance these past few years. I've heard nothing about a recent drop in "private" confessions. It wouldn't surprise me if it were happening in some places. And not having any workable alternatives (don't get me started on form II) isn't a good thing. I think the framers of the new Rite of Penance had the start of something. I just hope the pope hasn't screwed it up. So, friends, have at it.