ASK FATHER: Can priests refuse to hear confessions face to face?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

A bishop made a comment about saying that a priest doesn’t have the power to deny a penitent face to face confession. In other words, a bishop basically said “ a priest can’t override a penitent who is asking for face to face…

When I was studying in Rome in late 90s – we came across a Vatican document July 7, 1998 approved by John Paul II that mentioned it’s the prerogative or right of the priest to “override” a face to face request. Anyway the current Vatican website doesn’t seem to have this document on its website in its entirety… its only quoted in other documents and for other reasons…

Would you happen to have this document? or access to it? Or some other post Vatican decree in favor of the “priest overidding….“

Let’s get a few things straight right off the bat.

A priest CAN decline to receive a sacramental confession “face to face”.

Firstly, can. 964 §3 says that confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional except for a good reason.  A good reason could include a patient being in a hospital room, or someone asks in an airport because you are dressed as a priest.   Priests are pretty flexible about this and rightly so.

Priests can, of course, decline to hear a confession if the time and place is not appropriate for such.  For example, 5 minutes before Mass is to begin or in the middle of a restaurant during a meal or waiting for an appointment in a dentist’s office.

I, for one, will NEVER use a confessional that is like a room, with door that closes and there is no window or barrier between me and penitents.  To my mind, “reconciliation rooms” are “lawsuit rooms”.

Can. 964 §2 says that confessionals should have fixed grates or screens or grilles between the confessor and the penitent.   NOT having a grille in a confessional is a violation of law and of the confessor’s right to have that grille in place.  This was affirmed in 1998.

This is the document you are searching for:

Can. 964, § 2 (cf. AAS, XC, 1998, p. 711)

Patres Pontificii Consilii de Legum Textibus Interpretandis, in ordinario coetu diei 16 iunii 1998, dubio, quod sequitur, respondendum esse censuerunt ut infra:

D. Utrum attento praescripto can. 964, § 2, sacramenti minister, iusta de causa et excluso casu necessitatis, legitime decernere valeat, etiamsi poenitens forte aliud postulet ut confessio sacramentalis excipiatur in sede confessionali crate fixa instructa.
R. Affirmative.

Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II in Audientia die 7 iulii 1998 infrascripto Praesidi impertita, de supradicta decisione certior factus, eam confirmavit et promulgari iussit.

+ Iulianus Herranz,
Archiepiscopus titularis Vertarensis, Praeses

Bruno Bertagna,
Episcopus titularis Drivastensis, a Secretis

“Whether, regarding can. 964 § 2, the minister of the sacrament, for a just cause and cases of necessity excluded, can legitimately decide, even if the penitent perhaps  asks otherwise, that sacramental confession be received in a confessional with a fixed grille.”

AFFIRMATIVE.

Hence, a priest can refuse to hear a confession if there is no confessional with a fixed grate. Even if the person insists that it be face-to-face, the priest can decline.

Penitents do not have the right to face-to-face confession.  The bishop was wrong.

Say some priest or other, just for the heck of it call him “Fr. Z”, wants to use a confessional that only has the grate and does not have a way to make a confession face-to-face.  That’s fine.  He is within his rights.  At the same time, penitents are also not obliged to go to Fr. Z for confession.  If, perchance, penitents insist on face-to-face and Fr. Z insists on a fixed grate, they will be at loggerheads.  But Fr. Z would be, as usual, right.

The response from the Holy See underscores that a) confessionals are important and that b) there should be a grille or grate.   The priest has the right to protect himself and his reputation from harm and false accusations.

Meanwhile,

GO TO CONFESSION!

And don’t insist on face to face.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged , , ,
14 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 153

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment

ASK FATHER: Holding hands and then raising them up during the Traditional Latin Mass

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have a serious issue. At my TLM a small group of people have started holding hands during the Pater Noster, they hold them while Father sings the prayer and raise them high during the “sed libera nos a malo.” Then they shake hands among themselves after the priest sings the peace greeting. I tried to talk to them but all they said was that there were no rubrics for lay people at the TLM and something about mutual enrichment. Am I making too much out of this by being upset? Should I go to a different Mass?

Ironically, the (then) Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship “repudiated” hand holding back in 1975.  Yep.  Cf. Notitiae 11 (1975) 226.  Holding hands…

“must be repudiated . . . it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on a personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics.” And anything not in the rubrics is unlawful, again because “no other person . . . may add . . . anything [to] the liturgy on his own authority”

It is amusing to think that that applies to the Novus Ordo but not to the Vetus Ordo.

You put your finger on a couple things, or they did: 1) there are no rubrics for people at the TLM and 2) something about mutual enrichment.

The mutual enrichment part crumbles a little because the practice of holding hands as a congregation is not to be invited or encouraged.  It is to be repudiated in the Novus Ordo.

I don’t know your community, of course. However, I suspect that these are folks who have found their way to the TLM after having been a liberal-leaning parish where hand-holding and so forth is the custom.  It is probably what they know.  Not my cup of Mystic Monk, but it is theirs.  Shaking hands.  Definitely not my thing.   But it is what they know.

If that is the case, it is terrific that they are at your place’s TLM!

They are finding their way to a richer experience!

That’s wonderful, isn’t it?

Give them some time.   They may have to acclimatize.

Should you go to a different Mass because they are doing those Novus Ordo-y things?

I am reminded of the curmudgeon character Clint Eastwood plays in Grand Torino.  He is really put off by those weird Hmong people who moved in next door.  He and they eventually develop rather grudging mutual respect, but it takes a while and it ain’t easy.

Maybe the best approach is just to smile to yourself, say “They’ll get it eventually!”, and pay attention to your own full, conscious and active reception of the priest saying the Pater Noster.

I’ve been writing for a long time about the demographic sinkhole opening up under the Church here.  The fact is that lots of “nones” will stop even pretending to embrace the family religion.  Also, the inexorable movement of time is applying the “biological solution” to us all.  We will lose a lot of seasoned Catholics and, with them, their financial support.  Their children are already going and gone. Corona lockdown melodrama, COVID Theater, has accelerated the opening of the sinkhole.  I suspect that quite a few people who barely went to church will disappear pretty much for good.

As the sinkhole widens, two main groups will stay strong, those who want Tradition and also those who converts from an evangelical background and some charismatics with sound devotions.

These groups will find each other. 

There will be some friction points along the way, but they will begin to integrate.   

That’ll be something to see.

It could be that you are witnessing something of this mutual discovery and friction.

Think about it: Is there anything wrong with people holding hands during the Our Father?  Of course not.  People should not be brow-beaten into doing it, or exhorted to.  People have the right to be left alone at Mass and not hold some else’s hand.  But if people in a household who love each other are moved to hold hands during the Pater Noster of the Traditional Latin Mass and then raise them as if in victory and praise at the phrase: libera nos a malo… deliver us from evil… is that really such a bad thing?

I have in mind the psalm priests are to recite when they incense the altar at the offertory of the Traditional Mass:

Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in Thy sight: the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice. Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips. May my heart not incline to evil words, to make excuses for sins.
May the Lord enkindle within us the fire of His love, and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.

There is a strong streak in US trads, I surmise, a desire for order.  We like to have things be tidy and predictable.   For some people the idea that others are not kneeling at the right time (even though these “rubrics” are rather arbitrary for the congregation and have come to be custom) gives some people the shivers.  We have to relax a little.  That doesn’t mean chaos.  That might mean not worrying if someone is doing something a little different.We are looking at a horizon that portends some real changes.   We are going to have to be flexible and agile.  We are going to have to learn  – different groups of committed Catholics having different styles and emphases – to improvise, adapt and overcome what we face on that horizon, what we face from that yawning sink hole.

I’ve gone from “sink hole” imagery to “horizon” imagery.  Sorry.   I think you get my meaning.

Oh… about that Grand Torino analogy.  It just occurred to me that the end isn’t the very best for your scenario and that the Clint Eastwood character did not take the priest’s advice.

So… ignore that part.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Id of Traddydom | Tagged
27 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon notes – 5th Sunday after Easter (N.O. 6th of Easter) 2021

Was there a GOOD point made in the sermon you heard at the Mass for your Sunday (obligation or none), either live or on the internet? Let us know what it was.

Too many people today are without good, strong preaching, to the detriment of all. Share the good stuff.

Also, are your churches opening up? What was attendance like?

Mine.

If you are involved with preparing coffee and donuts after Mass (yes, this is returning) consider using Mystic Monk Coffee.  Use my link. You help the monks, you help yourselves, you help me.  A pretty good deal.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
4 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 152

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Daily Rome Shot 152

ASK FATHER: I forgot to confess a detail about a mortal sin. Do I have to re-confess everything?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I know we must confess mortal sins in kind and number and the details which change the nature of the sin. I confessed a set of past sins and mentioned an important detail which changed the species/nature of the sin (let’s call it Detail X).

However, I recently remembered another detail (Detail Y) that I don’t recall mentioning. The forgotten Detail Y changed the nature of the sin in the *same way* as Detail X, even though they were distinct details. So even though I forgot Detail Y, the priest still understood how the nature of the mortal sin was changed. Both Detail X and Detail Y belong in the same “category,” so either of them would have changed the nature of my sins in the same way.

Am I in the clear, or do I have to re-confess everything yet again but this time including Detail Y? This has caused me *great* mental agony as I have re-confessed the same set of past sins again and again over the years in greater and greater detail. I just want to be free once and for all, but I keep remembering things I fear change the nature/gravity.

I can tell that you take going to confession seriously and that you want to do the right thing.

Doing the right thing includes doing your best.   It sounds to me as if, when you make your confessions you, at the moment, did your best.  You tried to make a good confession and did not intentionally exclude any important point.

When you do your best and, through no fault of your own, you nevertheless forget some detail or even a sin, all your sins are still forgiven.    Don’t fret about that.   You don’t become “unforgiven” if you remember something.

The next time you go to confession, if there is some sin you forgot before, simply include it in your confession and mention that you had sincerely forgotten it before.  As far as some detail is concerned, if you feel like it, to get it off your chest, you can mention that also, but I don’t think that you should feel compelled to.

This experience will help you to remember to make your good examination of conscience before your confession.  I am sure you do already.  However, you will probably now be more aware of “game changing” details than before.

I’d like to counsel you not to torment yourself, in such a way that you become afraid to go to confession for fear of not doing well enough.  Just go and do your best.   Making your examination of conscience each night will help you to relax and make a good confession without all sorts of doubts and scruples creeping in.

When strong doubts creep in, resist your anxiety.  Don’t worry.  You are not being “lax”.

If you are having a really hard time feeling the comfort of having made your good confession, tell your confessor, tell the priest.  It could be that he will have some advice for you.

The most important thing is to BELIEVE in Christ’s promises and His love for all of us in instituting the Sacrament of Penance. He gave His own power to His priests to absolve our sins.  He knew that we would need this sacrament.  He knew that we would sometimes struggle with it.   Be confident and believe in His care for you.   He does not desire that you feel as if you are on the rack.   Making a confession can be hard sometimes, but HE is not your prosecutor.  He is the dispenser of divine mercy.  He knows you better than you know yourself.

Do your best and all your sins are forgiven.  They don’t snap back into unforgiveness if you remember one that you had forgotten.  Remember that.

Everyone…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged ,
9 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 151

Photo by Bree Dail.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Daily Rome Shot 151

“Missa pica”

From a reader… animi caussa!

Dear Fr Z,

Last Monday week (April 26) was the day after Anzac Day, a day whereon all Australians and New Zealanders who died in war are remembered.

We sang a daily requiem mass for the dead, during which a juvenile Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen) strayed into Ss Peter and Paul, Garran, Canberra, Australia.

It was very distressed for a while, not being able to find its way out, despite our best efforts. Eventually, having given up, it settled down and, perching quietly on a pew, seemed to develop an interest in our proceedings (see photo attached).

It landed on the bench that you can see, at the left hand side, and crabbed sideways for 10ft or so up to the gentleman in a very deliberate way, then stopped and fixed on him with its gaze for a long time. The irony was that it was our Anzac requiem, and this gentleman was the only military person (a retired Brigadier) in the whole congregation. It was as if it were asking for orders! I could barely hold my mirth.

Then, get this – and I swear – immediately after the Consecration, it started singing away lustily, … it was a glorious elevation motet!

After mass, we managed to coax it safely out an open window.

Note that it came dressed in the appropriate liturgical colours for a requiem. How thoughtful!

“Bless the Lord all ye works of the Lord.”

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
10 Comments

8 May Indulgence: Supplication to O.L. of Pompeii

There is a beautiful tradition for 8 May, this year Sunday (often right at 1200 noon).

Once upon a time one could obtain this day a plenary indulgence by reciting the Supplication to the Madonna of Pompeii.  The other day for this is the first Sunday of October.

With the changes to the concessions for indulgences, according to the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, there is no longer any plenary indulgence for this prayer, notwithstanding anything you might see in some old book or on a website.  For example, if you see something about Pope Leo XIII granting an indulgence, etc., that is null and void now.

However, the new Enchiridion says with concession #17, §3 that Marian prayers obtain a partial indulgence under the condition that the prayer is approved by competent authority and that it is recited with fervor in the state of grace (you don’t need confession and Communion within 20 days, nor must you recite the prayers for the Roman Pontiffs intentions for a partial indulgence)You can receive a partial indulgence, by maintaining this beautiful custom of the Supplication today. 

For more about this, including the prayers, click HERE.  I included background on Bl. Bartolo Longo, a converted Satanic priest! John Paul II beatified Bartolo Longo in 1980.  Some of his writings form the basis of the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Our Catholic Identity |
1 Comment

WDTPRS – 5th Sunday after Easter (TLM): Liturgical goop. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

I am going to drag you – again – through my standard and sustained rant about liturgy, punctuated by Latin vocabulary and Neoplatonism.

First, to be grown up Catholics we need a Mass for grown ups.

Our Mass should give us thick red steak and Cabernet, not pureed carrots and milk for baby teeth.

I want meat for you, not goop.   That means I want some of you to grow up into something more than you have hitherto desired.

Goop is fine for babies.  Babies need goop.  But when you grow up, you need more than goop.  Adults can survive on goop, but they won’t thrive.

I want you to thrive through our Mass not just survive.

In the revisions and recreation of new prayers for Novus Ordo we lost most of what could be characterized as “negative” concepts: sin, guilt, penance, propitiation, etc.  But these are vital nutrients for Catholics.  Grown up Catholics, that is.  Catholics who understand that we are sinners, and that one day we are going to die and meet our Maker, who is our Savior and our Judge.

When we deal with very young children we don’t drum on about the Four Last Things.  They shouldn’t be ignorant of them, but we shouldn’t stress them to much, either.  Let children be children.

But we must not infantilize adults by denying them the sustenance of TRUTH.  “Goo goo ga ga” is not enough for adults. To preach “goo goo” to them is precisely the opposite of charity, which seeks to serve the good of others.

Alas, the Novus Ordo has a lot of “goo goo” built in it, because the experts who cobbled it together stripped the rites and prayers of many essential nutrients.  The deficiencies can be partly made up for by a good ars celebrandi and good preaching, just as in the TLM some of the optimistic eschatology stressed in the Novus Ordo can be brought in with good effect.

It is far easier to do that with the later than to evolve the former.   But I digress.

Bottom line…

Mass must be succulent, not insipid.

With the help of preachers and devotional reading and some silent contemplation – yes, I mean sitting down and thinking for a while without looking at a screen – we can crack the bones of our prayers and rites open with adult teeth, chew their marrow and gnaw their flesh with benefit.

Moving on to Sunday’s prayer, let’s start cracking those bones for the marrowy goodness within.

In the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary today’s Collect is found on the Fourth Sunday after the close of the Easter Octave. The Gelasian or Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae (Book of Sacraments of the Church of Rome) was assembled from older material in Paris around 750.

It has elements of both the Roman and Gallican (French) liturgies of the Merovingian period (5th – 8th cc.). This Collect survived the cutters and snippers who pasted the Novus Ordo together on their desks. You hear it now on the 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time.

COLLECT – (1962MR):

Deus, a quo bona cuncta procedunt, largire supplicibus tuis: ut cogitemus, te inspirante, quae recta sunt; et, te gubernante, eadem faciamus.

The Novus Ordo version slightly rearranges the word order, saying “tuis largire supplicibus”, which I actually prefer since it flows better, but the more ancient version in the Gelasian omits the “tuis” altogether.

Our never distant Lewis & Short Dictionary says procedo means “to go forth or before, to go forwards, advance, proceed” and more importantly “to go or come forth or out, to advance, issue” and even “to issue from the mouth, to be uttered”. Largire looks like an infinitive but is really an imperative form of the deponent largior, “to give bountifully, to lavish, bestow, dispense, distribute, impart… to confer, bestow, grant, yield”. The neuter substantive rectum, i (from rego), is “that which is right, good, virtuous; uprightness, rectitude, virtue”. Rego involves “to keep straight or from going wrong, to lead straight; to guide, conduct, direct”. The core concepts are “straight” and “upwards”. In its adjectival form, rectus, a, um, there is a moral content, “right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting” again having reference to that which is “above”. Cogito is more than simply “to think”. As in Descartes’ often quoted “Cogito ergo sum… I think, therefore I am”, it is really, “to pursue something in the mind” and “to consider thoroughly, to ponder, to weigh, reflect upon”. The English derivative is “cogitate”.

LITERAL VERSION:

O God, from whom all good things issue forth, bountifully grant to Your supplicants, that, You inspiring, we may think things which are right, and, You guiding, we may accomplish the same.

CURRENT ICEL (2011 from the Ordinary Form):

O God, from whom all good things come,
grant that we, who call on you in our need,
may at your prompting discern what is right,
and by your guidance do it
.

Well… okay.

Time to CRACK SOME BONES!

In today’s classically sculpted Collect there is a concept important for theological reflection by the ancient Church through the medieval period.

A theological key helps us to open up what the Church is really saying to God, on our behalf, locked up in words.

Ancient theologians, both pagan and Christian struggled alike for answers to the same questions.

  • If all things come from God, did God create evil?
  • If all things come from God, then are all things, in fact, also God?
  • If in the cosmos there are only God and everything else which is not-God, and if God is the only Good, then are all created not-God things evil?
  • Is matter evil by nature?
  • Are we evil, destined to doom or nothingness?

Pagans and Christians, using the same starting points and categories of thought, came up with differing solutions.

Rejecting the idea of both a good god principle and an evil god principle, pagan theologians of the Platonic stream of thought posited a kind of creation through an endless series of intermediaries to avoid the conclusion that God, the highest good, created evil. For them, the perfectly transcendent One overflowed with being through descending triads of intermediaries down to the corrupt material world from which we must be freed. This solved nothing, of course, because no matter how many hierarchies of intermediaries you propose, those hierarchies always must be further divided into more hierarchies. Christian theologians, who were also Platonists, using the same categories of thought found another solution: creatio ex nihilo… immediate (that is “unmediated”) creation of the universe from nothing. Evil was explained as a deprivation of being, essentially a “nothingness”, not created by God. All things which have being come forth from God, are good, and will go back to God. This is the key for unlocking our prayer.

Let us now look at the lame-duck version people had to hear in church for over thirty years on the 10th Sunday of Ordinary, brought to you by…

OBSOLETE ICEL (1973 10th Ord. Sunday):
God of wisdom and love,
source of all good,
send your Spirit to teach us your truth
and guide our actions
in your way of peace.

BLECH! Did I mention “goo goo ga ga goop?”

Folks, translation is hard but it ain’t that hard.   BTW… I read that a certain American Archbishop wants us to review the current translation.   This same Archbishop was, I believe, at one time in favor of “feedbox” for “manger” and “big boat” for “ark.  But I digress.

If our prayer today is like a nice plate of ossobucco, it’s time to dig out some of that good rich marrow.

When our Sunday Collect was composed, Western theologians (still really Platonists in many respects) were mightily struggling to solve thorny problems about, for example, predestination. This required them to gaze deeply at man’s nature and the problem of evil.

In this titanic theological battle we find on all sides the ancient Platonic view of creation. All creation proceeds (procedo) forth from God in indeterminate form. In a reflection of the eternal procession of uncreated divine Persons of the Trinity, the rational component of creation (man) turned around when proceeding forth in order to regard his Source and, in that turning, that conversio, took determinate form and began to return to God. This going forth and returning, this descent and rising (in theology exitus and reditus or Greek exodos and proodos) is everywhere present in ancient and medieval thought… and in liturgical prayer today when the ancient form was too messed up by the redactors.

For Christians of the Neoplatonic Augustinian tradition, man, the pinnacle of creation, “drags”, as it were, all of created nature with him in a contemplative “conversion” back to God.

Man’s rational nature was not destroyed by sin in the Fall.

However, were it not for the Incarnate Logos, the Word made flesh, the union of uncreated with created, the descent of creation would have simply continued “exiting” away from God for eternity.

If not for the Incarnation man and all creation with him would never turn back, doomed to become ever more indeterminate!

Instead, rational man, the image of the rational Word, and all creation with him can turn back to God.

The Son entered our created realm and made possible man’s conversio after the Fall.

As John Scotus Eriugena (+877) put it, man is “nature’s priest”.

Through rational acts man plays a part in God’s saving plan for creation.

This pattern of exitus and reditus is exemplified in the writings of theologians in a line from pagan Neoplatonic writers like Plotinus (+270), to Christian Platonists like St. Augustine (+430), Boethius (+525), Eriugena, St. Bonaventure (+1274) and St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274). This is the theology behind many ancient prayers.

Our Collect echoes the Neoplationic theology of late antiquity and early Middle Ages together with the Scriptural James 1:17, a text used frequently by these same Merovingian and Carolingian thinkers.

We need what our prayers really say.  They are the bones of our daily lives. We need a Mass for grown ups.

Demand Grown-up Mass.

Lastly, perhaps that Augustinian, Neoplatonic stuff I rattled on about could be the starting point for a serious “theology of ecology”, somewhat more substantial than the pseudo-scientific tripe that’s being peddled today.  You theology students out there: this could provide some starting points for papers and theses.  Go back and read that last part and see what you can think up.

Just don’t attempt this at Villanova or at some Jesuit school unless there is solid faculty member about.

Meanwhile, dear readers, consider this a different sort of “food post”.

Posted in WDTPRS, Wherein Fr. Z Rants |
3 Comments