Can we think outside the "thinking outside the box" box here?

Rich Leonardi on the trend of face-to-face confession:

The decline in the popularity of Confession roughly coincides with the rise of the face-to-face confessional. (Whoops, I'm sorry; I of course mean "Reconciliation Room.") The intention of this innovation was to create a more welcoming, less intimidating environment than was offered by the supposedly cold, dark, screen-divided little room of tradition. Yet I suspect most people of parenting age have not-so-fond memories of sitting in a padded chair in a "Reconciliation Room" across from their parish or school priest and embarrassedly baring their souls. Or not baring -- far better to mumble a sin or two, say an act of contrition, and clear out of there.

It has always flummoxed me --- what on earth made pastors and church architects think that people would feel MORE comfortable confessing their sins face to face with their parish priest, than anonymously?  The RCIA teachers years ago couldn't explain it to me either, back in that university parish with no confessionals at all --- confession was only by appointment in the priests' private offices.

What was the idea?  That putting a "wall" between the minister of the sacrament and the recipient damaged the character of the sacrament, somehow?  But the wall is porous --- the only blocked sense is vision.  On the penitent's side of the wall hangs the crucifix --- and it's Jesus who ultimately absolves.  Isn't it possible that the image of Fr. Joe or Fr. Mike might itself be a wall that obscures?  Aren't we often freer and safer behind closed doors?

This is rather cynical, but maybe the sex-abuse scandal will help bring back the confessional.  I'm sure that many people by now , whether rightly or wrongly, don't feel very comfortable sending their nine-year-old into the priest's private office for ten minutes.  That unwelcoming "wall" between priest and penitent is probably starting to look like a better idea.

From a 2002 article from OSV:

Duncan Stroik, a professor of architecture at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in churches, told Our Sunday Visitor that he knows priests who were so concerned about their safety and/or their reputations that they have had windows or stained glass installed in reconciliation rooms. Some even have installed exit doors, alarms or telephones. Stroik noted that the traditional confessional with separate rooms had probably come about for good reason....

Rolf Rohn of Rolf R. Rohn & Associates in Pittsburgh told Our Sunday Visitor that he has had requests for more observable confessionals [note:  I think he's using this term to mean "reconciliation place" in general -- E.] because of the safety issue. He related a story about a disturbed woman who began screaming at the priest in the reconciliation room and blocked the door. Indeed, news reports indicate that priests have been attacked and/or robbed in confessionals. Hence, Rohn likes to design reconciliation rooms with a second door emergency exit.

How very welcoming and conducive to spiritual peace!  Instead of that pesky wall, we've installed panic buttons and emergency exits.  Oh, and by the way, now it's not just the priest who can see you --- anyone can see you through the window.   Have a Kleenex.  Feel free to open up.   

My big beef with the OSV reporter is that she let architects be the experts about what a confessional is supposed to look like and feel like: 

"One thing is for sure," Rohn said, "the guidelines for building a confessional are that it should be very, very open, inviting, with all kinds of imagery of reconciliation. Whether it’s the woman at the well, or the prodigal son, or the woman with the coin, there should always be a space in front that allows people to pray and meditate to some kind of theme. So it isn’t just a box anymore. It has to have an environment."

James McCrery of Franck Lohsen McCrery Architects in Washington, D.C., and New York, emphasized that the setting for the sacrament should be inspiring.

Are these guys even Catholics?  Have they ever experienced the sacrament themselves?  Doesn't say.  Seriously:  considering the nature of Confession, what is wrong with a small private room, a place to kneel, and a crucifix on the wall?  Isn't it weird that while the architectural trend for the church as a whole has been to remove decoration and beauty, stripping it bare and creating a "place of emptiness," suddenly the confessional (the ONE place where the attention of the worshipper is meant to be INWARD) has to have lots and lots of imagery?

"There should always be a space in front" ---outside the box? --- "that allows people to pray and meditate... [I]t has to have an environment."  Duh.  We used to have those.  Very elaborate, they were, with lots of imagery.  We called it the sanctuary.

Related: a good post from 2003 by Fr. Rob Johansen about the confession in general, and also this one about face-to-face confession in specific.  Incidentally, canon law requires that confessionals with grilles be made freely available, and permits either priest or penitent to insist on anonymous (behind the screen) confessions. 

Comments

[Bernard Brandt]

Actually, I suspect that the one reason why some of these guys are removing the confessionals is to be more in line with Eastern liturgical practice, kinda like reception of communion standing and other such things.

Unfortunately, if that's the case, one could wish that these liturgicizers could go all the way, instead of such non-Eastern practices such as confession in the office or in a private room. Most importantly, confession is not done as a conversation between priest and penitant.

The way we do it in the East is for both priest and penitant to stand in front of the icon of Christ near the front of the church on the right side. The priest bids the penitant to confess his (or her) sins, "while he, an unworthy priest", stands aside. At the end of the penitant's confession, the priest bids the penitant to kneel, while the priest covers the penitant with his stole, and absolves the penitant.

While all of this quite literally takes place "in front of God and everyone", the confession is whispered, no one else can hear, and everything that goes on between the priest and the repentant one is entirely private.

Having done things this way for the past score of years, I have found this to be a most comfortable way of confession. I wish that if the West were going to try to do things in an Eastern fashion, that they could at least take the trouble to do them right.

[bearing]

With all due respect, Bernard, I don't for one minute think that in removing the confessionals the architects and parish decision-makers are trying to be more Eastern.

If they're trying to make it more like anything, I'd guess a psychotherapy session!

Most Western Christians are pretty ignorant of the Eastern traditions (and I count myself among the ignorant). Besides, as you note, what they've replaced the private confessional with is something even more alien to Eastern sensibilities.

[hilary]

maybe the sex-abuse scandal will help bring back the confessional

actually, this is precisely why the box confessionals were invented, by, if I'm not mistaken, St. Robert Bellarmine. In his time there was a serious problem with priests propositioning women (and vice versa) in face-to-face confession. I suppose it was not just women either, but the unnatural vices were not considered mentionable then.

[hilary]

Intersting implication of the architecht's. "very, very open, inviting, with all kinds of imagery of reconciliation."

no idea at all that the crucifix is the first, last and ultimate image of reconciliation. No idea at all, clearly, of what the Reconciliation is, or how it was effected or by Whom.

No wonder there is nothing being done to solve these problems. It's not new architecture that's needed, its a renewal of the Catholic Faith.

[hilary]

Bernard,

the Roman Church is not the Eastern Church. Let the east be the east and keep their customs, and let the Romans be Roman and bring back our own. It is foolish to excuse such desecrations by invoking the allmighty excuse of ecumenism.

[Cathy_of_Alex]

My parish, which is very traditional, has the "reconciliation room" too. I doubt it's original to the church which is Gothic in design. The church was "renovated" in the 70's and I suspect the original confessionals were removed at that time and replaced with a wide open room with a glass wall. Anyone can see in. Like most "reconciliation rooms" the penitent has the option of sitting in a chair and facing the priest directly or kneeling on a pre-dieu with a screen. Most people choose the screen option which should tell us all something. It's funny though because the way the door is situated the priest can probably see you as you enter the room anyway!

[Eric Scheidler]

Erin and Friends,

As another Eastern Catholic, I had much the same response to Erin's post as Bernard. But I think there's some misunderstanding of what Bernard was getting at.

First, the Eastern practice illustrates that we should not jump to the conclusion that anonymous confession is inherently better. Maybe this is a "hypersensitive Eastern Catholic" thing, but we do tend to be on the look out for blanket statements by Romans that seem to leave out consideration of the other Rites of the Catholic Church.

Secondly, Erin, it's entirely possible that the move to face-to-face confession (which is not actually at all what Byzantine's do, which is another point I think Bernard was making) was inspired by an appeal to Eastern practice. So many other sacramental innovations were. Unfortunately, much of this appeal failed to take into account the whole ethos of Eastern Christianity, and often it seems it was nothing but a flimsy excuse to overturn ancient Western practices.

Having grown up Roman Catholic, I can tell you I never liked face-to-face confession; even when I thought I like it, I didn't like it. Anonymous confession was a great innovation in the West that befits, and facilitates, the Western practice of frequent confession very well, and it is very ancient indeed.

Finally, Erin, you're forgetting the key to the whole face-to-face concept, why it actually works just fine in the New Church: You have to simultaneously eliminate all sense of real sin! Then it's just a matter of rattling off your most recent negative vibes or whatever. Easy.

[Patrick Laws]

Incidentally, canon law requires that confessionals with grilles be made freely available, and permits either priest or penitent to insist on anonymous (behind the screen) confessions.

Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of the notion of a penitent approaching his priest and insisting on "anonymous" confession?

[bearing]

Patrick: "Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of the notion of a penitent approaching his priest and insisting on "anonymous" confession?"

Depends how he approaches the priest. He might call anonymously for a confession by appointment and ask to meet the priest in the confessional rather than in the foyer, or in the office, or whatever.

Or someone --- perhaps a woman or child --- might insist on using the confessional rather than the priest's office, not for anonymity, but because of feeling that it's inappropriate or even risky to meet any man, priest or no, alone in his office.

Thirdly, some people feel more comfortable behind the screen. Even if the priest knows who you are, it's perfectly reasonable to ask to use a confessional, assuming there's one available. Anonymity isn't the only reason for the screen --- which is why I added "(behind the screen)" as a parenthesis to describe the kind of confession that either priest or penitent is allowed to seek.

[frank]

bearing:

It used to be that there was a time for confessions (a particular time on saturdays or before all Masses...) so a certain degree of anonymity was possible.