Reconciliation: A Necessity for Absolution, Inclusion, and Peace in the Catholic Church
Ashton Dietrich
Background
Before delving into discussion of the concepts of Reconciliation, it is important to understand the sacrament itself. Reconciliation is one of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church (the six others are Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick).
Vatican II promulgated three sacramental Rites of Reconciliation.[1] The first Rite is individual confession in front of a priest.[2] This is the type of confession we normally perceive: a guilty Catholic enters a box, and he confesses his sins to a priest behind a dimly lit screen. A more contemporary method is to sit face-to-face with the priest. The second Rite of Reconciliation is one in which individual confession and absolution are made in the context of a public celebration.[3] The second Rite gives penitents the option of receiving the sacrament individually after a communal service. Often times, this is applicable in retreat situations or Catholic high schools. Typically, a service is held in front of a large group of people, and many priests are invited to the venue to take hear individual Reconciliations for those that choose to partake in it. The third Rite of Reconciliation has a specific liturgy of general absolution, where a priest absolves a number of people without them having confessed their sins to him.[4] For the purposes of this analysis, we will discuss only individual confession (which pertain to the first and second Rites).
Individual confession is traditionally administered in a Catholic church. This may be done face-to-face, or behind a screen. The penitent will come before the priest, and the priest will ask the penitent to tell the priest his or her sins. When the penitent finishes confessing their sins, the priest will then talk with the penitent. This should not at all be in a hostile manner, but rather in an understanding and peaceful tone. The priest will then give the penitent advice about the penitent’s feelings, concerns, and relationships with God and others. At this point, the priest will give the penitent a penance. This greatly ranges based on the individual priest and penitent, but a penance is a way to allow the individual person to make amends with God and themselves after confessing their sins. For a penance, the priest may ask the penitent to say a certain prayer, read a particular bible verse, perform a certain action, or complete some other act.
According to the Church's command, after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.[5] Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[6] Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.[7]
Introduction
The Sacrament of Reconciliation might be the one thing that Catholics dread most. If one attended Catholic grade school, then the word “confession” might induce awkward grade school memories. The Lenten tradition was to line up with other pleated classmates and walk over to the church, where the class would then confess their secrets to the priest that they knew all too well. The students’ confessions might include hiding a friend’s video game, sneaking an extra brownie in the lunch line, or smiting an older sister in the head with a rock. The sacrament was simply a mandatory activity during Lent and Advent. But as one got older, and the sins became weightier, and life got busier, going to confession became less appealing than it already was. Thus, people stopped receiving the sacrament altogether.
Many criticisms arise from Reconciliation. Opponents may argue that God, rather than a priest, forgives sins, so the sacrament is useless. To these people, a more effective and personal method of absolution is prayer. Another criticism is that Catholics can sin all they want, and they will be forgiven as long as they are sorry for their sins.
On the other hand, proponents may argue that the priest acts as a counselor or a psychologist, and that Reconciliation is a good way to receive advice. Proponents may also say that Reconciliation allows them to atone for sins whenever they arise. They may say that Reconciliation is a nice security measure, because people know they will sin in the future.
Opponents and proponents both hold viable arguments. However, Reconciliation is a much more complex subject that requires deeper conversation and analysis. The Church often fails to properly educate its people on the real meaning of Reconciliation. The teachings are there, but the local actions are not. As a result, Catholics and others are often left uninformed.
To truly understand the benefits of Reconciliation, it is vastly important to consider current events, history, and Church teaching. Only then can we see Reconciliation for what it truly is: a necessary process for absolution, inclusion, and peace in the Catholic Church.
Clergy Sex Abuse: What Reconciliation Means For The Church And Society
It is difficult to discuss the topic of Catholic Reconciliation without also discussing such a core topic of Catholic controversy—clergy sex abuse. Clergy sex abuse is a grievous issue that the modern Church strives to address. Inquiring into the specific details of how the Church has handled clergy abuse is a topic for another discussion; however, the gravity of these priests’ wrongful acts is one that can be analyzed in the context of societal reconciliation.
In Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005), James Wells filed suit against his uncle, Father James Janssen, for sex crimes committed by Janssen when Wells was a minor. Father Janssen preyed on innocent boys by sexually abusing them, including his own nephew, James Wells.[8] Wells was able to recover damages for his uncle’s crimes that resulted in Wells’ severe emotional distress. The crimes committed by Janssen scarred countless young boys, as well as his own nephew. It is difficult to think of forgiveness for such a terrible act, but forgiveness is the only way that these individuals and society can begin to recover from such instances.
Diana L. Grimes discusses restorative justice in her Washington and Lee Law Review article, “Practice What You Preach”. Restorative justice brings together the victims, the offenders, and the community to talk about the harm and to come to a mutually agreeable remedy, while focusing on compassion, rehabilitation, and equalization of the power imbalance among the parties.[9] Grimes continues to define restorative justice as “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.”[10] She compares the societal hurt of clergy sex abuse to a legal dispute. In the way alternative dispute resolution is a way to peacefully resolve conflict while providing the option to maintain a relationship, restorative justice is a way to resolve conflict and maintain peace. Restorative justice focuses on rehabilitation of both victim and offender and applies in both individual and institutional contexts.[11]
Quite simply, restorative justice brings to light the same important elements as Reconciliation. Restorative justice is talking to another person about certain wrongdoings so that all parties can reach a proper consensus about how to resolve the bad act. Church doctrine teaches that the confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others.[12] Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.[13]
The U.S. issued an apology for Agent Orange after the chemical poisoned thousands of soldiers in Vietnam. Bill Clinton asked for the forgiveness of family, friends, Monica Lewinsky, her family, and the American people, after his scandal. People are more likely to respect those that can admit their faults. While the process is arduous, there is a chance of a mending of the broken relationship. Even if the relationship cannot be fully restored, there can at least be peace for the parties involved. This is restorative justice. Only a few soldiers apologized at the Nuremberg trials for their actions during WWII, and perhaps that is why so many are still vastly bitter toward the Nazi Party. The Church has arguably failed to provide the public with a genuine, enduring apology for the wrongdoings of its priests; perhaps this is why many are bitter toward the Church.
Both restorative justice and Reconciliation have the same foundation. Their goals are to talk to one another about wrongdoings, reach an understanding, and try to mend the relationship without drastic, unfriendly actions. Only by confronting the wrong acts with compassion, patience, and openness, can the involved parties achieve any true solace.
Reconciliation is important for Catholics in the way that restorative justice is necessary for society to achieve peace. By confessing one’s sins to a priest, the penitent is able to better reach an understanding with oneself and with the Church. A relationship may be restored, or the penitent may decide that they need to take some time away from the Church. Either way, the act of acknowledgement of wrongdoings leaves the penitent much more peaceful than when they remained silent.
A Performance And A Stray From The Mundane
Arguably, Reconciliation, as well as the other sacraments, is a performance. The performance of Reconciliation is a rather rare occurrence, and that makes it more meaningful than mere words. The physical action makes the sacrament not just theologically real, but psychologically real as well.
Many Catholics themselves admit that the Mass loses its meaning over time. Perhaps this is because the act of celebrating the Mass every Sunday becomes mundane to some. Consider holidays. Why do we enjoy Christmas and Thanksgiving? Why does the world unite to watch the Olympics? These are events that transpire only rarely, and they retain a special meaning. So if Reconciliation is not part of the everyday ritual, then it will continuously retain its meaning. An individual may strive to make Reconciliation an annual ritual, or he may reserve it for times only when he is truly struggling with his faith. This creates a situation in which Reconciliation is always sacred, and the individual can truly reap the benefits of Reconciliation in a powerful experience of conversion.
A chief benefit of Reconciliation is interior penance. Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed.[14] At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace.[15] This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness, which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).[16]
Such a poignant desire to change is likely not one that will ensue from reciting Hail Maries, researching the saints, or studying scripture. This is not to say that it is impossible to achieve a spiritual conversion through these things, but for most, it takes more than words. It may take a powerful action, and perhaps a leap of faith. Going to Reconciliation is not something that the average person considers daily. But perhaps by going, the individual will initiate the opportunity for a powerful experience. This stray from the ordinary may create a memorable, effective change in the person.
Doctrinal Response To Criticism
Why do we need priests?
Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the [Ten Commandments]; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."[17]
When penitents confess their darkest sins to someone else, this creates a powerful acknowledgement of fault. This is a much stronger experience than keeping the sin to oneself, and thus allows true growth and acceptance. Further, since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation…bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[18]
Catholics require a priest so that the priest can help the penitent acknowledge their own sins, seek resolution with his own self, and then come back to the Church. The priest is much more than a psychologist simply giving out free advice. He is acting as a successor to Jesus, forgiving the people’s sins and bringing them back to the flock.
What sins are people supposed to confess?
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated that the faithful must confess all their sins…to their own priest at least once a year.[19] Quite reasonably, this caused much confusion. What constitutes a sin? How must one remember all of their sins, and then be able to confess them all to a priest in a timely fashion in one sitting? Later, the Council of Florence (1438-45) stated that integrity [during confession] was defined more simply as “all of the sins that one remembered.”[20]
Today, people need not confess every sin that they committed, rather only the ones that they can remember. If a person remembers a sin, then the sin made enough of an impact on the person for them to contemplate it. Confessing these sins to a priest allows penitents to be freed from the weight of guilt.
Catholics can sin all they want, as long as they’re sorry for sinning.
The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.[21] Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy.[22]
The purpose of Reconciliation is not to receive forgiveness for one’s sins only for one to go out and commit those same sins again. The purpose of Reconciliation is to truly change. If someone goes to confession knowing that they will commit the same sin tomorrow, then they are not truly sorry, and the confession is one that was performed inauthentically.
How should the Church actually relay this information to us?
Just as the people during the time of Vatican II did not change until archdioceses changed, Reconciliation should be discussed at the local level. Archbishops, bishops, and parish priests are responsible for relaying this information to their people.
The average Catholic likely does not keep updated on the latest and greatest Church doctrine. It is the responsibility of the individual parish and the archdiocese to educate their people. Just as Jesus kept His flock from going astray, the local Church must prevent its people from going astray. Educated people understand not only the concept of doing something, but they also understand why. As a result, their faith becomes stronger, and they are able to educate others.
What does this mean for Catholics who understand this information?
We often think that the warm, fuzzy feeling after receiving a sacrament will eventually dissipate, and life will return to business as usual. In fact, life is a journey through which God is always working. A feeling of peace that one feels now may reinforce itself later. Continuously striving to become a better person, acknowledging wrongdoings, and building broken relationships is an ongoing endeavor. A well-informed Catholic should receive the sacrament of Reconciliation at least once annually, not solely because the Church mandates it, but more importantly because the experience will offer the individual a powerful experience resulting in a deeper relationship with God, the Church, and himself. Ultimately, the admittance of fault will allow one to become a better person.
Conclusion
Just like societal reconciliation is essential for the healing of broken relationships, Catholics need Reconciliation. The poignant feeling of personal acknowledgment of fault is one that can be realized in the action of going to Reconciliation. Church doctrine provides an explanation for some criticisms of the sacrament. A well-informed Catholic understands that Reconciliation can result in a moving experience of conversion that provides the individual with the knowledge, desire, and faith to become a better person. Perhaps by opening up to new experiences—even ones as scary Reconciliation, we can be opened to self-reflective moments that can shape the rest of our lives.
Notes
[1] Coffey, David. The Sacrament of Reconciliation. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Print.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Catechism at 1457
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005.
[9] Grimes, Diana L. Practice What You Preach: How Restorative Justice Could Solve the Judicial Problems in Clergy Sexual Abuse Cases, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1693, 2006.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Catechism at 1455
[13] Id.
[14] Catechism at 1431
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 1456
[18] Id. at 1461
[19] McDonnell, Kilian. "The Summae Confessorum on the Integrity of Confession as Prolegomena for Luther and Trent." Theological Studies, 1993, 405.
[20] Id.
[21] Catechism at 1490
[22] Id.
Works Cited
Coffey, David. The Sacrament of Reconciliation. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Print.
This book is an overview of the sacrament of Catholic Reconciliation. It explains the history of Reconciliation, the three Rites of Reconciliation, and Reconciliation’s current role in the Catholic Church.
"A Decade of Ecumenical Dialogue on Canon Law." Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 2009, 284.
This article in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal is an overview of canon law from 1999-2009. It explains how canon law changed during this time period, and what this meant for the Church. This article is credible because it was written by canon lawyers, and the Ecclesiastical Law Journal is heavily peer-reviewed by other canon lawyers.
Grimes, Diana L. Practice What You Preach: How Restorative Justice Could Solve the Judicial Problems in Clergy Sexual Abuse Cases, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1693, 2006.
Grimes’ article proposes that in the way alternative dispute resolution can resolve disputes more peacefully than litigation, restorative justice can resolve issues with clergy sex abuse more peacefully than judicial action. She explains that restorative justice is admitting one’s fault to another person in an effort to restore the relationship. This article is credible because it was written in the Washington and Lee Law Review, which is peer-reviewed by legal scholars.
Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005)
This is a 2005 Southern District of Iowa court case involving sexual abuse between a Catholic priest and his nephew. This case was drafted by a court clerk and published on LexisNexis, which is a primary legal source for finding case law.
McDonnell, Kilian. "The Summae Confessorum on the Integrity of Confession as Prolegomena for Luther and Trent." Theological Studies, 1993, 405.
This article speaks to criticism that ensued from confession during the times of Luther and Trent. These criticisms have remained relevant throughout history. Theological Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed.
The Catechism is official Church doctrine. Published in 1992, the Catechism explains in detail Church teachings on the Mass, the Bible, the Sacraments, and other traditions. It is referenced in papal doctrines, legal writing from canon lawyers, and articles from theological scholars. It is the primary source for Catholic teaching.
Before delving into discussion of the concepts of Reconciliation, it is important to understand the sacrament itself. Reconciliation is one of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church (the six others are Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick).
Vatican II promulgated three sacramental Rites of Reconciliation.[1] The first Rite is individual confession in front of a priest.[2] This is the type of confession we normally perceive: a guilty Catholic enters a box, and he confesses his sins to a priest behind a dimly lit screen. A more contemporary method is to sit face-to-face with the priest. The second Rite of Reconciliation is one in which individual confession and absolution are made in the context of a public celebration.[3] The second Rite gives penitents the option of receiving the sacrament individually after a communal service. Often times, this is applicable in retreat situations or Catholic high schools. Typically, a service is held in front of a large group of people, and many priests are invited to the venue to take hear individual Reconciliations for those that choose to partake in it. The third Rite of Reconciliation has a specific liturgy of general absolution, where a priest absolves a number of people without them having confessed their sins to him.[4] For the purposes of this analysis, we will discuss only individual confession (which pertain to the first and second Rites).
Individual confession is traditionally administered in a Catholic church. This may be done face-to-face, or behind a screen. The penitent will come before the priest, and the priest will ask the penitent to tell the priest his or her sins. When the penitent finishes confessing their sins, the priest will then talk with the penitent. This should not at all be in a hostile manner, but rather in an understanding and peaceful tone. The priest will then give the penitent advice about the penitent’s feelings, concerns, and relationships with God and others. At this point, the priest will give the penitent a penance. This greatly ranges based on the individual priest and penitent, but a penance is a way to allow the individual person to make amends with God and themselves after confessing their sins. For a penance, the priest may ask the penitent to say a certain prayer, read a particular bible verse, perform a certain action, or complete some other act.
According to the Church's command, after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.[5] Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[6] Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.[7]
Introduction
The Sacrament of Reconciliation might be the one thing that Catholics dread most. If one attended Catholic grade school, then the word “confession” might induce awkward grade school memories. The Lenten tradition was to line up with other pleated classmates and walk over to the church, where the class would then confess their secrets to the priest that they knew all too well. The students’ confessions might include hiding a friend’s video game, sneaking an extra brownie in the lunch line, or smiting an older sister in the head with a rock. The sacrament was simply a mandatory activity during Lent and Advent. But as one got older, and the sins became weightier, and life got busier, going to confession became less appealing than it already was. Thus, people stopped receiving the sacrament altogether.
Many criticisms arise from Reconciliation. Opponents may argue that God, rather than a priest, forgives sins, so the sacrament is useless. To these people, a more effective and personal method of absolution is prayer. Another criticism is that Catholics can sin all they want, and they will be forgiven as long as they are sorry for their sins.
On the other hand, proponents may argue that the priest acts as a counselor or a psychologist, and that Reconciliation is a good way to receive advice. Proponents may also say that Reconciliation allows them to atone for sins whenever they arise. They may say that Reconciliation is a nice security measure, because people know they will sin in the future.
Opponents and proponents both hold viable arguments. However, Reconciliation is a much more complex subject that requires deeper conversation and analysis. The Church often fails to properly educate its people on the real meaning of Reconciliation. The teachings are there, but the local actions are not. As a result, Catholics and others are often left uninformed.
To truly understand the benefits of Reconciliation, it is vastly important to consider current events, history, and Church teaching. Only then can we see Reconciliation for what it truly is: a necessary process for absolution, inclusion, and peace in the Catholic Church.
Clergy Sex Abuse: What Reconciliation Means For The Church And Society
It is difficult to discuss the topic of Catholic Reconciliation without also discussing such a core topic of Catholic controversy—clergy sex abuse. Clergy sex abuse is a grievous issue that the modern Church strives to address. Inquiring into the specific details of how the Church has handled clergy abuse is a topic for another discussion; however, the gravity of these priests’ wrongful acts is one that can be analyzed in the context of societal reconciliation.
In Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005), James Wells filed suit against his uncle, Father James Janssen, for sex crimes committed by Janssen when Wells was a minor. Father Janssen preyed on innocent boys by sexually abusing them, including his own nephew, James Wells.[8] Wells was able to recover damages for his uncle’s crimes that resulted in Wells’ severe emotional distress. The crimes committed by Janssen scarred countless young boys, as well as his own nephew. It is difficult to think of forgiveness for such a terrible act, but forgiveness is the only way that these individuals and society can begin to recover from such instances.
Diana L. Grimes discusses restorative justice in her Washington and Lee Law Review article, “Practice What You Preach”. Restorative justice brings together the victims, the offenders, and the community to talk about the harm and to come to a mutually agreeable remedy, while focusing on compassion, rehabilitation, and equalization of the power imbalance among the parties.[9] Grimes continues to define restorative justice as “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.”[10] She compares the societal hurt of clergy sex abuse to a legal dispute. In the way alternative dispute resolution is a way to peacefully resolve conflict while providing the option to maintain a relationship, restorative justice is a way to resolve conflict and maintain peace. Restorative justice focuses on rehabilitation of both victim and offender and applies in both individual and institutional contexts.[11]
Quite simply, restorative justice brings to light the same important elements as Reconciliation. Restorative justice is talking to another person about certain wrongdoings so that all parties can reach a proper consensus about how to resolve the bad act. Church doctrine teaches that the confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others.[12] Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.[13]
The U.S. issued an apology for Agent Orange after the chemical poisoned thousands of soldiers in Vietnam. Bill Clinton asked for the forgiveness of family, friends, Monica Lewinsky, her family, and the American people, after his scandal. People are more likely to respect those that can admit their faults. While the process is arduous, there is a chance of a mending of the broken relationship. Even if the relationship cannot be fully restored, there can at least be peace for the parties involved. This is restorative justice. Only a few soldiers apologized at the Nuremberg trials for their actions during WWII, and perhaps that is why so many are still vastly bitter toward the Nazi Party. The Church has arguably failed to provide the public with a genuine, enduring apology for the wrongdoings of its priests; perhaps this is why many are bitter toward the Church.
Both restorative justice and Reconciliation have the same foundation. Their goals are to talk to one another about wrongdoings, reach an understanding, and try to mend the relationship without drastic, unfriendly actions. Only by confronting the wrong acts with compassion, patience, and openness, can the involved parties achieve any true solace.
Reconciliation is important for Catholics in the way that restorative justice is necessary for society to achieve peace. By confessing one’s sins to a priest, the penitent is able to better reach an understanding with oneself and with the Church. A relationship may be restored, or the penitent may decide that they need to take some time away from the Church. Either way, the act of acknowledgement of wrongdoings leaves the penitent much more peaceful than when they remained silent.
A Performance And A Stray From The Mundane
Arguably, Reconciliation, as well as the other sacraments, is a performance. The performance of Reconciliation is a rather rare occurrence, and that makes it more meaningful than mere words. The physical action makes the sacrament not just theologically real, but psychologically real as well.
Many Catholics themselves admit that the Mass loses its meaning over time. Perhaps this is because the act of celebrating the Mass every Sunday becomes mundane to some. Consider holidays. Why do we enjoy Christmas and Thanksgiving? Why does the world unite to watch the Olympics? These are events that transpire only rarely, and they retain a special meaning. So if Reconciliation is not part of the everyday ritual, then it will continuously retain its meaning. An individual may strive to make Reconciliation an annual ritual, or he may reserve it for times only when he is truly struggling with his faith. This creates a situation in which Reconciliation is always sacred, and the individual can truly reap the benefits of Reconciliation in a powerful experience of conversion.
A chief benefit of Reconciliation is interior penance. Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed.[14] At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace.[15] This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness, which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).[16]
Such a poignant desire to change is likely not one that will ensue from reciting Hail Maries, researching the saints, or studying scripture. This is not to say that it is impossible to achieve a spiritual conversion through these things, but for most, it takes more than words. It may take a powerful action, and perhaps a leap of faith. Going to Reconciliation is not something that the average person considers daily. But perhaps by going, the individual will initiate the opportunity for a powerful experience. This stray from the ordinary may create a memorable, effective change in the person.
Doctrinal Response To Criticism
Why do we need priests?
Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the [Ten Commandments]; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."[17]
When penitents confess their darkest sins to someone else, this creates a powerful acknowledgement of fault. This is a much stronger experience than keeping the sin to oneself, and thus allows true growth and acceptance. Further, since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation…bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[18]
Catholics require a priest so that the priest can help the penitent acknowledge their own sins, seek resolution with his own self, and then come back to the Church. The priest is much more than a psychologist simply giving out free advice. He is acting as a successor to Jesus, forgiving the people’s sins and bringing them back to the flock.
What sins are people supposed to confess?
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated that the faithful must confess all their sins…to their own priest at least once a year.[19] Quite reasonably, this caused much confusion. What constitutes a sin? How must one remember all of their sins, and then be able to confess them all to a priest in a timely fashion in one sitting? Later, the Council of Florence (1438-45) stated that integrity [during confession] was defined more simply as “all of the sins that one remembered.”[20]
Today, people need not confess every sin that they committed, rather only the ones that they can remember. If a person remembers a sin, then the sin made enough of an impact on the person for them to contemplate it. Confessing these sins to a priest allows penitents to be freed from the weight of guilt.
Catholics can sin all they want, as long as they’re sorry for sinning.
The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.[21] Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy.[22]
The purpose of Reconciliation is not to receive forgiveness for one’s sins only for one to go out and commit those same sins again. The purpose of Reconciliation is to truly change. If someone goes to confession knowing that they will commit the same sin tomorrow, then they are not truly sorry, and the confession is one that was performed inauthentically.
How should the Church actually relay this information to us?
Just as the people during the time of Vatican II did not change until archdioceses changed, Reconciliation should be discussed at the local level. Archbishops, bishops, and parish priests are responsible for relaying this information to their people.
The average Catholic likely does not keep updated on the latest and greatest Church doctrine. It is the responsibility of the individual parish and the archdiocese to educate their people. Just as Jesus kept His flock from going astray, the local Church must prevent its people from going astray. Educated people understand not only the concept of doing something, but they also understand why. As a result, their faith becomes stronger, and they are able to educate others.
What does this mean for Catholics who understand this information?
We often think that the warm, fuzzy feeling after receiving a sacrament will eventually dissipate, and life will return to business as usual. In fact, life is a journey through which God is always working. A feeling of peace that one feels now may reinforce itself later. Continuously striving to become a better person, acknowledging wrongdoings, and building broken relationships is an ongoing endeavor. A well-informed Catholic should receive the sacrament of Reconciliation at least once annually, not solely because the Church mandates it, but more importantly because the experience will offer the individual a powerful experience resulting in a deeper relationship with God, the Church, and himself. Ultimately, the admittance of fault will allow one to become a better person.
Conclusion
Just like societal reconciliation is essential for the healing of broken relationships, Catholics need Reconciliation. The poignant feeling of personal acknowledgment of fault is one that can be realized in the action of going to Reconciliation. Church doctrine provides an explanation for some criticisms of the sacrament. A well-informed Catholic understands that Reconciliation can result in a moving experience of conversion that provides the individual with the knowledge, desire, and faith to become a better person. Perhaps by opening up to new experiences—even ones as scary Reconciliation, we can be opened to self-reflective moments that can shape the rest of our lives.
Notes
[1] Coffey, David. The Sacrament of Reconciliation. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Print.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Catechism at 1457
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005.
[9] Grimes, Diana L. Practice What You Preach: How Restorative Justice Could Solve the Judicial Problems in Clergy Sexual Abuse Cases, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1693, 2006.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Catechism at 1455
[13] Id.
[14] Catechism at 1431
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at 1456
[18] Id. at 1461
[19] McDonnell, Kilian. "The Summae Confessorum on the Integrity of Confession as Prolegomena for Luther and Trent." Theological Studies, 1993, 405.
[20] Id.
[21] Catechism at 1490
[22] Id.
Works Cited
Coffey, David. The Sacrament of Reconciliation. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. Print.
This book is an overview of the sacrament of Catholic Reconciliation. It explains the history of Reconciliation, the three Rites of Reconciliation, and Reconciliation’s current role in the Catholic Church.
"A Decade of Ecumenical Dialogue on Canon Law." Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 2009, 284.
This article in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal is an overview of canon law from 1999-2009. It explains how canon law changed during this time period, and what this meant for the Church. This article is credible because it was written by canon lawyers, and the Ecclesiastical Law Journal is heavily peer-reviewed by other canon lawyers.
Grimes, Diana L. Practice What You Preach: How Restorative Justice Could Solve the Judicial Problems in Clergy Sexual Abuse Cases, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1693, 2006.
Grimes’ article proposes that in the way alternative dispute resolution can resolve disputes more peacefully than litigation, restorative justice can resolve issues with clergy sex abuse more peacefully than judicial action. She explains that restorative justice is admitting one’s fault to another person in an effort to restore the relationship. This article is credible because it was written in the Washington and Lee Law Review, which is peer-reviewed by legal scholars.
Wells v. Janssen (S.D. Iowa 2005)
This is a 2005 Southern District of Iowa court case involving sexual abuse between a Catholic priest and his nephew. This case was drafted by a court clerk and published on LexisNexis, which is a primary legal source for finding case law.
McDonnell, Kilian. "The Summae Confessorum on the Integrity of Confession as Prolegomena for Luther and Trent." Theological Studies, 1993, 405.
This article speaks to criticism that ensued from confession during the times of Luther and Trent. These criticisms have remained relevant throughout history. Theological Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed.
The Catechism is official Church doctrine. Published in 1992, the Catechism explains in detail Church teachings on the Mass, the Bible, the Sacraments, and other traditions. It is referenced in papal doctrines, legal writing from canon lawyers, and articles from theological scholars. It is the primary source for Catholic teaching.