In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, theologians and pastors started realising that an ever increasing number of the faithful were not approaching the sacrament of penance, either regularly or at all. The penitential praxis so alarmed the Church that talk about the crisis of the sacrament of Penance was commonplace. Interpretations abound as to what was the cause of this crisis. The most common are: (i) the effect of the secularisation process; (ii) the newly acquired freedom of post-Vatican reform; and (iii) the debate on the right of conscientious dissent that ensued after Humanae Vitae.
Vatican II call to reform the Penitential Praxis stimulated scholars to discuss the Sacrament of Penance and brought to the fore the pioneering works of Oscar Watkins, A History of Penance, 2 vols., London, 1920; Bernard Poschmann, Penitentia Secunda, Bohn, 1940; Paul Galtier, De Paenitentia tractatus dogmatico-historicus, Rome, 1931; Paul E. Palmer, Sources of Christian Theology, vol. 2, Sacraments and Forgiveness, Westminster Press, 1959; and Cyril Vogel, "Sin and Penance", Pastoral Treatment of Sin, New York, 1968. These scholars had been working on Penance well before the invitation of Sacrosanctum Concilium nn. 21 and 72. Around the period of the reform of the Rite of Penance that was concluded with the promulgation of the new Rite in 1973, a series of good research on penance was published: Jose' Ramos-Regidor, "Reconciliation in the Primitive Church", in Concilium, (Edward Schillebeecks, ed.) Vol 7, 1971; Jose' Ramos Regidor, Il Sacramento della Penitenza, Elle di Ci, Torino-Leumann, 1971, Z. Alzeghy and M. Flick, Il Sacramento della Riconciliazione, Marietti, Torino, 1976; Ladislas Orsy, The Evolving Church and the Sacrament of Penance, Dimension Books, New Jersey, 1978; Aa. Vv., La Penitenza: Studi Biblici, Teologici, e Pastorali. Il Nuovo Rito della Riconciliazione, Elle di Ci, Torino, 1976.
In 1983, the tenth anniversary from the promulgation of the new rite of Penance, Pope John Paul II convened a Synod of Bishops in Rome to discuss the persistent crisis of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (as it was now known). Similarly a series of publications about the Sacrament of Reconciliation appeared around this period: Aa. Vv., La Celebrazione della Penitenza Cristiana, Marietti, Torino, 1981; James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1986; Guzeppi Lupi, Is-Sagramenti tar-Rikonciljazzjoni u l-Morda, Kummissjoni Liturgika, Malta, 1987; Joseph Martos, Doors to the Sacred, SCM Press, London 1981, Ladislas Orsy, "General Absolution: New Law, Old Traditions, Some Questions", Theological Studies, December 1984, Vol. 54, No. 4. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations: Penance in the Early Church, DLT, London, 1983; Monika Hellwig, Sign of Reconciliaiton and Conversion, Michael Glazier Inc., Delaware, 1984; John Frendo, "Liturgical Prayers for the Reconciliation of Penitents in the West", Veterum Exempla, Melita Theologica Supplementary Series I, Malta, 1991.
In my opinion the underpinning motivation of the above literature was to discriminate the essential elements of the sacrament from the historico-cultural accretions and thus responding to the invitation laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 21 that had to regulate all reform in the sacraments. It states: "In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community."
In my S.Th.L. dissertation, having the aforementioned background in mind, I have tried to discuss the evolving understanding of the priest's role in the confessional, particularly in his task of forming a Christian conscience. The main thesis being that as a living and dynamic institution, the Sacrament of Penance develops with the evolution that occurs in the Church. My claim is that what is always present are the basic human need to be graced with forgiveness and God's condescending Love. The rest will always be open to change.
Chapter One: The Confessor in the Patristic and Scholastic Traditions
As talk about reform of the Rite took ground and scholars were publishing their work, the main tendency was to call for the abolition of individual confession to a priest and a re-instatement of the ancient practice of general confession of sins in the liturgical assembly with the priest imparting general absolution. This call is still persistent is some contemporary authors. However, this is based on an assumption which is proved false by the major writers on the practice of Penance in the early Church. Individual confession to the Bishop and later to the penitentiary priests in major churches was always obligatory. What was done away with was the public institution of penitents because this turned out to be a social stigma rather than a way how to show solidarity with sinners. Some authors, like Orsy and to some extent Dallen, would disclaim this on the basis that there is no foolproof evidence on this; but they evidently fail to bring the same qualitative proof for their claims. Modern scholarship rejects the distinction between private penance and public penance and opts for a division according to historical periods: (i) canonical penance; (ii) Irish-tariff penance; (iii) modern penance; and (iv) contemporary attempt to retrieve the forgotten elements of penance.
In this chapter I attempt to show that their is sure ground to assert that the confessor, either the bishop or a priest, is an ever-present figure in tradition. The importance of stressing individual confession lies with the intimate link that it has with the priest's role in forming the conscience of the Christian. Otherwise the only way open to him would remain the catechetical and the homiletical.
Sacramental theology knows its being to the scholastics. No less for the sacrament of Penance. At the end of the first chapter, I sketch the scholastic discussion about the priest's power to forgive sins (largely an interpretation of John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18; 16:19) and the parts of this sacrament. The scholastic epoch represents the crystallization of doctrine whence ensued specific roles for both confessor and penitent.
Chapter Two: The Confessor in the teaching of Trent
Tridentine doctrine is held responsible by revisionist theologians for the present day crisis of the Sacrament. They claim that Trent's requirement of individual confession according to species of sin and number and the pre-eminent role of the confessor as judge, has rendered the sacrament a legalistic and mechanical practice deprived of Spirit.
To my mind, a person who approaches Tridentine doctrine with a hermeneutical attitude would find no difficulty accepting it entirely. Those, however, who stick to the scholastic jargon and interpret it with modern knowledge would find it objectionable. Basically, Trent states that the confessor acts truly as a judge who has true and proper jurisdiction over a subject and through whose judgment and through sacramental absolution verily remits sins. When one interprets Trent one should never forget the Reformation background and the inevitable apologetic tone of the Tridentine Council.
One might say that theology after Trent was a commentary upon it. So much so that if one consults manual theology up to the eve of the Second Vatican Council (e.g. Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, 4 vols.) one immediately realises this fact. Nevertheless, a close look at the fundamental convictions and insights of Trent, would leave us nodding in agreement. Trent speaks that the confessor should know the case which he is to judge. For this purpose a penitent should reveal his spiritual condition to the priest. The main onus of a full confession lies with the penitent and the priest should only exceptionally investigate when he prudently doubts the disposition of the penitent. The condition of one's state of conscience includes the gravity of the sins committed and hence a penitent should reveal what sins he has committed (mentioning the circumstances that change one's situation before God) and the number of them.
To many these requirements appear to be legalism but a simple example would clarify the misunderstanding. A person who confesses an act against the sixth commandment without mentioning anything else would not be doing a proper confession. The person in question might be married and might be abusing a child, which could be his own; or else the person committed only an act of masturbation or is indulging in pornography. He/she could have committed an adultery once or he/she might be engaged in an adulterous relationship. So the penitent should reveal the barest minimum that gives the proper picture of his state of conscience. No confessor is generally interested in details of other people's lives, unless he is labouring under some form of pathological deviance.
I believe that many misunderstand the nature of the type of judgment that the Church requires to be done during Penance. The priest does not judge one's culpability before God. Only God judges people; Christ had warned us, "Judge not!". The priest judges whether or not a person is sorrowful and intent on the road of conversion. Judging the gravity of one's sinfulness from the confession only serves to help the penitent on the road to sanctity and in no way to condemn.
So much so, that strictly linked to this role, is the confessor's role as a spiritual physician. Nowadays we would prefer to speak about spiritual healing of our own essential brokenness. The confessor receives his role as spiritual healer from the end of the Sacrament itself. Penance exists not to castigate and rebuke but to foster the health and strength of the soul. The confessor, therefore, investigates the causes and occasions of sins and the dispositions of the penitent to indicate apt remedies. Hence the other traditional roles of the confessor as father and as teacher.
At the end of this chapter I speak about the confessor as the sacramental sign of God's mercy and forgiveness. In fact, priestly absolution is, in the faith of the Church, an efficacious sign that signifies reconciliation with God. This is what we mean when we say Penance is a Sacrament. It is mistaken to view sacramental forgiveness of sins as some sort of amnesty. Theology always looked at is as a creative act of God who changes the sinner into a child of God in whom He finds delight - a "re-creation" through the effusion of grace and charity. The act of the priest is the instrumental cause of this "re-creation".
Chapter Three: Towards a definition of Conscience
This chapter breaks the flow of the main argument and to some may appear out of place. But it was essential to arrive at a working definition of conscience since conscience is not a univocal term. In Gaudium et Spes n. 16 conscience is predominantly described in religious terms: the inner sanctuary in man where he is solo cum Solo. What is not defined, or at least discussed, is the conscience of atheists and the proper relationship of conscience and the objective norms of morality. Joseph Fuchs aptly states that there are two categories of people joining in the discussion: those who say that conscience is over-evaluated (subjectivity as ultimate criterion) and those who denounce an under-evaluation of conscience on the part of certain authorities.
In this chapter I discuss the three main paradigms applied to explicate the term: the traditional, the scholastic, and the contemporary personalistic. Synthetically what I say is that conscience traditionally was understood as the heart of man, the centre of one's personhood. St Paul introduces the Stoic concept of syneidesis which is commented upon by the Fathers and serves as a bridge with scholasticism. The scholastics with their usual flair for distinctions discuss whether it is a faculty, whether it is a faculty of the rational or the appetitive order, and whether it descends to specific questions or remains at the level of general principles.
Then I dwell at some length on the contemporary personalistic paradigm. I trace the evolution of the personalistic criterion in morality and the development of proportionalism and give a definition of conscience from a personalistic perspective. I tend to adopt David McCarthy Matzko's definition of conscience as "a descriptive term for the formation of moral agency by a coherent moral community."
The last part of this chapter consists mainly in delineating Veritatis Splendor's treatment of conscience and a critique of the same. The main point highlighted is the difficulty that the natural law approach creates, i.e. is the objective moral order immediately knowable and accessible through conscience? Is conscience a synonym for personal responsibility or is it a source of moral authority? Natural law critics take a cautious stance to the immediacy of the law to conscience and take pluralism in the modern world very seriously. Conscience is formed by the moral environs in which we find ourselves. Such a claim raises serious questions about conscience as an immediate connection to the natural moral law. When Veritatis Splendor presents the basic model of moral life as the sequela Christi it places us in a coherent moral environment in which a truly Christian conscience has all the possibilities to develop.
The need to arrive at a definition of conscience for the purpose of this dissertation is to have a clear concept of what is meant by the formation of conscience; the role of the priest in this process; and the link this has with the Sacrament of Penance.
Chapter Four: The Role of the Confessor in the formation of Conscience
In the developing scenario of present day moral theology, this chapter is the one most fraught with an unclear itinerary. Nonetheless by analysing the role of the confessor as described by the actual Rite of Penance I intended to start off from a fixed point of the map. The Rite speaks in bold terms about the role of the confessor. The judicial role of the priest in the confessional is mainly understood as discernment of the Spirits (Praenotanda n. 10a.) and the paternal role as the revelation of the heart of the Father (ibid. n. 10c).
As a support to the main concept, I review Magisterial teaching about the formation of conscience. By way of summary the following are the requirements for the formation of one's conscience: (a) one should have a discerning heart; (b) be ready to search for the truth; (c) be of good-will and sincere in his search; (d) look to Christ and to the Church for trustworthy moral guidance; (e) consider the socio-cultural contexts and circumstantial evidence; and (f) habitually strives to live a good moral life.
The last part of the chapter is reserved for an elaboration of the two concepts mentioned in the Praenotanda: (i) the confessor should have a discerning heart; and (ii) the confessor should reveal the image of the Good Shepherd - the heart of the Father. My conclusion is that the confessor is not expected to "sacramentalize" the penitent i.e. acting formally, in a juridical detached manner. Rather he is called to act as a sacrament to the him, guiding, supporting, and entering into relationship. The confessor need not perform tasks but have qualities that make his encounter with the sinful Christian an encounter with the Loving Father.