What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Sacraments: Reconciliation

11/08/2016

People sometimes know the sacrament of reconciliation by another name – sometimes people call it Penance and sometimes people call it Confession which, strictly speaking is only a part of what is going on. In the sacrament of reconciliation, the idea is that people are brought back into a right relationship with God and get the chance to sort out whatever it is that they have done which seems to be separating them from God and to hear afresh the news that their sins are forgiven.

There are two formal ways in which people within an Anglican/Episcopal tradition get the chance to confess sins and hear of God’s forgiveness.

During many of the liturgies of the church the people confess their sins by reciting a simple prayer. This is followed by the assurance of God’s forgiveness which is pronounced by a priest, something which is called absolution. The idea is that this gives everyone present the opportunity to call to mind those times and places where they feel they have fallen short of being the person that God might want them to be and indeed fallen short of their own best expectations too. Simply reciting the prayer without taking the chance to think of the things in life that one regrets and desires forgiveness for does not constitute the sacrament of reconciliation. The sacrament depends completely on what is happening inside a person and is not simply about the form of words that they use. In this, reconciliation is like the other sacraments – outward symbols conveying deep spiritual realities.

The other way that someone might experience the sacrament of reconciliation is by meeting with a priest on a one-to-one basis to make a confession. A common way for this to happen is for the person to make an appointment with the priest. The priest and the penitent may meet for a discussion about what is on the person’s mind before completing the sacrament with a simple liturgical invitation to name before God those sins which the person wishes to confess. Once these have been outlined by the person, the priest may give some advice and then pronounce in God’s name that those sins have been forgiven. In participating in the sacrament in this way, the priest and the penitent enter into an agreement that what is discussed there is not discussed elsewhere. This “seal of the confessional” is binding on the person seeking forgiveness as well as upon the person pronouncing God’s forgiveness.

In our tradition we have a rule about confessing sins to a priest – “All may, none must, some should”. The sacrament is available to all members of the church and indeed is sometimes sought by those who don’t belong to the church in any other way. However, there is never any compulsion that anyone must go to confession. You don’t have to make a confession at any time for any reason other than that you feel the need to do so. It is our experience as a community though that some people do need to make this a part of their spiritual practise and for them, they should seek it regularly.

All priests in the Scottish Episcopal Church are required by Canon Law to hear a confession if someone asks them to hear one or to point them towards another priest who is able to hear it if they themselves are not able to do so for some reason.

The seal of the confession is regarded as absolute. What is discussed in the course of this ministry is never discussed elsewhere.

Some people have the tradition of asking for a penance when the priest has pronounced forgiveness. A penance is not a punishment for sin – sin has already been forgiven. A penance is the chance to take on a small spiritual discipline or an activity that will remind the person that they have been forgiven and help them to reorientate their life towards God. A penance is not supposed to be arduous but to be a joyful and life-affirming reminder of why forgiveness was sought and that forgiveness was given.

Confession is about turning our lives around. One of the technical words for this is metanoia a Greek word which refers to changing one’s mind in a way that analogous to turning and facing in a new direction. Repentance is at the heart of confession and is the consequence of wanting to put things right with the world and with God. God’s forgiving love is the inevitable consequence of someone’s sincere repentance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if a priest heard someone confess to a murder or from someone who said they were going to harm someone – shouldn’t they report it to the police
People often ask this question about confession but it is a bit of a distraction from the simple and beautiful task of restoring someone’s relationship with God which is usually a good deal less dramatic than this. The sacrament of reconciliation for almost everyone, almost all the time, isn’t about the consequences of murders.

Yes but what if…?
A priest is free to respond to this situation in the way that they feel best. One thing that they might insist on would be to make an pronouncement of absolution conditional on an act such as reporting oneself to the authorities.

Won’t I feel funny seeing the priest and knowing that they know things about me that I would rather someone else didn’t know?
Most priests who hear confessions regularly will remark that God gives them the gift of forgetting what people say in confession. The priest isn’t a scapegoat and doesn’t absorb the sins that she or he hears someone confess. Most people engaged in this kind of ministry learn how to put things out of their minds very quickly for their own good and the good of those coming for confession.

Can any priest hear confessions?
Yes, but it is wise for someone to have had a few years of priestly ministry and be instructed by a more experienced priest in hearing confessions before they do so regularly.Does

a confession have to be heard in church?
No – a confession can be heard anywhere and sometimes take place in very public places such as train stations, airports or even on the battlefield before conflict. Sometimes they take place in places like hospitals or hospices where sometimes the sacrament may become important to someone if they know that they are likely to die soon. However in our tradition, it is most common for a confession to be heard in church by prior arrangement with a priest.

Is there a confessional box at St Mary’s?
No – confessions are usually heard in a quiet side chapel

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

David Evans

29/06/2015

I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  29/06/2015
  
  I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.
  
  I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    30/06/2015
    
    I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”
    
    You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.
    
    It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.
    
    Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.
    
    I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.
    
    Reply
    1. Graham Evans
      
      05/07/2015
      
      David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.
      
      Reply
      1. David Evans
        
        18/07/2015
        
        Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.
        
        However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.
Iain Brodie Browne

02/07/2015

Firstly thank you for your posting.
I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

Reply
Andy

18/07/2015

Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  18/07/2015
  
  Thanks for commenting, Andy.
  
  I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.
  
  When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.
  
  It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.
  
  Reply
  1. David Evans
    
    18/07/2015
    
    Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.
    
    Reply
David Evans

13/11/2015

Kelvin,

It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

Reply
1. Graham Evans
  
  13/11/2015
  
  David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.
  
  Reply