Is the ‘seal of the confessional’ Anglican?
Andrew Atherstone writes:The Church of England has at last published the study of the 'Seal of the Confessional' working party, more than a year later on it finished its work. It is a contradictory written report, which does not follow through on its own logic. Its key assumptions deserve scrutiny.
The very name of the working party – 'the seal of the confessional' – has skewed its conclusions. Their focus is on the question, 'Should the seal of the confessional by abolished or retained?' But nosotros need to take a stride back and ask instead a more foundational question: Does the Church of England teach the seal of the confessional? Co-ordinate to our Anglican formularies and canons, is 'the confessional' (as distinct from pastoral chat) and 'the seal' (absolute every bit distinct from general confidentiality) part of Church of England doctrine? If it is non, then to ask whether we should abolish or retain 'the seal of the confessional' is a wrong-headed question, and we demand a new arroyo to the whole subject field.
The Confessional
Starting time, do our Anglican formularies and canons teach 'sacramental confession', as somehow distinct from other pastoral conversations in which sin is confessed and forgiveness declared?
The report repeatedly insists that there is a articulate distinction. Information technology speaks throughout of the 'sacramental ministry of reconciliation', taking its lead from the 1973 Revised Canon, though it does admit that this is anachronistic language and 'in tension' with our historic formularies (§one.9-11). This tension should requite us immediate pause for idea. Whether such a ministry is in some sense sacramentalis not the issue here. The working party chose the phrase considering it 'emphasises the formal and liturgical graphic symbol of this ministry' as singled-out from 'pastoral conversations' (§one.12). But is this a real stardom? No, it is only an untested a priorisupposition, which leads the working political party in the incorrect direction.
Elsewhere, we read that the distinctive nature of this ministry 'rests on some strong foundations' (§5.6.2). But when examined, those foundations turn out to be extremely flimsy indeed – the 1973 Revised Catechism once again, a 1973 ARCIC statement on ordained ministry, and one phrase about absolution from the 2005 Common Worship ordinal. This is a very thin defence. The only text proffered from our Anglican formularies are the words of Jesus in the Upper Room, 'Whose sins g dost forgive, they are forgiven' (John 20:23), quoted in the Volume of Common Prayer ordinal. Only Anglican commentators for centuries take argued that this command to 'forgive' or 'retain' sins, in the context of John 20, is not a reference to some ritualized ministry building of confession and absolution, just is rather a shorthand way of describing the ministry of gospel proclamation which calls all people to apologize and believe in Jesus Christ, parallel to the Keen Commission in Luke 24:45-49 and Matthew 28:18-xx. On this basis Thomas Cranmer included the phrase in his Reformation ordinal. The working party accept non come anywhere close to proving their first basic exclamation, that the Church of England teaches a distinction betwixt 'sacramental confession' and pastoral chat.
Canon B29 ('The Ministry of Absolution') draws upon two other places in the Volume of Common Prayer, from the Exhortation before Holy Communion and a rubric in the Visitation of the Ill. But again nosotros must be careful non to read dorsum into those texts a more ritualized or sacerdotal do than they imply. The report quotes (§3.iv.two) from the famous Exhortation:
And because information technology is requisite, that no man should come up to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be whatsoever of yous, who by this means [self-examination, confession to God, reconciliation with neighbours] cannot repose his own censor herein, but requireth further condolement or counsel, allow him come to me, or to some other unimposing and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God'southward holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and incertitude.
The written report observes, rightly, that these words are substantially the same in the Prayer Books of 1552, 1559 and 1662, but and so jumps to the determination that: 'There is no reason to doubt that auricular confession was practised at the time of the 1603 canons' (§3.iv.iv). Merely look more closely. What sort of ministry is actually implied here? Compare the equivalent words from the earlier 1549 Prayer Book, ignored past the working party:
And if there be any of you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in anything, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned priest taught in the constabulary of God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly, that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of u.s.a. (every bit of the ministers of God and of the church) he may receive comfort and absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind and the avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness. Requiring such as shall be satisfied with a general confession, not to be offended with them that practise use, to their further satisfying, the auricular and undercover confession to the priest. Nor those as well which recollect needful or convenient for the quietness of their own consciences particularly to open their sins to the priest, to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble confession to God and the general confession to the church. Simply in all things to follow and continue the rule of charity, and every man to be satisfied with his own censor, not judging other men's minds or consciences; whereas he hath no warrant of God's word to the same.
Notice the important theological shifts which took identify between 1549 and 1552 / 1662:
- All mention of 'auricular confession' is dropped.
- The troubled person is no longer to 'confess and open his sin and grief' only to 'open his grief'. The focus on confession is dropped. What is intended is not an enumeration of all the penitent's sins, just of the particular issue which is troubling them.
- The troubled person is no longer to go to 'a discreet and learned priest' only to 'a discreet and learned Minister of God's Word'. In other words, this is no longer envisaged as a sacerdotal ministry but may involve a deacon or fifty-fifty a biblically-literate layperson.
- The troubled person no longer receives condolement and absolution 'of us' (that it, from the clergy), but 'by the ministry of God'due south holy Word'. Again, whatever sacerdotal emphasis is deliberately deleted. The focus moves instead to the pastoral role of applying the promises of Scripture to the person'south particular need, offering spiritual counsel and communication.
These are significant changes. Information technology is by no means clear that the 1662 Book of Mutual Prayer envisages a pattern of 'auricular confession' or a 'sacramental ministry of reconciliation'. On the contrary, what the 1662 Exhortation earlier Holy Communion describes is a pastoral chat in which sin, repentance, forgiveness and the gospel of grace are addressed. Whether or not this takes place by appointment, or includes written liturgy, makes no divergence – it is withal a pastoral conversation.
This design of ministry building is found frequently elsewhere in our Anglican texts. For example, 'An Homily of Repentance and of True Reconciliation unto God' from the 2d Volume of Homilies(1563) reads: 'if any do notice themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, or to some other godly learned man, and evidence the trouble and dubiety of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God'due south discussion …' (The Volume of Homilies: A Critical Edition, ed. Bray, p. 503). Here once again is a clarification of a pastoral conversation, entirely consonant with the Book of Common Prayer, not some distinct priestly rite. The working party report itself observes: 'Take away a late-medieval Catholic view, alien to Anglicanism, of the supposedly sacramental quality of such pastoral conversations between pastor and disciple, and the case for having special rules about disclosure that practice non apply in any other pastoral conversation simply evaporates' (§5.5.3). Very true! But this thought is then mysteriously dropped by the report, and the logic not pursued.
Instead of examining the Anglican formularies closely, the report builds instead upon a very recent and dubious text (§1.8), the Guidelines for the Professional Acquit of the Clergy(2015), which assert that 'A clear stardom must been made betwixt pastoral conversations and a confession that is made in the context of the ministry of absolution', and that corruption must be reported if revealed in the offset context simply never in the 2d. The Guidelinesfarther assert that 'confidentiality' and 'proper discretion' is required in pastoral conversations, but that the 'canonical duty of accented confidentiality' applies to 'the ministry of absolution'. Merely these assertions are highly contentious. According to the working party's report, 'under the law as information technology now stands, there is a purlieus, wherever precisely information technology should properly be fatigued, between the category of cases falling within the Proviso [Catechism 113] and a wider category of pastoral conversation' (§3.v.8). When we enquire where the Church of England actually teaches these separate categories, we are pointed again to the 2015 Guidelines. This is a circular statement. What if these new Guidelinesare themselves misguided, as appears to exist the case? Their validity should have been tested by the working party, non embedded in the report's foundation.
Later nosotros read that if 'the seal' were qualified (that is, if abuse could be reported) then 'what would without question be lost is the distinctiveness of the sacramental ministry of reconciliation … Ultimately, perhaps, it comes down to the question of how far that distinctiveness is valued. The more than highly it is valued, the more necessary the "seal" becomes every bit critical for maintaining it' (§5.six.14). And so, in other words, the seal is needed because this ministry is distinctive and this ministry building is distinctive considering of the seal. Hither is more circularity. Even suppose this ministry is in some sense distinct from pastoral chat (a distinction not institute in our Anglican formularies), information technology is non clear why a distinctive ministry needs a special 'seal', nor why its distinctiveness is undermined without a 'seal'?
The Seal
Second, exercise our Anglican formularies and canons teach 'the seal'? – defined in the written report equally 'the obligation of accented non-disclosure' (§4.one.eleven). The fact that these words 'the seal', with all their subconscious theological freight, practise not appear anywhere in our formularies and canons should again give us interruption for thought.
The theological heart of the written report (affiliate 4) summarizes the practise of confession from a variety of doctrinal perspectives, just contains very little about 'the seal'. Information technology describes the seal's development in thirteenth-century Roman Catholicism (§4.2.1.6-8). Information technology likewise notes that the confidentiality imposed by Catechism 113 allows exception, and that even such a prominent Tractarian equally T. T. Carter SSC (1808-1901), founder of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and a song defender of auricular confession in the Church of England, argued that the extent of the seal could be varied by episcopal authorisation (§4.two.6.4). Yet surprisingly there is no endeavour by the working political party at a theological defence of 'the seal', across the observation that sinners must exist able to 'trust that no civic use will be made of their confession' (§four.2.one.8).
Information technology is startling, therefore, that chapter five opens with the remarkable assertion that affiliate 4 has shown that 'the seal' ('absolute non-disclosure') is an 'integral dimension' of the Church of England'due south practice of confession; and that chapter 4 has congenital 'a strong case' for retaining 'the seal', without which 'the sacramental ministry of reconciliation is fatally undermined' (§v.ane.i, reasserted at §v.6.1). Chapter 4 – the most overtly theological chapter – makes no such claim and does not effort to build whatsoever such case.
Almost of Canon 113 of 1603 has long since been abolished, only the remaining un-repealed fragment is however on the statute book and rightly the focus of debate:
Provided always that if any man confess his secret and subconscious sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not in any manner demark the said minister by this our constitution, just practice straitly accuse and admonish him that he exercise non at any time reveal and make known to whatever person any whatever crime or offence and so committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes every bit by the law of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same) under pain of irregularity.
In interpreting this canon, the working party again resort to wishful thinking. They admit that the canon does not mention 'the seal' of the confessional, but claim it is 'certainly unsaid' (§three.iii.nine). But where is it unsaid? It is nowhere to exist seen! They repeatedly assert that under Canon 113, the priest's duty of confidentiality 'is an accented duty' (§three.8.4). In instance of doubt, nosotros are told again that the catechism upholds 'the duty of absolute confidentiality' (§six.ii). But once more than nosotros inquire, where does the canon say this? On the reverse, the catechism explicitly allows for an exception – 'except they be such crimes as by the law of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same' – then confidentiality in the original context of the canon was not accented. The working political party dodge this detail past suggesting that the exception 'tin can now for all practical purposes be overlooked' (§3.3.9), considering Anglican clergy are no longer in danger of capital punishment. Yet the significance of the exception, is precisely that it is an exception, written onto the very face of the canon. Information technology embeds the basic principle that confidentiality, when sins are confessed to a minister, is certainly strict but never accented. So it is surprising to hear Anglican advocates of 'the seal' insist that this is a gospel issue on which their ministry stands or falls. Strict confidentiality is of course essential, to give the penitent conviction 'to speak with absolute freedom before God' (§v.half-dozen.v). In the aforementioned way, strict confidentiality in the doc's surgery is essential. Only the Church of England has never taught in its canons or formularies that confidentiality must exist accented in all and every circumstance. Indeed Canon 113 allows exceptions for serious crimes. And so it would be more theologically consistent for Full general Synod to update the canon by explaining what exceptions are permissible today, rather than to remove the exception altogether as some are seeking to do.
In another identify (§5.two.4), the written report pursues precisely this reasoning. We hear that in Catechism 113, 'there was no accented "seal" of non-disclosure', but a built-in exception. 'In choosing to continue with the "seal', the Church of England was from the commencement willing to authorize it in cases where the confessor received information that raised the possibility of intervening to prevent grave harm …'. Although the specific seventeenth-century grounds for the exception are no longer relevant, 'the precedent remains compelling'. But, once once again, this idea is immediately dropped, and the working party practise not pursue their own logic.
This question interlocks with the previous over whether 'sacramental confession' is a distinctive ministry building, as opposed to pastoral conversations. The report is again contradictory. In one paragraph information technology tells us that 'a request for prayer in which a disclosure is made is not sacramental and the seal does not apply' (§7.ii.10). Only in another paragraph, that Catechism 113 covers all pastoral conversations, non simply 'auricular confession', because 'there seems no compelling reason to give the Proviso a narrower estimation than its bodily words suggest' (§3.5.5). The report is bristling with these unresolved rival narratives.
The breadth of pastoral encounter envisaged past Canon 113, and its capacity for permissible exceptions to the dominion of confidentiality, is shown further by comparing with the much tighter canon which was intended to replace it, drafted in 1947:
If whatsoever man confesses whatever hugger-mugger or hidden sin to a Priest for the unburdening of his censor and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind and absolution from him, such Priest shall non either by word, writing, or sign directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, or in any other way whatsoever, at any time reveal and make known to whatsoever person whatever, any sin, crime, or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy; neither shall any Priest make use of knowledge gained in the practise of such ministry building to the offence or detriment of the person from whom he has received it, even if there exist no danger of betraying the identity of such person; neither shall any Priest who is in a position of authorization in whatever place, make use of whatsoever such knowledge in the practice of his authority.(§iii.10.1)
This proposed canon deliberately pushed in a sacerdotal direction by replacing the linguistic communication of 'minister' with 'priest', and past calculation priestly 'absolution' to Canon 113's 'spiritual consolation and ease of mind'. It was as well stridently absolutist, deliberately echoing Catechism 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (see §3.1.1, and the repeated language of 'past word or sign'). Hither was pure Roman doctrine intruding in the modern Church of England. It is salutary, notwithstanding, to remember that the Church building Assembly in the 1950s drew back from this absolutist text because it was arguably illegal (§3.10.four). Some Anglicans were besides nervous that by proposing a new canon, Parliament would exist given the opportunity to scrutinize the exercise of priestly secrecy, and and then they preferred not to raise the question. Nevertheless the Church of England today seems to comport as if this failed absolutist canon of 1947 applies. It does not! Canon 113 of 1603 has been the legal position on this subject for the terminal four centuries. Information technology teaches a general duty of confidentiality in all pastoral conversations, but no more than this.
To enquire whether the Church of England should retain or abolish 'the seal of the confessional' is therefore to brainstorm in the incorrect place with unwarranted assumptions. The Church of England in its formularies and canons does non teach either 'the confessional' or 'the seal' in any medieval or Roman or absolutist sense. Then at that place is none to retain or abolish. And information technology volition be detrimental if the new training envisaged for ordinands and clergy, and the new bishops' directorate about to exist launched in every diocese (§seven.3), only promulgate the errant position of the Lateran Quango of 1215, the failed typhoon canon of 1947, and the misguided Clergy Guidelinesof 2015. Instead we need training and communication properly rooted in the historic formularies and canons of the Church of England, which insist upon strict confidentiality in all ministerial encounters where sin is confessed, but allow the possibility of exceptions to this full general dominion.
Andrew Atherstone is Latimer research swain at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Church of England'southward Full general Synod, The Religion and Guild Commission, and the Liturgical Committee.
If you lot enjoyed this, do share it on social media, peradventure using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you considerdonating £i.xx a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is washed on a freelance basis. If you take valued this mail service, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that engage with the content of the mail, and share in respectful contend, tin can add real value. Seek offset to understand, then to be understood. Make the nearly charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view argue as a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/is-the-seal-of-the-confessional-anglican/
Post a Comment for "Is the ‘seal of the confessional’ Anglican?"