Rorate Caeli

A Vatican II Moment:
Shredding tradition in the Diocese of Aveiro, Portugal

The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, 72


The description is given by those who posted the video, so we merely translate this peculiar innovation:



"In the course of the Eucharist with Children, the Confession of sins was not auricular, but each person previously wrote his sins on a piece of paper and then, in the Celebration, the Priest, after reading each, granted absolution to all those who confessed. They were mostly Children, Teenagers, and young adults joined this initiative, but also many adults followed on the steps of the young. While the priest, Father Julio Grangeia, read the sins, the Arcel choir, of the Parish of Espinhel (Deanery of Agueda, Diocese of Aveiro, Portugal) sang penitential chants in order to create a more appropriate environment."

Upon reading the sins (not out loud!), the reverend Father took great care with the seal of confession by feeding the pieces of paper to a paper shredder nearby: it beautifully "expresses", in a "revised" way and "more clearly", "the nature and effect of the sacrament," as the Council asked, so we guess it is a welcome innovation. The liturgical chanting is particularly moving: what sinner does not feel like a stone, rolling down a hill, as tears go by? (Tip: Fratres in unum)

53 comments:

Josephus Muris Saliensis said...

Grotesque.

Lopes said...

The priest has jurisdiction and that is ALL that matters.

Josue said...

No respect! The altar or table has that machine upon it. How sad for that priest and his people. God will heap his vengeance upon his head for this. I'm reminded about today's psalms from the office of sext.

Jack O'Malley said...

Tenho uma pergunta simples: está um picador de papéis considerado agora como um sacramental?

And unless that is a crosscut narrow gauge shredder, the Seal of Confession can be easily broken by a curious sacristan!

Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic said...

Wouldn't you hate to be the guy who walks up there with a scroll-length list? What if it was so long it jammed the shredder? What would happen if there was a power outage and the shredder couldn't work? What if the priest caught one of his consecrated fingers in the shredder?

Oh, the 'spirit of V2' causes so much confusion and division.

Thankfully, the curtain is closing on this nonsense, but they won't go away quietly. Pray for the Church and those who abuse it.

Adam Michael said...

I've seen worse. I've been in a parish in the United States where all the people wrote their sins (after being prepped by an eco-friendly "examination of conscience") on a piece of paper, brought it to the priest who didn't read it but immediately burned it from one of the altar candles, and placed the burned paper in a coffee can. Btw, there was no "general absolution," but simply a "May God forgive you." To make this travesty worse, the parish bulletin marketed this as a "sacrament." From what I learned, this parish offers these "penance services" twice a year in Advent and Lent.

Ligusticus said...

Very beautiful recent "VatII" moment also here...

http://pius.info/archiv-news/933-bild-der-woche/6636-bild-der-woche

Long-Skirts said...

Oh, my gosh and I thought all these years it was "Christ shed His Blood..."

I guess it's "Christ SHRED His Blood..."!!! ;-)

Barona said...

Perhaps these poor souls are mutes?

Petrus Radii said...

Except in the case of a penitent who is dumb (i.e., unable to speak, for those of you with public school educations), a confession which is not auricular (i.e., spoken so as to be heard by the priest) is invalid. There is no matter which can be absolved in the case reported here. The priest is committing a sacrilege and simulating a Sacrament. No absolution of sins occurred.

Sean D said...

Actually wouldn't this be valid but illicit? Otherwise a mute or similiarly handicapped person could never actually confess. Or can they not actually confess?

New Catholic said...

Thanks to the reader; as soon as you have a different embedding code, just send it to us; we want to be ready if this embedded link goes dead.

NC

Shane said...

Some people would classify this as a form of child abuse.

Let's not rush on this one said...

Indeed it would be valid and licit. All that most moralists (pre-VII) say is required is that the penitent manifest their sins to the priest even by signs or written text. Of course the priest would have to absolve with words and not just shredding the paper as a token of forgiveness. Although this is obviously another bizarre deformity the actual method is perfectly Catholic in its essential premises.

Petrus Radii said...

To Sean D....Like I said, someone who is dumb (not stupid, but unable to speak to communicate) is not held to the impossible. In that case, the person can write his confession, but the paper must be properly destroyed afterwards. A written confession is *invalid* for *all* others.

JTLiuzza said...

So if I write my sins on a cookie with icing and bring it to the Priest, who proceeds to read it, absolve me of my sins, proscribe penance, then eat the cookie to protect the seal of confession, it is valid and licit?

P.K.T.P. said...

Fatima-Leiria is the only Diocese in Portugal having Traditional Latin Masses on any basis whatsoever. The P.C.E.D. is too busy revolutionising the 1962 Mass to enforce the Pope's apostolic letter.

P.K.T.P.

Let's not rush on this one... said...

JTLiuzza said...
So if I write my sins on a cookie with icing and bring it to the Priest, who proceeds to read it, absolve me of my sins, proscribe penance, then eat the cookie to protect the seal of confession, it is valid and licit?

Actually it would be in itself but the danger of scandal would be huge and the Sacrament would be held in repugnance perhaps.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Oh dear, I mean really, this is ridicalous, I do not think this would be licit on the part of the priest (not on the part of the penitent for example if they have nowhere else to go, must go due to necessity or other good reasons) but as for validity Thomas Slater, S.J states in his 'manual of moral theology' the following: '...Oral confession is not absolutely necessary for the validity of the sacrament, for mutes or penitents who know no language known also to the confessor, or those who are dying and unable to speak, may confess by signs. Moreover, for good reason, anyone may write his confession, hand it to the priest to read, and accuse himself in general terms, such as 'I confess all that is written here' "

So no the confession here is not ipso facto the writing down invalid, it may be for other reasons such as lack of intention or failure to pronounce absolution etc...

Let's not rush on this one said...

Prummer speaks of:

1/ Manifestation by word or sign of sin and sorrow. Sheet of paper - and if this method is used its destruction.

2/ Imposition of penance (which this priest actually does at the end)

3/ Absolution (which he does give) even if generally (they allow this baloney now)

The defects would be:

Priest: failure to correct penitent / give penance and/or absolution.

Penitent: Failure to make integral confession: concealing sin(s) / lack of contrition.

Only problem (besides the bizarre methodology of shredder on the altar) was the green stole and not a violet one but if that was the only color...

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Arregui-Zalba in 'their' book 'Compendium of Moral Theology' state 'The confession must be..vocal, unless for a just cause it is written down or done by signs. However in this case it has to be 'completed' in the presence of the confessor and as a rule the penitent has to say to the confessor whilst present 'I accuse myself of these sins' (para 584)

The books in spanish so thats a rough translation. It supports slater nevertheless.

Allan said...

Umm...what was that again about the faith in Portugal...? How'd that go?

authoressaurus said...

Laughably invalid, jurisdiction or no jurisdiction. Auricular confession is the only way for serious sin to be confessed, one person at a time. You know, the Marxist libs are so ignorant in some parts of South America that they probably don't even know where Australia is...let me spell it out: this was dealt with there quite publicly about two years ago. Remember Fr. Kennedy? As I say, laughable, if laughably tragic; even Hamlet has its joke moments.

Richard Kindred said...

I doubt that what is presented is meant to be The Sacrament of Penance. This appears to be a variation of a New Age ceremony known in some places as " the burning bowl " ceremony. Definitely not of Roman Catholic origin. It involves writing down an area in your life that is a problem to you and then destroying the paper as a symbolic way of starting to get rid of the problem.
Hokey? Sure. Dangerous? Probably not. Just a priest's way to be "with it"

I am not Spartacus said...

There is nothing in Canon Law that says the Priest cannot cast the Sacred Host into the mouth of a Communicant as though he were throwing a Frisbee; sure, some will be rash enough to suggest that would not be dignified but who among those rash-gnashers would not be honest enough to confess that such a distribution of Communion would effectively combat communicable diseases?

It is crucial that all lunatic ecclesiastical novelties be accorded a solemn and serene consideration less comity dissolve into comedy

Malta said...

When I was a kid, I liked a good gag:

I would have shown up with thirty single-spaced pages!

But, in all seriousness, this priest is protestant in his praxis. This reeks of general absolution, and unless you're on the Titanic, that shouldn't happen (nay, it mustn't happen).

Priests were the first "psychotherapists", because they both council and give penance, which are very important to the present and future spiritual as well as psychological well-being of the penitent.

What this priest did, essentially, was make a mockery of the confessional.

JTLiuzza said...

Let's not rush on this one said:

JTLiuzza said...
So if I write my sins on a cookie with icing and bring it to the Priest, who proceeds to read it, absolve me of my sins, proscribe penance, then eat the cookie to protect the seal of confession, it is valid and licit?

Actually it would be in itself but the danger of scandal would be huge and the Sacrament would be held in repugnance perhaps.

Thanks. Your response makes the point I was trying to make without being as flippant as I was (forgive me).

The whole thing, while valid and licit, strikes me as the Communion in the hand while standing approach to the Sacrament of Penance. It lacks the reverence and seriousness that is due to a Sacrament. And thus it's effect would be ultimately the same as that approach to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has been; to water it down and undermine it (as if the Sacrament of Penance hasn't been undermined enough already via poor Cathechesis).

Skeptico said...

Hey, this priest is in "full communion." Don't worry about it!

dcs said...

Petrus Radii opines:
Except in the case of a penitent who is dumb (i.e., unable to speak, for those of you with public school educations), a confession which is not auricular (i.e., spoken so as to be heard by the priest) is invalid.

Do you have a citation for that claim that one might be able to refer to? An English source, please; I went to public school and so never learned Latin.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

No Petrus doesn't, most likely because there isn't one, he's simply wrong as I and others have pointed out.

Sue said...

"Umm...what was that again about the faith in Portugal...? How'd that go?" -Allan

"In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc." -Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima

We don't know what the words contained in the "etc." say. They could say "by a faithful remnant".

I am quite sure that the Faith in Portugal is going as promised.

Long-Skirts said...

This has nothing to do with the documents of Vatican II.

HSE said...

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Ora et Labora said...

Forgive my comment on this but it is the first thing that come to my mind:

I want to throw up!!!

I literally feel sick watching this video, we have a priests who are TRAITORS to their vows and who instead of leading the people to God through the power of the Sacraments they dimish them and mock them.

Going to confession it's humiliating and embarrasing but it should be that way, we should be ashamed of our bad behavior towards such a good God.

I am a sinner and sadly very far from being a saint, but I pray and ask the Good Lord to forgive me and to never ever allow me to stop feeling ashamed of my behavior when I don't live up to my christian expectations at least until I go to confession and say I am sorry for my sins and promise to mend my ways.

Long-Skirts said...

"Long-Skirts said...

This has nothing to do with the documents of Vatican II.

20 April, 2012 01:40"


SAY WHAT?!!!!
I said no such thing!!

Miles Dei said...

I had to take out my daughter from our parrish when in the first confessions of children i saw that the parents were taking on video and audio the confessions for the CD-recordatory whithout any opposition from the priests.

I said the gravity of that but nobody heared me.

I had to give the catechesis to the first confession to my daughter days before because nobody prepared her to the sacrament of confession. They only say go to the priest and he will say you. Then I had to convince her that those was a big bad. Nobody will know ever what she say to God in that sacrament. But the reality was before her eyes. This people abused of my little girl in an spiritual and dangerous manner than the body sinners.

This is Catholic Church in a good viewed Parrish Anno Domini 2012.

What to do?

Make kilometers and kilometers to find spiritual refresh in a clear fountain. I think we are like christian in Iraq or Missions... Lost of the hand of the church but not of that of the Lord.

But neocons say all is improoving... Yeah!

Somtimes I think they (movements and neocons) like this mess for make people depend of their priests and take good fish in that river. The do not want good parrish but that of theirs. The cover all this just as they covered the others abuse for decades.

Brian said...

If you were in mortal sin and your only choice for confession was this service or a priest with the SSPX, what would you do?

Miles Dei said...

If you were in mortal sin and your only choice for confession was this service or a priest with the SSPX, what would you do?

----------------------------

In state of necessity and if that was the only choice i think there is no problem with that. Supplet Ecclesia objetive. In the subjective is a lot of casuistic.

Miles Dei said...

Sorry i did not read the choice: this service or... I understadn you only choice was a FSSPX priest.


It is clear. There is always another choice. Take the videocam an break against the floor. And after ask for private and secure confession to the priest after the promess to pay the videocam.

Miles Dei said...

Ah I did not understand you could reffer to the service show at the post. The option is the same, only you must break a paper rip machine.

Anil Wang said...

The key thing is, it violates Sacrosanctum Concilium 72 in two ways:

(1) The revision (if any) is to be done by Rome, not the individual priest. Neither the priest nor bishop have the ability to arbitrarily change a sacrament. Blanket absolutions, are also restricted to emergencies (e.g. a plain is about the crash) and not a usual practice.

(2) The revision does not reflect either the nature nor effect of the sacrament. Writing sins on a piece of paper and shredding them gives the children the impression that they can do it themselves to get rid of their sins. Also, our sins are not destroyed during confession. There's still the matter of purgatory. God simply no longer holds them against you. (Psalm 25:7) Furthermore, it gives the impression that children who opted out of the paper writing still get forgive with the blanket absolution.

I think the priest meant well might have honestly misinterpreted Sacrosanctum Concilium 72 to mean he had the authority to do what he did, and he did include the specific parts of the sacrament so it might be valid but illicit.

But this is precisely the reason why the form of the cannot be left up to a single priest or bishop. Not only does it confuse the faithful (unless the priest or bishop has a deep knowledge of the nature and effect of the sacrament and explains it during each homily), it also destroys the unity of the Church and leaves Catholics confused about whether the sacrament their received is valid or not.

New Catholic said...

So now we have a pseudo-Long-Skirts in our midst!? Shame on you: this is Long-Skirts very own nickname and you cannot use it.

NC

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Anil stop being silly, actually stop being absurd, this was not done in good faith unless the priest is crazy, I might as well say that liturgical dances, 'reconciliation rooms' and communion in the hand were done in good faith too....

Fr. Phil said...

The product of LAZY priests who do not want to sit in the confessional. These poor children who are refused personal words of wisdom to help them grow in spirituality and avoid temptation and sin. (Read Ez.34)

Brian said...

Fr. Phil wrote: The product of LAZY priests who do not want to sit in the confessional.

Thank you!

Liberalism often boils down to accomodating the "flesh" (i.e., the Seven Deadly Sins).

Long-Skirts said...

New Catholic said...

"So now we have a pseudo-Long-Skirts in our midst!? Shame on you: this is Long-Skirts very own nickname and you cannot use it."

Thank you, NC. When I post something "Long-Skirts" comes up in blue. I have no idea who is using my nick-name.

NBW said...

When I think of the many hours St. John Vianney, St. Padre Pio and many other priests spent in the confessional, and to see what this priest is doing, it is sickening.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Long Skirts Your beautiful poetry is your rhetorical DNA and it can not be duplicated.

The best others can do is steal your moniker; they can not match your Faith and sensibilities to say nothing of your ability to write.

Even those who have never met you know you due to your poetry which is but a mirror held-up to your serious and beautiful soul.

Long-Skirts said...

I am not Spartacus said:

"Even those who have never met you know you due to your poetry which is but a mirror held-up to your serious and beautiful soul."

Oh, gosh, Spartacus, I'm just a sinner and a Simon of Cyrene...in other words, the Church has taught me well but still, like dear Simon of Cyrene, any good I've ever done has been done, often, reluctantly but thank you for your kind words and know that I pray daily for you and everyone on this list and for the good of the WHOLE Church!

THE
SUCCESS

Charity
I oft suppress
With vanity
I can impress.

My vice of flesh
I can express
By drinking, eating
To excess.

For failure's mine
But I confess...
In sin
I am a great success!

Knight of Malta said...

Use a pseudo-maltese and I will 'cut you' (ala Bon Qui Qui); just kidding, no one would slander themselves using my moniker!

But in seriousness, I do enjoy Long-Skirt's posts and poems!

Niby filozof said...

Um, abp Hannibale Bugnini revived the rite of Public Confession for atheists and communists returning to the Church.

He felt that it was needed for the atheists to publicly confess their sins in front of the congregation.

Abp Bugnini didn't foresee that the public rite of Confession would become the normal rite of Confession in much of the world.

The modern priests can't even trace themselves to abp Bugnini, they have gone farther than the poor archbishop did. Remember abp Bugnini was a traditional Catholic, who compiled the Novus Ordo in obedience to St. Peter. What priests did with the NO is their business.

( On a tangent, becoming an Eastern rite Catholic is masturbation because of a small crisis. Remain Roman Catholic.)

Druses said...

Bugnini was a heretic, period!

Vatican Tours said...

We are all here for a reason, and any reason is good to be here, but not all of us is in agreement, best if is possible to be in peace!