The Shepherd, March 2008
POINTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE
“Please could you tell me (or put in The Shepherd) what relation Confession (to a priest as distinct from self-examination done regularly as part of prayer and preparation for Holy Communion) has to Communion - it can’t be right to see it as the condition of receiving Communion and nothing more - and have you ever heard of charging for Confession and what would you think of such a practice/” - M. L., Broadstairs La Grande.
… RE YOUR QUESTION on Confession. Of course it is not right to see it “as the condition of receiving Communion and nothing more.” It is one of the sacraments (mysteries) of the Church and as such is immensely important. Sadly it seems in various ways to have been sidelined. Among many of the Orthodox peoples, it seems to have been neglected altogether, and you will meet people who have never been to confession at all. Perhaps this is why Fr Seraphim Alexiev calls it the “forgotten medicine.” I believe this happened in the Balkan countries during the years of Ottoman rule, when there were often no priests to hear confession. Itinerant confessors would come round, but I suppose that often things did not work out, and people became used to hardly ever confessing. Since the fall of the Ottomans, like so many other things in church life that go wrong for one reason or another, they are not rectified when the opportunity arises.
Among the Russians, something different seems to have happened. Perhaps because people started going to Communion infrequently (which is of course also a malpractice), the hierarchy insisted that every time they wish to approach for Communion they must go to confession. This perhaps worked in part, but it also seems to have had deleterious effects: one is that people come even less often to Communion, and the second is that confession became, as you say, simply a condition of receiving and it is often squeezed into a few minutes available in the reading of the Hours in church (or even during the Liturgy itself) and becomes just a form with very little spiritual profit and perhaps a great deal of spiritual harm - because people think they are doing the right thing because they have gone through the form. But if you are suffering, say, from cancer, and you go and see the doctor, and do not tell him all your symptoms, and he assumes that there is nothing much wrong with you and lets you go, you may go away feeling that you are alright, only to suffer after because the cancer has not been diagnosed, is not being dealt with, and is gaining strength.
Sometimes, of course, people do need a “quick confession” just before receiving Communion to deal with some one matter, but all conscientious Orthodox Christians should make sure that they regularly go and see their confessor, when both he and they have time for a full confession, for receiving spiritual counsel and advice, and when they are not simply rushing through a form rite. Also, of course, people, should take time before confession to prepare for it. Often people will have nothing to say, or will mention a couple of things by rote, but have not taken any time to reflect upon their lives and prepare for the Mystery. How much such people benefit from such a practice is a moot point.
This confession by rote also leads to a kind of reliance on “church magic” which seems quite prevalent among those who have not deeply looked into their Faith and its teachings. They seem to believe that if you go through the outward form the magic will work; but there is absolutely no magic in the ministrations of the Church.
Yes, sadly I have heard of charging for confession, and what I think of it is of no consequence at all, because my opinion is not worth half-a-sixpence. But it is a practice that is wholly and thoroughly wrong - that is Church teaching. From my thirty year ministry in the Russian Church, I naturally know much more of their practices and customs than I do of other Orthodox traditions, and I know that often the older generation would use coming to confession as an opportunity to give the priest something. This was perhaps necessary when the priests, in emigré parishes, were often very poorly paid, and could hardly exist on the “stipend” they received. Personally I did not like the practice, and tried to persuade the people to give more to the church so that they were better able to support their priests, or at least to give their well-intentioned donations at another time, but old habits die hard, and I was not entirely successful (I have never been successful in much!).
This custom, I believe, was dangerous, because it appeared to be paying for confession, but if a priest charges for confession or even only suggests that you should give him something - that is completely wrong. It is simony. In the Russian “Book of Needs,” it says expressly that the priest should not charge for administering the Holy Mysteries, and if that applies to Communion, it applies to all the ministrations that he imparts.
Of course, if the priest has to travel to minister to you, it is in order to pay his expenses, - he cannot always be expected to do so himself. But if in your church a priest is charging for confession when you go there, then he is sinning in a very grave way and needs help.
Here at Brookwood, we have made it a rule never to charge for any service, and if people do give that helps us, if they do not then undoubtedly we receive a blessing in another way. Similarly, we do not have a collection in church - the people there surely know we need support, and are able to give it freely without a plate being pushed under their nose during the time of prayer. Nor do we even price the candles - they are there to be taken and people may give what they will for them. Undoubtedly if they are generous they too receive a blessing. But we have never gone hungry in 25 years - so why lose trust in our Good Provider and turn His house into a place of merchandise?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 
|
