From the Revd Neil Bryson
Sir, - Bishop Buchanan omits vital evidence (14
November). He claims that the Church of England "retained no
rite that could be called the 'confessional'"; he need look no
further than the 1662 Visitation of the Sick, where it specifies:
"Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession
of his sins. . . . After which confession, the Priest shall absolve
him." The words of absolution are authoritative and reassuring to
the penitent that all his sins are forgiven and absolved.
Article XXV includes the other five "commonly called
Sacraments": it does not state that they are not sacraments. If the
Bishop wishes to call confession "corrupt following of the
apostles", then the same applies to the other four: are marriage
and confirmation corrupt, and does anointing of the sick, commanded
by James and used by the apostles themselves (Mark 6.13), merit the
same epithet - to say nothing of the holy orders conferred three
times on Bishop Buchanan?
The Bishop also refers to the BCP's exhortation to a penitent's
seeking quieting of conscience before communion, which he
interprets as being purely pastoral. Nobody reading it could
mistake it, surely, for being anything but sacramental confession
as understood by the RC Church: "that by the ministry of God's holy
Word [the penitent] may receive the benefit of absolution, together
with ghostly counsel and advice".
Finally, of course, the phrase "seal of the confessional" is not
used in Canon B29 or in the unrepealed Canon 113 of 1603. It is
obvious to the reader, nevertheless, that the "seal" is precisely
what is meant; for whatever other interpretation can possibly be
given to this wording? "We . . . do straitly charge and admonish
[the priest] that he do not at any time reveal and make known to
any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his
trust and secrecy. . ."
I cannot be alone in being alarmed by proposals for removing
"the seal" for certain crimes. The prospect of a priest's using a
mobile phone to call the police during sacramental confession would
put an end to the exercise of this important sacrament: the breach
of trust involved would mean nobody would ever confide in us again,
because we would become agents of the State, and not ministers of
the Lord.
This is different, of course, from a pastoral interview, when
that course of action would be legally obligatory for some crimes.
It is only when it is put on a formal footing, understood by priest
and penitent to be sacramental confession, that the seal applies.
This is nothing new.
What to do, then? Good practice has always been that the priest
does not give absolution without seeing genuine repentance; with
serious crimes, that repentance is shown by the penitent's handing
himself over to the police. Pastorally, the priest should offer to
accompany the penitent, and, once the written confession to the
police has been signed, then to give the penitent absolution.
NEIL BRYSON
5 Chatsworth Close
Maidenhead SL6 4RD
