Genuine Confession

A Synthesis Paper Submitted to

the Faculty of Philosophy

St. Camillus College Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

By:

Joshua Daniel E. Villanueva

November 2016
Introduction

Roman Catholicism is a prominent religion in the Philippines. Statistically, at least 90% of

the population is Christian and about 87% belong to the Roman Catholic Church. (Wikipedia

par.1) the statistics basically show that Filipinos are exposed to the practices done in and by the

church making it somehow a part of the Filipino Culture. By the influence of Catholicism, Filipinos

are deemed to acculturate these practices and one of these practices is the sacrament of

reconciliation. This sacrament has many names, but it is popularly known as confession.

Most people these days are urged to make confession not with their own will but by the

influential wave of tradition. Seeing their friends and their elders undergo confession, people are

encouraged to follow. They don’t have a firm ground to keep on with their religion, which often

leads in to inactive faith. “Why is it that some Filipino Catholics are inactive to church

observances?” An Answer might lie in the problem of dialogue.

In the form and matter of confession, a dialogue is happening between the penitent and the

priest. Confession involve dialogue; the penitent is expected to openly acknowledge his faults to

the pries, while the priest listens and, based from what he heard, will give a just penance

subsequently absolution.

Without prior knowledge on the faith or without catechism, the view on the sacrament of

confession becomes vague. To begin with, we start to see priests as unauthorized, being the rightful

confessor. We ask, “How can I call it a real confession if I and others don’t consider priests as

authorized confessors?” We doubt that they don’t have the right to represent God. These negative

factors can change the way we act and talk. Moreover, questions about dialogue such as “What

would dialogue be in confession if I see the pries ungodly, how can he be in authority?” and “If
confessing is driven by fear, tradition and other soiled motivation, would there be genuine

dialogue?” may arise.

As a seminarian, I have ample experience confessing my sins. On my first confession I was

quite nervous thinking mostly of thing I ought to say to the priest. I know it’s different from the

conversations I have had with my friends. While waiting, fear coursed through me seeing that

some of my fellow neophytes cried after their turn. It made me wonder, but it also boosted my

eagerness to dwell within the experience. I was anxious when my turn came, but I mustered enough

confidence to say what I have to say. Nonetheless, after confessing didn’t make me feel like crying,

rather I feel relived. I guess I had now the idea why the preceding penitents cried, I supposed

sincerity of regret got to their nerves. But what I was seeking, what I was waiting to feel, was the

magic of absolution. I was disappointed knowing that it is only composed of words, mere words

of absolution. My first experience also made me doubt confession.

In laying a firm trust in confession, I will integrate catechisms and philosophy to deepen

our understanding and belief. Catechisms of the Catholic Church will be used to answer the trivial

claims on confession. To support the catechistical answers I’ll use Martin Buber, a Jewish

philosopher. His philosophy in distinguishing between dialogue and monologue will answer

questions about dialogue. I will first discuss the sacrament of confession to establish a foreground

of the problem and this will be followed by Buber’s perspective about dialogue in order to lay

possible solutions. Afterward, I will show the meaning and purpose of dialogue and finally apply

it to the other question that may arise.

Confession
 Confession, for the Catholics, is significant since it bridges the gap between God and the

man-made distance formed through sinning. A sin is a faulty action don to others or to self that

disrupts the relationship of a person to God. Sinning is an act that basically doesn’t feel right basely

from the perspective of God. It is ordinary to be ignorant, of not knowing that the act is malevolent.

But there are also faulty actions that we are aware of doing and in that case it nees to be confessed.

Sins can be classified into two: mortal or serious sin, and venial or less serious sin.

(Bishops’ Conference 178) Catholics believe that sinning (depending of the seriousness of sin)

may separate or damage our relationship with God. But it doesn’t mean that only those who have

committed mortal sins are the only ones eligible for or necessitating confession. For “confession

is a great gift of healing that brings about closer union with the Lord.” (Bishops’ Conference 138)

We all need the Lord’s guidance, whether sinners or not. It doesn’t necessarily mean, however,

that one must first commit a serious sin just to receive this gift of healing and be united again with

God. The church has a minimal requirement that Catholics should undergo confession even once

in a year. But seminarians, priests, and other religious classes are encouraged to have regular

confession, perhaps even once a month, because people can’t really avoid being sinful. Even

reverent persons confess because they also need to redeem their relationship with God.

It is, like other sacraments, a way to commune with the Lord. It portrays that the dialogue

within confession doesn’t turn around between man and man only but also man and God. Although

it is obvious that it is a simple conversation between men, specifically on is a priest and a penitent,

it is viewed as a sacred conversation from a Catholic perspective. It is the priest, who through his

ordination, the authority of Christ is grafted into him. (Bishops’ Conference 144) Priests are in

persona Christi, they represent Christ especially when they administer sacraments. When priests
hear confession they actually do a sacred conversation, and there is a dialogue between man and

God.

The conversation between the priest and penitent during confession happens this way. Both

the participant will first make the sign of the cross followed by the penitent’s introduction “Forgive

me, Father, for I have sinned,” followed by stating the last time he confessed. Then the penitent

starts to confess his sins (any mistakes that he considers to be a sin) while the priest listens.

Afterward, the priest will give valuable feedback with regards to the penitent’s faults followed by

the penance or prayers that priest requires after the confession. It ends by the prayer of absolution

of the priest.

Dialogue

Conversation is quite different from dialogue. Conversation happens when there is

understanding between speaker and listener. Conversation can be a method for dialogue but it

doesn’t necessarily follow that conversation is dialogue or vice versa. Conversation is made of

words, but dialogue doesn’t need words. Even silence can be dialogue. (Dy 71) In dialogue there

is a deep-seated understanding that can be found, sometimes, even in silence as already mentioned.

There are instances in life that only silence or not saying anything solves misunderstanding

because sometimes, words become the main source of complication.

Based from our common understanding, dialogue is a two-way process where the partners

are given a time to talk and a time to listen. We treat ourselves and others as objects that can listen

and talk. However, from a philosophical perspective it goes beyond the speaker as well as the

interlocutor. Martin Buber describes dialogue in terms of two distinctive relationships: the I-Thou
which talks about dialogue, and the I-It, which refers to monologue. The relationship of I-Thou

will be applied for this paper.

“I-Thou is a relationship of openness, directness, mutuality, and presence.” (Gregor-Smith

xii) I-Thou is known also as genuine dialogue or interhuman relationship. It is through I-Thou that

one can see the wholeness and uniqueness of the other and uncover it. It is in the nature of human

to let others see what he truly is and show what is hidden in us. We, as humans, are relationship

inclined individuals a reason why we can talk, communicate and understand others even without

the presence of words. Although comprehension is taken in words, misunderstanding can’t be

wholly avoided in the realm of genuine dialogue because it has to consider the speaker and

interlocutor also.

I-Thou is not a simple two-way conversation. It should be considered internally knowing,

and it is one way for genuine dialogue. Furthermore, there is a possibility that we can learn or

distinguish whether we are talking in dialogue or monologue and it is through the obstacles to

dialogue. Seeming, speechifying, and imposition are the three obstacles. One is regarded as

monologue if one of the obstacles popped in. Dialogue is far from our prior knowledge of a two-

way of listening, talking and comprehension because chances it can still fall to the obstacles of

monologue.

Seeming, the first obstacle, is in contrast to being. (Dy 69) From the word itself, we can

directly see what it implies and how it can affect dialogue. Seeming is an obstacle because what is

seen and shown is not the real being of the speaker. Most of us are absorbed in making an

impression of what we want for others to see. We don’t really show what is true about us; rather
we artificially show something that isn’t ourselves. This is commonly known in Tagalog as

“kaplastikan”.

Speechifying is the second obstacle to dialogue; it is in contrast to personal making present.

(Dy 70) Sometimes, we aren’t mindful enough to give our partner a chance to say something. One

selfishly attends to his role being the speaker thus we leave our partner as listener until the end.

We are not aware that the listener is a person also who holds a unique mystery like the speaker.

We forget to acknowledge the presence of the other person, a person like us who has his own

opinions, stories, he is not just a prop, an object or just someone who will just be there beside us.1

In the last obstacle Dy explains that imposition is in contrast to unfolding. (70) Imposition

is a forceful trade marking of a person into something he is not. Condemning others is not a

character of dialogue. Judgments have no place in dialogue, because it putts the participant into a

box depriving him to reveal his uniqueness. Dialogue respects the uniqueness and wholeness of a

person. Dialogue allows the participant to freely reveal himself as a person who has his own right

to exist and manifest. Those who are truly in dialogue actualize respect for other’s unfolding and

reaches out without the will of judgment. In unfolding, one can actualize his insights and ideas,

whether apparent or not, to everyone who is willing to listen. He doesn’t need to impose himself

something, because when he is there in dialogue he can freely show what is true and right for him.

Dr. Dy summarized the three obstacles and came out with a general idea that dialogue is

being true to the partner. (70) Each participants need to be honest with their partners, treating them

1
It is quite different in silence. One can be silent but not all silence is monologue. Silence can sometimes project
and continue the dialogue nonverbally.
as human beings also. Each has something to show, tell and reveal because we are humans that

have a lot of mysteries that needs to be manifested to others.

In this paper the Eternal Thou will be applied, for the sacraments requires the intercession

of God through sacrament, including confession. Buber said “It is only the relation I-Thou in which

we can meet God” (Buber 128) making it apparent how God manifests himself in every dialogue.

As the persons involved in a dialogue need the manifestation of each other, God also has to

manifest to those whom he authorized to administer sacrament, particularly confession. The

religious inclination of Martin Buber, being a Jew, helps to find a close understanding of God or

Eternal Thou. He too, I deem, considers religious practices as ways to commune with God.

In reality there is neither pure dialogue nor pure monologue but a mixture. (Dy 69) We

cannot guarantee that all conversations we had are pure dialogue, a reason why sometimes a simple

conversation turns into a misunderstanding. Another reason why we lean towards monologue that

dialogue is the fact that it is easier to lie. We mostly suit up in the likeness of others than choose

to stand up for the sake of honesty or truth. It doesn’t always result to something we expected. We

expect that being true will always equate to being likable. Most of the people are settles into lying

to each other for a purpose of making a likable impression. Being pleasant in the eyes is not the

deal here but the awareness of the mystery of our partners.

There is a mystery in every person waiting to be discovered and the most significant of all

mysteries sometimes are buried within, that only a deep excavating relationship can uncover. It is

a relationship of I-Thou, interhuman or genuine dialogue.

Genuine Confession
 The modern world is against the value that Buber is trying to demonstrate. In this modern

world the narcissistic and materialistic view is influencing more and more people. Apparently, this

attitude is like sinning.

Priests only play significant roles in confession because of their vows. They vowed to

respect the confidentiality of confession. No matter what happens they should keep the sins of the

people between him and God. The authorization of the priests is seen in the facts of religion and

practicality. First, it is the formality of the church that only priest or the ones who received the

sacrament of holy order have the right to carry out sacraments. Secondly, practically we confess

to priests because they are the ones who, because of their lifetime pledge, are trustworthy enough

to share our misdeeds. I don’t generally say that all priests are trustworthy, but most of them ought

to act honestly. Priests, unlike ordinary people, made such vows that composed them to be

trustworthy enough to let them know our sins. Another reason why priests should be trusted is

because of the grave consequences they may face if they do unpriestly acts. At the most, priests

might under excommunication.

At this moment I’ll try to synthesize the correlation between dialogue and confession to

find whether dialogue in confession is about enough as genuine dialogue. The three obstacles

integrated with ill-motivations and feeling of both the pries and penitent will lay a good

background and connection to portray id the confession is either monologue or dialogue.

A confession may be considered seeming if they don’t say and act as truly as they should.

Both the priest and the penitent must show who they really are. The penitent must show what he

really feel not hiding his nervousness, fears and other emotions he is sensing. The priest should

also do likewise. Feelings are just feelings which are always present which can be positive, neutral
or negative. But this shouldn’t hinder us to do what we ought to do. Showing our feelings during

confession is respecting our natural reaction as an individual, thus being honest to our selves. The

penitent is honest in words through utterance of his sins and likewise in the condition and feelings

it entails. The priest is also honest by accepting the sins being confessed and maintaining its

secrecy and respecting the penitent as he is without judgment.

During confession the penitent isn’t confessing for someone else other than himself. He

isn’t acting as a mere concept of someone rather he is confessing because he affirms that he is his

real self and he has made his own mistakes. Seeming to be someone other than himself is moving

away from his own being making the instance non-interhuman.

Speechifying, the second obstacle of dialogue if applied in confession dialogue becomes

vague. Both the priest and penitent must respect the being of the other. There is a danger in the

point of view of the penitent since the person may treat the priest as mere someone or an object

who listens to sins. A priest is also a person with depth and mystery. The awareness of the other

as a person despite his authority or position makes the dialogue genuine. The two becomes even

more important overlooking their positions in life by going through dialogue. They aren’t priest

and penitent but persons in dialogue that obtain uniqueness and mystery.

During confession the one who is doing much of the talking is the penitent, enumerating

his sins and elaborates it. But dialogue is much apparent with the penitent’s perspective. He is very

much aware that there is a person in the room thus he somewhat feel untoward emotionally.

The uncomfortable feeling of the penitent is a sign that he sees the priest as a person who can be

anybody, anything, and something indefinite. The priest is two persons at the same time. He is
God and he is a person. This suggests that dialogue is in him as we can meet God in the relation

of I-Thou. And the relationship behind confession can be called as I-Thou.

Through imposition, the last obstacle, confession has two perspectives to consider in

having a dialogue. For the priest, he must get rid of his predetermined biases and prejudices to the

sinner and avoid using it against him through the penance. The priest must be open to the

possibilities of the mystery that lie in one confession and not compare him to others that has the

same sins he confesses. Although it can’t be helped that there are people who has comparative

sins, but is doesn’t follow that the two are the same. He must let him get what is just f or each

person. For the penitent, who must look at the priest as the image of God, it seems contradicting.

Isn’t it imposition? Primarily, the penitent is much aware that he accepts God as his moderator, a

reason why he confess. With this, in the penitent’s knowledge he is talking to God with the

intercession of the priest. The priest and the penitent don’t need to impose their position in the

sacrament or their individuality because as long as they allow each one to unfold as God and as

person who sinned. The two will just connect and find their rightful places in the dialogue and

confession.

Why do we really need confession if God being omnipotent knows everything even our

sins? The real concern of confession is not the omnipotence of God but the ruefulness of the sinner

that he is asking God to forgive him and asking back his presence in his life, since sinning, as I

have said, can separate and damage our relationship with God. By the freedom he has given it is

our own prerogative to acknowledge our sins or not. The fact that we are humans who have

limitations, we cannot enumerate all the sins we have committed. However, knowing that God

knows everything even the forgotten sins are considered to be forgiven. And in this matter dialogue

has contribution in reaching back to God. Through dialogue we recognize God in what we say
(sins being confessed) and who we talk to (priest) during confession. The act of being true of a

sinner to the priest, an intercessor of God, conveys a genuine dialogue.

If only we take confession in this way where we treat each other as person or someone

whom we can trust as a person available for interhuman relationship, things might go better both

for dialogue and for confession. To achieve genuine dialogue one doesn’t control something. Being

an ordinary person doesn’t need any effort at all since we are already human and we are deemed

to act as one. We just need to act spontaneously as a person. It is normal for us to be true and

honest. We can see a new picture where we aren’t objects anymore but persons that have the

possibilities to create an interhuman relationship, a person that can really take good look of the

world through genuine dialogue. If only people can look at confession in this keyhole maybe all

the Catholics will be racing for confession. The only problem is that the modern society oppose

the real we.

The short time frame of confession is doubtful enough for real dialogue. Dialogue based

on its definition is something difficult to do, something that should take some time. But confession

varies in time some is done in just few minutes. How can we really say that there is dialogue in

those limited time? It can be answered in viewing dialogue in a different angle. Dialogue doesn’t

necessarily pay attention on time engrossed but on the moments where truths are furnished. In

other words, honesty is its basis.

Conclusion

Knowing the influence of dialogue and its aspects in a confession, we can look at

confession with mores sense compared to what only faith and catechesis can offer. It is best to
explain catechesis with reliable proofs of philosophy. Confession is more than a mere church ritual

but a special view of person involved in the realm of dialogue. It is an extraordinary experience of

the divine. If we view confession as dialogue it may drive people to go for confession. The shallow

motivations from elders, friends or trends are considered as peripheries in a genuine confession.

Perhaps this can be a panacea in the case of the declining number of active Catholics. In

this modern world we are influenced to doubt everything, so when such things seem dubitable we

primarily choose to leave it behind. We usually want reliable, tangible and reasonable things,

something that we can really grasp. Perhaps a catechism that relates with our faith, experience and

philosophy can solve the problem of confession. For example, learning about dialogue and the

possibility to integrate it into religion can help people understand it in a whole new perspective.

Confession is not only a simple conversation for it requires a special intercession from

God, the Eternal Thou where all dialogue resides. Buber simply said that we can meet God in

dialogue. With those words he didn’t instinctively referred to the sacrament or the priests. It can

mean that dialogue can be applied also in other religion and even to ordinary people. Martin Buber

didn’t emphasize religion in connection with dialogue, despite his being a Jew; rather he broadly

said that dialogue can happen to a person who is true to their partner. It implies that even ordinary

people who undergo dialogue can catch a glimpse of God.

We can view the church defense of priests as in persona Christi as equated with dialogue’s

I-Thou. I-Thou is the place where God resides while priests are also believed to be God that reside

as person. Talking to a priest is already talking to God, but not all the time, only at times where he

administers sacraments. Then it is much better to confess to priests than to hardly find God in

others through everyday dialogue.

 References

Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man. Trans. Ronald Gregor-Smith. London and New York:

Routledge Classics. 2002. Print

Buber, Maritn. Eclipse of God. New Jersey. Humanities Press. Sussex: Harvester Press. 1979.

Print

Dy, Jr., Manuel B., Philosophy of Human person Lecture Notes

German, Austrian and Swiss Bishops’ Conference. YOUCAT. Trans. Michael J. Miller. India:

Asian Trading Corporation Bangalore. USA: Ignatius Press, 2011. Print.