Fr McNamara on some liturgical practices

http://zenit.org/article-21430?l=english
Interesting column this week, a reader from Detroit enumerates some strict practices, resulting, presumably, from a pastors somewhat Traditionalist proclivities, and wonders if they are all kosher.
First off, let me say that during the time I spent in Detroit 10 years ago, church-hopping, I may add, I could only have dreamed of such a parish.
I did not know of the "reform of the reform" movement, had never heard of Assumption Grotto, f'rinstance, and was finding, in my peregrinations, that diocese were singularly unhelpful in trying to find churches and Mass schedules. The Yellow Pages, Rand McNally Streetfinder and the occasional hotel concierge were my only friends.
(Travelers tip -- even if you are not staying at the hotel, in a strange city a hotel lobby with it's free maps, brochures of attractions, and knowledgeable desk staff is a wonderful way to get oriented, find the nearest Catholic Church and Mass schedules, shopping, public transport. etc.
In one major city, having a stop over of less than 24 hours, a meeting lasting until 6 on a Saturday and a flight out at 7 the next morning, I met with stony indifference from a chancery when I called ahead to find out if any parishes in the city would be offering an evening Mass on Saturday, or what old timers refer to as "printers' Mass" in the wee hours of Sunday.
"You'd have to call the individual parish."
Well, can you tell me what parishes?
"I have no idea."
Do you know if there is Mass said at the airport?
"No."
Isn't that within your archdiocese?
"Well, I suppose technically...."
More evidence, if it were needed after the shuffling Holy Days debacle, that TPTB in some dioceses really dont care if people go to Mass.
Praise the Lord for whoever began Find-a-Mass online.
But I digress.)
And I'm not saying that so "conservative" (I know, I know, bad to use political labels, but you know what I mean,) a priest would be my ideal, but we were subjected to SOOOOO much strangeness ta Detroit area Masses, that this would have been a relief.
The two topics that caught my attention were the absence of one style of the sacrament of reconciliation, (see? I can say that. I know that's one appropriate way of referring to the sacrament. My problem is only with those who object to others using terms like "confession" or "penance" because they are also valid. The tyranny, [demi-]clericalism, inflexibility and dogmatism of the Forces of Dimness who prattle on about the "spirit" of Vatican Two is one of their most endearingly contradictory traits. But I again digress,) and the duration of Exposition.

As to the first, I was fairly certain that a priest was within his rights not to offer "face to face" confessions.
I am equally certain that he would NOT be within his rights not to offer confessions "in the box," if there are confessionals at hand, as it is so contemptuously called by those who do indeed try to deny it to penitents, (and sometimes succeed. There was disappointed talk at one of our LitCom meetings once, at the people who had attended a communal penance service and then left without availing themselves of the sacrament itself. I bit my tongue because I had already said at an earlier meeting that they were flat wrong not to offer confession in the confessionals. "Well, we have plenty of confession times scheduled if they want to go that way, we don't need to give them that opportunity at this," was the gist of the excuse. Huh? 1)It doesn't matter, they have the RIGHT to it whenever you offer confession if there are 'boxes" at hand, and 2) then DON'T COMPLAIN OR ACT SURPRISED that those people whose rights you have denied decline to fully participate in the little program you have devised.
Hurtling toward Lent at such breakneck speed as we do this year, we will find the discussion arising soon again, I fear.
Well, LitCom meetings can be my Lenten Penitential practice....

Now the Adoration and Benediction question is troubling to me... well, intriguing.
In its entirety:
Q: With regards to several of the changes implemented with and after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, are the following "optional" for the celebrant? These are all practiced at my very traditional parish, but I'm wondering if they are OK.

-- Exposition and Benediction immediately following Sunday Mass. (This is done in place of the final blessing by the priest and is very short: Jesus is exposed, Divine Praises recited, blessing given with monstrance, Jesus is returned to the tabernacle)."

A: This is most certainly an error. Liturgical norms expressly forbid exposition just in order to give Benediction. It is always necessary to have a congruous, albeit brief, period of adoration before Benediction. While I do not know of any required legal minimum time of exposition, I would suggest around 20 to 30 minutes as being sufficient.

I don't see any justification for doing away with the dismissal and final blessing, (though I am open to correction on this,) but Fr McNamara's "20 to 30 minutes" seems arbitrary to me.
The rubrics, (and again, I am open to correction on this,) forbid exposition merely for the purpose of giving a benediction, but I should think kneeling and offering the Divine Praises would fulfill the requirement for a period of adoration, albeit a very brief period.
Minimalist, to be sure, not my preference, not ideal, but licit.
No?