Am I still forgiven if I do not do my penance?

[Brooklyn]

Not true. Sins are forgiven before penance is given.

Once the priest recites the prayer of absolution and states at the end “…and I absolve you of ALL OF YOUR SINS…” All sins are gone, penance or not. You still must do penance.

You completely ignored the bolded part of the quote from the Catechism:

**Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” **

That means that we have our part to do in absolving sins, which is the penance given to us, as the CCC puts it “the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more.”

Yes, the sins are absolved provided we do the penance. For the OP, he has willfully refused to do the penance. His sins are not absolved. There is such a thing as invalid confession, and someone who refuses to do the penance has invalidated his confession.

Interesting link I found:

What makes a confession invalid

The conditions below make a confession invalid, according to a book co-authored by Cardinal Donald Wuerl:

•No true sorrow for sins and lack of intention to avoid grave sin in the future,

•Deliberately neglecting to confess all grave sins, or

•Refusing to do an assigned penance.

 

[Brooklyn]

All sins confessed and any honestly forgotten are forgiven when the Priest gives you absolution. Absolution cannot be conditional on anything.

If you don’t do your penance it may be an additional sin but that depends on the reason you did not do it. Do the Chaplets and then discuss this with Father at your next confession.

You are forgiven. Keep strong and know that God heals and loves.

So I guess you don’t agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[marlo]

According to this website: catholichotdish.com/faith-and-reasons/is-confession-valid-if-we-dont-do-the-penance/

What makes a confession invalid

We’re obliged to do the penance, but what if we accidentally don’t? The conditions below make a confession invalid, according to a book co-authored by Cardinal Donald Wuerl:

• No true sorrow for sins and lack of intention to avoid grave sin in the future,
• Deliberately neglecting to confess all grave sins, or
• Refusing to do an assigned penance.

So if the OP refuses the act of doing his penance, then this confession will be invalid

 

[thistle]

You completely ignored the bolded part of the quote from the Catechism:

**Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” **

That means that we have our part to do in absolving sins, which is the penance given to us, as the CCC puts it “the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more.”

Yes, the sins are absolved provided we do the penance. For the OP, he has willfully refused to do the penance. His sins are not absolved. There is such a thing as invalid confession, and someone who refuses to do the penance has invalidated his confession.

Interesting link I found:

What makes a confession invalid

The conditions below make a confession invalid, according to a book co-authored by Cardinal Donald Wuerl:

•No true sorrow for sins and lack of intention to avoid grave sin in the future,

•Deliberately neglecting to confess all grave sins, or

•Refusing to do an assigned penance.

You are wrong. Absolution is not conditional upon penance being done and not doing a penance does not invalidate the absolution or Confession. Immediately after absolution is given a penitent may receive Communion before they do penance. If they subsequently forget to do their penance that is not a sin. If they subsequently refuse to do their penance then that is a sin of grave matter which requires going to Confession again but none of that impacts at all their previous Confession and absolution.

 

[JaredR]

You are forgiven when the priest says “I absolve you.” However, you must do your penance. Your penance is there so you can make satisfaction for your sins. If you don’t do it here on earth, you will do it in purgatory. It is much easier here on earth!

 

[TheDoctor]

So I guess you don’t agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

No my friend, I do not agree with your mus-interpretation of it.

Take a read from Father Z. - he specifically address what we were speaking about.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-am-i-forgiven-if-i-dont-do-a-penance-assigned-in-confession-fr-z-rants/

There is also the code of canon law, but Fr. Z handles it much more plainly.

 

[Edmundus1581]

No. I took that right out of my Moral Theology book that is the Moral Theology textbook used by the FSSP.

(Emphasis is as is in original text)

Thankyou for the reply. That looks like a good reference.

This is still not 100% clear…

It is a mortal sin not to perform a grave penance which has been imposed sub gravi for mortal sins. If the penitent before receiving absolution is minded not to perform such a penance, his confession would be invalid.

The terms “grave penance” and “imposed sub gravi” are not common, and may have a specific meaning. It is not clear to me that they apply to not performing the penance imposed for a mortal sin, in the general case. We accept that not performing ones penance is a sin, however it is still not clear to me that not performing penance for a mortal sin is (always) also a mortal sin.

Fr Z’s blog, which I linked above mentions that penances “should” be performed, but makes no mention of a distinction between penances for mortal and venial sins. I have never heard of such a thing before - and I have done quite a lot of reading about confession and penance.

Thankyou

 

[JaredR]

That means that we have our part to do in absolving sins, which is the penance given to us

Friend, I don’t like to correct people, but I think you are making a grave error here. We don’t have any part to do in absolving sins. That is purely the action of Jesus Christ through the sacrament. There is nothing we can do to effect absolution for ourselves. It is unearned and unearnable.

I think you are confusing the difference between satisfaction and absolution. Absolution takes away the guilt of our sins. Satisfaction pays the punishment we owe to Divine Justice but has nothing to do with removing our guilt.

Absolution is given ex opere operato when the priest says “I absolve you.”

Again, I do not like to argue, but I think this is an important point to be clarified.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

The only time refusing to do one’s penance invalidates absolution is if the penitent decides BEFORE receiving absolution that he will not do his penance.

 

[Brooklyn]

You are wrong. Absolution is not conditional upon penance being done and not doing a penance does not invalidate the absolution or Confession. Immediately after absolution is given a penitent may receive Communion before they do penance. If they subsequently forget to do their penance that is not a sin. If they subsequently refuse to do their penance then that is a sin of grave matter which requires going to Confession again but none of that impacts at all their previous Confession and absolution.

No my friend, I do not agree with your mus-interpretation of it.

Take a read from Father Z. - he specifically address what we were speaking about.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-am-i-forgiven-if-i-dont-do-a-penance-assigned-in-confession-fr-z-rants/

There is also the code of canon law, but Fr. Z handles it much more plainly.

Friend, I don’t like to correct people, but I think you are making a grave error here. We don’t have any part to do in absolving sins. That is purely the action of Jesus Christ through the sacrament. There is nothing we can do to effect absolution for ourselves. It is unearned and unearnable.

I think you are confusing the difference between satisfaction and absolution. Absolution takes away the guilt of our sins. Satisfaction pays the punishment we owe to Divine Justice but has nothing to do with removing our guilt.

Absolution is given ex opere operato when the priest says “I absolve you.”

Again, I do not like to argue, but I think this is an important point to be clarified.

The only time refusing to do one’s penance invalidates absolution is if the penitent decides BEFORE receiving absolution that he will not do his penance.

So all of you, including Father Z, completely disagree with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. Interesting. You think there is no way a confession can ever be invalid? When the priest absolves us, he does so with the knowledge that we will do the penance we have been given.

These are the parts of canon law that Father Z quotes:

can. 959: In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.

Nothing in either of these two sections of canon law quoted by Father Z says the pentinent can still be absolved if he willfully does not do the assigned penance. I honestly don’t know how Father Z can extrapolate his conclusion from these two sections.

I’m sticking with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. I think you are all giving the OP very dangerous advice and other people reading this thread will conclude that if they don’t like the penance they have been given, they don’t have to do it and can still be forgiven their sins.

Very, very dangerous advice.

The next time you’re in the confessional and a priest gives you a penance you don’t like, say “I’m sorry, Father, but I don’t like that penance and I’m not going to do it.” Do you think he will still absolve you from your sins? He’ll just say, “That’s fine my son (or daughter). You are still absolved.” You really believe that?

 

[TheDoctor]

So all of you, including Father Z, completely disagree with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. Interesting. You think there is no way a confession can ever be invalid? When the priest absolves us, he does so with the knowledge that we will do the penance we have been given.

Several points if I may:

I don’t think anyone ever said that there is no way a confession can be invalid. Can you point to that specifically please?

These are the parts of canon law that Father Z quotes:can. 959: In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.

Note that Canon Law talks specifically about confession (i.e. the sacrament with a Priest) and absolution (i.e. not penance) being the only methods to grace vis-a-via mortal sin. It does not mention penance:Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.
When the Priest absolves us, the idea of penance does not enter into it - only that the Priest believes we are sorry for our sins and have a firm purpose of amendment. Again, Canon Law is pretty clear:Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.
You probably missed this canon when you were looking up the canon’s you cited, but please read it again. See what it says and what it does not say. There is no mention of penance at all, just as there is no mention of tying absolution to any other act. I agree Canon 981 you cited applies but it applies after absolution is given and is not tied to it.

Nothing in either of these two sections of canon law quoted by Father Z says the pentinent can still be absolved if he willfully does not do the assigned penance.

Look at it this way - you say “Nothing in either of these two sections of canon law quoted by Father Z says the pentinent can still be absolved if he willfully does not do the assigned penance” - turn it around. Where in canon law does it say the penitent will be absolved only if they do the penance? It does not, does it? What does it say about the grounds for absolution? See Canon 980.

. I honestly don’t know how Father Z can extrapolate his conclusion from these two sections.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but in answer to “I honestly don’t know how Father Z can extrapolate his conclusion from these two sections.” I would say years of seminary, theology and ministry.

I’m sticking with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. I think you are all giving the OP very dangerous advice and other people reading this thread will conclude that if they don’t like the penance they have been given, they don’t have to do it and can still be forgiven their sins.

That is not what we think, it is what the Church teaches. Yes, if you make a good confession with sorry and firm purpose of amendment you are forgiven at absolution. If you willfully decide you don’t want to do your penance that is another sin, but it has no effect on the absolution you have been given.

Very, very dangerous advice. The next time you’re in the confessional and a priest gives you a penance you don’t like, say “I’m sorry, Father, but I don’t like that penance and I’m not going to do it.” Do you think he will still absolve you from your sins? He’ll just say, “That’s fine my son (or daughter). You are still absolved.” You really believe that?

It is perfectly acceptable to say ask Father for a different penance, especially if there is some known impediment to you doing what you have been given. If you search the forum you will find multiple examples of this.

If you tell Father you will not do the penance because “you don’t like it” then it seems to me you are not truly sorry for your sins and absolution may be withheld, but that is not what we are talking about here, is it? We are speaking about someone who takes a penance with the idea to do it and then for reasons between them and their confessor chooses not to. In the latter case, absolution is still valid because at the time Father had no reason to believe the penitent was not sorry with a firm purpose of amendment.

Thanks for your opinion of this being “dangerous advice” however since a tremendous portion of the advice given on the net has to be taken with a grain or handful of salt based primarily on the qualifications of the giver, with respect, I will stick with the interpretation of the Catechism and Canon Law quoted by Fr. Z.

 

[thistle]

So all of you, including Father Z, completely disagree with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. Interesting. You think there is no way a confession can ever be invalid? When the priest absolves us, he does so with the knowledge that we will do the penance we have been given.

These are the parts of canon law that Father Z quotes:

can. 959: In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.

Nothing in either of these two sections of canon law quoted by Father Z says the pentinent can still be absolved if he willfully does not do the assigned penance. I honestly don’t know how Father Z can extrapolate his conclusion from these two sections.

I’m sticking with the Catechism and Cardinal Wuerl. I think you are all giving the OP very dangerous advice and other people reading this thread will conclude that if they don’t like the penance they have been given, they don’t have to do it and can still be forgiven their sins.

Very, very dangerous advice.

The next time you’re in the confessional and a priest gives you a penance you don’t like, say “I’m sorry, Father, but I don’t like that penance and I’m not going to do it.” Do you think he will still absolve you from your sins? He’ll just say, “That’s fine my son (or daughter). You are still absolved.” You really believe that?

Please state where in this thread anyone said a Confession cannot be invalid. Its sad when you have to start making up stories.

A Confession can be invalid when:

• the penitent deliberately does not disclose mortal sins
• the penitent (before confessing and receiving absolution) intends not to perform a penance

However, Confession and absolution are valid if the penitent discloses all mortal sins they can remember, and fully intends to perform their penance.
If they later forget what penance was given they may do one of their own and that is not a sin.
If they later simply forget to do their penance that is not a sin.
If they later decide they will refuse to do the penance then that is a sin of grave matter which has to be confessed but it does not affect the validity of the Confession at which they were given the penance.

ABSOLUTION IS NOT CONDITIONAL UPON THE PENANCE BEING PERFORMED.

YOU ARE WRONG AND THE CATECHISM DOES NOT STATE THAT.

 

[TheDoctor]

ABSOLUTION IS NOT CONDITIONAL UPON THE PENANCE BEING PERFORMED.

YOU ARE WRONG AND THE CATECHISM DOES NOT STATE THAT.

I sense your frustration but I think Brooklyn’s heart is in the right place (wanting to give good and solid advice on the subject) and it is his opinion that we are discussing. No need to shout.

 

[Brooklyn]

Several points if I may:

I don’t think anyone ever said that there is no way a confession can be invalid. Can you point to that specifically please?

 

[Brooklyn]

I sense your frustration but I think Brooklyn’s heart is in the right place (wanting to give good and solid advice on the subject) and it is his opinion that we are discussing. No need to shout.

I appreciate that, but Thistle has never been especially nice to me, so I’m use to it. I seem to get under his (her?) skin.

 

[Brooklyn]

To both Thistle and The Doctor: I have never before heard that we can refuse to do a penance. But for the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. Maybe the sins confessed have been forgiven, but if we refuse to do the penance, doesn’t that mean we have just traded one sin for another? Father Z says this in his blog:

That said, an imposed penance seems to be a serious canonical obligation. It is probably in the same category as a vow, that is, it is a promise made to God. It is also owed in justice as a meager human attempt to make restitution for the horrifying violation of God’s love which we commit in sinning. **Failure to fulfill the penance given doesn’t “undo” the absolution, of course. Forgetting the penance – especially if it’s long and complicated – might not be sinful, but obstinately refusing to do it would definitely enter the category of serious sin. ** A subsequent confessor could commute the penance that was not done or could assign a new penance. Once a new penance is assigned, the former penance would no longer apply (presuming one has confessed failing to perform the assigned penance).

So if you go to confession and maybe don’t even have any mortal sins to confess, but then decide you don’t like the penance and don’t want to do it, according to Father Z, you now have committed a serious sin, which I assume to mean mortal sin. So I think I would still have to contend that your advice is dangerous.

I still cannot see this in Canon Law or the Catechism. Canon 981 says: “The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.” Cardinal Wuerl, whom neither of you have mentioned, says that refusing to do penance invalidates confession.

To get back to the OP, he just basically didn’t want to do his penance. It wasn’t that hard. 3 chaplets takes maybe 25 minutes. Is spending 25 minutes in prayer really such a terribly hard penance? Most of us would agree that it isn’t. The Doctor, you agree that if a person tells the priest he doesn’t like the penance, as opposed to saying it would just be too difficult for him to do, then that brings into question whether he is truly repentant? Why doesn’t that hold true even after confession? Don’t you think that at the very least the OP should immediately go back to confession and discuss this with the priest rather than just trying to make excuses?

I find this thread very disturbing.

 

[thistle]

To both Thistle and The Doctor: I have never before heard that we can refuse to do a penance. But for the sake of argument, I’ll agree with you. Maybe the sins confessed have been forgiven, but if we refuse to do the penance, doesn’t that mean we have just traded one sin for another? Father Z says this in his blog:

That said, an imposed penance seems to be a serious canonical obligation. It is probably in the same category as a vow, that is, it is a promise made to God. It is also owed in justice as a meager human attempt to make restitution for the horrifying violation of God’s love which we commit in sinning. **Failure to fulfill the penance given doesn’t “undo” the absolution, of course. Forgetting the penance – especially if it’s long and complicated – might not be sinful, but obstinately refusing to do it would definitely enter the category of serious sin. ** A subsequent confessor could commute the penance that was not done or could assign a new penance. Once a new penance is assigned, the former penance would no longer apply (presuming one has confessed failing to perform the assigned penance).

So if you go to confession and maybe don’t even have any mortal sins to confess, but then decide you don’t like the penance and don’t want to do it, according to Father Z, you now have committed a serious sin, which I assume to mean mortal sin. So I think I would still have to contend that your advice is dangerous.

I still cannot see this in Canon Law or the Catechism. Canon 981 says: “The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.” Cardinal Wuerl, whom neither of you have mentioned, says that refusing to do penance invalidates confession.

To get back to the OP, he just basically didn’t want to do his penance. It wasn’t that hard. 3 chaplets takes maybe 25 minutes. Is spending 25 minutes in prayer really such a terribly hard penance? Most of us would agree that it isn’t. The Doctor, you agree that if a person tells the priest he doesn’t like the penance, as opposed to saying it would just be too difficult for him to do, then that brings into question whether he is truly repentant? Why doesn’t that hold true even after confession? Don’t you think that at the very least the OP should immediately go back to confession and discuss this with the priest rather than just trying to make excuses?

I find this thread very disturbing.

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes.

At Confession a priest specifies the penance prior to giving absolution. At that time if a penitent tells the priest they will not perform the penance given by the priest then the priest will withhold absolution due to lack of repentance/sincerity which means the Confession is invalid.

On the other hand if a penitent goes to Confession and makes a sincere confession, accepts the penance given, and receives absolution then the Confession is valid and cannot be made invalid. The penitent can come out of Confession and receive Communion before doing their penance. It is not the case that after Confession a penitent must perform the penance before they can receive Communion. If that penitent for whatever reason later on refuses to do the penance then they commit a sin of grave matter which means they may not receive again until they go to Confession but this does not invalidate the previous Confession.

 

[Brooklyn]

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes.

At Confession a priest specifies the penance prior to giving absolution. At that time if a penitent tells the priest they will not perform the penance given by the priest then the priest will withhold absolution due to lack of repentance/sincerity which means the Confession is invalid.

On the other hand if a penitent goes to Confession and makes a sincere confession, accepts the penance given, and receives absolution then the Confession is valid and cannot be made invalid. The penitent can come out of Confession and receive Communion before doing their penance. It is not the case that after Confession a penitent must perform the penance before they can receive Communion. If that penitent for whatever reason later on refuses to do the penance then they commit a sin of grave matter which means they may not receive again until they go to Confession but this does not invalidate the previous Confession.

Okay, I guess that makes sense, although it still contradicts what Cardinal Wuerl says. But as you say, if someone refuses to do the penance, they have basically exchanged one sin for another, which is an extremely serious matter. There were far too many posts here basically telling the OP you’re fine, don’t worry, such as this one from The Doctor:

Originally Posted by TheDoctor
All sins confessed and any honestly forgotten are forgiven when the Priest gives you absolution. Absolution cannot be conditional on anything.

If you don’t do your penance it may be an additional sin but that depends on the reason you did not do it. Do the Chaplets and then discuss this with Father at your next confession.

You are forgiven. Keep strong and know that God heals and loves

.

The OP may be forgiven of the sins he confessed, but now he has another serious sin that must be confessed immediately. I don’t think this point was being made strong enough, Maybe you could have done that instead of jumping all over me.

 

[TheDoctor]

Okay, I guess that makes sense, although it still contradicts what Cardinal Wuerl says. But as you say, if someone refuses to do the penance, they have basically exchanged one sin for another, which is an extremely serious matter. There were far too many posts here basically telling the OP you’re fine, don’t worry, such as this one from The Doctor:

.

The OP may be forgiven of the sins he confessed, but now he has another serious sin that must be confessed immediately. I don’t think this point was being made strong enough, Maybe you could have done that instead of jumping all over me.

Brooklyn, I will stand by what I posted and the manner I did. Based on what the OP said, he had accepted the penance with the purpose to do it but had not yet accomplished it. This does not invalidate the absolution. Take another look at my post please. We don’t know what the OP was thinking so we can only advise on what they wrote, which is why I said do the penance and then discuss it with Father in the confessional.

And to be fair, no one has jumped all over you. In point of fact, your snarky “so you disagree with the Catechism…” post was neither charitable nor added anything to the conversation.

We can disagree with each others opinions without being disagreeable. We are all lowly sinners trying to be perfect in an imperfect world. I am sorry if something I posted offended you. The intent was to educate (both of us) and discuss.

P.S. - take a look at this reply from M. Arnold and see if it speaks to what we were discussing: *forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=57512&highlight=penance+absolution

*Also take a look at this answer, especially #3 where it talks about the intention to make reparation, not the act itself. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39060&highlight=penance+absolution

And one more that hits the nail on the head (gotta LOVE the CA search button): forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3432&highlight=penance+absolution

 

[thistle]

Okay, I guess that makes sense, although it still contradicts what Cardinal Wuerl says. But as you say, if someone refuses to do the penance, they have basically exchanged one sin for another, which is an extremely serious matter. There were far too many posts here basically telling the OP you’re fine, don’t worry, such as this one from The Doctor:

.

The OP may be forgiven of the sins he confessed, but now he has another serious sin that must be confessed immediately. ** I don’t think this point was being made strong enough**, Maybe you could have done that instead of jumping all over me.

Well I’m sorry you feel jumped on but this point was made in 5 posts (#10, #11, #22, #30, #33).

As for what The Doctor said he is correct. Not performing the penance per se is not a sin. It depends on the reason for not performing the penance. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

• Simply forgetting to do the penance is not a sin
• Forgetting what penance was given by the priest and substituting your own is not a sin.
• Refusing to do the penance would normally be a sin although it might depend as it may be have been refused to be done due to circumstances unknown to both priest and penitent at the time of Confession. This simply should be discussed at the next Confession so the priest could advise the penitent.