Can a priest give a penance such as this?

[Boy_Wonder]

It was a wise penance. Often problem drinkers are in denial and lie to themselves and others about the volume and frequency of their drinking. I know this from first hand experience having been an alcoholic myself for approximately 30 years. By the grace of God and the help of many good people in AA, I celebrated 10 years sober last month.

I’m not saying you’re a problem drinker or an alcoholic. The priest had no way of knowing what he was dealing with when he imposed this penance. If you are addicted to alcohol, that penance would have been very difficult to complete and may have forced you to confront the problem. If you’re not a problem drinker, ordering you to abstain from something pleasurable is still a valid penance.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

When I was drinking, priests would impose similar penances and I found it impossible to complete them. One confessor finally told me to go to AA. He didn’t impose it as a penance, but merely as a suggestion. A few months later I took his suggestion and my life changed for the better. That program brought me much closer to God and my Catholic faith.

In the confessional, Priests encounter people with many types of acute problems. He may have suspected you have a problem with alcohol and imposed this penance to help to see if you could go without drinking. I applaud his prudence and wisdom in doing so. If you’re not a problem drinker, you still derived benefit from performing this penance.

 

[WT1]

I agree! He could have told you to stop drinking for a month. Maybe you could add the extra time on yourself to show yourself that life is better without it, especially if you have the tendency to overindulge in drinking. Prayers can be easily said with little effect. I like the unusual penance given at times. Food for thought. God Bless, Memaw

Memaw should hear confessions… We would ALL behave better!

 

[HelenRose]

Ok, so I went to Confession at an out of town Parrish which boasts in it’s bulletin that it is “guided by the Spirit of Vatican ll”. Now, I am sorry to say that I had to confess to driving while impaired. I was not falling down drunk but I am sure that I was over the limit and that I made a horrible decision to drive home. So confession was embarrassing and difficult.

Now to the penance I received, which I fully intend to perform. The priest said that my penance would be to not have a drink for a week. I’m not an alcoholic and as I said I am in the middle of doing the penance. My question is can a priest give a penance like this? I guess he can (he did). Also, I received Communiom before I could complete the week long penance. Is that ok? Thanks for the help and please don’t jump my case about the driving while impaired. I already feel terrible about it.

If a person could not lay off alcohol for a week they have a drinking problem. I am glad you are going to follow through. Personally I think this is appropriate. This will give you a week to test yourself. I you find this a hard week to get through, you should give more thought as to where you stand with alcohol.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The imposition of a penance in the context of confession should never be an occasion to “test” a penitent and/or his or her ability to successfully complete a penance. That would be to completely misunderstand the nature of penances as related to confession…and the very sacrament itself. A penance imposed in the context of the sacrament should also not be a self-test. Theologically, it is about satisfaction and reparation.

It would be entirely wrong for a confessor to impose a penance that he considers the penitent might – FOR ANY REASON – not be able to complete, precisely because of the obligation in law on the penitent to complete the penance…and the confessor knows this obligation. Should the penitent not be able to complete the penance, he/she would then be required to seek a commutation of what was imposed, either from the original confessor or another priest with the faculty to hear confessions – and confessors are to studiously avoid this scenario.

As a priest, I am disturbed by some of the thoughts about penances being advanced and what these thoughts seem to presuppose; they do not appear to take account of serious matters in which confessors are actually formed. The purpose of the sacrament of reconciliation, the nature of penances properly understood, and most especially the working of the internal forum (and what is proper and not proper to deal with in it) must always be paramount for the confessor.

Finally, the sacrament of reconciliation should not be employed as if it were a tool for crisis intervention. That is a circumstance proper to the external forum.

As the Code of Canon Law says: Can. 981 “The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.”

The original poster was correct to air any questions or concerns regarding his confession as well as the penance imposed upon him…but, as I said before, a sounder place to do so would have been with another priest or an official of the diocese – preferably one who is a knowledgeable and experienced confessor – rather than a forum of various opinions and speculations.

 

[AKDee]

Personally I would be grateful for a penance like that. I often find myself thinking that the priest has been too easy on me by only assigning three Hail Mary’s or some other such quick and painless penance. I’ve also read that priests do penance for the people who confessed to them, which I’m sure enriches them spiritually but makes me feel bad to think my priest might be doing penance for my sins. I feel I should be doing penance for my sins. I want penances that make me feel like I’m actually paying in part for the sin I’ve committed and that draw me closer to Christ. I always dutifully do whatever my confessor tells me to do, and have never asked for an alternate penance, but if he ever assigns a more lengthy one that requires some personal sacrifice like this, I will be very grateful.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Personally I would be grateful for a penance like that. I often find myself thinking that the priest has been too easy on me by only assigning three Hail Mary’s or some other such quick and painless penance. I’ve also read that priests do penance for the people who confessed to them, which I’m sure enriches them spiritually but makes me feel bad to think my priest might be doing penance for my sins. I feel I should be doing penance for my sins. I want penances that make me feel like I’m actually paying in part for the sin I’ve committed and that draw me closer to Christ. I always dutifully do whatever my confessor tells me to do, and have never asked for an alternate penance, but if he ever assigns a more lengthy one that requires some personal sacrifice like this, I will be very grateful.

I can appreciate your sentiment. I presume that you do understand that you can do more than what is imposed as a penance. If I impose a penance of, say, five Hail Marys, there is no impediment to you praying five decades of the rosary in penance for your sins. You will have prayed the penance and ten times over. Or repeating those five Hail Marys everyday for a week or for a month. You are always free to do more, be it more prayer or fasting or almsgiving. But not to do less, unless the penance is commuted.

You speak from your individual perspective and preference but you have to look at it from the confessor’s perspective, too. For a confessor, it is a serious responsibility and not something to be done lightly. A penitent can always ask for something more elaborate that what has been imposed. (“Father, you have told me to say three Hail Marys but I would like to stay and make the stations of the cross. May I have that as a penance?” I can only imagine saying yes.)

We don’t know how burdensome something could actually be because of circumstances beyond our knowledge.

If I impose a penance of making a pilgrimage to the diocesan shrine of the Blessed Virgin, for example, you have a personal obligation to carry out that penance, according to the canon I cited in an earlier post. If you are visiting this parish where you have confessed from out of town, suppose it turns out that what was a fifteen minute drive from the parish you are visiting (not too hard, it could seem) is actually an hour and a half drive to and an hour and a half drive from the shrine to where you actually live? A three hour round trip is a lot more than the 30 minute round trip I thought I was imposing. Then your car breaks down and has to go to the mechanic. You are still obliged to do the penance (which has just become more burdensome by two circumstances I had not envisioned) and so you even have to arrange other transportation. You may not be able to complete the penance before you want to receive Holy Communion – and you might be amazed how many people do not know if they can receive Communion before completing their penance. (The answer is yes.) But you may need to keep deferring it because it is not easy to get to the shrine with your other duties. Perhaps you would even like to go to Confession again – but you have not completed your previous penance.

It is also one thing to say “I impose as a penance seven days of abstinence.” It’s another thing to say “I impose a week of abstinence.” If I say seven days, you can check off the days and when you have done seven, you are finished. If I say that for one solid week you will abstain – and you abstain for five days but you don’t on the sixth day for whatever reason…then what happens? The only way you can fulfill the penance, as I stipulated, is to begin again; you cannot take up again to complete what you started – the continuity has been broken.

Confessors are supposed to be extremely careful and use discretion in the imposition of penances. It is not nice when a confessor has a penitent with whom he has to go back and resolve problems from either previous penances (by our power to commute penances from previous confessions) that left the penitent unsure what the penance was or if it was so vague they cannot decide if they actually fulfilled it or so burdensome or open-ended that the penance is going on for days, weeks and even longer. Worst is when one is having to deal with situations where the previous confessor’s attitude was so off-putting that the penitent has stopped approaching the sacrament for long periods of time – even years – because of what they previously experienced in the confessional that has disturbed, discouraged or demoralized them.

As the code of canon law says, the penance is supposed to be “salutary.” It is not supposed to feel like a punishment.

Penances of a multi-day duration and “creative” penances can become very problematic very quickly. There is a lot to be said for a penance that can be easily remembered and something that can be completed right after exiting the confessional so that, upon leaving the Church, nothing is left unresolved.

 

[AKDee]

Thank you for that explanation, Don Ruggero. I do appreciate it.

 

[babochka]

You speak from your individual perspective and preference but you have to look at it from the confessor’s perspective, too. For a confessor, it is a serious responsibility and not something to be done lightly. A penitent can always ask for something more elaborate that what has been imposed. (“Father, you have told me to say three Hail Marys but I would like to stay and make the stations of the cross. May I have that as a penance?” I can only imagine saying yes.)

We don’t know how burdensome something could actually be because of circumstances beyond our knowledge.

I’ve occasionally been given more difficult penances, to be completed over a period of days. Once I was given abstinence, comparable to that given to the original poster. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was appropriate, helpful, and appreciated. My confessor knows me well and had good reason to believe that the penance given would not be overly burdensome, but he has asked me “Do you accept this penance?” I suppose that was his way of making sure that it was something that could be reasonably accomplished.

Penances of a multi-day duration and “creative” penances can become very problematic very quickly. There is a lot to be said for a penance that can be easily remembered and something that can be completed right after exiting the confessional so that, upon leaving the Church, nothing is left unresolved.

I see how more creative penances can become very problematic, but there is also something to be said for penances that directly address the sin. And really, any penance, even one that seems obvious, can be a problem, even if the priest isn’t trying to be creative. I was once asked to pray the Memorare for a penance. Having grown up Eastern Catholic, I didn’t know the Memorare. I didn’t even know what it was. I was young and shy, just returning to regular confession, and confession was very intimidating experience for me. I didn’t ask what the prayer was. This was before the Internet, so I couldn’t just google it. It took me a few days and a bit of work to discover this beautiful prayer. I’m glad that I know it now, but a priest just can’t assume that everyone knows it. I’ve never been particularly fond of the “three Hail Mary” penance, or such standardized approaches, but I do see why many priests would use them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A confessor cannot be capricious in the imposition of penances; rather, he is instructed in formation to be judicious in celebrating the sacrament of reconciliation, taking into account the age and condition of the penitent.

There is a distinct difference between making a suggestion of a spiritual practice that the confessor judges maybe helpful to the penitent and the imposition of a penance. A penance that is imposed should never be “open-ended” as though it has no terminus…the elements of a penance have to be defined such that the penitent can accomplish what is imposed in a reasonably defined manner and period of time. An imposed penance assuredly should not involve weeks or a month to complete. Penances of that sort should be reported to the Bishop of the diocese, directly or through the Vicar for Clergy.

A penitent, such as the original poster, certainly has every right to ask about the legitimacy of an imposed penance. The better forum for doing so, frankly, is directly to another confessor – hopefully one who is both knowledgeable as well as experienced.

I think your posts here reflect solid experience as a confessor, Father, but I still can’t shake the feeling that a rule of “only penances one can complete before leaving church” falls short of the doctrinal and traditional bar.

Doctrinally, a confessor is not only a judge but also a physician, and accordingly the medicine applied must specifically target the illness (as opposed to prescribing castor oil for every ill). Vices are best opposed by cultivating their contrary virtues, and we do not become virtuous by thinking about it (even in prayer) but by doing virtuous things. Praying for temperance for 5 minutes after confession is not useless, of course, but exercising temperance (through some sort of fast or abstinence) would seem the better formulated medicine for my gluttony.

Furthermore, I am puzzled by your assertion that a penance shouldn’t feel like a punishment. Insofar as they aim at something higher and are restorative in addition to their punitive character, that is not problematic. But to “repair the harm” done by our sin (as CCC 1459-1460 characterizes satisfaction) is pretty much exactly how we characterize the temporal punishment due to sin which must be fulfilled either in this life or the next before one enters heaven. While elevated through our voluntary acceptance in union with Christ, then, these penances remain punishments, no?

Traditionally, we know that the very notion of receiving absolution before the completion of one’s penance was an accommodation made to the (to modern eyes) incredibly hefty penances attached to specific sins in the Irish penitential tradition, which may have been more rigorous in their treatment of venial sins but were not necessarily out of step with the years-long penances required *before *absolution for grave sin as standard practice throughout the first many centuries of the Church’s life. We cannot say that relatively long penances are intrinsically beyond the pale, sanctioned as they are by the use of the saints through the ages, but we can say that sometimes we as a Church do “grow up” and come up with something better and at the very least we must certainly acknowledge that the way we relate to the sacrament has significantly changed in the centuries since Irish practice swept the continent. But if a sin seems sufficiently grave to warrant a larger imposition (in order to be proportional penance and thus sufficiently salutary), how can one rule out the possibility of extending a penance over a week, a mere pittance of time in the long view of penitential practice? Your reasons for avoiding extended penances are good considerations, but haven’t you erred in a contrary way, constricting the scope for pastoral prudence, by ruling out a priori the appropriateness of any penance spanning more than a few hours?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What I bring to the hearing of confessions is based upon many factors.

My bishop sent me to a pontifical university with exceptional academics in the fields of moral theology, pastoral theology and canon law. I had the best of teachers, frankly. My studies with them and under their supervision are the base I have drawn from across three decades. These professors remain friends; even of those who have passed on, their books and articles continue to influence my own academic as well as my pastoral work. What they taught has intellectually formed me.

In Europe, we have the Canon Penitentiary. An ancient office, he has the delegated power of the diocesan bishop with regard to matters touching upon the internal forum. In addition to being the general confessor for the diocese, he examines seminarians in the years leading up to ordination, assuring their studies are truly preparing them to function as a confessor, pastorally and practically as well as having the necessary knowledge of theology and canon law. He examines at the time of ordination in view of the grant of faculties for confession. He works with the junior clergy so they grow properly as a skilled and merciful confessor. He is a resource always available, whose advice and counsel is a gem to us. His emphasis is always pastoral as well as the proper application of theology and canon law.

In my young days, our canon penitentiary was an elderly priest, marked by his holiness of life, his breadth and depth of knowledge – and his beautiful gentleness as a confessor…it touched his mannerism, his voice, even the way he carried himself. He was loved and esteemed throughout the diocese – by the bishop, by the clergy and by the laity. When he make the rounds to the parishes, people loved to come to him. And he is still fondly recalled years after his death, which is its own splendid tribute. I have sought, however poorly, to emulate his remarkable qualities in the context of my own ministry. Having him as a mentor was a great personal blessing to me.

From my brother priests, of my own presbyterate and beyond, there are those insights we are able to share of what works well – as well as the cautions of what has proven problematic or ill considered or deserving of a different thought or approach. Those insights I always take seriously to heart because the work of a confessor is not abstract. It powerfully touches the lives of people, one individual at a time. It can be tremendously positive. It can also be horrifically negative.

One has also the experience one derives from going to confession frequently oneself to truly gifted confessors. I pay special tribute to my confessors who are/were monks and who have been, actually, the best to me both in terms of my own experiences of confession and with regard to the insights they have given me across many years in terms of what is helpful and useful and effective…and what to appreciate in terms of “penance” in general, its practice and its role in the spiritual life and spiritual exercises. But, perhaps even more importantly, their insights of what should never be done in terms of penance and especially imposed penances in the sacrament of reconciliation. They have helped me tremendously in terms of my own ministry.

We also have the opportunities as confessors to attend presentations that are designed to help us to be better confessors in terms of continuing education, pastoral approaches and how to draw useful insights derived from other disciplines and to offer advice touching upon many issues.

Rather than answering your various specific points, I share with you in a second post an article that highlights the address of the Holy Father to those participating in the annual conference for confessors, which is splendidly organized by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the dicastery of the Holy See overseeing matters related to the internal forum. I wish every confessor could attend this at least one time. This is from the most recent meeting, held last March.

For me, the thoughts of His Holiness are far more eloquent than anything I can write. I can also say that the admonitions of the Vicar of Christ are, certainly, more present to me and formative to my thoughts and my approach to being a confessor than the penitential practices of cultures, mindsets, and eras that, while historically important and always to be remembered, are both remote and removed from the circumstances in which I actually minister – and quite distinct from the people, and their actual lives, to whom I minister.

And with that, I will retire from further commenting on this thread.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Pope says people should leave the confessional 'with happiness in their hearts and faces radiating hope’

Confession should be an experience of “peace and understanding” and never one of “torture”, Pope Francis has said.

Addressing 500 seminarians and newly ordained priests at the Vatican, the Pope said: “Everyone should leave the confessional with happiness in their hearts and a face radiant with hope even if sometimes, as we all know, it is bathed with the tears of conversion and the joy that comes from that.”

The seminarians and priests were attending a course on the sacrament of penance organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican office that also coordinates the work of confessors in St Peter’s Basilica and the other major basilicas in Rome.

Hearing a Confession should be awe-inspiring for a priest, an experience that makes him look at his own life and willingness to convert, Pope Francis told the men who hear Confessions in the major basilicas of Rome.

“Let yourselves be educated by the sacrament of reconciliation,” he said.

Hearing someone’s Confession, he said, should lead the priest to make an examination of his conscience, asking, for example, “Do I, the priest, love the Lord like this old lady does?” or, “Am I, as a confessor, willing to change and convert like this penitent, who I am here to serve?”

“These people edify us. They edify us,” the Pope said.

Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, introduced the Pope and thanked him for emphasising the importance of the sacrament of reconciliation during his first two years in office. “In everyone’s hearts,” he said, “you are the Pope of mercy.”

Pope Francis, who made substantial additions to his prepared text, told the priests and seminarians that in their ministry, the sacrament of reconciliation must be an opportunity to educate Catholics about God’s unending mercy and an opportunity for priests themselves to grow in holiness.

The only people God will not forgive are those who do not want God’s forgiveness, just like only those who stand in the shade are not warmed on a sunny day, Pope Francis said.

A good minister of God’s mercy, he said, is one who is able to find balance, gently leading the penitent to recognise his or her sins without conducting “a heavy, finicky and invasive interrogation”.

Taking both God and the penitent seriously, he said, means not pretending that nothing the person confesses is really a sin, but neither can the priest put on the robes of a judge.

“Too often people confuse being merciful with being lenient,” he said. Saying, “Oh, go on, that’s not a sin” is just as bad as insisting over and over, “but the law says this,” he told them. “Neither response takes the penitent by the hand and accompanies him or her on the journey of conversion.”

“This is very important,” he said. “Mercy means taking a brother or sister by the hand and helping him or her walk.”

The best way to find the right balance, the Pope told the group, is for the priest to pray often and to recognise his own sinfulness and need for mercy.

“If you’ve never done that horrible thing the penitent tells you about, it’s always because of God’s grace,” he said.

Administering the sacrament of confession is a blessing, the Pope said. It is the occasion for seeing how good people are and how sincerely they love God. Most priests, he said, will have witnessed “real and true miracles of conversion” in the confessional.

“How beautiful it is to welcome these repentant brothers and sisters with the blessing embrace of the merciful Father,” the Pope said.

Priests always must remember that they were not chosen as priests because of their expertise in theology or canon law or because they have a special talent, he said. “We all have been made ministers of God’s mercy purely by the grace of God, freely and for love, or rather, for mercy.”

Remember, he said, “I’ve done this, this and this, but now I am called to forgive.”

When listening to someone confess a sin “with so much pain or fragility,” Pope Francis said, the priest should experience shame for his own sins. “This is a grace.”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/03/13/confession-should-not-be-a-form-of-torture-says-pope-francis/

 

[PTL]

It is sacrilege, and a grave offense punishable by excommunication under canon law, to reveal the confession of another. You are not bound to keep your own strictly secret, though most do.

The priest can not reveal any content of anyone’s confession, but the individual is not under any obligation to be silent about his own confession. The individual is free to share his own confession if he chooses to.