- Status
L
LiamQ
Guest
In my own case, I presented everything to another priest whom I absolutely trust as being an orthodox, holy, and traditional Benedictine monk, and who quite agreed that it is more fitting to be given supernaturally-oriented penances rather than those that are purely natural.
Being assigned prayer for my family is one thing. Being asked to go on a wild goose chase for a counselor that won’t give me a purely secular approach on things, and potentially undergo several weeks of psychological therapy, which may or may not have much of an effect, is quite another.
E
e_c
Guest
In the case you presented, I would suggest that you were told to manifest your conscience, provided the counseling had something to do with the sin(s) confessed… which is an illegitimate penance… and it is also something that seems outside the realm of the reasonable. You can’t be bound to do it (mainly under the first criterion).
You did the right thing.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Look it up in works of theology on the subject…you will find it…
One can of course ask the confessor for a different penance - no problem there.
To **refuse **though to accept the penance (not necessarily the first one but the one the confessor ends up imposing at the end) at the time of the confession will render things invalid.
(As I note though above - if the Confessor imposes say an impossible penance or one that is not in keeping with the sacrament - like turn your self in to the police…that could be a different matter)
E
e_c
Guest
Can you name a few? I am genuinely curious.
I might just write the CDF on this, as well as on another matter related to this sacrament. That’ll settle it, right?
B
Bookcat
Guest
I thought I had recalled correctly the answer in general to the question of refusing a penance -but not completely certain now.
It may be that the refusing to accept a penance that is prior to absolution would effect the validity of sacrament in particular cases…when it is some grave penance …
…but again not sure at the moment.
And not time at the moment to try to research.
Penances yes to be reasonable and are to involve say telling others your sins.
It may be that the refusing to accept a penance that is prior to absolution would effect the validity of sacrament in particular cases…when it is some grave penance …
…but again not sure at the moment.
And not time at the moment to try to research.
Penances yes to be reasonable and are to involve say telling others your sins.
O
otjm
Guest
Seeking counseling is not a penance. It is a recommendation and it is advice. You made an end run of the first confessor, and the second priest should have sent you back to the first one.Seeking counseling was the assigned penance, which I had another priest commute who himself believed that penance should be spiritually grounded, while leaving to the penitent whatever sort of natural means might be sought to improve their vices.
… and it is not necessarily scrupulosity to be unsure whether or not some sort of an act might invalidate a confession. I’m not sure why this word has to be invoked every time someone has a confession question on CAF.
This very thread is evidence that people have strong opinions on both side of things, and this can lead to people being confused. Confusion and ignorance =/= scrupulosity.
As to leaving to the penitent to seek out what is needed (as opposed to penance), that is a farce of an idea. Someone who is carrying the load of scrupulosity can’t see that far.
That is like telling an alcoholic to say ten Hail Marys and ignoring that what needs to be said (beyond any penance) is to get the to AA or some other form of assistance.
And the reason that posts which sound of scrupulosity are advised to seek counseling is because they need it, and because people who are not suffering from scrupulosity don’t go around asking if their confession was valid.
A priest does not have to be a certified counselor to hear telltales which indicate the penitent might be suffering from scrupulosity. And it would be no surprise at all if a scrupulous person would reject such advice.
The advice has been given by the priest, who got a first-hand view. It has been seconded in this thread. If you truly have no issue, then you are free to diddybop on down the road of life, never looking back to the advice.
And if you do suffer scrupulosity, then you need to follow the advice. Many, if not most health plans cover some counseling; the only thing holding you back is you.
People on this thread - and the priest - care about you. Some of us actually have experience with people who suffer from scrupulosity, and know how heavy a burden it is to carry. We react, not because we are dismissive, but because we care.
O
otjm
Guest
No, it is not going to settle anything.
For starters, no one knows - or needs to know - what the penitent told the confessor. One, however, could safely assume that the priest had some reason to tell the penitent to seek counseling. and that could be that the penitent was confessing non sins, because of scrupulosity - which is a mental issue where, among other things, the penitent is guessing and is in fear that somehow they have committed a sin, when in fact non scrupulous people would say :that’s no sin".
One of the interesting things about scrupulosity is that those suffering from it have no doubt when they actually have committed a sin; but they live with the constant and unreasonable nagging doubt that somehow, they are not perfect, and unintentional mistakes, comments or acts which have no moral matter become major battles and they seek very frequent confession; then they often question whether the priest is orthodox, and the spiral out of control continues. There is also a tendency to deny that they have a problem; rather it is everyone else who doesn’t take it seriously.
And the OP has rejected the advice, using another priest to make an end-run around the first, and then falls back on “secular counselors” as if there are no Catholic counselors around - including but certainly not limited to priests.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I think there are two questions here:
(1) I guess it makes the Confession invalid to flatly refuse the penance assigned. The Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) actually comes in a package. Trent would say it something like this: Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction and Restitution. Our penance would involve the last two.
To refuse penance therefore invalids the whole requirement of Confession; a penitent must not only be contrite of his sin but also willing to restitute for it. Thus the penance.
(2) The penance too vague and difficult (not realistic). Then perhaps that by itself a mitigation for unable to carry out the penance assigned. There is surely gray line there and giving maybe valid excuse for unable to do it; not because one does not want to but because the impracticality of it.
D
dans0622
Guest
Since the validity of absolution does not depend on the fulfillment of the particular penance imposed by the priest, yet satisfaction is an “integral” part of the Sacrament, maybe there is a worthwhile distinction to make between a willingness to make satisfaction for sin (which would be implicit in any true act of contrition) and a willingness/ability to do a particular penance imposed by a confessor.
Dan
Dan
D
dans0622
Guest
E
edward_george
Guest
The bigger issue with that as an assigned penance is that a priest cannot compel a penitent to reveal their sins to another–including by assigning a penance that would necessarily include that–as this would constitute a violation of the seal of confession. If someone came into the confessional and confessed murder, and the priest said “For your penance, turn yourself in to the police,” then this would be a violation of the seal. Being assigned to go to counseling is inappropriate as a penance. Penance is about satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment. A confessor could strongly advise someone to seek counseling or even further spiritual help outside the confessional, but he could in no way compel this.Seeking counseling was the assigned penance, which I had another priest commute who himself believed that penance should be spiritually grounded, while leaving to the penitent whatever sort of natural means might be sought to improve their vices.
… and it is not necessarily scrupulosity to be unsure whether or not some sort of an act might invalidate a confession. I’m not sure why this word has to be invoked every time someone has a confession question on CAF.
This very thread is evidence that people have strong opinions on both side of things, and this can lead to people being confused. Confusion and ignorance =/= scrupulosity.
-Fr ACEGC
E
edward_george
Guest
That’s precisely the distinction that should be made. If a pentitent comes into the confessional, and does not accept the penance assigned, then this could invalidate the absolution. If a penitent confesses and accepts the penance, but then neglects to complete it, this doesn’t somehow retroactively render the absolution invalid. Absolution and forgiveness of sins is imparted at the moment that it is pronounced. It’s about one’s openness to accepting the penance, and the penance should be completed, but if it is not, this doesn’t negate absolution (though it might constitute another sin in and of itself depending upon what the penance was and why the person chose not to complete it). It’s not as though the forgiveness of sins is somehow suspended until the penance is completed. Absolution remits the eternal penalty of sin, penance the temporal penalty.
-Fr ACEGC
B
Bookcat
Guest
And some may not but rather have their scruples stirred up…
E
e_c
Guest
I was joking - about the settling it part. It might convince a few people on this thread.
It is also separate from any individual case. But I’ve gotten my answer from other sources anyway (but not on the other juicy question!)…
- Status