Fulfilling Penance and the Validity of Confession

[LiamQ]

This is one of those issues which a layperson can seemingly find endless opinions on. But I was hoping someone here might be able to help. Here is the question:

If during Confession a penitent, inwardly or outwardly and for a seemingly just reason, refuses to fulfill an assigned penance—let’s say because the penance is too vague or difficult or judged to be far too unnecessary or just plain weird—is the subsequent absolution valid?

An example of this might be someone who was assigned something like seeking counseling for a penance, who tried to tell Father that they’re not going to do such a thing because it’s not a fitting penance, but who failed to ask him for another penance instead. What would you say to such a person?

 

[1ke]

. What would you say to such a person?

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-am-i-forgiven-if-i-dont-do-a-penance-assigned-in-confession-fr-z-rants/

 

[LiamQ]

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-am-i-forgiven-if-i-dont-do-a-penance-assigned-in-confession-fr-z-rants/

… what would you say to someone who has read this AND the links at the bottom of Father’s article to Ron Conte’s blog posts on this issue AND this source from EWTN which says the exact opposite?

(The EWTN link claims that, “For the sacrament to be valid the penitent must accept the penance, that is, he must not refuse to accept it either openly or interiorly.” Those are strong words coming from a professor of liturgy.)

 

[Vico]

This is one of those issues which a layperson can seemingly find endless opinions on. But I was hoping someone here might be able to help. Here is the question:

If during Confession a penitent, inwardly or outwardly and for a seemingly just reason, refuses to fulfill an assigned penance—let’s say because the penance is too vague or difficult or judged to be far too unnecessary or just plain weird—is the subsequent absolution valid?

An example of this might be someone who was assigned something like seeking counseling for a penance, who tried to tell Father that they’re not going to do such a thing because it’s not a fitting penance, but who failed to ask him for another penance instead. What would you say to such a person?

Canon law
(Latin) CIC
Canon 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.

(Eastern) CCEO

Canon 718
In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering a new life through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

 

[1ke]

… what would you say to someone who has read this AND the links at the bottom of Father’s article to Ron Conte’s blog posts on this issue AND this source from EWTN which says the exact opposite?

(The EWTN link claims that, “For the sacrament to be valid the penitent must accept the penance, that is, he must not refuse to accept it either openly or interiorly.” Those are strong words coming from a professor of liturgy.)

I would say, don’t be scrupulous and if you refuse the answer given here then ask your priest and follow his advice.

 

[1ke]

Canon law
(Latin) CIC
Canon 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.

Which means no one else can do the penance for you. What it doesn’t mean is that confession is invalid if you do not do it.

 

[LiamQ]

Canon law
(Latin) CIC
Canon 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.

Fr. Z quotes this and says, “In other words, penances are to be given, and the penitent is to do them, not some one else. You cannot pay another person to do them. But this obligation to give and do penances does not affect the validity of the absolution or the efficacy of the sacrament.”

 

[Vico]

Fr. Z quotes this and says, “In other words, penances are to be given, and the penitent is to do them, not some one else. You cannot pay another person to do them. But this obligation to give and do penances does not affect the validity of the absolution or the efficacy of the sacrament.”

The original posted states: “refuses to fulfill an assigned penance … is the subsequent absolution valid?”

As long as there is proper contrition and the sins that must be confessed were mentioned, and absolution is given, the my understanding it that it is valid.

There is an obligation to do the penances given. I believe that the patient has the right to refuse treatment, but it would be a separate sin in itself if the act of contrition given included any promise to do that particular penance.

 

[LiamQ]

Thank you, 1ke and Vico, for your responses. I respect both of you as posters very much, and I appreciate your time.

I’m just going to return to Confession in the morning, and consult with a priest whom I know a lot better than this one. I believe there’s a chance I refused to do the assigned penance before absolution was given, and this appears to be problematic enough to take up with a priest in real life.

Although I’m fairly certain the sins were venial in nature, like Lt. Columbo, I just hate loose ends. I would like to have the penance commuted, because, after thinking about this and discussing it with my wife, I fail to see my short temper as being something that necessitates looking into some 8 - 10 weeks of therapy.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Seeking professional counseling is really not a penance, it is advice.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If during Confession a penitent, inwardly or outwardly and for a seemingly just reason, refuses to fulfill an assigned penance—let’s say because the penance is too vague or difficult or judged to be far too unnecessary or just plain weird—is the subsequent absolution valid?

Yes, it is valid, for several reasons. First, valid confession requires contrition, confession, satisfaction as these are the valid matter of the sacrament [Trent, Penance, Chapter 3]. But satisfaction occurs, to some extent, by the fact that the penitent confesses his sins contritely and receives absolution from the priest. So Trent teaches that only some of the time is there additional satisfaction needed [Justification, Chapter 14]. This implies that sins are forgiven apart from the performance of penances after the Confession.

Second, Trent also teaches that the satisfaction from penance does not concern (in the case of mortal sin) eternal punishment, which is forgiven by absolution, but only the temporal punishment [ibidem].

Third, while the Church recommends that penitents do the assigned penance, She has NEVER taught that the absolution of the priest is invalid if the person refuses (even before or during the confession) the particular penance assigned. Other penances can be chosen by the penitent. And in the worst case, where the penitent does no penances, he does them in Purgatory.

If forgiveness did not occur apart from penances, then Purgatory would be empty. That place is specifically for persons forgiven for sin, but who have not done sufficient penance.

Christ is merciful. He is not a Pharisee who refuses forgiveness to a contrite person, despite absolution of a priest in a Sacrament merely because a general rule to do an assigned penance was not followed.

 

[Bookcat]

Third, while the Church recommends that penitents do the assigned penance, She has NEVER taught that the absolution of the priest is invalid if the person refuses (even before or during the confession) the particular penance assigned.
.

It is NOT a recommendation. It is a requirement.

Yes theologians will note that to refuse to accept the penance at the time of the confession will render things invalid.

 

[Bookcat]

This is one of those issues which a layperson can seemingly find endless opinions on. But I was hoping someone here might be able to help. Here is the question:

If during Confession a penitent, inwardly or outwardly and for a seemingly just reason, refuses to fulfill an assigned penance—let’s say because the penance is too vague or difficult or judged to be far too unnecessary or just plain weird—is the subsequent absolution valid?

An example of this might be someone who was assigned something like seeking counseling for a penance, who tried to tell Father that they’re not going to do such a thing because it’s not a fitting penance, but who failed to ask him for another penance instead. What would you say to such a person?

To refuse a penance at the time of the Confession would be problematic for the validity of the Sacrament.

A penitent may always ask for a different penance -especially if something is impossible for them to do or the like.

But in the case where a Priest gives a penance that is beyond what should be given? One that is unreasonable I am not sure what to say for as I noted above to refuse the penance at the time of the confession problematic. Such unreasonable penances should simply not occur. If that happened - I would go again to confession to a different Priest and confess any mortal sins from that confession and any new ones - and tell the Priest that the former penance was such and such and that one refused it at the time - and go from there.

I do not know that such would even be a valid penance…to me it would not seem to be for it sounds like the person would then have be being required to reveal their sin - which may not be a penance. It can be a recommendation but not a penance.

If one told the Priest one was not going to do such and such for it was not a fitting penance and the Priest said - ok I guess your right and the proceeded with absolution but forgot to give another penance - well that would seem to be a different matte - just him forgetting to give a penance in the end. Forgetting to give a penance does not effect validity.

 

[thistle]

Yes, it is valid, for several reasons. First, valid confession requires contrition, confession, satisfaction as these are the valid matter of the sacrament [Trent, Penance, Chapter 3]. But satisfaction occurs, to some extent, by the fact that the penitent confesses his sins contritely and receives absolution from the priest. So Trent teaches that only some of the time is there additional satisfaction needed [Justification, Chapter 14]. This implies that sins are forgiven apart from the performance of penances after the Confession.

Second, Trent also teaches that the satisfaction from penance does not concern (in the case of mortal sin) eternal punishment, which is forgiven by absolution, but only the temporal punishment [ibidem].

Third, while the Church recommends that penitents do the assigned penance, She has NEVER taught that the absolution of the priest is invalid if the person refuses (even before or during the confession) the particular penance assigned. Other penances can be chosen by the penitent. And in the worst case, where the penitent does no penances, he does them in Purgatory.

If forgiveness did not occur apart from penances, then Purgatory would be empty. That place is specifically for persons forgiven for sin, but who have not done sufficient penance.

Christ is merciful. He is not a Pharisee who refuses forgiveness to a contrite person, despite absolution of a priest in a Sacrament merely because a general rule to do an assigned penance was not followed.

Even though absolution is not conditional upon the penance being performed, the fulfillment of the penance given is mandatory and not optional.

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 fulfill these penances.

 

[Bookcat]

Even though absolution is not conditional upon the penance being performed, the fulfillment of the penance given is mandatory and not optional.

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 fulfill these penances.

And the penitent is not to refuse such - see my posts above.

 

[otjm]

This appears to be another post founded in scrupulosity. Going and seeing a counselor does not appear to be a penance. It appears to be advice.

 

[thistle]

And the penitent is not to refuse such - see my posts above.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes theologians will note that to refuse to accept the penance at the time of the confession will render things invalid.

Which theologians say this? Also, theologians do not decide if a Sacrament is valid or invalid; only the Magisterium can decide such a thing. And the Magisterium has NEVER taught that confession is INVALID if you refuse the particular penance offered by your Confessor.

If any penitent has doubts about the dispute in this thread, they can ask their Confessor during Confession if the Sacrament is invalid if they do not accept the assigned penance. I think the Confessor will either laugh or be upset at such a suggestion. The whole idea is preposterous and Pharisaical.

Sometimes, after penitent devoutly receives the Sacrament of Forgiveness, there is no further temporal punishment left to be expiated by the satisfaction of penances.

 

[e_c]

Which theologians say this? Also, theologians do not decide if a Sacrament is valid or invalid; only the Magisterium can decide such a thing. And the Magisterium has NEVER taught that confession is INVALID if you refuse the particular penance offered by your Confessor.

If any penitent has doubts about the dispute in this thread, they can ask their Confessor during Confession if the Sacrament is invalid if they do not accept the assigned penance. I think the Confessor will either laugh or be upset at such a suggestion. The whole idea is preposterous and Pharisaical.

Sometimes, after penitent devoutly receives the Sacrament of Forgiveness, there is no further temporal punishment left to be expiated by the satisfaction of penances.

So “theologians” can’t teach the faith, but Father “Just Call Me Rick” has the charism of infallibility when he dons the purple stole?

No.

Let’s take a look at Trent, Session 14:

CANON IV.–If any one denieth, that, for the entire and perfect remission of sins, there are required three acts in the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the sacrament of Penance, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or saith that there are two parts only of penance, to wit, the terrors with which the conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin, and the faith, generated by the gospel, or by the absolution, whereby one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ; let him be anathema.

This means one must be intending to make satisfaction upon receiving absolution in order for that absolution to be valid. (This canon is of course regarding only Form I and Form II, not Form III.)

As for not accepting the particulars, well, it seems that it must be either a public manifestation of conscience or be absolutely beyond the realm of reason (or possibility) in order for a penitent to refuse the confessor’s individual penance. Otherwise, the integrity of the confession is destroyed - the confessor is no longer able to exercise his office as physician… the penitent usurps that role.

If there is ever any doubt, one ought to make an act of perfect contrition, then seek the advice of a different confessor within the context of the Sacrament. One might be reminded of the Cure of Ars’ penitents being tempted to go to another confessor who would actually give them absolution. I forget the saint’s exact response to the phenomenon, but it was something witty and sound, something along the lines of “they may do it, but it will be worse for them.” I will have to look for it.

 

[LiamQ]

This appears to be another post founded in scrupulosity. Going and seeing a counselor does not appear to be a penance. It appears to be advice.

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.