Help! Forgot Penance

[TantumErgo90]

Help! I forgot what the penance that my priest gave me. I think i sort of remember what he said, and I said it. But I don’t know if it was exact. Can I receive communion? I feel horrible.

 

[LilyM]

Help! I forgot what the penance that my priest gave me. I think i sort of remember what he said, and I said it. But I don’t know if it was exact. Can I receive communion? I feel horrible.

You didn’t intentionally fail to do the penance, you simply forgot what the priest said, we’re all human and born with imperfect memories.

So if you did what you believe your priest told you to do, to the best of your recollection, you’re fine to receive communion. Absolution always happens when the priest says the words regardless of whether you perform the penance or not. Although deliberately failing to do so is a fresh sin.

I’ve tried to learn from the past and always do my penance asap for the simple reason that I’d be certain to forget if I didn’t.

Maybe repeat what the penance is to yourself (in your head) a few times after confession to implant it there if for whatever reason you can’t do it straight away.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Help! I forgot what the penance that my priest gave me. I think i sort of remember what he said, and I said it. But I don’t know if it was exact. Can I receive communion? I feel horrible.

That depends on how many weeks or months it will be before you can get back to Confession or Mass?

 

[pyropam]

You didn’t intentionally fail to do the penance, you simply forgot what the priest said, we’re all human and born with imperfect memories.

So if you did what you believe your priest told you to do, to the best of your recollection, you’re fine to receive communion. Absolution always happens when the priest says the words regardless of whether you perform the penance or not. Although deliberately failing to do so is a fresh sin.

I’ve tried to learn from the past and always do my penance asap for the simple reason that I’d be certain to forget if I didn’t.

Maybe repeat what the penance is to yourself (in your head) a few times after confession to implant it there if for whatever reason you can’t do it straight away.

Lily,
I believe you are wrong on this. Absolution is based on your completing your penance. If you fail to complete it or to do it, then forgiveness is not yours.

I believe this to be true because our priest uses an example… if anyone ever confesses murder or child abuse to him, he says that for their penance, they will have to turn themselves into the police.

For Tantum, I believe you truly tried to complete your penance, however, if you are having worries about it, then something is probably not right… go back to confession and confess that you are not sure if you completed it correctly. The priest can tell you what to do from there.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pyropam,

Nope, Lily is right.

See the Catechism:

1459 Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. 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.”

Performing your penance is an integral part of the sacrament, but it is not necessary for the validity of the sacrament (i.e. you are restored to grace at the moment of absolution.)

VC

 

[LilyM]

Lily,
I believe you are wrong on this. Absolution is based on your completing your penance. If you fail to complete it or to do it, then forgiveness is not yours.

I believe this to be true because our priest uses an example… if anyone ever confesses murder or child abuse to him, he says that for their penance, they will have to turn themselves into the police.

For Tantum, I believe you truly tried to complete your penance, however, if you are having worries about it, then something is probably not right… go back to confession and confess that you are not sure if you completed it correctly. The priest can tell you what to do from there.

Thank you VC.

As for your priest requiring a penitent to turn themselves into the police, pyropam - this is seriously wrong. It is a breach of the seal of the confessional, by which the priest is obliged to preserve at all costs the anonymity of each penitent.

It is every bit as much a breach of the seal as it would be if the priest himself reported the penitent to the police. A priest cannot force a person to disclose their sins to anyone but God and their confessor.

He cannot even give a penance requiring someone to do good for the people harmed by their sins unless it can be done without revealing the penitent’s identity. For example, if he requires monetary restitution the normal practice is that this is done through the priest himself so as to preserve the anonymity of the person giving the money.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you VC.

You’re welcome. :tiphat:

Excellent points about the seal of confession, by the way!

VC

 

[Sir_Knight]

Excellent points about the seal of confession, by the way!

However, those points are incorrect. See my reply below.

Thank you VC.

As for your priest requiring a penitent to turn themselves into the police, pyropam - this is seriously wrong. It is a breach of the seal of the confessional, by which the priest is obliged to preserve at all costs the anonymity of each penitent.

It is every bit as much a breach of the seal as it would be if the priest himself reported the penitent to the police. A priest cannot force a person to disclose their sins to anyone but God and their confessor.

He cannot even give a penance requiring someone to do good for the people harmed by their sins unless it can be done without revealing the penitent’s identity. For example, if he requires monetary restitution the normal practice is that this is done through the priest himself so as to preserve the anonymity of the person giving the money.

I disagree. The priest, HIMSELF, can not do anything OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL which would breach the seal of confession. However, he CAN assign as penance for the individual to turn themselves in for a crime that they have committed.

That said, the penance is NOT conditional – meaning, that the person do not have to do the penance in order to have their sins forgiven. Any penance that was not performed in this life will be required of us in purgatory and we are taught that in this life we will be able to pay our debt with pennies on the dollar … meaning that no matter how difficult a penance will be to perform, it will be numerous times more difficult to endure in the afterlife.

So it is really to our advantage to perform whatever penance is given to us – not because it is required in order for our sins to be forgiven but because we are getting away with paying our debt for sin with pennies on the dollar … we should be jumping at the chance even if it is a difficult penance because in the afterlife that unperformed penance will be numerous times more difficult.

 

[LilyM]

I disagree. The priest, HIMSELF, can not do anything OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL which would breach the seal of confession. However, he CAN assign as penance for the individual to turn themselves in for a crime that they have committed.

That said, the penance is NOT conditional – meaning, that the person do not have to do the penance in order to have their sins forgiven. Any penance that was not performed in this life will be required of us in purgatory and we are taught that in this life we will be able to pay our debt with pennies on the dollar … meaning that no matter how difficult a penance will be to perform, it will be numerous times more difficult to endure in the afterlife.

So it is really to our advantage to perform whatever penance is given to us – not because it is required in order for our sins to be forgiven but because we are getting away with paying our debt for sin with pennies on the dollar … we should be jumping at the chance even if it is a difficult penance because in the afterlife that unperformed penance will be numerous times more difficult.

No he can’t - there’s no real difference in terms of maintaining the seal between whether the priest himself turns the person in or whether he forces them to turn themselves in. Either way it makes a mockery of all the reasons behind the seal.

 

[Philothea53]

Thank you VC.

As for your priest requiring a penitent to turn themselves into the police, pyropam - this is seriously wrong. It is a breach of the seal of the confessional, by which the priest is obliged to preserve at all costs the anonymity of each penitent.

It is every bit as much a breach of the seal as it would be if the priest himself reported the penitent to the police. A priest cannot force a person to disclose their sins to anyone but God and their confessor.

He cannot even give a penance requiring someone to do good for the people harmed by their sins unless it can be done without revealing the penitent’s identity. For example, if he requires monetary restitution the normal practice is that this is done through the priest himself so as to preserve the anonymity of the person giving the money.

This is perfect timing - At a retreat at a local monastery recently
I woke up one morning and remembered - out of the blue - to having taken something from a friend years ago. It was worth maybe $15. I went to confession that day. At the time I thought I might still have the item and the Priest said if I did that I should return it with apology. He really didn’t tell me what to do if I didn’t have the item. When I came home I searched for the item and actually do not have it. What do I do now?

Also, I received Holy Eucharist the day of my confession and some times since. Have I sinned in receiving without completing my penance?

 

[Sir_Knight]

No he can’t - there’s no real difference in terms of maintaining the seal between whether the priest himself turns the person in or whether he forces them to turn themselves in. Either way it makes a mockery of all the reasons behind the seal.

Yes, he can. There is a BIG difference in the priest doing something OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL and requiring the person to do something outside of the confessional.

Once they walk out of the confessional, the priest’s lips are forever sealed. He can do NOTHING in ANYWAY to reveal what transpired in the confessional. If the person confessed to poisoning the wine that priest was about to use during mass, the priest is forbidden to discard the wine but is to use that poison wine even if it means his own death. This very example is used by Father Peter MJ Stravinskas in his “Catholic Response” book. The priest is forbidden from using ANYTHING he has learned in the confessional in ANYWAY even to save his own life – THAT is the seal of confession.

However, (and this is also covered in the book), the priest CAN give as penance for the person to remove the poison wine and turn themselves in for attempted murder but the absolution is NOT conditional on that penance being performed.

If you disagree, you can go argue with Father Stravinskas, who has been a priest for over a quarter of a century and whose book has his bishop’s stamp of approval on it indicating that there is nothing contained in it which is contrary to the faith.

 

[LilyM]

This is perfect timing - At a retreat at a local monastery recently
I woke up one morning and remembered - out of the blue - to having taken something from a friend years ago. It was worth maybe $15. I went to confession that day. At the time I thought I might still have the item and the Priest said if I did that I should return it with apology. He really didn’t tell me what to do if I didn’t have the item. When I came home I searched for the item and actually do not have it. What do I do now?

Also, I received Holy Eucharist the day of my confession and some times since. Have I sinned in receiving without completing my penance?

Your priest told you to do return the item IF you could find it. In other words no further penance was required if you couldn’t. So you haven’t failed to complete your penance, since there is no penance that applies in your case.

And priests have the right to do this - they can choose to not give any penance in spite of sin and its absolution.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Your priest told you to do return the item IF you could find it. In other words no further penance was required if you couldn’t. So you haven’t failed to complete your penance, since there is no penance that applies in your case.

And priests have the right to do this - they can choose to not give any penance in spite of sin and its absolution.

the Priest said if I did that I should return it with apology.

Again, further proof that the priest can, AS PART OF THE PENANCE require the person to break the seal of confession. The priest, however, can not do so himself outside of the confessional.

I received Holy Eucharist the day of my confession and some times since. Have I sinned in receiving without completing my penance?

You’re fine. As was already stated, absolution that place when given. It is not conditional on the penance being performed.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, he can. There is a BIG difference in the priest doing something OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL and requiring the person to do something outside of the confessional.

Once they walk out of the confessional, the priest’s lips are forever sealed. He can do NOTHING in ANYWAY to reveal what transpired in the confessional. If the person confessed to poisoning the wine that priest was about to use during mass, the priest is forbidden to discard the wine but is to use that poison wine even if it means his own death. This very example is used by Father Peter MJ Stravinskas in his “Catholic Response” book. The priest is forbidden from using ANYTHING he has learned in the confessional in ANYWAY even to save his own life – THAT is the seal of confession.

However, (and this is also covered in the book), the priest CAN give as penance for the person to remove the poison wine and turn themselves in for attempted murder but the absolution is NOT conditional on that penance being performed.

If you disagree, you can go argue with Father Stravinskas, who has been a priest for over a quarter of a century and whose book has his bishop’s stamp of approval on it indicating that there is nothing contained in it which is contrary to the faith.

I’m sorry, but if Father Stravinskas says this he’s probably wrong too. IMHO there’s an obvious REASON - the central reason - WHY the priest cant reveal the contents of a confession which is being ignored here. And that is because it is private matter between the person and God, as whose agent the priest is administering the Sacrament.

Since it is private between the person and God then the priest cannot breach that privacy by any means - not by revealing the person, nor by forcing the person to reveal or identify ***themselves ***either.

What other reasons does Father stravinskas give as to why the seal is a requirement in the first place? Surely there isn’t any other reason, nothing which permits of a priest forcing the penitent to reveal themselves in any event.

Besides which, I recently watched the movie ‘the Rosary Murders’ (an oldie but very goodie dealing with the seal of the confessional) - as I recall the theoretical poisoned wine example was used, and one of the characters opined that while he couldn’t dispose of the wine in an obvious and deliberate fashion, he could and should certainly ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ spill the chalice!

But certainly NONE of the characters EVER so much as hinted that making absoution contingent on the person turn themselves in was an option - never. Because it isn’t.

And the whole plot turned around a mentally disturbed child-molester who had developed a hatred of the Church precisely because they HADN’T been ‘forced’ or ‘made’ in any way to turn themselves in for their crimes!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Besides which, I recently watched the movie ‘the Rosary Murders’ (an oldie but very goodie dealing with the seal of the confessional) - as I recall the theoretical poisoned wine example was used, and one of the characters opined that while he couldn’t dispose of the wine in an obvious and deliberate fashion, he could and should certainly ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ spill the chalice!

• " … he couldn’t dispose of the wine in an obvious and deliberate fashion … " – indicating that it would be wrong for him to use ANY information gained during the confession in ANY way even to save his own life.
• " … ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ spill the chalice … " – If he “‘accidentally-on-purpose’ spill the chalice”, it is a futher indication that it would have been WRONG for him to have used the information that he gained in the confessional and if that is the case, he may be hiding his wrong doing from others via the ‘accident’ but he can’t hide it from God’s eyes.

I’m sorry, but if Father Stravinskas says this he’s probably wrong too. IMHO there’s an obvious REASON - the central reason - WHY the priest cant reveal the contents of a confession which is being ignored here. And that is because it is private matter between the person and God, as whose agent the priest is administering the Sacrament.

Since it is private between the person and God then the priest cannot breach that privacy by any means - not by revealing the person, nor by forcing the person to reveal or identify themselves either.

So you are saying that Father Stravinskas is wrong, that his bishop is also wrong because he put his stamp of approval on the book, that Philothea53’s priest was wrong, etc. Amazing that all of these priests and bishops are misinformed about something that they are suppose to do regularily.

You may want to contact Father Stravinskas and correct him. He WELCOMES correspondence and while he won’t reply directly, there is a good chance that he’ll address your comments in a future book.

 

[dolphinlove]

I’m sorry, but if Father Stravinskas says this he’s probably wrong too. IMHO there’s an obvious REASON - the central reason - WHY the priest cant reveal the contents of a confession which is being ignored here. And that is because it is private matter between the person and God, as whose agent the priest is administering the Sacrament.

Since it is private between the person and God then the priest cannot breach that privacy by any means - not by revealing the person, nor by forcing the person to reveal or identify ***themselves ***either.

What other reasons does Father stravinskas give as to why the seal is a requirement in the first place? Surely there isn’t any other reason, nothing which permits of a priest forcing the penitent to reveal themselves in any event.

Besides which, I recently watched the movie ‘the Rosary Murders’ (an oldie but very goodie dealing with the seal of the confessional) - as I recall the theoretical poisoned wine example was used, and one of the characters opined that while he couldn’t dispose of the wine in an obvious and deliberate fashion, he could and should certainly ‘accidentally-on-purpose’ spill the chalice!

But certainly NONE of the characters EVER so much as hinted that making absoution contingent on the person turn themselves in was an option - never. Because it isn’t.

And the whole plot turned around a mentally disturbed child-molester who had developed a hatred of the Church precisely because they HADN’T been ‘forced’ or ‘made’ in any way to turn themselves in for their crimes!

You forgot to say i rest my case

 

[LilyM]

So you are saying that Father Stravinskas is wrong, that his bishop is also wrong because he put his stamp of approval on the book, that Philothea53’s priest was wrong, etc. Amazing that all of these priests and bishops are misinformed about something that they are suppose to do regularily.

Many many many bishops and priests can’t figure out not to give communion to pro-abortion politicians and homosexual activists. Many many many of 'em can’t figure out that masturbation and contraception among other things are objectively grave sins. These are also things they are advised about regularly and advise others about regularly and they still remain misinformed.

It surprises you that bishops and priests can and do frequently make mistakes and are misinformed about plenty of things? How long have you been on these fora that THAT much isn’t obvious at least?

And imprimaturs, useful though they can be, are certainly not exercises of infallibility - nothing like.

 

[LilyM]

You forgot to say i rest my case

Silence in court!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Many many many bishops and priests can’t figure out not to give communion to pro-abortion politicians and homosexual activists. Many many many of 'em can’t figure out that masturbation and contraception among other things are objectively grave sins. These are also things they are advised about regularly and advise others about regularly and they still remain misinformed.

It surprises you that bishops and priests can and do frequently make mistakes and are misinformed about plenty of things? How long have you been on these fora that THAT much isn’t obvious at least?

And imprimaturs, useful though they can be, are certainly not exercises of infallibility - nothing like.

While it is certainly possible for all of them to be wrong, I find that a bit of a strech [sp]. Pick up some of Father Stravinskas’s books (unfortunately I no longer have my copy – I gave it away several years ago when I was moving … otherwise I would re-type his entire answer). He is about as conservative as one can get and he often provides references (scripture, CCC, Canon Law, etc.) to support his replies. I seriously doubt that he is wrong. The seal of confession applies to the priest OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL

 

[LilyM]

While it is certainly possible for all of them to be wrong, I find that a bit of a strech [sp]. Pick up some of Father Stravinskas’s books (unfortunately I no longer have my copy – I gave it away several years ago when I was moving … otherwise I would re-type his entire answer). He is about as conservative as one can get and he often provides references (scripture, CCC, Canon Law, etc.) to support his replies. I seriously doubt that he is wrong. The seal of confession applies to the priest OUTSIDE OF THE CONFESSIONAL

CCC and Canon Law, good as they are, don’t always provide the deeper ‘why’ behind the regulations of which I’m talking.

Even if you don’t remember the whole answer, do you remember anything of what Fr DID say about the actual reasoning behind the seal of the confessional?