Interesting confession question

[babochka]

When I go to confession I tell the priest how long its been since my last confession but I have never heard of them asking people if they have completed their penance.

I’ve never heard that it was necessary to state whether or not you have completed your penance, but if I had not completed it for some reason, I would certainly mention that in my confession.

 

[Mark1970]

No.

But it is part of the Sacrament of Confession.

And one is yes to receive the penance.

There would be a problem if one rejected it!

And after receiving it - if one does not do it -does not intend to do it - there is sin.

It is required for absolution?
I didn’t think so.

To the op one thing it might help with is some who priest shop for confession may need some help with habitual sins. If a scrupulous person is under the direction of one priest it would be helpful for another to know how many Hail Mary’s to give…

So really the main reason for mentioning it would be as, for example, a pious exercise and to give the priest an indication of the penitent’s frame of mind when they come to confession? For example it may highlight somebody who was habitually not completing a penance. As such it may not necessarily be considered necessary for the celebration of the sacrament?

 

[babochka]

I learned my confession form from an old book from tanbooks.com and I actually say that. Specifically:

Bless me father for I have sinned.
It has been ___ since my last confession.
I said my penance and received holy communion.
I confess to almighty God and to you father that I am guilty of ______.
For these and all other sins of my past life I am heartily sorry and ask forgiveness of God and penance of you father.

Never heard a complaint.

There are many forumulas for what the penitent says during confession that have been taught in various times and places throughout history. I think they are designed to give us a good and comforting way to begin, and some have additional information to help ensure that the penitent makes a good confession and that the priest has the basic information that he needs in order to hear the confession well. None is required, but I don’t think you would get any complains from any priest as long as you make a sincere confession.

 

[LoveMercyGrace]

The priest does not have to give any penance, but we all have temporal punishments as a result of sins, for which we will do penance, and we do penance through alms-giving, prayer, fasting, giving witness.

thank you for reply!

 

[porthos11]

One does not need to mention if one has completed an imposed penance. Silence on this part should carry the presumption of completion. Just as one does not need to mention anything that is not a sin.

What one has to mention is if he failed the penance, as the penance is binding.

 

[Bookcat]

It is required for absolution?
I didn’t think so.

Penance is part of confession. It may be something simple but yes penance is to be given in confession.

Absolution is a different matter - the dying can be for example absolved…with not possibility of doing even the smallest penance.

 

[Bookcat]

So really the main reason for mentioning it would be as, for example, a pious exercise and to give the priest an indication of the penitent’s frame of mind when they come to confession? For example it may highlight somebody who was habitually not completing a penance. As such it may not necessarily be considered necessary for the celebration of the sacrament?

I do not know the exact reason why such was done in the past at times at least. It may have at some time or place “been required” as part of the way confession was to happen. Or it may have been a pious practice as you note.

It is* not* part of the ordinary form of Confession in the current rite.

 

[Bookcat]

The imposing of a a Penance IS part and partial of the Sacrament of Confession

(the priest is not to willie nillie not impose a penance…yes there can be certain cases like the person is dying right then and there where absolution is given without doing so…but that is not the norm - the imposition of a penance is part of the Sacrament).

Catechism:

1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#VIII

Code of Canon Law:

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.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM

The Priest forgets to do so -ask him for one. Not that the absolution would be invalid if he does not - but one is to be given.

 

[Wesrock]

Could a priest withhold absolution if a past penance wasn’t completed? It could state something about the penitent’s attitude. Though there may be valid reasons why some penances could not be completed, of course.

 

[Bookcat]

Could a priest withhold absolution if a past penance wasn’t completed? It could state something about the penitent’s attitude. Though there may be valid reasons why some penances could not be completed, of course.

Penances are not ordinarily given with a “timing” attached.

So no.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

An interesting question has arisen, perhaps one of the priests who regularly post on CAF will know the answer - or even some of the non-priests.

A friend was telling me this evening about the Mass he went to this morning. The priest preached about confession, and apparently the priest said that when you go to confession, the penitent should always tell the priest whether or not they have completed the penance they were given the last time they went to confession.

Apparently a few of them were talking after Mass, only one of them had ever heard of this - it was new to everybody else. I have a vague memory of hearing somewhere that at the start of confession the penitent should say how long it is since their last confession then add something like “Since my last confession and completing my penance I accuse myself of…”. But it’s only a vague memory and I could be wrong.

Just wondering if anybody - particularly any of the priests who frequent CAF - know anything about this?

Ah, this is a rather old formulation. We used it in French…in the days when I was young.

As a priest, I still hear it from time to time in the various languages in which I hear confession. It is not a problem if one adds it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My concerns with this is that it seems to be lifting the veil of secrecy a bit too much. A confessor can’t ask anything about a penitent’s previous confession (lie: “have you confessed this before”) - even if the priest heard it he still can’t refer to it - since the nature of absolution means that it’s effectively wiped (as if it never happened). Granted, asking about completion of previous penance isn’t exactly crossing that line but it seems to me at least to be sailing a bit too close to it.

Why do you think I cannot ask about a previous confession? That’s not correct at all. There are occasions where one indeed does have to explore a penitent’s previous confessions in order to resolve a present problem – including, not least, when I have to make a commutation.

The penitent is always and everywhere free to speak of what they said and what the priest said, if they choose. Prudence would suggest they do so with great restraint.

I, as a priest, cannot normally divulge knowledge of a previous confession, because of the seal, although if it was necessary for me to have recourse, for example, to the apostolic penitentiary in a reserved matter, then I do have to reference an earlier confession with the penitent and the penitent concerned would have been instructed by me in how to identify themselves so that the prescription of the penitentiary can be completed. (The recourse, needless to say, is done in a manner that preserves the integrity of the seal.)

The penitent can also recall previous confessions they have made to the confessor – as, for example, “Father, I confessed to you three weeks ago. I confessed a,b, and c and in this context, you gave me the practical advice of x,y, and z; you gave me a fourth piece of practical advice but I can’t remember it. Can you please tell me again that part of the advice you gave?”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ve never heard that it was necessary to state whether or not you have completed your penance, but if I had not completed it for some reason, I would certainly mention that in my confession.

This, of all the choices given me in the responses, is the best one.

As a confessor, when I impose a penance, the penitent is obliged to do the penance and, barring extraordinary circumstance, it should be completed before approaching the sacrament again. One should not, in other words, be accumulating uncompleted penances or seeing them as suggestions that one may do or not do – one is to complete the penance. So, yes, there was a purpose to saying “I completed my penance.” As it is, the rite currently presumes that the penance was completed in the absence of a statement to the contrary. As I have said elsewhere, there is no reason cannot tell me that they did their penance. It removes all doubt.

An uncompleted penance does not invalidate an absolution. Nor does it preclude approaching the sacrament again. But, one way or another, it should be addressed in that subsequent confession as either “I have not completed my previous penance because it involves a pilgrimage to the diocesan shrine, which I plan to make next week” or “I have found the penance impossible, Father, and need help”, etc.

Sadly, it can happen that confessors will impart penances that are not completed because they have no defined terminus or they are constructed in such a way as to make their completion hard to achieve or they are simply too vague for the penitent to know if they have achieved them. In such cases, it is necessary for a confessor to use his power to commute penances so that the matter can be definitively resolved.

A penitent is perfectly free to ask for a different penance from the confessor at the moment he proposes it. Some penitents do not seem to understand this. Were I, for example, to propose a day of abstinence as the penance I intended to impose, the penitent is perfectly free to say: “Father, I have a medical condition that precludes that…would you make the penance a prayer…such as Stations of the Cross here in the church?”

Finally, as a confessor, I do have discretion in imposing penances. There are indeed times when I will make the decision not to impose a penance at all. It does not affect the validity of the absolution.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Penance is part of confession. It may be something simple but yes penance is to be given in confession.

Absolution is a different matter - the dying can be for example absolved…with not possibility of doing even the smallest penance.

Here is an article that further explores confession and penance.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-am-i-forgiven-if-i-dont-do-a-penance-assigned-in-confession-fr-z-rants/

I know another theologian who frequents the boards who’s stuff in controversial tackles this as well on his blog. If you can put a bias away long enough to read it, it is informative…

But there is always that bias…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This, of all the choices given me in the responses, is the best one.

As a confessor, when I impose a penance, the penitent is obliged to do the penance and, barring extraordinary circumstance, it should be completed before approaching the sacrament again. One should not, in other words, be accumulating uncompleted penances or seeing them as suggestions that one may do or not do – one is to complete the penance. So, yes, there was a purpose to saying “I completed my penance.” As it is, the rite currently presumes that the penance was completed in the absence of a statement to the contrary. As I have said elsewhere, there is no reason cannot tell me that they did their penance. It removes all doubt.

An uncompleted penance does not invalidate an absolution. Nor does it preclude approaching the sacrament again. But, one way or another, it should be addressed in that subsequent confession as either “I have not completed my previous penance because it involves a pilgrimage to the diocesan shrine, which I plan to make next week” or “I have found the penance impossible, Father, and need help”, etc.

Sadly, it can happen that confessors will impart penances that are not completed because they have no defined terminus or they are constructed in such a way as to make their completion hard to achieve or they are simply too vague for the penitent to know if they have achieved them. In such cases, it is necessary for a confessor to use his power to commute penances so that the matter can be definitively resolved.

A penitent is perfectly free to ask for a different penance from the confessor at the moment he proposes it. Some penitents do not seem to understand this. Were I, for example, to propose a day of abstinence as the penance I intended to impose, the penitent is perfectly free to say: “Father, I have a medical condition that precludes that…would you make the penance a prayer…such as Stations of the Cross here in the church?”

Finally, as a confessor, I do have discretion in imposing penances. There are indeed times when I will make the decision not to impose a penance at all. It does not affect the validity of the absolution.

Father, a priest once told me they( the priests) have to do the penances they assign as well. that does not make sense to me… Can you elaborate?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, a priest once told me they( the priests) have to do the penances they assign as well. that does not make sense to me… Can you elaborate?

I’m afraid I could not venture a guess as to what the priest meant, without some context. If one has an assignment where one’s main work is as a confessor, that would be quite a remarkable thing to even attempt.

Speaking pastorally, one could envision a situation, for example, where a priest was hearing confessions of someone in an old age home and assigned a penance of an Our Father and a Hail Mary and, if the priest doubted the cognitive capacity of the person to remember or accomplish the penance, inviting the person to pray those two prayers along with him immediately after finishing the rite as a way of knowing the penance was prayed – and a way of being assured that the penitent had invoked the Mother of God and her prayers for the hour of their death, which may be relatively proximate.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m afraid I could not venture a guess as to what the priest meant, without some context. If one has an assignment where one’s main work is as a confessor, that would be quite a remarkable thing to even attempt.

Speaking pastorally, one could envision a situation, for example, where a priest was hearing confessions of someone in an old age home and assigned a penance of an Our Father and a Hail Mary and, if the priest doubted the cognitive capacity of the person to remember or accomplish the penance, inviting the person to pray those two prayers along with him immediately after finishing the rite as a way of knowing the penance was prayed – and a way of being assured that the penitent had invoked the Mother of God and her prayers for the hour of their death, which may be relatively proximate.

Thanks. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

 

[babochka]

Could a priest withhold absolution if a past penance wasn’t completed?** It could state something about the penitent’s attitude. **Though there may be valid reasons why some penances could not be completed, of course.

This has only come up once for me. I was once given a simple penance that I found difficult to complete. It was directly related to the sin I had confessed. I made several starts at completing it, but in the end, I felt that I need to go to confession again before I had completed it. I told my confessor about the difficulty. He said that it did make him question my purpose of amendment. He absolved me, gave me the same penance again, and promised me his prayers for its completion. The second time around, though God’s mercy, it was easy and a joy to complete.

 

[InThePew]

Why do you think I cannot ask about a previous confession? That’s not correct at all. There are occasions where one indeed does have to explore a penitent’s previous confessions in order to resolve a present problem – including, not least, when I have to make a commutation.

The penitent is always and everywhere free to speak of what they said and what the priest said, if they choose. Prudence would suggest they do so with great restraint.

I know that the penitent is obviously free to refer to whatever they wish, but my understanding was that, once absolved, a past sin could not be referred to by the priest - e.g. the priest could not say: “well if you remember the last time you confessed this particular sin, I told you…”. A spiritual director told me a few years back that this is the difference between spiritual direction and confession. I’d also add that this fits with my experiences of confessing the same thing to the same priest - the earlier confession(s) are obviously in the background but remain unmentioned.

 

[Bookcat]

Here is an

Not sure why you noted that to me. Perhaps just sharing.

In any case I have answered above as to the question of the thread.