Penance and confession?

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the essential elements of the sacrament of Reconciliation?

1440-1449

The essential elements are two: the acts of the penitent who comes to repentance through the action of the Holy Spirit, and the absolution of the priest who in the name of Christ grants forgiveness and determines the ways of making satisfaction.

1. What are the acts of the penitent?

1450-1460
1487-1492

They are: a careful examination of conscience; contrition (or repentance), which is perfect when it is motivated by love of God and imperfect if it rests on other motives and which includes the determination not to sin again; confession, which consists in the telling of one’s sins to the priest; and satisfaction or the carrying out of certain acts of penance which the confessor imposes upon the penitent to repair the damage caused by sin.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[sw85]

Hum. Refusing the penance at the time of the Sacrament – that is one thing (one should never refuse it --but rather ask for another if it is not what one can do etc).

Later refusing to do it is another–and I would imagine the sinfulness of such admits of parvity of matter (smallness of matter) …depending…(as would I imagine violating canon law…)

Well, yes, a bad faith refusal to do penance may well call the absolution into question. Dunno for sure. My point is just that it’s a qualitatively different thing altogether to intend to do the penance but to forget to, or (for whatever reason) to have some legitimate doubt about whether or not one has satisfied it despite having tried sincerely to do so.

Actually…

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.

Beat me to it! Thank God for Fr. Z.

 

[Bookcat]

Beat me to it! Thank God for Fr. Z.

Did not want to leave it fallow…

Got it rather from the CIC et al

 

[thistle]

Well, yes, a bad faith refusal to do penance may well call the absolution into question. Dunno for sure. My point is just that it’s a qualitatively different thing altogether to intend to do the penance but to forget to, or (for whatever reason) to have some legitimate doubt about whether or not one has satisfied it despite having tried sincerely to do so.

Beat me to it! Thank God for Fr. Z.

Absolution is not conditional upon the penance being done.
If the penitent told the priest during Confession they had no intention of performing any penance the priest would not give absolution.
If the priest gives absolution it is because he feels the Confession is sincere.
If later on the penitent decides they will not perform the penance that may well be a sin but it does not affect the absolution given earlier.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

“Salutary” & “suitable” are the 2 key words here, at least according to my boss, a priest & Canon Lawyer.
While it is usually beneficial to assign a penance, and it is usually done, there is no where that says it is an absolute “requirement”.

That is what I am refuting. And as I said,
sometimes no penance is the hardest penance of all.

Yes the Priest is to impose a penance –

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.

 

[sw85]

Absolution is not conditional upon the penance being done.
If the penitent told the priest during Confession they had no intention of performing any penance the priest would not give absolution.
If the priest gives absolution it is because he feels the Confession is sincere.
If later on the penitent decides they will not perform the penance that may well be a sin but it does not affect the absolution given earlier.

I know this. But what I’m saying is that a bad faith, a priori refusal to do penance probably closes the person off to the grace of the confessional. I cannot see how a person who walks into the confessional with the attitude that they don’t owe God anything, rather than an attitude of genuine contrition and humility, can possibly be disposed to receive sacramental grace from the priest, even if he pronounces the words correctly and follows canon law to the letter.

Again, in contrast to simple failure to remember to do a penance or inability to execute it successfully, which wouldn’t throttle grace, this (probably) would. I don’t know if that’s in canon law anywhere, just an intuition on my part. My point in raising this is that, short of this rather extreme circumstance, there’s no reason to suppose not doing penance would result in an invalid absolution.

 

[Spirithound]

Should I go back later and ask for a new penance even though I pretty sure but not 100% certain that I did mine?

So this is a case of forgetting what penance was assigned, rather than forgetting whether you did something, or not being sure whether an act of mercy really “counted enough”?

I had a good impression that I did my penance though but I wasn’t fully sure.

Is that strong enough epistemic grounds for being sure?

The quantifier “good impression” is subjective. I have no idea of knowing what evidence you have, nor how high or low your standards are.

In any case, a person sometimes is not fully sure that he took his medicine, but he does have a good impression that he did it nonetheless and this can be enough to cause certainty.

If you have put your medicine in one of those handy “one box per day” containers, and today’s is empty, you’ve probably taken it. I’m not sure this has a close enough analogy to penance…

 

[Bookcat]

“Salutary” & “suitable” are the 2 key words here, at least according to my boss, a priest & Canon Lawyer.
While it is usually beneficial to assign a penance, and it is usually done, there is no where that says it is an absolute “requirement”.

That is what I am refuting. And as I said,
sometimes no penance is the hardest penance of all.

Again from the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the essential elements of the sacrament of Reconciliation?

1440-1449

The essential elements are two: the acts of the penitent who comes to repentance through the action of the Holy Spirit, and the absolution of the priest who in the name of Christ grants forgiveness and determines the ways of making satisfaction.

1. What are the acts of the penitent?

1450-1460
1487-1492

They are: a careful examination of conscience; contrition (or repentance), which is perfect when it is motivated by love of God and imperfect if it rests on other motives and which includes the determination not to sin again; confession, which consists in the telling of one’s sins to the priest; and satisfaction or the carrying out of certain acts of penance which the confessor imposes upon the penitent to repair the damage caused by sin.

Looking again at CIC

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.

Right the confessor IS TO IMPOSE a penance --I think “is to impose” means well that the Priest “is to impose”…and it is to be salutary and suitable -according to the sins --on the one hand and and on the other -“taking into account the condition of the penitent”- so it may be that a particular penitent can only say the name of “Jesus”…or touching or kissing a crucifix or some other simple thing --sure that can happen. But they still impose a penance.

Now can there be exceptions? Sure. Just as there are exceptions to even confessing all mortal sins in number and kind etc (impossibility and moral impossibility) – but these are exceptions and not the matter of course.

For example they may be on the verge of dying right then and there…but then again it can be rather simple like giving him a crucifix to kiss.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Right the confessor IS TO IMPOSE a penance --I think “is to impose” means well that the Priest “is to impose”…and it is to be salutary and suitable -according to the sins…

My question would be what level of force “is to impose” presents. Does it mean that a priest must impose a penance, or does it mean more that the penance, if there is one, is to be in line with severity and number, etc?

 

[Bookcat]

My question would be what level of force “is to impose” presents. Does it mean that a priest must impose a penance, or does it mean more that the penance, if there is one, is to be in line with severity and number, etc?

Is to impose…is directed there I would say to the imposing of a penance --and then it is further qualified as to what the penance is to look like.

The three acts required of the Penitent are* part* of the sacrament.

contrition, confession, and satisfaction

Now just like there can be an exception to the confession (like the person is dying and cannot talk etc) there can be exceptions to the penance …but then again as I noted the penance could be a simple simple thing reduced to the persons ability at the time

 

[thistle]

I know this. But what I’m saying is that a bad faith, a priori refusal to do penance probably closes the person off to the grace of the confessional. I cannot see how a person who walks into the confessional with the attitude that they don’t owe God anything, rather than an attitude of genuine contrition and humility, can possibly be disposed to receive sacramental grace from the priest, even if he pronounces the words correctly and follows canon law to the letter.

Again, in contrast to simple failure to remember to do a penance or inability to execute it successfully, which wouldn’t throttle grace, this (probably) would. I don’t know if that’s in canon law anywhere, just an intuition on my part. My point in raising this is that, short of this rather extreme circumstance, there’s no reason to suppose not doing penance would result in an invalid absolution.

There is no such thing as an invalid absolution.
Either the penitent is absolved or is not absolved by the priest.

 

[Bookcat]

There is no such thing as an invalid absolution.
Either the penitent is absolved or is not absolved by the priest.

There is…just like there is an invalid baptism.

True one is either baptized or not …absolved or not…but an attempt was made and it did not happen in the case of it termed “invalid”.

“I hope that God blesses you and helps you with these things --go in peace” would be invalid.

“I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier” would be invalid

 

[sw85]

There is no such thing as an invalid absolution.
Either the penitent is absolved or is not absolved by the priest.

This is true but only because it equivocates on the meaning of the word “absolution.” I am talking about the act of absolution done by the priest. It is valid (i.e., results in sacramental absolution) only under certain circumstances. I believe those circumstances require a firm intention to make reparation for one’s sins and thus, to the extent possible, comply with the priest’s assigned penance; when lacking, this means the act of absolution does not translate into sacramental absolution. So, yes, in this sense it is possible for there to be an “invalid absolution” in much the same way that there can be an “invalid marriage” or, as Bookcat points out, an “invalid baptism.”

 

[thistle]

There is…just like there is an invalid baptism.

True one is either baptized or not …absolved or not…but an attempt was made and it did not happen in the case of it termed “invalid”.

“I hope that God blesses you and helps you with these things --go in peace” would be invalid.

“I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier” would be invalid

I am not talking about the priest making a mistake. That’s not what the discussion is about otherwise I would have mentioned that.

The discussion is centered on someone being absolved (properly) and then the question is if it can be invalidated later due to a penance being done. The answer is no.

 

[Bookcat]

I am not talking about the priest making a mistake. That’s not what the discussion is about otherwise I would have mentioned that.

The discussion is centered on someone being absolved (properly) and then the question is if it can be invalidated later due to a penance being done. The answer is no.

If a person is given the penance and is intending to do it but then* later *decides not do it …no such does not “invalidate”.

Rather it is a NEW sin…(unless of course he got it changed)

 

[thistle]

If a person is given the penance and is intending to do it but then* later *decides not do it …no such does not “invalidate”.

Rather it is a NEW sin…(unless of course he got it changed)

 

[sheebabobo]

I just recently saw a great video that touched on this subject by Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

He says something like a sin is a nail being nailed into a board. When you go to confession you remove the sin (nail) but there’s still a hole in the board. When you do your penance the holes are filled.

Here’s the video - skip to 20:00 in where he mentions this:

youtube.com/watch?v=jgFndZIH568#t=20m00s

 

[fakename]

So this is a case of forgetting what penance was assigned, rather than forgetting whether you did something, or not being sure whether an act of mercy really “counted enough”?

The quantifier “good impression” is subjective. I have no idea of knowing what evidence you have, nor how high or low your standards are.

If you have put your medicine in one of those handy “one box per day” containers, and today’s is empty, you’ve probably taken it. I’m not sure this has a close enough analogy to penance…

I’m asking if anyone else makes decisions based on “good impressions”. One does not have to know what constitutes good impressions for each person, to figure out if it is normal but just that acting on good impressions is not inconsistent for normal people for certain things.

One question about the validity issue though, what does Thistle mean by there’s no such thing as an invalid confession? Does this mean something similar to “either you are pregnant or you are not, because there is no intermediate state?”.

And apparently this is only true if the word “absolution” is equivocated and so is the statement really false?

 

[mangy_dog]

If I think I did my assigned penance but I didn’t then what happens?

I think that for any confession, it is sacramentally valid even though the person doesn’t perform his penance. Is that true?

Should I go back later and ask for a new penance even though I pretty sure but not 100% certain that I did mine?

Your pennance is important. Purgatory is full of souls who’s sins are forgiven but who’s guilt still clings.

Don’t go back for another pennance or a different pennance. Carry out the pennance that you were told by the priest. Just do it.

 

[sw85]

Your pennance is important. Purgatory is full of souls who’s sins are forgiven but who’s guilt still clings.

Don’t go back for another pennance or a different pennance. Carry out the pennance that you were told by the priest. Just do it.

And, if you aren’t absolutely confident you did it according to the exact letter of the words assigned by the priest, supplement it with additional penances (skip a meal + pray the chaplet of divine mercy, for instance), and ask God to accept them in reparation for any deficiencies in your assigned penance.