Receiving "Conditional Absolution"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deo_Gratias42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
another might be the case of a person who stole a car, and the confessor proposes “ok – leave $15,000 at the doorstep of the car dealership”
Click to expand...
That would actually be I think in the area of a non-legit penance due to it exposing the person to revealing the sin.

They DO need to do restitution. But not as the penance (at least in that way).
 
Gorgias said:
rather, the priest merely proposes;
Click to expand...
He “imposes” the penance.

Not that the penitent cannot ask for a change then and there…but it is not simply a proposal.

It is imposed.

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)

The rite also notes there as you quote “imposes an act of penance” --and it may use the other language in the pastoral sense in that it is open to be changed…but it is imposed (with openness to change or at least in the end).
 
Bookcat said:
Actually no. He “imposes” the penance.

The rite may use that language in the pastoral sense in that it is open to be changed…but it is imposed (with openness to change or at least in the end).
Click to expand...
This is my point precisely. In the end, there is the ‘imposition’ of penance. However, that represents the final state. To get there, the priest proposes, and the penitent must agree before the priest imposes.

It’s like saying that, once you sign a contract, you’re bound to the terms of the contract. However, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have the ability to discuss the terms of the contract prior to signing on the dotted line.

My understanding of what the previous posters were suggesting was that there was simple imposition of terms, without the notion of an accepted proposition.
 
Bookcat said:
That would actually be I think in the area of a non-legit penance due to it exposing the person to revealing the sin.
Click to expand...
of course not! you’re saying that a person cannot mail money orders anonymously to the owner of a dealership? you’re saying that a person cannot give money – for example, to his pastor – with the instructions that it is to be given (anonymously) to the business?

Now, if the confessor said, “you must walk up to the owner and hand him a personal check for $15,000”, then that’s a different story. that’s not what I suggested, though… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
This is my point precisely. In the end, there is the ‘imposition’ of penance. However, that represents the final state. To get there, the priest proposes, and the penitent must agree before the priest imposes.

It’s like saying that, once you sign a contract, you’re bound to the terms of the contract. However, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have the ability to discuss the terms of the contract prior to signing on the dotted line.

My understanding of what the previous posters were suggesting was that there was simple imposition of terms, without the notion of an accepted proposition.
Click to expand...
Well I would not put like that. I would say it is imposed. Then if the penitent wishes ask for a change it may. There are not two acts happening. The Priest does not say “I propose you read the Gospel of Mark for your penance” and then the Penitent says ok. The then Priest says – therefore I impose that as your penance…

Rather it is imposed but can be requested to be adjusted …
 
Gorgias said:
This is my point precisely. In the end, there is the ‘imposition’ of penance. However, that represents the final state. To get there, the priest proposes, and the penitent must agree before the priest imposes.

My understanding of what the previous posters were suggesting was that there was simple imposition of terms, without the notion of an accepted proposition.
Click to expand...
You must have an unusual confessor or confessors. I have never in my entire life been given the option of “agreeing” to “an imposition of penance.” It simply is. In fact, there have been a couple of occasions on which (a) the priest, who normally crosses every “t” and dots every “i,” himself forgot to give it to me, and I forgot to remind him, and other occasions on which (b) the priest chose not to impose a penance.

In the latter case, it was a face-to-face confession, and it was observable to this exceptionally insightful priest that I had a large degree of sorrow. Some priests do not dispense a concrete penance in those cases, when the contrition seems so consuming.

(That said, on such rare occasions of “no penance,” I always pray after confession: gratitude, sorrow, petition, etc.) I suspect that most priests appreciate that very few penitents are likely to race out of the confessional and merely go about their business, with no closure.
 
Gorgias said:
of course not! you’re saying that a person cannot mail money orders anonymously to the owner of a dealership? you’re saying that a person cannot give money – for example, to his pastor – with the instructions that it is to be given (anonymously) to the business?

Now, if the confessor said, “you must walk up to the owner and hand him a personal check for $15,000”, then that’s a different story. that’s not what I suggested, though… 😉
Click to expand...
The example given was driving the car there…as a penance.

Not going to fly in Rome.

But yes there are other ways one can do the restitution that is secret. But really the restitution is simply part of the repentance not the penance.
 
Bookcat said:
Well I would not put like that. I would say it is imposed. Then if the penitent wishes ask for a change it may. There are not two acts happening.

Rather it is imposed but can be requested to be adjusted …
Click to expand...
That’s not what the Rite says. It says that the priest proposes and the penitent accepts. Two. Distinct. Acts. 😉
 
Elizabeth502 said:
You must have an unusual confessor or confessors. I have never in my entire life been given the option of “agreeing” to “an imposition of penance.”
Click to expand...
LOL! Oh, I’m not saying that this is the way that it normally plays itself out – just that this is the way that it’s written in the Rite! Of course, I’d ask you to listen carefully to your confessors: if he says “ok… how about if you go back to the pews and say three Hail Mary’s?” … then he’s proposing not dictating. 😉
 
Canon Law simply says imposes.

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)
 
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. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#VIII

imponit
 
In the “in brief” section of the Catechism one does indeed find the term “proposes”

1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of “satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.

proponit

But that is a summary of the section above it where it says “imposes” (not anywhere does it use the term proposes).

The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI uses “imposes”
  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

So in any case the penance is imposed. It is open to change though.

So I would say “the confessor imposes upon the penitent” the penance at that moment in the rite -which the penitent receives…but which a Penitent can seek to have altered by the Priest then and there and thus a new one or altered one imposed. “Proposed” is a term used also in relation to this but it is not really the main term (see CIC) to describe the action of the Priest there.
 
Gorgias said:
LOL! Oh, I’m not saying that this is the way that it normally plays itself out – just that this is the way that it’s written in the Rite! Of course, I’d ask you to listen carefully to your confessors: if he says “ok… how about if you go back to the pews and say three Hail Mary’s?” … then he’s proposing not dictating. 😉
Click to expand...
Usually it is “for your penance do X Y Z”

To which I say “ok”

Now can I say – but can I do instead Z three times for Z is something I am particularly devoted to and he says -“ok” or “no keep it XYZ”

Or I say I cannot do Z easily and he says “Ok then do Y twice instead of Z”.
 
This thread isn’t about penance. This is about “conditional absolution”. This goes beyond penance. Really, actually completing the penance is optional to a certain degree. What I was presented with was not a penance as in, “For your penance…” Before even talking about penance I was distinctly told that my absolution was on the condition I made restitution. That if I didn’t make it by X date, the absolution would no longer be effective. Furthermore, if I failed to make restitution, I would receive another mortal sin, and that he would not be able to absolve me of it, so I would be in the state of mortal sin and there would be nothing he could do about it. This is more than merely a penance. This is almost like a censure of some sort. This is why I’m so frustrated by it. If this is something legit, I’d like to know about it. The problem with something like this is it risks causing the person to develop an erroneous conscience.
 
Deo_Gratias42 said:
Before even talking about penance I was distinctly told that my absolution was on the condition I made restitution. That if I didn’t make it by X date, the absolution would no longer be effective. Furthermore, if I failed to make restitution, I would receive another mortal sin, and that he would not be able to absolve me of it, so I would be in the state of mortal sin and there would be nothing he could do about it. This is more than merely a penance. This is almost like a censure of some sort. This is why I’m so frustrated by it. If this is something legit, I’d like to know about it. The problem with something like this is it risks causing the person to develop an erroneous conscience.
Click to expand...
I do not think that such can be the case.

The options for the Priest that I see are: “absolve the sins” “refuse absolution” or “defer absolution”.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred. (From vatican.va)

Not: “absolve conditioned on some future event”.

One can inquire further with the Chancery or the Apostolic Penitentiary in Rome if need be (though you likely should start on a lower level… usually the way to go)
 
Bookcat said:
Usually it is “for your penance do X Y Z”

To which I say “ok”

Now can I say – but can I do instead Z three times for Z is something I am particularly devoted to and he says -“ok” or “no keep it XYZ”

Or I say I cannot do Z easily and he says “Ok then do Y twice instead of Z”.
Click to expand...
The two of you seem to be going at it in a rather theoretical or technical way, and while I appreciate the technical points being offered, I do not think that iether most penitents or most confessors engage in such “bargaining” (reducing or adding) in the confessional. At least, I’ve never heard that shared with me.

To speak to Bookcat’s last point, very often my contrition exceeds, by a large factor, whatever penance the priest imposes. I don’t say to the priest, “Wait, that’s not nearly enough!” I perform the penance and more. I express my contrition aditionally after confession, directly to God. And I engage in other penitential or reparative acts.

Our relationship is with God, and the priest in the confessional is in persona Christi. We enjoy that intimate relationship before the confession, during the confession, and after the confession. If we’re truly sorry for offending a friend, are we content with a token apology and a technical repair for our offense, or do we Go the Distance to repair that relationship and re-set it, regardless of how our friend, or a representative of our friend, excuses us?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top