Offer It Up: Revisiting Penance 60 Years Later

This upcoming Advent marks sixty years since one of the most momentous changes in the history of American Catholicism. One that “may have been the most unnecessary and the most devastating” among the implementations of Vatican II, according to renowned Catholic sociologist Andrew Greely. The impact of this alteration was so far-reaching that most Catholics born after Vatican II are completely unaware that such a dramatic change even occurred for American Catholics.[1]

In the week prior to November 27, 1966, eating meat on Friday was generally perceived as a mortal sin. Abruptly, however, this was no longer identified as any kind of sin, much less a mortal sin. Year-round Friday meat abstinence had been a significant marker for Catholics in the religiously-pluralistic United States, as was fasting throughout the Lenten season and a number of other social penitential practices, such as fasting prior to big feasts such as Christmas or on Ember Days.

The National Council of Catholic Bishops, predecessor to the USCCB, implemented these dramatic changes in fewer than 2000 words with their “Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence.” The statement was based upon Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which called for the renewal of penance in the worldwide Church and placed the authority to determine the details of penance in the hands of local episcopal conferences.

We will first take a historical overview of Catholic penitential practices in the United States, followed by the demographic context of the changes implemented in 1966.[2] While aiming to avoid a declension narrative, what follows will nonetheless consider what has been lost as a result of these changes, especially in regard to Catholic identity, community, and discipline.

These are brought into focus by contemporary non-Catholic trends of meatless Mondays, intermittent fasting, and dynorphin-inducing practices like cold-plunges. I conclude by noting that sixty years later the call to renewal of penance still stands. American Catholics today may be among the least penitential of any currently practicing Catholics worldwide, as well as among the least penitential of any Catholics throughout the history of the Church. But do we want it to be this way?

Historical Notes

Catholics in the United States brought with them the penitential customs from their European origins based on the Church’s canon law for the Latin Rite (i.e. Roman Catholics). These penitential practices were quite strict by today’s standards. They included “one meal a day, abstinence from meat, abstinence from eggs and milk products during Lent, and abstinence from fish at those meals where meat was eaten on a fast day as well as on Sundays of Lent. Abstinence from meat without fasting was observed by general law on all Fridays and Saturdays throughout the year,” as described in greater detail in my book Sin in the Sixties Chapters 1 and 4.

The limited nutritional circumstances of Catholics in the United States resulted in the Vatican making numerous exceptions to penance, such as allowing for American Catholics to eat meat on five of the six Sundays of Lent. In 1837, the pope dropped fasting for Wednesdays and Fridays of Advent and abstaining from meat on Wednesdays of Advent, and in 1886 Leo XII dispensed from meat abstinence on Saturdays for all American dioceses. Leo XIII permitted American Catholics to use meat, eggs, and milk products at all meals on Sundays during Lent and at the principal (i.e. main or full) meal Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Additionally, in 1895 the so-called “workingman’s privilege” allowed American Catholics to eat meat once a day when there was difficulty in observing common law. This indult originally only applied to a manual laborer and his family, but in 1951 it was extended to all American Catholics in a move for uniformity of practice.

Thus, we can see that even prior to Vatican II and Paul VI’s Paenitemini, American Catholics already had been granted many reductions to the Church’s expected penitential practices. However, the remaining practices of year-round Friday meat abstinence, Lenten fasting, Ember Days fasting, etc. remained firmly entrenched in American Catholic subculture. At the close of Vatican II, Paul VI was eager for a renewal of penance and looked to the local bishops’ conferences to take the lead, based on what they could determine was best for their region.

Paenitentiam Agere, Vatican II, and Paenitemini: Revisiting Penance 60 Years Later

Prior to the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII released his encyclical Paenitentiam Agere (July 1962), beginning with these words:

Doing penance for one’s sins is a first step towards obtaining forgiveness and winning eternal salvation. That is the clear and explicit teaching of Christ, and no one can fail to see how justified and how right the Catholic Church has always been in constantly insisting on this. She is the spokesman for her divine Redeemer. No individual Christian can grow in perfection, nor can Christianity gain in vigor, except it be on the basis of penance.

Pope John then emphasized the importance of penance in preparation for the council: interior and exterior, individual and social, private and public. While penance was prescribed by the Church at certain times, John also noted “the acceptance from God in a spirit of resignation and trust of all life’s sorrows and hardships and of everything that involves inconvenience and annoyance in the conscientious performance of the obligations of our daily life and work and the practice of Christian virtue” (§30). Colloquially, this was associated with the phrase, “Offer it up!”

John XXIII’s Paenitentiam Agere and Paul VI’s Paenitemini thus serve as bookends of Vatican II. While the first was precursory for council work, the second was a fruit and implementation of the council. Paul VI was eager to remind the faithful of the grave and urgent problem “of the significance and importance of the divine precept of penitence.” Like John, Paul recognized that the Church was “in continuous need of conversion and renewal, a renewal which must be implemented not only interiorly and individually but also externally and socially.”

In no way did Paul VI intend for the Church to move beyond penance; Vatican II did not herald a post-penitential Church. The pope rather viewed penance as essential for realizing the fruits of the council. Paul indicated that renewal might involve seeking out penitential practices beyond fast and abstinence (Ch. 2). Though he listed the universal prescriptive penances for Catholics globally, Paul also gave local episcopal conferences the authority to substitute other practices for fast and abstinence, indicating his eagerness for the renewal of penance in a modern setting.

The American NCCB’s “Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence” took the call for renewal of penance in Paenitemini and enacted the practical changes in the U.S. While the content of this statement is crucial to understanding the details, the American context—both sociologically and theologically—frames the reception of these changes.

As noted above, Friday meat abstinence had been a Catholic identity marker for years in a religiously pluralistic country. American Catholics often made their home in urban ethnic conclaves, with separate parishes for Italians, Irish, Germans, Polish, etc. Catholics maintained their identity and religious practices in such a homogenous social setting. During and after World War II, American identity increased for Catholics. The initially poor immigrant Catholics relegated to manual labor were now established, and their children and grandchildren experienced upward social and economic mobility. Younger generations were now able to leave the urban Catholic subculture for American suburban life, and consequently traditional Catholic practices were not a natural part of their world but were rather experienced as external impositions by authority.

As they emerged from Catholic subculture, clerics and laity alike articulated criticisms of Catholic practice. One particularly negative assessment noted the “unthinking obedience” of Catholic required routines: eating fish on Fridays, lining up for confession on Saturdays, mumbling prayers in Latin on Sunday, and basically doing whatever they were told they had to do. Such obedience came under fire; adherence to Church practice seemed to be a mark of immaturity rather than humility.

Germany in World War II had demonstrated the danger of obedience to authority, and now many Americans objected to the conflict in Vietnam, as well as calling attention to longstanding racial injustices in the United States. Authority, obligation, obedience were all imbued with a negative connotation; autonomy, freedom, and choice now took precedence. For some, the spirit of Vatican II appeared in accord with this trend. Unlike previous councils, there were no anathemas proclaimed in condemning errors; Vatican II seemed to embrace the world, rather than object to it.

The American bishops seemed also to recognize the downside to obligatory practices done out of obedience. However, perhaps these ingrained habits were precisely what made the bishops confident that their changes emphasizing voluntary effort would truly bring about a renewal. Catholics in the past had adhered so well to the rules of penance when they were one-size-fits-all. How much better would they practice penance now that they could exercise freedom of choice in selecting something meaningful?

Thus, the bishops focused on making penance more “effective” by prioritizing individual choice, presuming that the faithful knew best what was truly penitential for them. Daily Lenten fasting was relegated to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday alone, ostensibly replaced by an individually selected Lenten resolution for the entirety of the season. Catholics no longer needed to abstain from meat on Fridays (excepting during Lent), and they instead were asked to determine their own penance for that day. The fasting before the feast of Christmas and the Immaculate Conception were dropped altogether, as was the Ember Days fasting. The penitential character of Advent was entrusted to liturgical and home sacramental practices, with no obligatory penances.

Paul VI had entrusted the renewal of penance to local episcopal conferences with confidence in their expertise of their own congregations and with the hope of increasing a profound interior penance to match the external practices. The American implementations moved from communal practices to individual, from obligatory to voluntarily chosen. While unthinking routine was a liability of past regulations, the general neglect of penance was the liability of these new prescriptions. The bishops’ intentions may have been good, but the timing for implementation coinciding with the dissolution of the American Catholic subculture was infelicitous.

My uncle claimed they celebrated that first Friday of Advent in 1966 with a big steak dinner! Though some had initial hesitation, the faithful adjusted quickly to very little penance. By the time I was attending CCD in the 1980s, I never once heard a mention of the requirement of regular Friday penance. I recall that one year for Lent my dad opted to eat only one full meal and two snacks per day, which I thought was quite an odd Lenten resolution. What made him think to do this? I had no idea he had chosen what was once—just a few decades prior, and until he was 28 years old—standard practice for all American Catholics.

Revisiting Penance 60 Years Later

In his book The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700, Robert Bireley narrates the complexity of early modern Catholicism and suggests that the implementations of the Council of Trent were not realized until perhaps 100 years later. While the historical circumstances of Trent were certainly different to Vatican II in terms of transportation, technology, and globalization, we should nonetheless hesitate to think that the implementations following Vatican II are already realized in full . . . having failed or succeeded. The Church moves slowly, and part of conciliar implementation is reflecting, evaluating, and responding to the changes made.

A post-Vatican II Catholic may look back critically at the way the American bishops chose to implement Paenitemini or critique Paul VI’s decision to delegate authority to the local episcopal conferences. However, a declension narrative fails to appreciate the intention of these leaders and the timing with the dissolution of Catholic subculture. A declension narrative also judges as closed this chapter of American Catholic history, whereas I argue we are very much still in the middle of the story. Penance has nowhere been practiced perfectly, and just as we should not romanticize the pre-Vatican II Catholic subculture that made maintaining the external appearances of penance easy, we should not condemn our current context as inhospitable to a renewal of penance.

American Catholics Today

Nonetheless, we might take this opportunity of 60 years to reflect on our own current context. Interestingly, we see a move in pop psychology, fitness trends, and social movements to embrace the very practices Catholics so easily abandoned. Olympic marathoner Dakotah Popehn recently announced her upcoming memoir: “YOU THINK THIS HURTS? is about how the pain we choose helps us survive the pain we don’t get to choose.” Upon reading this ad, it struck me how it inadvertently reflects the Catholic view of penance. The difficulty chosen in voluntary penitential practices allows us to offer up the involuntary mortifications. Penance trains us in small sacrifices for God, such that we are equipped to make the big sacrifices when necessary.

According to positive psychologists, the decision to do something difficult ultimately makes our life better because we are conditioned to embrace challenges. Cold plunges, time in a sauna, vigorous workouts, intermittent fasting, meatless Mondays, growing through adversity, etc. are all modern expressions of not only the benefit of difficulty, but the need for difficulty in a meaningful life. Pop psychologists are eager to tell us that both the embrace of unchosen adversity and the intentional seeking of difficulty have enormous benefit, whereas hedonism and avoidance of challenge result in unhappiness and anxiety.

Nor is the embrace of difficulty best approached as an individual endeavor. Popehn, for example, does not train by herself but currently runs with Minnesota Distance Elite, and her memoir will share the important role played by her mother during the difficult years of her childhood. Likewise, those adhering to intermittent fasting or meatless Mondays often seek out and depend upon social support, sharing these practices with friends or even as a movement.

Thus, when we reflect on the past penitential practices of American Catholics, we note that the communal element fostered penitential practice, and that sense of unity made it easier: “we are in it together.” Even today, most Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays of Lent, and this continues to provide a common experience and reinforce Catholic identity, while making the season of Lent feel different from the rest of the year.

In 2026, American Catholics are not climbing out of a restrictive subculture, but rather find ourselves constantly overwhelmed by choices for food, clothing, activities, apps, etc.[3] This is even reflected in our individually chosen Lenten resolutions. After discerning a sacrifice, we may find some camaraderie, but we may also encounter competition and pride. If we successfully fulfill our chosen Lenten penance, we ironically may end up feeling proud, echoing the Pharisee in Luke 18:11: “I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity . . . I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.” Meanwhile, those who fail may know humility but arrive at Good Friday feeling that they never adequately prepared for Easter because they lived Lent the same as any other time of the year.

A Call to Renewal

60 years is adequate time for reflection and evaluation, and yet we are, thankfully, still within the first 100 years for Vatican II’s implementations to be realized. Postconciliar ebb and flow consists not only in immediate changes, but responses to those changes, which are themselves responses to changes. Thus, we need not despair that Paul VI’s call for the renewal of penance was never heeded, but instead recognize that we are still being called. How might we respond?

In considering penance prior to 1966, we can acknowledge the weaknesses of obligatory (and thus communal) penitential practices, acknowledging that repetition can tend toward unthinking routine without corresponding interior penance. However, this is not a given; habits can also facilitate inner freedom in a world filled with an overwhelming number of choices. By way of comparison, consider how a school uniform limits choice yet liberates from a daily decision that may cause stress and have social implications.[4] Shared practices, like uniforms or meat abstinence, can reinforce identity and provide a team spirit. They are straightforward to maintain when clearly defined. While habits alone cannot guarantee an interior dimension, simply doing penitential practices provides a baseline with potential. Given this, we can consider our current context.

First, American Catholics seem still willing and able to abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent, and this ought to give us some confidence that Catholics who learn of year-round Friday meat abstinence may be willing to reclaim this practice voluntarily. One day without meat may not seem like much of a sacrifice in a country of abundant food choices, and yet it provides the historical and (to some extent) international unity of practice, social aspect, and identity that is lacking in our current “choose your own Friday sacrifice” scenario. As a bonus, evidence suggests that omitting meat once a week has public health and environmental benefits.

Secondly, though we American Catholics are quite out of practice with fasting given it is relegated only to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, we should not assume it is unrecoverable. Just look at how many people have embraced the trend of intermittent fasting! Seminaries, religious orders, families, or friend groups may be able to commit to such a practice together. The success of a rigorous ascetical program like Exodus 90 shows both the desire for discipline and benefit of a community, proving such practices are not out of reach when embraced intentionally with the support of others.

Moreover, many American Catholics continue to commit to a Lenten penance, albeit not usually daily fasting. The voluntary, will-dependent nature of these resolutions makes it remarkable that they persist; adding a communal dimension or emphasizing traditional Lenten penances might help resolutions to become less individualistic and more spiritual.

Third, admittedly Advent has become a conflicted season for those who acknowledge its penitential roots. The frequency of Christmas parties, concerts, cookie exchanges, and the omnipresence of Christmas music and decorations starting with Thanksgiving are simply now part of our culture, and we do not want to appear “anti-Christmas” in a culture that seeks to emphasize it. Nonetheless, there are ways still to mark this “little Lent,” perhaps by choosing an Advent resolution, such as praying with the daily Mass readings, giving up sweets, or deciding as a family to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, as was done in the past.

Fourth, we can recognize foresight on the part of Paul VI when he said that the renewal of penance might need to go beyond fast and abstinence. Indeed, as we consider the future of penance in our context, we should reflect on our screen time. Note that Exodus 90 recognizes this, naming eliminating unnecessary screen time as one of its ascetical practices. As we continue to heed the call of Paenitemini, we need thoughtful and creative ways to address the pull of screens and their impact on our freedom of thought, prayer life, and relationships.

Just as abstaining from meat and fasting require some intention, and any difficulty that ensues is meant to remind us that we are meant for God, so also fasting from our phones or abstaining from certain apps can also allow us the space to recognize that we are meant for God rather than for constant distraction. Talking about this with others and finding ways to practice this together could also be enormously beneficial, e.g. setting screen time limits and downtime, putting phones on grayscale, changing apps to white, relying solely on voice commands, and having designated times or days without screens.

Rejoicing in Heaven

Thomas Aquinas explains that no penance is truly sufficient to amend for sins against God, and yet, God chooses to accept our imperfect penances as sufficient and forgive the rest of the debt (Summa Theologiae III, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2). After all, Christ has won victory over our sins. With such a perspective, we can see that any effort toward penance can be beneficial, and choosing not to do penance is far worse than doing it inadequately. Even imperfect penance shows we recognize our sins and want to do something about it; we might think of a young child who writes all over a wall, then confesses to their parents and scrubs at the wall with a washcloth. While unable to remove the marks entirely, the child admits fault and makes an effort, and the parents accept and forgive, completing the cleaning effort themselves or repainting the wall.

Even if American Catholics are the least penitential Catholics in the history of the Church, any penance, however inadequate, will still be to our benefit. Thus, as we reflect on the 1966 changes to penitential practices, we should ask ourselves what small steps we might make together to answer the call to the renewal of penance. Such reflection shows our confidence that “there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance” (Luke 15:7).

Church Life Journal | Articles

Tags: Later offer Penance Revisiting Years