I go to confession often, but the problem is this: My Church has 3 Priests....One priest I have a GREAT repore with, the other two, I dont feel comfortable around....On Saturday during confession usually the one of the two priests that I am not comfortable with listens to confessions...I sometimes skip confession that Saturday so that I dont have to meet up with either of them and I usually will wait until Sunday morning and hope that the priest that I have a good repore with is there....Sometimes he is there and he will let me do a confession session with him if I get there early enough.(My church does not have Sunday morning confessions) but if he is not there that Sunday, I am forced to miss going to communion with the congragation....I am a true believer in ALL 7 sacraments, I just want to feel comfort going into the confessional, and if I cant feel comfort, then I miss both Confession and Communion...Anyone have any advice for me? Thanks and God Bless....Jacob

-- JACOB (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), May 03, 2003

Answers

Dear Jacob,

It sounds like you are saying that you go to confession weekly? A rare and commendable practice if you do. But hopefully you realize that it is not necessary to go to confession before every reception of the Eucharist? Confession on a regular basis is an extremely valuable practice (I try to do so once a month), but it is not required to go to confession before communion unless you have a mortal sin to confess. If you only have venial sins, then reception of the Eucharist itself provides complete remission of such sin.

If you do have a serious sin to confess, look at it this way ... If I have a malignant tumor, I would prefer to discuss my case and have the tumor removed by a doctor I feel good about, and am comfortable with - BUT, if such a doctor is not available, I still want that tumor GONE, and will then gladly accept the aid of any qualified surgeon, even if his bedside manner leaves something to be desired.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 03, 2003.

Excellent analogy Paul! Well said!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 03, 2003.

Super post, Paul, (as usual!)

Jacob, maybe that "uncomfortable" feeling you experience with the other two priests could be offered up as a little "extra" penance, if not for yourself, then perhaps for the poor souls.

Look at it this way, would you really be "more comfortable" in a state of sin?

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), May 03, 2003.

GOD BLESS ALL

-- -- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), May 03, 2003. (flower@youknow.com), May 03, 2003.

In thinking about this situation further, I believe something more needs to be said. If a person is going to Confession frequently as a means of receiving grace, remaining spiritually strong, and avoiding sin, that is a commendable practice. The Pope does so, and I am quite sure it is not because of a pattern of frequent mortal sin in his life! Actually, it is unlikely that a person who is so conscientious in caring for his spiritual health is also committing mortal sins frequently. However, Jacob, you said that you refrain from receiving the Eucharist when you can't get to weekly confession, which leads me to believe that you believe that the sins you are confessing weekly are mortal sins. Otherwise there would be no reason not to receive Communion.

Now it is of course possible for a devout Catholic to fall into a regular pattern of serious sin, such as ongoing embezzlement of large sums of money from an employer, or an ongoing extramarital sexual relationship. However, Jacob, you indicated that you try to make your confession to the same priest whenever possible (an excellent idea), and he apparently knows you quite well. Therefore, if you were in fact confessing the same mortal sin to him week after week, he would undoubtedly be advising you that you must break with this pattern of behavior, and offering you counseling on the matter; and in fact he might very well withhold absolution until you had taken concrete steps toward correcting that pattern of ungodly behavior. This does not seem to be the case, from what you described.

Therefore, another quite different issue comes to mind, namely the possibility of an overscrupulous conscience. A young man once asked me to meet with him to discuss a spiritual issue. He was at the point of despair, certain that salvation was impossible for him, because he simply could not keep free of mortal sin, not even for an hour! He was going to confession not just weekly, but at least three or four times a week, sometimes twice in a single day, and no sooner did he walk out of the church than he would fall into mortal sin again within minutes - so he claimed. What he meant was that he would see a pretty girl walking down the street and his eyes would wander a bit more than they should. Or he would see a suggestive ad on TV, and an impure thought would flash into his mind. He was convinced that every sin against the Sixth Commandment was automatically a mortal sin, and that false notion was driving him to the point of despair. In fact, most of the things that were worrying him were certainly not mortal sins, and a good number of them were not sins at all. I wasn't able to help him because he was unwilling to let go of that idea. After a few meetings he figured I was just a bleeding heart liberal who was trying to minimize the seriousness of mortal sin, and he didn't come back. He was a typical example of an overscrupulous conscience. Jacob, if you actually are in an ongoing situation of mortal sin, you should ask your priest for guidance in breaking that pattern of behavior. But I would be surprised if that was the case. I think you should have a frank discussion with your priest about the nature of the behaviors that you are confessing weekly. It may well be that few if any of them are actually mortal sins. You may be confessing them in the belief that they are mortal sins, while your priest may be giving you absolution in the belief that they are venial sins, which would explain his apparent lack of great concern. If so, he is probably right; and if so, you may save yourself a lot of mental anguish, and not be so compulsive about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, simply be seeing things from a more accurate perspective.

Peace, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 03, 2003.

Terrific post Paul!

Jacob

I once attended a Lecture about Christian Self-Esteem, given by a priest who had been involved in the field of Adult Formation/Education for many years. One of the things he spoke of was that a lot of people couldn't 'get past' the theology of Mortal Sin. Due to perhaps the misunderstanding of Mortal Sin, they thought that human beings were born naturally bad,and struggled throughout their lives to become 'good'. He spoke of how people remembered 'The Fall', but forgot Genesis, where God created people in His likeness, he saw that it was GOOD and he liked it. (Paraphrasing here of course!) Mortal sin, he went on to say, didn't make people bad, it meant that people were prone to soemtimes fall away from their goodness.

Anyway, lest I ramble again, people are naturally good, but sometimes we go against our 'goodness' and do bad things. We teach children that sometimes they don't 'show their goodness'. Perhaps as adults we could think that way. Of course, we need to be aware of sin, and to try not to sin again, but we need to get things into perspective.

I remember going to the Sacrament of Penance when I was in my late teens. The old Canon who heard my confession had to contain his laughter when I was telling him my 'sins'. I've never forgotten him saying to me: 'Listen, we have enough real sins without you 'making up' any more!'

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 04, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul.

You wrote: "He was convinced that every sin against the Sixth Commandment was automatically a mortal sin, and that false notion was driving him to the point of despair. In fact, most of the things that were worrying him were certainly not mortal sins, and a good number of them were not sins at all."

I wish you properly understand something you've said here -- "that [not] every sin against the Sixth Commandment [is] automatically a mortal sin."

In saying this, you could mean either of two things:
EITHER (1) that the "matter" of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is always objectively "grave," but circumstances sometimes mitigate or even remove the subjective guilt, ...
OR (2) that some of the "matter" of these two Commandments is objectively grave, while some of the "matter" is objectively light (i.e., venial).

Which of these two did you mean, Paul?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

Dear John,

My meaning was that every commandment covers a wide range of matter, including both relatively grave matters and relatively light matters. Those that are objectively grave could constitute mortal sin, if the other requirements for mortal sin are present. But those matters which are not objectively grave cannot constitute mortal sin, no matter what the circumstances.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 05, 2003.

Hey guys,

Well today as you know was Sunday,,,That translates into church mass or course......Well all was going well for me at mass today, I listened to both readings and listened my hardest to understand the message in the homily...But....after all was said and done, it was time for Communion....Well I didnt go up...I just stayed kneeling while everyone else in my pew went up....It was soooo lonely for that minute or so, I looked at the row infront of me, no one was there, I looked to my left and to my right, no one was there, and I looked behind me and still no one was there,,,,,Everyone one in those 3 rows was gone walking up to the blessed sacrament....On my far left I could see everyone walking down the center aisle and I felt like I had needles sticking in my back, I just wanted to cry....The communion song that was playing made me feel even more worse,,,,All because of my lazyness, I could have walked yesterday in the rain and gone to Confession, but no, I was lazy and I suffered for it today...OH BELIEVE ME!!! I did,,,but hopefully either Tuesday, or Wednesday I can get a confession session done before mass...I do feel better now, after writing my feeling out,,,,Well thanks to all who are reading,,,,Peace be with all of you,,,and Thanks again...

-- Jacob (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), May 05, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul.

In response to my question concerning what you said earlier about someone sinning venially against the Sixth Commandment, you wrote:
"... every commandment covers a wide range of matter, including both relatively grave matters and relatively light matters."

I was afraid that you were going to say that. I was hoping that you would say the opposite -- i.e., option #1 ("that the 'matter' of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is always objectively 'grave,' but circumstances sometimes mitigate or even remove the subjective guilt"). The reason I hoped that you would go with option #1 is that it represents what I have heard and read throughout my whole life. Wherever I have seen/heard the subject discussed, it has been stated that, while every other commandment covers both grave and light matter, that is not true of these two commandments (because of the crucial, life-generating role of sexuality in human life, I think it was said).

What I have always heard/read is consistent with what we see in the new Catechism's paragraphs about these commandments, wherein there is no mention of light matter, while every offense listed is a grave one.

If you still think that what you told me is correct, I would appreciate it if you could give me the name of an official (or at least reliably orthodox) source that would confirm your belief. In particular, I would like to know the names or descriptions of some sins (against the 6th and 9th commandments) that represent light matter.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2003.

Dear John,

If what you heard were actually true, then it would necessarily follow that the only way a person with a normal sex drive could remain free of mortal sin for more than a few hours in our society would be complete ignorance of the gravity of the matter. In other words, studying the moral teachings of the Church would be an extremely dangerous pursuit, as possession of that knowledge would virtually guarantee a continuous state of mortal sin for the great majority of the population. Fortunately that is simply not the case. Looking at a Sports Illustrated cover in the supermarket just doesn't compare with adultery.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 05, 2003.

Dear Jacob,

(Do they call you "Jake the Flake?")

I know that horrible lonely feeling when, for one reason or another, I am unable to go up to receive Holy Communion.

But God never leaves us alone, and especially not during the Mass! When you find that you must remain in the pew during Holy Communion, make a "spiritual communion."

A VERY holy priest, (God rest his soul) once told me that "to receive Holy Communion is like Gold to your soul; to make a spiritual communion, like silver."

If we cannot "win the Gold," we should most certainly make the effort to achieve the "silver," so to speak.

Try these sites to learn more about making a spiritual communion:

http://www.nd.edu/~mary/communion.html

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchb2.htm

(I copied the following from another website: )

The value of a spiritual Communion well made is enormous. We can and should make one frequently. Simply think on Jesus and how much He loves us and how much we love Him, then ask Our Blessed Mother to ask Her Divine son to come into our hearts. We can offer these Communions for the interest of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, noting out special intention!

"Oh Jesus I turn toward the holy tabernacle where You live hidden for love of me. I love you, O my God. I cannot receive you in Holy communion. come nevertheless and visit me with Your grace. come spiritually into my heart. Purify it. sanctify it. render it like unto Your own. Amen.

It was the Cure of Ars who said, "A spiritual communion acts on the soul as blowing does on a cinder - covered fire which was about to go out. Whenever you feel your love of God growing cold, quickly make a spiritual communion."

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), May 06, 2003.

Hi

Yes I was once called "Jake the flake"....I was given that name from a highschool math teacher of mine. (There is a funny story that goes along with him calling me that) but anyhow...He was a great mentor to my life and because of that. back in 2000 when I first made this hotmail account, I thought about him...and made my mail as Flake777@hotmail.com I wll never forget how that math teacher helped me get through a lot of my pain...He taught me more than math but about confidence in my myself and how to disipline myself....I wish I could have him around now......I am in college now and now I have my Priest to talk to....We all need people to talk to especially when we are hurting.......

I again did not go to communion at today's Mass.....I hope to get a confession session in so that I can be back in union with the church...I am going to go to Mass tomarrow, well thanks for your insight in your posting..... and God Bless!!!

Always

Jacob........AKA, "Jake the flake"

-- Jacob D. (FLAKE777@HOTMAIL.COM), May 06, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul.
I'm not sure that I understand your reply. It came in a form I was not expecting.

Last time, I made this request of you: "If you still think that what you told me is correct [that there is both 'light' and 'grave' matter in the Sixth and Ninth Commandments], I would appreciate it if you could give me the name of an official (or at least reliably orthodox) source that would confirm your belief."

I see that, in your reply, you did not give me the name of such a source. Does this mean that you don't really know of such a published, "official (or at least reliably orthodox)" source? If so, does that mean that your statement (about there being light matter in these Commandments) came either from your own reasoning or from the spoken words of someone you trusted -- e.g., a teacher or pastor?

Last time, Paul, I made a second request: "I would like to know the names or descriptions of some [venial] sins (against the 6th and 9th commandments) that represent light matter."

You didn't exactly answer me directly, but you did say this:
"Looking at a Sports Illustrated cover in the supermarket just doesn't compare with adultery."

I assume that you are referring to a cover showing a woman in a swimsuit. The only thing I can gather from your words is that you believe that, while "adultery" is grave matter, "looking at a SI cover in the supermarket" is light matter. If that is what you are saying, I couldn't disagree with you more.

Merely "looking at" (or catching a glimpse of) a magazine cover is not any kind of "matter" at all. It is a "neutral" action, not one related to a Commandment. To just "look at" a cover is neither a mortal nor a venial sin.
Now, to glance at the SI cover briefly and to experience an involuntary sexual reaction is also not any kind of "matter." Doing this is neither a mortal nor a venial sin. It is merely a biological event.
However, to deliberately dwell on an SI cover in order to provoke sexual pleasure is grave matter, which could lead to mortal sin.
Thus, with regard to looking at a magazine cover, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin).

You wrote: "If what you heard were actually true [that all matter of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is 'grave'], then it would necessarily follow that the only way a person with a normal sex drive could remain free of mortal sin for more than a few hours in our society would be complete ignorance of the gravity of the matter. In other words, studying the moral teachings of the Church would be an extremely dangerous pursuit, as possession of that knowledge would virtually guarantee a continuous state of mortal sin for the great majority of the population. Fortunately that is simply not the case."

I'm sorry, Paul, but either we are experiencing a "failure to communicate" or you are completely wrong about this (which, while possible, seems unlikely, given your knowledge of so many Church-related subjects).

If you really have no written source to share with me, Paul, I need to suggest that you discuss it with an elderly, orthodox priest. I am confident that he will agree with me. But if he does not agree with me, please ask him to describe for us some cases of light matter (objectively venial sins) related to these two commandments.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.

Dear John,

No, I cannot name an official source which states that offenses against the 6th Commandment can be either grave or venial. However, I can't think of a source which makes such a direct statement about any other Commandment either. And, perhaps more telling, I cannot think of a source which states that the 6th commandment is an exception to the general rule. It is you who are claiming such an exception. Do you know of an official source which supports such a claim (a rather important one, if it exists!)? If not, then the fact that no such statement appears in the Catechism nor in any other readily available official source would strongly suggest that no such exception is an element of official Church teaching.

On the matter of looking at a magazine cover ... you state that simply catching a glimpse of such a picture as you walk by would be no sin at all. Agreed! You also say that to deliberately dwell on such a picture in order to provoke sexual pleasure is grave matter, which could lead to mortal sin. Well, I have reservations about the phraseology - grave matter doesn't lead to mortal sin. It IS mortal sin. But for purposes of the present point, let's say I agree with that statement as well, with reservations. So, you are saying that essentially the same action - viewing a potentially arousing picture - can be either no sin at all, or it can be grave sin, depending on a person's intent and duration. I agree. But it is obvious that there is an infinite spectrum of possible degrees of both intent and participation between those two extremes; and some of those degrees certainly fall close to the "sinless" end of the spectrum, and would thereby necessarily constitute objectively light matter, though not total absence of moral culpability - perhaps flipping through a few pages out of idle curiosity?

Other types of sexual activity likewise occur across a broad spectrum of intent and participation. We would probably agree that two teenagers on a date could kiss in a way that is not sinful at all. We would also agree, I am sure, that they could kiss in a way that is gravely sinful. If both these statements are correct, then necessarily they could also kiss in an intermediate way that is mildly sinful. Likewise for touching of another person; or touching of one's self; or viewing sexual content on the internet; or engaging in private fantasy; or selection of reading material, movies, and other forms of entertainment. I doubt you would say that every R- rated film is a grave moral danger. Probably every X-rated film is. However, R-rated films can vary from no actual sexual content to borderline pornography. Surely a movie that is R-rated for strong language and one that is R-rated for nude scenes and sexual content cannot be considered equal in their offensiveness against the virtue of chastity. And surely neither of them is as grave as an X-rated film. You can't just lump everything together under the single banner of "violation of chastity - therefore grave matter". It doesn't make sense. You have to use reason - something you typically do.

Another obvious example is immodest mode of dress. That term can include anything from blatantly and intentionally revealing clothing which leaves nothing to the imagination - possibly grave matter - to relatively ordinary clothing that is perhaps a bit too low cut, a little too revealing, a little too tight - certainly light matter from a moral standpoint.

Several other examples come to mind, but hopefully these are sufficient to make my point.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 07, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks, Paul.
I want to start by responding to one specific thing that you mentioned in your latest. Then I may surprise you with a closing reflection.

You wrote:
I cannot name an official source which states that offenses against the 6th Commandment can be either grave or venial. However, I can't think of a source which makes such a direct statement about any other Commandment either. And, perhaps more telling, I cannot think of a source which states that the 6th commandment is an exception to the general rule. It is you who are claiming such an exception. Do you know of an official source which supports such a claim (a rather important one, if it exists!)? If not, then the fact that no such statement appears in the Catechism nor in any other readily available official source would strongly suggest that no such exception is an element of official Church teaching.

It might "suggest" that to you, but not to me. If neither of us can produce a documentary source to the other, then we need to consider other sources of information.

You have not mentioned any source at all, although I asked you to do so. [I wrote: "[Does] your statement (about there being light matter in these Commandments) c[o]me either from your own reasoning or from the spoken words of someone you trusted -- e.g., a teacher or pastor?"]
Therefore, I can only conclude that you have no outside source, but have arrived at the idea that there is objectively light matter in these Commandments through your own private reflections.

By contrast, I have mentioned my source for stating the opposite, and I will repeat it now, in greater detail. Throughout my life, every priest or teacher who has touched on this subject -- in homilies, at pro-life conferences, on EWTN -- has stated that all "matter" of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is objectively grave. Now, I feel certain that such a convergence of statements does not happen by accident, but because the truth communicated is a principle of Catholic moral theology, as it has always been taught in seminaries ... and the reason it is taught so in seminaries is almost surely because saints and popes taught the same thing for centuries. In other words, I believe that it is part of the ordinary magisterium via Apostolic Tradition.

Paul, I now believe that our apparent dilemma/conflict does not really exist. Rather, we probably hold to the same basic truths, but we use different language to refer to them. In other words, it is probably a semantic obstacle to overcome. I believe that I am using the precise language of the Church's moral theology. I will try to explain what I mean ...

When I first approached you about this (a few messages back), I wrote:
I wish properly to understand something you've said here -- "that [not] every sin against the Sixth Commandment [is] automatically a mortal sin." In saying this, you could mean either of two things:
----- EITHER (1) that the "matter" of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is always objectively "grave," but circumstances sometimes mitigate or even remove the subjective guilt, ...
----- OR (2) that some of the "matter" of these two Commandments is objectively grave, while some of the "matter" is objectively light (i.e., venial).
Which of these two did you mean, Paul?

As I later said, I wanted you to answer, "#1." While you surprised me by answering "#2" instead, your latest (detailed) answer shows that you actually believe (with me) in #1 -- though you do not use standard terminology to explain your belief.

You state that there is "light matter" (objective venial sin) covered by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments ... but all the examples you have just given actually show that this is not true. Rather, the matter is always objectively grave (associated with mortal sin), but the circumstances sometimes (possibly even often) render the subjective guilt to be light (resulting in venial sin). Example?

You wrote:
You [John] ... say that to deliberately dwell on such a [magazine cover] picture in order to provoke sexual pleasure is grave matter, which could lead to mortal sin. Well, I have reservations about the phraseology -- grave matter doesn't lead to mortal sin. It IS mortal sin.

No, "grave matter" is not equivalent to "mortal sin." It is the "material" of potential mortal sin, to which other factors must be added. I think that your misunderstanding of this is what has led to our apparent (though not real) disagreement. As you probably noted above, where I used underscoring, I believe that it is a good idea to use the adverb "objectively" before "grave matter" and "light matter" to show that the same action could, depending on the circumstances, result in mortal or venial guilt.

As I have just analyzed what you stated about the magazine photo, I could do the same with your other examples (kissing, touching, film content, modesty in dress), always arriving at the same principles: With respect to these two Commandments, there can be morally neutral behavior ... or there can be objectively grave matter (with potentially no subjective guilt, light guilt, or grave guilt) ... but there is not objectively light matter. [If you want me to show how these principles fit your other examples (e.g., modesty in dress), I will do so.]

If I have not communicated my beliefs well, I will try again next time, or we could let the subject rest.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

CORRECTION, extending the sentence with the words in "bold":
"As you probably noted above, where I used underscoring, I believe that it is a good idea to use the adverb "objectively" before "grave matter" and "light matter" to show that the same action could, depending on the circumstances, result in subjectively mortal or venial guilt or no guilt at all."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

Dear John,

I must disagree. You are reading into my last post what is not there. I made no reference at all to mitigating circumstances. To say that there are different kinds of, for example, kissing, some of which would constitute grave matter for unmarried persons, and others of which would constitute light matter has nothing to do with circumstances. It has to do with the nature of the act itself. The kiss which constitutes grave matter and that which constitutes light matter are not the same act under different circumstances. They are entirely distinct behaviors, which are either objectively grave, and therefore potentially mortal, or light, and therefore not mortal, because of the distinct natures of the two acts, not because of the circumstances surrounding them. Personal culpability for either act - the objectively grave one or the objectively light one - may of course be mitigated by circumstances, including subjective knowledge, consent, and intent, but that is not the subject I was discussing.

Any time there is a range or spectrum of related behaviors, with objectively grave matter at one end, and objectively neutral matter at the other, there MUST be objectively light matter somewhere in between. This is not a matter of doctrinal decree. It is a matter of logical necessity. It cannot be otherwise.

Regarding the other matter, I am well aware of the necessary criteria for mortal sin, though I did misstate it in my haste. I fully realize that grave matter alone does not constitute mortal sin. My point was that the fact that a given behavior may LEAD to a subsequent behavior that is objectively grave does not thereby make the first behavior likewise objectively grave. Thus, looking at a provocatively dressed woman who passes you on the street may lead you to later look at a pornographic website, which in turn may lead you to masturbate. The fact that the end result was grave matter doesn't mean that looking at the woman as she passed you on the street was also grave matter. But it may very well have been light matter in the moral sense.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 07, 2003.

Every response to Jacob here is a strong affirmation of Catholic faith. It isn't really hard, through faith, to walk the line between responsibility and scruples. Sin is unmistakable for those with a well-nurtured faith.

Scruples can even be antithetical to Christ's teachings; which come to the world as ''Good News''-- not sad news, or negative news. Scruples by definition are negative. They give rise to prudish, fanatical and counter-productive behavior. In other words, neurosis.

I would like to propose a wonderful thing here; not just to Jacob, but all who read this.

We never ought to receive the Blessed Sacrament for any other motive-- not our comfort, not for grace itself, not under illusions of worthiness. In the long run, all souls are unworthy of His Bread of Life.

The sole motivation we must follow, going to Holy Communion, is self-immolation for love of Jesus Christ. We ought to approach for love alone. We are His ardent Lover, each one of us. We come to Him not on account of our good disposition, having complied with penance, etc., Love is what calls us to consume His Holy Body and Precious Blood. He demands LOVE, never compunctions or the contrary, our satisfaction that we're now ''worthy''.

Yes, He is infinitely Holy. It goes without saying, a sin on our conscience is unacceptable to Him, and ruins us for the time being. But, what about after we have been absolved? Is this now the provision for, -- a ticket to his banquet? Not for a faithful Catholic. The responsbility above all others is not our goodness but our heart on fire with love. Love for Jesus Christ the Person-- being met there. It isn't bread, wine, or ritual. It's Him, Jesus; the Lover we can't resist!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 07, 2003.

Well everyone,Thankyou for your postings.... I was finally was able to confess today...My guilt is gone, that pain of not being able to receive communion with my congragation for these past week was painful to me....I am really excited to be able to receive the body and blood of Christ when I go to church tomarrow or Friday...It feels great to be back with the lord...I suffered for my sins this entire week...I cried tears and felt hurt, but after speaking with the Lord through my Priest today, I feel like a MILLION BUCKS!!! I am so happy that we have the sacrament of confession, I just wish more people would use it so that they too can see how much healing it does for the soul....Thanks again for all of you who posted your messages, I read each one of them everyday....Always, Jacob

-- Jacob (flake777@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

[Topping to answer Paul Thursday.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Paul.

I am just so darned mad at myself for my forgetfulness. Perhaps near midday on the 7th, I discovered just the kind of thing I wanted to share with you on the topic we are debating here. But then I got distracted, never posted it, and forgot about it until much later. The reason I am disappointed in myself is that, if I had posted it immediately, I doubt [or, at least I hope] that you would not have posted the message that you did post in reply to me (just above Jacob's and Eugene's). Before continuing, I suggest that you scroll up and refresh your memory about what you stated, unless it is still fresh in your memory. ...

Well, I have re-read your reply and found anew the information that I should have posted on the 7th. Better late than never.
At some point after 1993, a Jesuit priest, Fr. James T. Bretzke, S.T.D., published an outline -- if not also a full-length work -- entitled "Historical Overview of Catholic Sexual Ethics." In this, he confirmed what I told you early on the 7th. At that time, I wrote:
"Throughout my life, every priest or teacher who has touched on this subject -- in homilies, at pro-life conferences, on EWTN -- has stated that all "matter" of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is objectively grave. Now, I feel certain that such a convergence of statements does not happen by accident, but because the truth communicated is a principle of Catholic moral theology, as it has always been taught in seminaries ... and the reason it is taught so in seminaries is almost surely because saints and popes taught the same thing for centuries. In other words, I believe that it is part of the ordinary magisterium via Apostolic Tradition."

Father Bretzke states (relying partly on information published in 1987 by Fr. Patrick J. Boyle, S.J.):
"'Parvitas Materiae in Sexto' ([No] paucity of [moral] matter in the Sixth [Commandment]) [is a t]raditional theological adage [which says] that any sexual sin always contain[s] grave matter, i.e., one of the three requisites necessary for mortal sin (along with sufficient knowledge and consent). ... For centuries moral theologians and the papal magisterium of the Church [have taught] that there can be no [paucity/lightness] of matter in sins against the sixth and ninth commandments. ... [T]his ... [seems to be] repeated in recent Vatican documents on sexual ethics".

Paul, maybe I shouldn't have done it, but I tried (last time) to "fit" your previous statements into this principle of moral theology. In other words, I was hoping that you and I were saying the same thing -- namely, that there is "objectively grave matter" only, but that venial sins may result from mitigating circumstances. But you "stuck to your guns" and insisted, in your last reply, that your belief is that, for every commandment (including the 6th and 9th) there is a range of matter -- "none" through "light" to "grave" -- a sort of a spectrum. That is not an unreasonable thing for a person to assume, I suppose, because it is so clearly seen with most commandments. But we see, in what Fr. Bretzke says, that my recollection was correct ... Via "the papal magisterium," we learn that there is only objectively grave matter in the the 6th and 9th commandments (and, I think, only in these two commandments). That's why I suggested that you discuss this with an elderly, orthodox priest -- who surely would have been trained in these principles in the seminary.

At one point, you referred to "an infinite spectrum of possible degrees of both intent and participation between ... [two] extremes". And later you wrote: "Any time there is a range or spectrum of related behaviors, with objectively grave matter at one end, and objectively neutral matter at the other, there MUST be objectively light matter somewhere in between. This is not a matter of doctrinal decree. It is a matter of logical necessity. It cannot be otherwise."

But we find that it is "otherwise," so it was not a "matter of logical necessity." We are talking about the morality of human acts, not a scientific continuum. We can't let our secular expertise interfere with a very different, religiously mysterious, realm of reality. The Church assures us that no such "infinite spectrum" exists for these two commandments. Thus, any deliberate "participation," for the goal of any degree of sexual arousal or satisfaction -- if done with full knowledge and consent -- results in (objectively) mortal sin.

You wrote: "You can't just lump everything together under the single banner of 'violation of chastity -- therefore grave matter.' It doesn't make sense."
I'm sorry, but it does make sense, because it is what the Church has always taught.

In light of these principles, I want to comment on how we need to view the various "real life" examples to which you have alluded ...

(Example 1 -- Viewing a magazine cover, or stumbling across an Internet photo) ... As I previously stated:
--- Merely catching a glimpse of a such depictions is not any kind of "matter" at all. It is a morally "neutral" action. To just "look at" a cover is neither a mortal nor a venial sin.
--- To glance at such a picture and to experience an involuntary sexual reaction is also not any kind of "matter." Doing this is neither a mortal nor a venial sin. It is merely a biological event.
--- However, to deliberately dwell on a provocative photo in order to provoke sexual pleasure is grave matter, which would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to looking at a provocative photo on a magazine cover or an Internet page, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible. Something you suggested as an example of "light matter" ("flipping through a few pages out of idle curiosity") would actually be "no matter at all," rather than "light matter." This is implied by the very words, "idle curiosity." But a more "active curiosity" that involves a "hope" to find something sexualy stimulating would be "grave matter."

(Example 2 -- Kissing someone who is not one's spouse)
--- A quick "peck" as a "hello" or "goodbye," with no intent to sexually arouse oneself or the other, is not any kind of "matter" at all. It is a morally "neutral" action -- even arguably a "good" action. No sin occurs.
--- To kiss (or be kissed) as just described and to experience an involuntary sexual reaction is also not any kind of "matter." Doing this is neither a mortal nor a venial sin. It is merely a biological event.
--- However, to kiss in order deliberately to provoke sexual pleasure (in oneself or another) is grave matter, which would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to kissing, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible.

(Example 3 -- Touching oneself or touching another who is not one's spouse)
--- A brief, chaste touch (e.g., a pat on the back or cheek) or even certain kinds of more prolonged touching (e.g., hand-holding while walking, bathing oneself) -- when done with no intent to sexually arouse oneself or the other -- is not any kind of "matter" at all. It is a morally "neutral" action -- even arguably a "good" action. No sin occurs.
--- To touch (or be touched) as just described and to experience an involuntary sexual reaction is also not any kind of "matter." Doing this is neither a mortal nor a venial sin. It is merely a biological event.
--- However, to touch in order deliberately to provoke sexual pleasure (in oneself or another) is grave matter, which would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to touching, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible.

(Example 4 -- Fantasizing)
--- Mere daydreaming is not any kind of "matter" at all. Using one's imagination to reflect on one's beloved is also not "matter." These things, when done with no intent to sexually arouse oneself, are morally "neutral" (even potentially "good") actions. No sin occurs.
--- However, to fantasize in order deliberately to provoke sexual pleasure is grave matter, which would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to sexual fantasizing, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible.

(Example 5 -- Choosing and viewing shows/movies/videotapes)
--- Choosing to view something (on TV or in theater) requires making a judgment that is usually based on what someone else has provided to the public about the rating and content (e.g., in a movie review or TV guide). If one makes a choice of something without knowing of its potentially arousing content, that choice is not any kind of "matter." It is a morally "neutral" action. No sin occurs.
--- Having chosen something to view something, if the images cause an involuntary sexual reaction, this also is not any kind of "matter." There is neither a mortal nor a venial sin here. It is merely a biological event.
--- However, choosing to view something with content known to be salacious or risky, deliberately to provoke sexual pleasure, is grave matter. Likewise, when one has made an innocent viewing choice, if one persists in viewing sexually stimulating images after making a deliberate choice in favor of that stimulation [i.e., no longer accidental], that is grave matter. These actions would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to viewing material that arouses sexually, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible.

(Example 7 -- Choice of apparel)
--- The mere choosing of ordinary garments to wear, without having any intent or expectation of arousing another person by that choice, is not any kind of "matter" at all. It is a morally "neutral" action. No sin occurs.
--- If a person chooses to wear something revealing, but without honestly realizing its potential to sexually stimulate another (due to its cut or tightness), this too is not any kind of "matter."
--- However, to choose to purchase or to wear revealing apparel, in order deliberately to provoke sexual arousal, is grave matter, which would result in commission of a mortal sin if the other factors for mortal sin are also present.
--- With regard to choice of apparel, there is nothing that is "light matter" (related to venial sin), as there is no "intermediate," less serious behavior possible.

Paul, I'm sure you know that, since you were not aware of these principles from the papal Magisterium, you bear no subjective guilt if you, as a deacon or parent or friend, have given folks advice that was contrary to them. I can tell that you were following your conscience, though it was not fully formed yet.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

Dear John,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. In each example above you mention a behavior which is morally neutral - which I agree with in every case. Then you mention an extreme of bahavior which is objectively grave - which I also agree with in every case. Then, in each case you simply state that no intermediate behaviors exist - which is totally out of touch with observed reality. Stating it doesn't make it so.

In any case, if the best you can do by way of documentation to support your personal impressions on this matter is some obscure article published by some Jesuit, in which he agrees with the published personal impressions of some other Jesuit, I'm afraid neither the formation of my conscience nor the sum of my knowledge is thereby affected. Further, his impression that his impressions "seem to be" supported by certain (unnamed) Vatican documents represents not only a transparent and ineffective appeal to authority, but also a personal interpretation of a purpoted document he is not authorized to interpret.

If you come across any REAL documentation, written under the authority and approval of the Church, please share it with me. Until then, all you are offering me is other personal opinions that happen to agree with your personal opinion, and I see no reason to accept or teach anything that cannot be verified as official Church teaching. One other point - why do you keep insisting that I speak to an "elderly" priest? Isn't the current teaching of the Church valid? I never had you pegged as a traditionalist :-)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 11, 2003.

Maybe John will approve of this quotation more. From _The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine_, by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., originally published in 1930 by B. Herder Book Company, and reprinted in 1977 by TAN Books and Publishers. IMPRIMATUR: Joseph E. Ritter, S.T.D., Archbishop of St. Louis.

Q. Is a transgression against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments a grievous matter?

A. A direct transgression against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is always a grievous matter.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.

Well this at least is a "document", of sorts. Not an official Church document of course, but perhaps a step up from a magazine article. Apparently this source even has an Imprimatur. Then again, it doesn't explain what a "direct" transgression is. If a "direct" transgression is always a grievous matter, presumably there are other, less direct transgressions that are less than grievous matters. Otherwise there would be no point inserting the word "direct" here. It would simply say "Any transgression against ...". In any case, this still doesn't address the problem - why must we consult "elderly priests" and 1930 writings to become aware of a supposed point of CURRENT Catholic moral teaching?? And, why can we not find such a statement in any official document of the Church, past or present?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 11, 2003.

The other Q&A's in the section on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments don't explain what a "direct" transgression is. Just FYI, here are the answers for the other commandments:

Q. Do transgressions against the First Commandment constitute a grievous matter?

A. Transgressions against the First Commandment generally constitute a grievous matter.

Q. Do transgressions against the Second Commandment constitute a light or a grievous matter?

A. Blasphemy, cursing, and perjury constitute a grievous matter. Taking God's name in vain and profane words are ordinarily a light matter.

Q. Is the desecration of the Lord's Day a grievous matter?

A. The desecration of the Lord's Day is a grievous matter in itself, though it admits of light matter.

Q. Is transgression against the Fourth Commandment a grievous or a light matter?

A. A transgression against the Fourth Commandment may be either a grievous or a light matter.

Q. Is transgression against the Fifth Commandment a grievous or a light matter?

A. A transgression against the Fifth Commandment may be either a grievous or a light matter.

Q. Is transgression against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments a grievous or a light matter?

A. A transgression against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments may be either a grievous or a light matter.

Q. Is transgression against the Eighth Commandment a grievous or a light matter?

A. A transgression against the Eighth Commandment may be either a grievous or a light matter.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.

Here is a discussion from the Baltimore Catechism #4. It says that *almost* every violation of the Sixth Commandment is a mortal sin.

370. Q. What are we commanded by the Sixth Commandment?

A. We are commanded by the Sixth Commandment to be pure in thought and modest in all our looks, words, and actions.

We should be most careful about this Commandment, because almost every violation of it is a mortal sin. For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin; for in stealing the greatness of the sin will depend upon the amount you steal--. but if you do a real bad action. or think a real bad thought against the Sixth Commandment, it will be a mortal sin, no matter how short the time. Again, we have more temptations against this Commandment, for we are tempted by our own bodies and we cannot avoid them: hence the necessity of being always guarded against this sin. It enters into our soul through our senses, they are, as it were, the doors of our soul. It enters by our eyes looking at bad objects or pictures; by our ears listening to bad conversation; by our tongue saying and repeating immodest words, etc. If then, we guard all the doors of our soul. sin cannot enter. It would be foolish to lock all the doors in your house but one, for one will suffice to admit a thief, and we might as well leave them all open as one. So, too, we must guard all the senses--, for sin can enter by one only as well as by all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 12, 2003.