is this a mortal sin?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I’m ashamed to say that I have commited a mortal sin and I know that if you receive Holy Communion when you are not in the state of grace that is also a mortal sin. I also know that for a sin to be mortal it has to be freely commited. Well, my family goes to Mass everyday and we don’t have Confession before Mass at my church so I’m just wondering, is going to Communion a mortal sin in this case? Because I’m not really consenting to it, I kinda have to or my family would ask me why I didn’t.

-- Amanda Boyd (musiclover1187@comcast.net), December 03, 2004

Answers

Yes, sometimes doing the correct thing is not always the easiest.

Receiving the Holy Eucharist with mortal sin on your soul is one of the worst sins you can commit. The devil is tempting you to receive Holy Communion.

Nobody can tell you to receive the Eucharist after committing mortal sins like you said. Your concience is talking to you.

Please go the Confession and start with a clean slate. Rember this is the holy season.

May St. Edward the confessor pray for you.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.


I kinda have to or my family would ask me why I didn’t.

No, Amanda, we don't "have to." Instead, what we "have to" do is not offend Jesus in this way. David is right.

I might even say that, in such a case, we "have to" tell our family that it is wrong for them to ask why we are abstaining from Holy Communion. They need to learn that they should never ask the question "Why?" again.

There are various reasons for abstaining, and our families need to know that these things are private matters, none of their business. They and we should always assume the best about those who abstain -- for example, that perhaps they broke their one-hour fast before Communion.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), December 03, 2004.


pelligrino is right amanda, your state of grace and your transgressions are solely between you and God until such time as you can recieve the sacrament of confession in an appropriate and private setting. your family has no right to ask you why you might choose to abstain from communion and you have every right to tell them that it is absolutely none of their business.

you do NOT, however, have the right to take communion in a form of sacrilage in order to protect your pride. you MUST abstain from taking communion or it will be a mortal sin. while you might view protecting your pride as a factor which would "force" you into taking communion, the truth is, that it is still your choice to do so, and hence you will have made the decision freely and therefore will be guilty of all the consequences that decision entails. DO NOT, i repeat, DO NOT take communion when you are not in a state of grace.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2004.


1Corinthinans 11

-- jake (
j@k.e), December 03, 2004.

Amanda,

The Church teaches that "Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1457, based on Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law).

So there are two question you have to consider:

(1) Is there no opportunity for me to get to confession first? Many priests are willing to hear a confession when they are asked, provided they have no other pressing responsibilities. Perhaps you could arrive at church 15 minutes early, and ask a priest before Mass. But perhaps this is not possible, given your situation.

(2) Do I have a "grave reason for receiving Communion"? One possible grave reason is "danger that others suspect the individual to be guilty of grave sin" (according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries on Canon 916). From what you stated in your question, it seems like you are afraid that your parents might think this about you if you didn't receive communion - in which case, you have a grave reason.

If (1) and (2) _both_ apply, then you may receive Holy Communion, but first you should "make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (Canon 916). The act of contrition you say at confession is an act of perfect contrition. You could ask the priest to hear your confession after Mass or pursue another opportunity, as you are able.

Please note that in what I have written above, I am not in any way lessening the importance of receiving the Holy Eucharist in a state of grace, nor am I encouraging you to do something disobedient to the Church.

Rather, I am carefully stating exactly what the Church teaches according to the Canon Law that governs the sacrament of the Eucharist. The reason why Canon Law in this area exists is precisely to deal with difficult situations like this one, and to avoid putting you in the a position where you feel forced to reveal the state of your conscience (through an action or inaction that leads others to judge that you are guilty of a mortal sin).

P.S. A brief note to others who have responded differently: I do agree that there are a variety of reasons why someone would not receive communion, and that others should not make judgments about why someone does or does not receive communion. But that does not mean that Amanda's fears about what her parents will think are not real or justified. It would be great if no one made such judgments and no one had fears that they were being made. We should all work toward that goal.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 03, 2004.



You say that there is no confession before Mass at your Church, but I assume this means there is no scheduled time for confessions. However, you may approach your priest at any time and ask him to hear your confession, including a reasonable amount of time before Mass. That doesn't mean he will hear it right then and there but hopefully he would, especially since you go to Mass every day and he must know you fairly well. My kids have done that numerous times before weekday masses and Sunday Masses as well (a couple of them were a little overly scrupulous for a time).

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 03, 2004.

Thank you, Father Donahue, for your balanced, wise and pastoral answer to Amanda's question. Spoken like a true shepherd of souls!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), December 03, 2004.

I must think Father will agree with the following:

A penitent sinner may trust in Our Lord's infinite mercy at the moment of Holy Communion. Most of all when this kind of approach to our Blessed Sacrament is truly motivated by our profound love for Jesus; and confession is promised Him at the first opportunity. It would not be wise to receive Him without a priest's absolution, but neither would it be a sacreligious communion.

We are taught by the Church that perfect contrition is definitely required. Now, if we have doubts pertaining to the gravity of our sin, not discerning for sure that it was a mortal sin or perhaps venial, a perfect act of contrition would be sufficient for going forward to Communion. We would not be committing another sin doing so. It still would have to be confessed in the future.

Most importantly of all; the true motive for receiving Jesus in Holy Communion must ALWAYS be our total love for Him. Not respect for other persons; not our self-respect or duty.

Love for Our Saviour is the key to all grace and deliverance. Jesus forgave the weeping woman who washed His holy feet with tears and dried them lovingly with her hair. She had truly sinned much, and much was forgiven her --for her great love, motivating her in that unforgettable moment. He gives us every assurance as well. To love Him is the one essential; it will always lead a sinner to perfect contrition.

The prophet David prays to our Almighty Father something very precious to us all: ''A humble and contrite heart Thou wilt not spurn.''



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


Thank you all for taking the time to answer my question. I really appreciate it.

-- Amanda Boyd (musiclover1187@comcast.net), December 03, 2004.

Eugene,

Amen to your post - love for Jesus and desire for union with Him is the ultimate and essential motive for receiving Holy Communion. The Eucharist is a heart-to-heart encounter with the Lord. And it is only through trust in His mercy that we may approach such an awesome gift of His love as He offers Himself to us in His Body and Blood, under the appearances of bread and wine.

Even though Canon Law and its nuances (in discussions like this) might seem a bit dry and technical at times, its ultimate purpose is to serve and safeguard our celebration of the sacred Mysteries that Christ instituted, which lead us to a deep union with Him now and a perfect union with Him forever in heaven.

Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 03, 2004.



Amen, Father. We pray you are kept safe from all harm and misfortune during your entire life and especially now, in this holy season.

And-- I hope you'll remain with us in this forum to contribute and to counsel as God inspires you. Ciao & Merry Christmas!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


The fact that others might wonder why I am not receiving Communion constitutes "a grave reason" for receiving in a state of mortal sin? What is objectively "grave" about that? The other person's suspicions, or my own possible embarrassment? Father, I think your interpretation of Canon 916 is dangerously liberal. In effect, it completely nullifies the Canon. If I can go ahead and receive Communion in a state of mortal sin just because other people might wonder why I am not receiving, or "suspect" they know why, then obviously I am free to receive Communion in a state of mortal sin ANY time, even if I am the only person in the congregation - because after all, the priest or server might wonder why I am not receiving. They might "suspect me to be guilty of grave sin". So what? If I AM guilty of grave sin, that's why I am not receiving! This kind of watered-down theology doesn't benefit anyone. It just undermines people's faith, including their respect for the Eucharist and their recognition of the extreme gravity of mortal sin.

Certainly Amanda's fears about what her parents will think are "real" and justifiable. What is not justifiable is the profaning of the Body and Blood of Christ in order to avoid personal embarrassment. "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.


Paul, I can't see where fr. Terry is promoting or condoning the unworthy reception of the Eucharist. A mortal sin has to be confessed and he says just that.

For my part, I suggested all sins of grave nature can be perfectly repented, even before we have absolution. In which case, a communion would not be sacreligious. It would be improper, but not damn the sinner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


Must a person be "properly disposed" to receive the Eucharist?

Here is the meaning of "properly disposed," as defined by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "To be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin (Canon 916) and normally should have fasted for one hour (Canon 919).

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible."

1. Embarassment is not a "grave reason."

2. There was opportunity for Confession.

-- read it (us@cc.b), December 03, 2004.


You can always just not go to communion and explain later - no need to admit why.

Or, if human respect is just that bad, you can always sit so you're last in the line of your family, and then rather than receive communion, just fold your hands and pass by. No one need know you didn't communicate, and the priest or extraordinary minister won't say anything either.

This technique is probably not good for habitual use...but its better than sacriledge and also better than jumping through hyper-complex theological justifications why the sin wasn't mortal when your original conscience warning system said it was....

Peace.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.



Of course. A spiritual communion is better than risk of offending God. But scruples aren't any better than hyper- complex theological self-assurances that you didn't offend God; having withheld yourself from that intimacy that is the Holy Eucharist.

I'm not anyone's spiritual director. But I would err on the side of love, not fear. (If I were a counselor.) Our Lord has declared Himself THE Ocean of Mercy. That is my own fervent belief. He says He desires to be loved by you and me. His sacrament of reconciliation is just part of the grace we were given.

Certainly it was NOT so we should dismiss absolution from our minds. It is always for love of Jesus we confess to priests. Love must be our guide in all spiritual action; for Holy Communion especially.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


Sir,

I'm glad your not my Confessor with your liberal advice. Shame on you!! You have no idea how serious this sin is. The young Lady admited she committed a mortal sin. You should be advising her to go to Confession NOT worry about what other sinners think.

What if she was guilty of guilty of child abuse? Receive the Holy Eucharist now and confess later?

State of grace, is not in a state of mortal sin. If one is in a state of mortal sin, he or she must go to Confession first lest he sin further as St. Paul warns in I Corinthians 11:26-30: Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.


Amanda, I would ask two questions. Does 98% of the people go to communion? Do more that 2% go to confesion? I see that here in the local churches. Something is very wrong.

-- Marge (Babylove@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.

David, It is also a (venial) sin to disparage the sincere words of a Catholic priest in matters of the Catholic faith. You seem to be committing it.

Father Donahue is not advising us to receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin. Far from it; what you take for liberal is a distinct way of judging what is and what isn't ''mortal''. There is apparently no difference in your view, between committing an act under compulsion (unwilling to offend God) and simply absolving yourself of a mortal sin.

Father has explained the difference. We can be assured there is NO sacrilege in receiving communion after an act of PERFECT contrition. As I tried to express up above, it might well be improper-- but not a GRAVE sin in itself.

Holy Communion is a favor Jesus offers us. Not something to procure, like a reward for our confession. He gives it freely; as long as we are truly repentent and willing to go to confession at the next opportunity. God isn't a policeman, He's our loving Father.

You've unwittingly given Amanda a false admonition, as well. The devil is NOT ''tempting you to receive Holy Communion.'' That's plainly wrong.

The LAST thing the devil will choose to do is urge us to receive Our Lord in Communion; under whatever circumstance! NEVER.

Our Lord may well be calling Amanda to Himself; and none of us is in any position to judge another sinner. Not even about this problem. Father Donahue was telling us what the Catholic doctrine on this actually MEANS, in clear words. You've shown him complete disrespect. There's no excuse for it, My Friend.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


"..Not even about this problem..'

What problem Eugene? I read your words, ie "compulsion".." This problem"

Are you refering about " Masterbation" and receiving the Holy Eucharist? Where did " compulsion" come in? What are you talking about?

Its NOT a sin for me to say, its a GRAVE sin to receive the Holy Eucharist when( a soul)is in a state of Mortal sin[ By their ownj words].

Sorry Gene you and your friend are WRONG!

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.


> "It is also a (venial) sin to disparage the sincere words of a Catholic priest in matters of the Catholic faith"

A: Says who? In fact it may well be a venial sin NOT to contradict advice from a Catholic priest that is plainly wrong.

> "Father Donahue is not advising us to receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin. Far from it; what you take for liberal is a distinct way of judging what is and what isn't ''mortal''."

A: No, he isn't "advising us" to do it. He is simply giving us carte blanche permission to do it, based on an unwarranted, liberal interpretation of Canon Law that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church. He made no judgments about what is or isn't mortal. He simply told us we can receive communion in a state of mortal sin whenever it is inconvenient or embarrassing to refrain from receiving.

> "We can be assured there is NO sacrilege in receiving communion after an act of PERFECT contrition. As I tried to express up above, it might well be improper-- but not a GRAVE sin in itself."

A: No, we cannot be assured of any such thing, because the Church doesn't teach any such thing, except in rare and EXTREME circumstances. Besides, an act of "perfect contrition" means remorse for sin based SOLELY on having offended God, without any regard for temporal or eternal punishment, or any other consideration. Few people are ever capable of making an act of perfect contrition. Certainly someone who is worrying about what other people may think of them is not doing so. Which is all right, because such acts of imperfect contrition, together with sacamental confession, are completely sufficient for absolution.

> "God isn't a policeman, He's our loving Father"

A: Both a policeman and a father have a right to expect obedience. A loving father punishes his children when they ignore his stated will.

> "The LAST thing the devil will choose to do is urge us to receive Our Lord in Communion; under whatever circumstance! NEVER."

A: On the contrary! There is nothing Satan takes more pleasure in than our treating of sacred things with irreverence. When the "thing" we treat with irreverence is the Body and Blood of Christ Himself, Satan is beside himself with perverse pleasure. He would rather have us commit one sin against the Eucharist than a hundred sins against other human beings. He would urge us to receive the Eucharist unworthily as often as possible, knowing that each such act brings us closer to an eternity with Him instead of with God.

> "Father Donahue was telling us what the Catholic doctrine on this actually MEANS, in clear words"

A: No, I'm afraid he wasn't. He was telling us what certain liberal modernist theologians THINK it means. Unfortunately their views do not agree with what the Church tells us it means. And their heterodox ideas carry no authority. The teaching of the Church does.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.


Frankly, Paul, and Dave:
Your objections are being duly observed and, in part agreed with. It's a mortal sin to knowingly receive Jesus in a state of previous mortal sin unconfessed. I think that was the gist of Father Donahue's explanation.

However, it cannot be a mortal sin when it's done without intent of causing Him offense. There's no way this action is serious enough to amount to sacrilege without prior intent. --A key phrase in Amanda's first post was; ''I also know that for a sin to be mortal it has to be freely committed.'' She thinks her first sin was mortal; and it may be. We should reasonably assume she is completely sorry and repents of it; or else she mustn't approach Holy Communion. That's the final word, as we ALL know.

What is significant about her scruple over receiving before she can confess is the NATURE of its offense to the Blessed Sacrament. Is she gravely offending because she comes before Jesus without confession? She is right: the sin may not be mortal, because of her fears of being branded for abstaining.

This is a legitimate cause. Her fear is the compelling motive to go before Jesus under the conditions. That fear by itself comes under what Father has cited in --(2) Do I have a "grave reason for receiving Communion"? One possible grave reason is "danger that others suspect the individual to be guilty of grave sin" (according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries on Canon 916). He is absolutely correct. Yet, he says ''one possibly grave reason.'' I suppose that's not good enough for you, the ''Devil's Advocates'' in this matter!

But I'm sorry, it isn't really imperative that either I, Father, or Amanda have your seals of approval. The Judge is Jesus Christ alone. The same divine Lord who came to save, not the Just. He came to save sinners. He loves us; and we can be certain forever of His great desire to come to us in Holy Communion; just so long as we reject and repent all our sins, and love him without limits.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


Eugene,

Your new buddy said :..." even though Canon Law and its " nuances" in discussions like this might seem a bit dry..."

Please excuse yourself from this forum until you don't disrespect Canon Law or put " NON-Catholic" before you post.

Maybe your new found internet buddy will tell me were he was ordaned a Catholic priest?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.


David,

I love your passion. I agree with you and Paul, and I disagree with Father Donahue, but ease up man, he's a priest. It's not just a fake handle. His order has a website. It's not becoming to sarcastically call him "buddy."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 03, 2004.


> "it cannot be a mortal sin when it's done without intent of causing Him offense"

A: This would be possible only if one was completely ignorant of the Church's teaching that it IS a grave offense to receive the Eucharist while in a state of unconfessed mortal sin. If one is aware of this teaching, then it is not possible to commit the act "without intent of causing Him offense". Causing Him offense may not be your principle motive - it seldom is when one commits a mortal sin. Your principle motive may be to spare yourself an uncomfortable situation; but still, if awareness of the grave nature of the act is present, and one willfully commits the act anyway, then one commits a mortal sin, regardless of any other motive one may have had.

> "We should reasonably assume she is completely sorry and repents of it; or else she mustn't approach Holy Communion. That's the final word, as we ALL know".

A: The final word is the teaching of the Church, which plainly tells us that feeling sorry is not enough. We must also seek absolution through the means Christ established for that purpose, before receiving His Body and Blood.

> "Is she gravely offending because she comes before Jesus without confession? She is right: the sin may not be mortal, because of her fears of being branded for abstaining"

A: Yes, she is. Personal culpability may not be AS grave due to the social pressure involved. However, avoiding social discomfort is not sufficiently serious circumstance to justify commission of a gravely sinful act.

> "One possible grave reason is "danger that others suspect the individual to be guilty of grave sin"

A: Ridiculous! If that is a grave reason, any reason you can think up is a grave reason. An example of a legitimate "grave reason" would be if you were being executed today, no priest was available to hear your final confession, and you desired to be reunited with Christ before you died. THAT would be a grave reason. Nothing that would be encountered by any ordinary Catholic going to Church on a Sunday morning would qualify as a grave reason to receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

> "(according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries on Canon 916). He is absolutely correct.

A: He is absolutely incorrect, and the phrase "according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries" clearly means "according to SEVERAL articles written by current theologians I happen to agree with".

> "The Judge is Jesus Christ alone"

A: Indeed He is. And His voice is the voice of the Church. That's what He meant when He told the leaders of His Church, "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." ('Luke 10:16)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.


David:
I really resent your disgusting way of referring to a priest who came to us in good faith as ''your buddy.'' I'll thank you to stop this condescending attitude of self-righteousness before I get really nasty with you.

I've had some past run- ins here with zanies before, who appoint themselves guardians of orthodoxy; like the time I was bashed for burning a few compact discs (of music recorded half a century ago) as if that would bar my way to salvation or something. What a crock! You've shown a consistent fixation on ''masterbation'' from day one, plus a deep disgust for homosexuals.

You remind me of the ayatollahs. Always anxious to bust up whoever didn't fall into lock-step behind their fanaticism. But I hate to tell you: You aren't much of an authority here. Now you even attack a priest verbally. What's wrong with you, Pal?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


Dear Paul,
I have great respect for you, you know that.

You are arraying a number of specious replies here that suggest we're both going down in the dirt over what I've said.

Let's start another thread so it can be developed into an edifying and constructive series. This one seems a little tainted at the minute. I don't care for the direction we've taken suddenly. I still believe every word I posted up to now; and truly think I've done the Holy Spirit's bidding. I'll try to address some of your last arguments tomorrow.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


I hope Fr. Donahue is not turned away by the angle this discusion has taken. He gave an honest opinion based on the way he understood the original question and problem. He gave an answer that some with many good reasons do not agree with.

Its not unusual for us as a group to disagree. Internet bulletin boards are not always the clearest way to communicate. Lets keep this little portion cyber space open with honest respect for one another.

Father Donahue, I hope to hear from you again. You are welcome here.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 03, 2004.


Non-Catholic Eugene,

You and your new friend will NOT give advice that receiving the Holy Eucharist is ok before going to Confession when you admit to comitting "mortal sins"

Sorry Slim you guys are wrong.

God bless you both.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 03, 2004.


It is more in line with Protestant doctrine that one can merely "confess" one's sin directly to Jesus and it is instantly forgiven on the spot.Unless you are in danger of imminent death, or live where there isn't a priest around for miles, that's not Catholic teaching. To suggest that a person is free to receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin ONLY to avoid being confronted by their family for not joining them in the sacrament is against the teachings of the Church.

If it were not, then any person in the state of mortal sin could simply tell Jesus they were dreadfully sorry and receive the Holy Eucharist. If they could find the time later, they'd see a priest for confession..maybe, maybe not.

I do not doubt for an instant that their have been dialogues and writings upon this subject by learned people. I do not doubt that there are many people, both clergy and lay people who feel strongly that what is in a person's heart at the time is of importance. Yet pride alone cannot be construed as a "grave matter". For pride is in itself something to be avoided if it leads to more sin. Please follow the logic: I am in a state of mortal sin. I KNOW I musn't partake of the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. Yet if I do NOT, my family will ask questions. If they ask questions, they may discover that I have done something very wrong. I wish to hide my sin from them. I must choose between receiving the Holy Eucharist in mortal sin or revealing the sin to my family.

Even if the person's motive is to spare their family from shame or upset, it comes down to the same thing. Either the person is putting themselves and their pride before God, or they are putting their family before God. Neither choice is a good one.

The key here is NOT necessarily that this beautiful young lady is in a delimma over the Eucharist..but that she needs urgently to get herself to her priest and confess whatever it is that has her in a state of mortal sin to begin with. Her priest is there. Surely if her family attends daily mass, they would be supportive of her request to see the priest for confession if she cannot get there on her own.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.


None of you is considering the main point of this difference. It's an UN-repentent sinner who becomes guilty of a sacrilege by receiving the Sacrament without confession and repentence. I venture to think many otherwise faithful Catholics go to confession and yet do not repent. They can't or won't change. Just as David won't change his crude ways; while presuming to judge the others --even a priest.

I said at the beginning all depends on being truly sorry for your sins, with the solemn intention to reject them forever. I never suggested sinners had the option of Holy Communion without changing their life; repenting sincerely.

And even then, I stated clearly-- he/she is still under strict obligation to confess at the nearest opportunity. This is Catholic truth, not my own fiction. No matter what you insist, fellows.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2004.


"..None of you is considering the main point of this difference...."

Give us a break Chavez.

"..Its an UN-repennant ..."

What is UN-repenannt about the orginal poster in this thread Gene? See how you are WRONG?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 04, 2004.


I'd step back a second and realize you all don't know this person's real situation from the information given. How old is she? Did she REALLY commit a mortal sin in the first place? What will happen to her if she does NOT receive communion (is she in an abusive household where she may literally be beaten to death if she has done something to displease her parent(s) in this regard? Is she just worried about what people think, etc.

In short, what I think SHOULD be said to her is that no one knows enough about her particular situation to give a definitive answer on her situation at this time, and that she should go to confession asap and discuss it with her priest. Here is a family that is in mass as a unit *every day*, which is not the norm, who knows what pressures she is under, or what she has been told is a mortal sin?

I hope she hasn't been told to avoid communion at all costs and risk God knows what because she didn't take out the garbage on time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 04, 2004.


God help us if it can be infered that because a family unit attends Holy Mass daily there must be something wrong.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

Lesley,

God help us if because a family attends mass every day we MUST assume NOTHING is wrong.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 04, 2004.


I must caution Leslie about an aspect of her Catholicism being shown the last few posts. Not about any doubt of her (his?) total sincerity or love of God; but the direction her Catholic faith takes her.

There's a tendency in many excellent Catholics to approach non-Catholic or lukewarm Catholics altogether too judgmentally. As if only one type of Christian can be good, or find peace in their faith, or understand what's right and what's wrong.

That mind-set is a religious pedestal we stand on, looking down on other poor sinners; without a rounded sense of what ALL of us are before Almighty God. We can't reprove one another on sight, as if we carry within our soul such treasures that no other conduct is pleasing to God.

This is what I sensed in Leslie's (and in David) posts here. Leslie is appalled at what I say because it might be too protestant. David goes to the extreme of addressing me as ''Non-Catholic,'' and a priest as ''liberal, who should be ashamed.'' Why?

Because it seems no non-Catholic or protestant could EVER please God. Or any Liberal. This is division. This is PRIDE.

I'm every bit as Catholic as all of us here. No more liberal than you. And nothing said here was against the doctrines of the Church or indifferent to the infinite sacredness of our Blessed Sacrament.

A broad statement like: ''God help us if it can be inferred that because a family unit attends Holy Mass daily there must be something wrong,'' --infers to me that there can be NO peace between us and people who don't understand Catholics.

Why cross the street to kick a dog you feel offends God? We ought to worry first about our own sins and let God be God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


Dear Frank: You hit the nail right on the head. As you often do. We don't know nearly enough about Amanda's situation to give a clear response. The only way to inform or correct her is in generalities. I tried that, and the priest, Fr. Donahue did. I don't know if Amanda is actually in mortal sin, and I didn't address that.

I took for granted what others here should correctly think: that under no circumstances would a good Catholic (Amanda) approach Communion without repenting with her whole heart the so-called mortal sin. Because, if not, she would definitely be committing a different, more evil sin. That much is a no-brainer.

You maintain just about the same overall view, and your replies make perfect sense to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


Holy Communion must be received only when one is in the grace of God. Therefore, when one has committed a mortal sin, even if one has repented of it and has a great desireto receive Holy Communion, it is necessary and indispensable to go to Confession first before receiving Holy Communion. Otherwise one commits a most grave sin of sacrilege, for which Jesus said to St. Bridget, "there does not exist on earth a penalty great enough to punish it sufficiently!"

-- - (David@excite.com), December 04, 2004.

Wrong.
It may be a sin; but not the sacrilege you think it is. Repentence doesn't make you worthy. But without repentence, receiving would be a grave sin and sacrilege.

Once more I repeat: The devil will not tempt anyone who repented of all sin to return to Jesus in Holy Communion. It goes counter to everything we know about Satan. He detests a repentent sinner and would do everything to prevent him/her from coming to Jesus in any way, shape or form.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


As I stated near the top of the thread, David is right.

He has been joined in being right at least by paul and Paul and Joe. Unfortunately, they has been incorrectly and disastrously opposed by Father Donahue and eugene. I say "disastrously," because poor Amanda has been left in a state of uncertainty about this, and because two people (Michael and Jim) seem to be trusting Fr. Donahue (since he says that he is a priest), even though he is wrong on a key item in his comments. Also "disastrous" is the fact that loquacious eugene may have the ability to argue persuasively to the unwary, and he cannot be made to "clam up," even when he is clearly shown to be wrong by Paul and David.

Besides correcting eugene repeatedly (as did David), Paul stunningly helped Fr. Donahue to see that he had given bad advice, exposing the flaws in his arguments, especially in the following two quotes related to Canon 916 (with my notes inserted and my emphasis added).

1. An example of a legitimate "grave reason" ^^^allowing an unabsolved mortal sinner to receive^^^ would be if you were being executed today, no priest was available to hear your final confession, and you desired to be reunited with Christ before you died. THAT would be a grave reason. Nothing that would be encountered by any ordinary Catholic going to Church on a Sunday morning would qualify as a grave reason to receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

2. Fr. Donahue is absolutely incorrect ^^^about Canon 916^^^, and his phrase, "according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries," clearly means, "according to SEVERAL articles written by current theologians I happen to agree with".

On point 1, I would add another example. Think of a parish pastor who has no assistant and who commits a grave sin on Sunday morning, just before he is to celebrate two Masses. According to Canon 916, he may make an act of perfect contrition, celebrate Mass, and receive Communion, because he has "no possibility of going to confession" and he has a "grave reason for receiving".

On point 2, I recall reading that the pope and/or Cardinal Ratzinger have spoken out on this subject, specifically to prevent priests from giving the kind of wrong advice that Fr. Donahue has relayed from unreliable canon lawyers or theologians. A few years ago, a priest gave me the even worse kind of advice that eugene is giving here. That is, without mentioning the requirements of a "grave reason for receiving" and "no possibility of going to confession," he simply said that, when in mortal sin, I could just try to make an act of perfect contrition, receive Communion, and worry about Confession later. Rubbish! Many priests apparently have been misled on this subject by poor seminary training or undependable writings that make their way into rectories.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), December 04, 2004.


Gene,

Clam up a while friend. I don't mind teaching you but you have to show me respect.

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Start listening more than you speak and you might learn something about Catholicism.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), December 04, 2004.


Thank you all again for taking the time to answer my question. I have gone to confession and with the help of God's grace I will attempt to lead a more holy life from now on.

-- Amanda Boyd (musiclover1187@comcast.net), December 04, 2004.

Dear Pel: You go ahead and believe that.

I don't, because I know Jesus intimately; and He is God the Son; not a theologian. Again; you may believe what you please. But if for that reason you are to be a counsellor here, I would have to oppose you. Not from animosity. From concern and love for those who would come to accept your interpretation of truth.

The entire Catholic summation of my own counsel is a simple reminder. God is Love.

We are always going to be totally responsible as His Church, for confessing our sins. No one will ever enter heaven with a single blot of sin left unforgiven; I understand that. How will all come to forgiveness in Jesus Christ? By His grace, as penitent Christians. He will forgive the vilest sinner once He realizes the repentence behind our prayer for forgiveness. Yes, the proper channel is a sacrament, reconciliation. We called it Penance when I was young. Today I am 67 years old. And I haven't advocated any other sacrament but reconciliation. Nor have I condoned any sacrilegious communions. I now tell you we must all help each other repent by acknowledging first the endless wealth of love Our Saviour has for every one of us. He desires our love in return; undying love. Love covers a multitude of sins.

To you, my friend; here's the same advice I give David: Do not force your privately held opinions on Catholic priests who disagree with you. You aren't a shepherd over any priest, we owe every single one a modicum of respect. ''Rubbish'' is not a word normally associated with holy men who serve God. Not even if a rare one is over-stepping the privileges of his office. You must know that ANY priest can refuse you absolution. You took issue against one who was too ready to offer it to you, as if YOU were the priest and he were the penitent sinner.

My advice to you is, say an act of contrition for presuming to judge a Catholic priest. Do it now before you forget. Because you've sinned.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


Good news Amanda!

What a thread this generated! It's very much like the Matrimony/Annulment threads in which I normally comment. The common theme is abuse of canon law and the controversy it generates.

Ultimately, the liberal heterodox that abuse canon law fall short in their reasoning for the same reason as the unrepentant sinner. They are both separated from God and their consciences have grown dull. Their viewpoint merely demonstrates they have lessened sensitivity to what is naturally good.

Their joy at being "with merciful Jesus" is usually a thinly veiled version of the same relieved cry given by the miser who has found yet another selfish loophole to keep their riches. True joy comes with self-denial and commitment.

Rather than spend time seeking loopholes in twisting canon law on its head, they can deny themselves, give all they have, take up their cross (joyfully), and follow Him.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.


Eugene..to clear up your perceptions of my attitude:

It is my belief that ALL who believe in Jesus Christ sincerely are brothers and sisters,whether they are Catholic or not.

It is my belief that when one professes to BE Catholic, one follows the dogma of the Catholic Church, not the Protestant Churches.

As Catholics, it is not up to us as individuals to interpret the dogma of our faith as we "see it". We obey what the CHURCH tells us. The CHURCH tells us that a person who is in the state of mortal sin cannot receive the Holy Eucharist without first confessing that mortal sin TO A PRIEST, unless grave matters prevent that from happening. To say that one must reply in generalities because one doesn't know ALL of the parameters of a matter posed in a question is skirting the basic issue.

What happens when someone asks about any mortal sin? Suppose someone were to post the following? "I committed a mortal sin.I attend mass daily. If I die today, is my sin forgiven?" Would there be such discussion going on here about that question? Would people be posting such things as; "Perhaps the sin wasn't mortal to begin with? Perhaps the person's family may have taught them that failure to take the trash out was a mortal sin? Why do you go to mass every day..that's odd? "

Would folks really need to know those things to answer that question for a Catholic???

When a person says they attend mass every day, that means they have a priest in front of them every day. That means there is no shortage of a priest to hear their confession. When a person says they have committed a mortal sin, one can take them at their word. It is their PRIEST who decides with them if they are right or wrong in that designation. Again, they need their priest. Being in a state of mortal sin places your eternal soul in jeopardy..this is more important than ANY earthly threat. How many Saints of the Catholic Church reached Sainthood via the choice they made to offend people rather than offend God?

Eugene, I am not "against" anyone..I AM against offending God Almighty in any way, shape or form.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.


God bless you,

-- - (David@excite.com) --You have nothing to teach me or anyone. Have I showed disrespect for you? Only what was coming to you. Saying ''clam up'' to your elders is surely lack of respect, but I forgive you. I really do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


Dear Brian Crane,

About Fr. Donahue, you said to David,

His order has a website. It's not becoming to sarcastically call him "buddy."

Actually, I think that you overreacted to what David said. He didn't say, "Hey, Buddy," to the priest. He used the word as a synonym for friend or pal in a comment to eugene.

But I hope that you will give us the address of the website you mentioned, because Father gave a "usa.net" e-mail address, not something like a "cc.___" address. Trying www.cc.org gets me to Christian Coalition. Are you thinking that CC is short for SSCC (the Sacred Hearts congregation to which Fr. Damien belonged)?

Or is it possible that "CC" just means "curate" (parish priest), as mentioned in the Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01022a.htm)? The Encyclopedia has a list of abbreviations for orders and congregations, a list on which "CC" does not appear. Of course, the list may not have even been complete 90 years ago, and many new orders and congregations have come into being since its publication.

I thank you.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), December 04, 2004.


Praise God Amanda. Its a great feeling when we have been absolved of our sins. God puts a feeling in us letting us know we did the right thing. Don't ever go near the Holy Eucharist when in doubt.

I am heading to Confession and Holy Mass now. I will pray for you.

My prayers are with you too Mr. Chavez [and Jims' Mom]. I have my work cut out with you sir. :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), December 04, 2004.


Thank you for the clarification, Lesley. You are clearly a faithful Catholic. I agree with all the points you made. When I offered you my precautionary words it was only for this reason:

We aren' true to Our Lord when we only express disdain for protestant or non-Catholic ways of thinking. It places our own faith on a pedestal. Faith is our duty to God; not what we must glory in as Catholics. If others have fallen short of this ideal, we must forgive them and lead them back to the Church by example. We are not free to despise whatever we think seems un-Catholic.

Yes, I understood you to say that a protestant feels he should only confess to God. But that was NOT the substance of what I'd said. All I maintain is, the sin of sacrilege is not imputed by Catholic doctrine if Amanda's uncertainty is taken in account. Particularly if she had begged Jesus for forgiveness and offered Him her adoration and love. You may refuse my rationale as you please. Just want to tell you that it's the fruits of my many long years of contemplation. NOT a desire to circumvent the teachings of our Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


Dear Eugene..the internet can be an interesting "place"..typed words alone can give many false impressions since they lack inflection and tone.. Your love of God is obvious..Wish we were neighbors.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.

That's what we ARE, Lesley.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.

Brian Crane...But I hope that you will give us the address of the website you mentioned, because Father gave a "usa.net" e-mail address, not something like a "cc.___" address. Trying www.cc.org gets me to Christian Coalition. Are you thinking that CC is short for SSCC (the Sacred Hearts congregation to which Fr. Damien belonged)?

Companions of the Cross

Pellegrino,

I hope I overreacted to David, but I don't think so. Calling Father Donahue, Eugene's "new buddy" and "new found internet buddy" were not merely synonyms for friend or pal. Come on. You can't recognize sarcasm? I love David, I agree with him, and I'm sarcastic myself, but no matter if Father Donahue is liberal, or his advice is wrong (which I think it is), I still don't think it is very becoming to speak of him this way. That's all. David was wondering if he was really a priest. I was wondering that myself, which is why I looked him up. He has posted here before a few times.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 04, 2004.


I wasn't being sarcastic. Thats his "new internet buddy"...nothing more, nothing less.

I just ignored your post because I like you and didn't want to get "sidetracked", and you are entitled to you opinion.

The real issue to me is you can't tell people its ok to receive the Holy Eucharist when you are not in a state of Grace, and I think the young Lady seen this because she went to Confession just like I had to today. I'm a terrible sinner, but I dare NOT go near the Eucharist when I need to Confess my sins.

May God bless Eugene and Father Terry( his new internet buddy) and help him see the truth about this!

-- - (David@excite.com), December 04, 2004.


I love David too; but I disagree with him and agree with Fr. Donahue. It's a free country. Most of all I love Jesus Christ my Redeemer. Who can be compared to Him? He speaks and I listen in my heart. I take His word for everything, I will never question Him. Whoever challenges what I hear takes away nothing. I am not confounded, because I'm faithful now; more than at any time in the past. When I was a baby I was sexually abused. When I was an adolescent I was afflicted. When I was much older I was lonely, a single man.

But He never left me by myself; I felt Jesus Christ holding me close and I trusted Him alone. Not men. Not relatives or friends. Just the most glorious and Sacred Heart of Jesus. I had no stigmatic signs, but was crucified with Him. It gave me hope and it fortified me against this world.

Then Jesus changed my life. He brought me the woman I had already loved even when I never entertained hopes of marriage. All I'd done before was pray every night; for her. That she should never be harmed by men, nor marry anyone bad. I didn't expect her to love me, but the Sacred Heart of Jesus eventually married us. A miracle.

He opens every door for us. We love Him. Everybody should love Him with wild abandon, as I do. Then would they know the meaning of true joy and faith. That's how come I can never doubt the marvel of Christ's mercy and bottomless love.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 04, 2004.


"...its a free Country.."

Yes Gene it is. But, its also legal to abort children in this" free Country". The issue isn't about being a " free Country" is it?

Its about receiving the Holy Eucharist with Grave sin on a soul. Its Christians like you and(Father) is the reason there are over thirty thousand different relegions.

Pray for stronger faith for you and Father, Eugene.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 05, 2004.


I'm a free man and a faithful Catholic. I don't apologise. I don't favor abortion or sins of any other kind. I have no axe to grind with other sinners, I mind only my own conscience. Do that and God will always bless you. I love Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. No one ought to offend Him.

When did you see me advising others to offend God? I only told them how good He is to the sinner who repents. (I hope you don't object.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a GRAVE REASON is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.” (CCC 916)

Sacramental confession can be dispensed/utilized if and only if, four conditions exist:

1. There must be a grave reason for one to receive Communion (for example, danger of death).

In this case I don’t think anyone can argue that as Fr. Terry has said, “Amanda’s fears about what her parents will think are not real or justified”. However, I think most will agree with Paul that this fact does not constitute “grave reason” as in the case of imminent death and therefore, Paul is quite correct in suggesting that Fr. Terry’s interpretation of Canon Law may be a bit too liberal and not in keeping with the Church’s teaching in this matter.

Who cares what Amanda’s parents will think? If they think the worst, then that is there problem. There are other reasons for individuals not being able to go to communion - for example, the one-hour fast required prior to receiving communion could preclude someone from receiving. Who is to say Amanda did not forget about communion and have a bite to eat at the last minute?

2. There is no possibility for confession prior to receiving communion.

While it is very gracious of Fr. Terry to suggest that a priest should be willing to hear confession prior to the beginning of mass, most priests I know are too busy preparing for mass or in private prayer in preparation for mass, that they have the time available to hear confession. In the past these practices have inevitably lead to others noticing that the priest’s policy is to permit confession prior to mass and only results in more and more people asking for confession at this very inopportune time, instead of going to confession during the week at the regularly scheduled times. Most individuals have the opportunity to go to confession in most places several times throughout the week at various parishes in their area. Good manners and common courtesy dictate that every effort should be made to take advantage of regularly scheduled times for confession.

The practice of many going to confession prior to mass became so prevalent my parish that our priests (thank God we have more than one) decided to hear confessions on a formal basis before mass. The priest who is not preparing/celebrating mass hears confessions in order to allow the priest who is to prepare properly. But what of those parishes who only have one priest??? Let’s all make their life easier by going to confession at the regularly scheduled times.

3. It must be physically or morally impossible for a person to go to confession prior to communion.

I think it can be reasonably argued that while it is “physically” possible to go to confession prior to mass if there is a priest in the vicinity, it is at great, unreasonable and impractical cost to the both the priest and others who are attending mass if the priest is not permitted to properly prepare for the mass.

As a side note, the term “morally impossible” refers to those individuals, for example, whose lifestyle clearly demonstrates their willing or unwilling desire to conform with Church teaching. Politicians who vote pro-choice would be included in this group as would individuals living as man and wife without the benefit of the Sacrament of Matrimony as they do not demonstrate a “firm purpose of amendment” in not committing these sins again.

4. The person must make a firm resolve to go to confession “as soon as possible”.

This is a condition that no one has mentioned here when sacramental confession has been dispensed away with, and one that again relies on our common sense approach to what the Church intends. The Church does not intend for “as soon as possible” to mean immediately after mass, a practice by the way, which I have noticed also takes place in some parishes. The Church is suggesting here that the penitent go to confession at the very next regularly scheduled time for confession. Had the Church intended for penitents to go to confession immediately after mass She would have used the word “immediately” and not the term “as soon as possible” and, She would have instructed her priests accordingly.

-- George (lonesome@nowhere.com), December 05, 2004.


i have abstained, thus far, from commenting on this discussion. Lord knows that when we agree there is no greater team to argue for the church, and that when we disagree all hell can break loose. so i laid back, observed, and here is what i saw: we arent debating a single matter here, but rather TWO distinct questions:

1) Does severe repentance with the intention of going to confession allow one to partake of communion while not in a state of grace?

there have been references to this opinion, and to that opinion. the simple answer, however, was surprisingly posted by the good father, who promptly disagreed with the information he had already posted. the gem of information he placed was this:

The Church teaches that "Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1457, based on Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law).

THIS people, is the catechism of the church, a section based on the Canon law. as such it is the only authoritative answer which has been posted here. and the answer is clear, repentance is NOT enough, valid confession MUST be made. eugene, you are correct that confession can be made without repentance, but incorrect in presuming that has any bearing on discussion because that is in itself sacrilage and invalid confession. simply put, the answer is that the only way to take communion is after VALID confession or with GRAVE reason. which leads us to the second question...

2) Does the concern over the impression of others constitute a grave reason to attend communion while not in a state of grace?

the answer here, quite frankly, is no. eugene, you have pointed out several times the failing of "pride" in others for expressing that they believe catholic practices to be superior to non catholic practices. How is it not a sin of pride to commit sacrilage solely for the reason of hiding your shame from others? when adam and eve covered their shame and hid from God, did He not account them guilty of their sin anyway? grave reason is one which is generally on par with those examples given already by Paul M and co. self pride does not constitute a grave reason. if amanda's family chooses to ridicule her for her not taking communion, that is their sin of pride and uncompassion, however, that must have no bearing on her decision not to sin. THAT, is the bottom line.

Eugene, i have greatest respect for you, i think you are great and i hope you know that. Father, i respect you as well, wearing the cloth is no easy job. But regardless of respect, in this instance you are both incorrect.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2004.


My opening line should have read:

“Sacramental confession can be dispensed if and only if, four conditions exist:”

-- George (lonesome@nowhere.com), December 05, 2004.


I agree with paul in this matter. I would suggest that the "danger that others suspect the individual to be guilty of grave sin" is a subjective perceived danger that does not outweigh the objective danger exacted by commiting mortal sin.

There are many Canon Law commentaries and the Magisterium has commented on many psychologically based errant interpretations that contravene Church teaching by juxtaposing the 'physical' -denying the supernatural.

As only the Magisterium is authority as to interpretation of the Laws [it] alone authors -any derived substantive departure unless approved by the Magesterium is not 'faithful'.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 05, 2004.


Thanks, Daniel,
For a very concise, easy to understand judgment of the overlying matter.

I'm not given any credit for my various words of compliance with this in its overlying sense. David even went off-kilter to say my words were non-Catholic, because he didn't pay much attention to what I initially wrote.. I continued elaborating on it, not to justify myself but to make everyone realise the PARTICULAR sense of what I said.

No one is free from the new and sacrilegious mortal sin, having received Holy Communion intentionally sinning thereby. This will certainly NOT avail him/her of Christ's infinite mercy; until a subsequent perfect confession.

I maintained at the start, in the particular case at hand, that because an element of uncertainty (doubt) mitigates what Amanda would be committing; we could be sure Our Holy Saviour would not be offended on a level with sacrilege or even mortal sin. She had been guilty of venially taking a liberty. Venial sin is, with proper contrition forgiven when one receives the Holy Eucharist. Ergo, the improper Communion is not mortal, and was even pardoned personally by Our Lord.

I sustain such a ''liberal'' view based on my absolute convictions about Jesus Himself: He desires to forgive us, whenever we express our profound love for Him; most of all at Holy Communion. --Now, the same can be expressed during spiritual communion. That's understood. And a spiritual communion would avoid altogether any risk of offending Him anew. A type of actual grace would be given the sinner as well. But we know that the Eucharist effects a new life of sanctifiying grace. Which is greater? I know some would jump at the chance to ''educate'' us; about what the Church teaches is HOLY reception, and which is sinful.

They don't have to, we already know and agree. In Amanda's instance we can apply one substantial mitigating factor. It's the person's fear of being stigmatized by not having duly received Our Lord publicly.

To say from the safety of the keyboard-- that her acute perception that others ''suspect'' Amanda to be guilty of grave sin-- is only subjective; doesn't quite serve, in Amanda's case. I felt sure that she would not have just been suspected; she would be PRESUMED unworthy and sinful by the judgmental few.

From my point of view, that would effectively remove sinful intent to disobey the Church from her own conscience, at worst. At best, it would call down Christ's love and mercy. I take it as granted her heart was already perfectly contrite for the mortal sin once committed, if her adoration of the Eucharist is truly apparent to Our Lord. Amanda is then imposing no outrage or sacrilege. I speak only for myself.

I would repeat it before the judgment seat, may God permit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.


> "No one is free from the new and sacrilegious mortal sin, having received Holy Communion intentionally sinning thereby"

A: Unless they are worried about what others may think. Right?

> "I maintained at the start, in the particular case at hand, that because an element of uncertainty (doubt) mitigates what Amanda would be committing; we could be sure Our Holy Saviour would not be offended on a level with sacrilege or even mortal sin"

A: There are two problems with this. First, there is no element of uncertainty. Canon Law spells out in specific terms what is allowed and what is not. Secondly, if there was some uncertainty as to how Canon Law applies in a specific case, the only morally acceptable course of action is to refrain from acting until such time as the uncertainty can be resolved. We cannot act on an uncertain conscience because doing so indicates a willingness to risk doing what is immoral.

> "I sustain such a ''liberal'' view based on my absolute convictions about Jesus Himself"

A: The key word here is "my". Every false belief, every heresy, has its origin in someone placeing their absolute personal conviction above the teaching of Christ's Church.

> "In Amanda's instance we can apply one substantial mitigating factor. It's the person's fear of being stigmatized by not having duly received Our Lord publicly"

A: Few people sin from the sheer desire for evil. There are always mitigating factors, and Satan uses such mitigating factors to tempt us, and to cause us to rationalize our actions. "It might be wrong for others but it's okay for me because ...". Canon Law says nothing about "substantial mitigating factors". It speaks of GRAVE circumstances. the possibility of personal embarrassment simply doesn't qualify.

.

> "I felt sure that she would not have just been suspected; she would be PRESUMED unworthy and sinful by the judgmental few. From my point of view, that would effectively remove sinful intent to disobey the Church from her own conscience, at worst"

A: That's why we don't make moral decisons based on feelings, but on facts. Even if your "feeling" turned out to be correct - and there is no way of accurately predicting that - what other people may think or presume is never a valid reason for my committing an immoral act. Again, "disobeying the Church" is rarely anyone's direct intent. Satisfying my own needs or desires is my intent when I sin. Disobeying the Church is simply the inevitable result when I place my personal needs or desires above the authority of the Church and the Law of God.

You say you "felt sure that she would be PRESUMED unworthy and sinful by the judgmental few". Is there some reason why you feel she would be MORE likely to be subject to such judgment than anyone else in similar circumstances? If not then presumably you "feel" that anyone in similar circumstances can "feel" free to receive Communion in a state of mortal sin? In which case this article of Canon Law ceases to exist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2004.


Paul; I'd like to finish this, for my own part. Anyone who disagrees with me is perfectly entitled and no hard feelings. But when will the verbal fencing stop? i told you clearly i comply with all the church's teaching in the matter; treated as a principle.

My version of mortal sin is the same one the Church teaches. For you to say now, "No one is free from the new and sacrilegious mortal sin, having received Holy Communion intentionally sinning thereby" A: Unless they are worried about what others may think. Right?--'' is simple sophistry. I never said ''worried about what others may think.'' You did.

I said in the above quote, that:

Should anyone in mortal sin (UNREPENTENT) go to communion, THAT's a sacrilege. But, if it were due to a compulsion, and God knows the truth, it would not be a mortal sin; provided the mortal sin is perfectly repented of (even before going to confess to the priest).

Now, WHO is to judge whether or not that soul is forgiven before receiveing absolution? Only God; not me, not you. It's a matter of faith. Amanda had faith, I assume. Faith that Jesus was understanding and would forgive.

The Catholic Church has never taught us that Jesus cannot forgive the repentent sinner except under narrow conditions. He died for that sinner. He loves us. I confess that I'm a sinner, not a saint; in case you think I'm guilty of presumption. I'm not.

No one is dispensed from the strict obligation to ask absolution by a priest. I submit to that in good faith; I stated it clearly before.

This is all I wish to say for the time being. If arguments continue I'll stay out. Thanks for your understanding and the fine contributions to this subject.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.


I'm sorry; my words are unintelligible here: But, if it were due to a compulsion, and God knows the truth, it would not be a mortal sin (Here we speak of the COMMUNION, not the first mortal sin.) ''--provided the mortal sin is perfectly repented of; '' (Speaking of the sin unconfessed before receiving absolution.) There MUST be perfect contrition; otherwise it's mortal sin.

I use the term compulsion as it applies only the act of receiving Communion. Not about the first sin, unmitigated.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.


Well said Eugene, on this subject I must say agree with you, and with George, Frank and Father Donahue.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 05, 2004.

eugene, i had hoped that my commentary on there not existing any mitigating circumstance would be convincing enough without having to use specific examples, but here goes...

God will forgive me because i took Communion without being a state of grace since i was afraid of being looked down on by my peers. (your arguement)

applied...

God will forgive me for the murder i just committed, my fellow gang members might think i dont belong.

God will forgive me for the baby i just aborted, i was ashamed my family would find out i was pregnant before marraige.

God will forgive me for being uncharitable, i wanted money to buy my new TV so that my friends won't ridicule me.

The avoidance of ridicule and shame is a narrative justification for ANY evil, eugene, and as such should be properly disposed of as an arguement for the validity of action. Doing what is right often times involves subverting the self in favor of the virtue, and it is through that virtue that we are fulfilled in our relationship with God, not through any desire to preserve some false and prideful image of the self.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2004.


again i also note that frank's questioning, in this case, although well intentioned, is predominantly without merit.

how do we know she comitted at mortal sin? what a ridiculous question to ask. the very first sentance contains the answer to that question. we have to assume that if amanda attends mass every day, not only that she comes from a strong catholic family, but that she should probably be regarded as at least fairly competant in determining what constitutes a mortal sin. Since when did daily attendance at mass become an indicator of fanatacism? if it is, then why follow the pope, who also attends daily mass? why listen to the priests, who hold daily mass? daily attendance at mass is a beautiful thing which is not afforded to many, not a reason for judgement.

Further, regarding the question of whether the family would "beat her to death" for failure to take communion, that is LUDICROUS!!! i reject wholeheartedly the sentiment that a devout catholic family that does its best to attend daily mass is taught to kill family members who sin. to do so is to insinuate that the mass teaches only condemnation of others when we all know that it is an institution of purest love. the odds are that being beaten is probably not even a consideration, and thus we can assume the response is discomfort at most on the part of the person in question. if we had to account for every possible outcome, why not insinuate that a plane could crash into the church at exit procession and anyone should be able to take communion? the chances are, frank, that if there was a dire consequence it would have been mentioned more than "my family would ask me why i didn't"

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 05, 2004.


Eugene,

"...David, even went off-kilter to say my words were non-Catholic, because he didn't pay much attention to what I initially wrote..."

Obviously you didn't pay any attention to what Amanda wrote! Scroll up and read her post AGAIN.

She said, " I'm ashamed to say I have committed a mortal sin and I also know that if you recive Holy Communion when you are not in a state of grace that it is also a mortal sin. I also know that for a sin to be mortal it has to be freely commited..."

Under know circumstances should this person receive the holy Eucharist until there sins are absolved by a Catholic priest. She knows more than most by just reading those few words.

Sure you make any senerio you want Eugene, but read her words and stop adding you own.

Going from the information she provided us with you are 100% wrong and just to stubborn to admit it. :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), December 05, 2004.


We are all stubborn here, Friends.
I expect this argument to reach a conclusion soon. I have concluded my part, but others keep rebutting, as if I had to be wrong. If this were the only price to pay, I would just say --OK. I'm wrong, have it your way.

But Christ is being addressed. Our Lord.

On the one side, by Catholics taking the letter of the (Canon) law; trusting nobody's word but a catechism. Who say Christ was getting the short end of the stick; His Sacrament was being desecrated by a lowly sinner who went to Holy Communion without being worthy. (The letter kills, the spirit gives life.)

On the other side some unwanted and unsolicited insights into Our Lord's divine Will; His desire to save souls and to help a sinner. This is the Jesus who had no problems with lepers; who understood us. Along the line I stated that I would prefer to err on the side of love, and not fear. I just don't think Jesus wants us to fear Him because of our personal unworthy lives. We can change; we WILL change, with His grace! While I'm dwelling on this aspect, I think I should say without qualms that Catholics don't have to fear the wrath of the Church, either. She is our mother, and we LOVE the Church. We shouldn't cower before her, like dogs. Not if we adore Jesus Christ, who is always true to His word. The Church is JESUS; He will always LOVE us. He realizes we're human and weak. That's exactly why He comes to us in the Holy Eucharist. Because we NEED Him so badly! And--I am one voice in this forum who has to tell you emphatically and repeatedly-- A soul on fire with love for Jesus cannot commit a sacrilege. So-- I'm stubborn? Of course I am.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 05, 2004.


Eugene,

Thanks

paul h,

again i also note that frank's questioning, in this case, although well intentioned, is predominantly without merit.

I will now respond to paul's comments, but for the most part they are without merit. (that didn't add much to what my post is going to be, did it? Not much, that is, except the chance to attempt to prejudice my post's readers without the bother of actually saying anything in the way of proof)

how do we know she comitted at mortal sin? what a ridiculous question to ask. the very first sentance contains the answer to that question. we have to assume that if amanda attends mass every day, not only that she comes from a strong catholic family, but that she should probably be regarded as at least fairly competant in determining what constitutes a mortal sin.

It is not a ridiculous question, and I'd say there are many seventh and eighth graders who could write at this level and not be in a state of mortal sin for something they have done, although they may believe they are. How is making sure she really IS in a state of mortal sin ridiculous? Why wouldn't that be a good first step? We could have skipped the last 68 posts if the answer was "she isn't". I remember (hopefully correctly) Paul and Jake having a debate about mortal sin a year or so ago and Paul said something on the order that he hadn't commited a mortal sin in years, whereas Jake seemed to imply one commits mortal sins all the time. You expect a highschooler or younger child to have a better sense of judgement than these two educated men with widely varying opinions? Having kids of my own, I don't.

Since when did daily attendance at mass become an indicator of fanatacism?

It didn't. Why do you believe that to be the case?

if it is, then why follow the pope, who also attends daily mass? why listen to the priests, who hold daily mass? daily attendance at mass is a beautiful thing which is not afforded to many, not a reason for judgement.

I go to the 6 am mass now and then, when I have the time, and I have yet to see a whole family with their small children in tow there every day. As a matter of fact, it's usually just older people. Yes, it would be nice if lots of whole families could do this, but most people can't. I didn't say it was BAD to attend mass every day, but it's not *normal* in the sense that most people don't do it. Do you disagree with this?

Further, regarding the question of whether the family would "beat her to death" for failure to take communion, that is LUDICROUS!!! i reject wholeheartedly the sentiment that a devout catholic family that does its best to attend daily mass is taught to kill family members who sin. to do so is to insinuate that the mass teaches only condemnation of others when we all know that it is an institution of purest love.

Not ludicrous, you may just be ignorant of what some of your fellow human beings do to each other. I have seen infants burnt in pots of water for crying too much, and children beaten into the ICU by their "parents" for some minor infraction. While YOU may think it MUST be piety that brings these folks to church every morning, unless I knew that to be the case I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the parents are trying to atone in the morning for what they did to the kids the night previously. Go down to your local emergency room sometime paul, you might be shocked into a different opinion than you have currently. Even worse, is that children for some horrible reason often feel that they are the cause of their parents abusing them, and plugging your ears and saying, "la la la" won't make it go away. Secondly, if you can find somewhere in my post where I said, "a devout catholic family that does its best to attend daily mass is taught to kill family members who sin" I'd like you to quote it to me. If not, don't put words in my mouth.

the odds are that being beaten is probably not even a consideration, and thus we can assume the response is discomfort at most on the part of the person in question.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly with this, but you don't KNOW this is the case, do you? And how many *whole families* do you actually know that go to mass every day? If the answer is "none", why would you presume to understand their motivation? It's kind of like wearing a seatbelt, I've driven for years and haven't been in an accident, why should I wear a seatbelt? I probably won't be in one for years to come. The answer is because in some situations the risks of being wrong are high enough to not take chances, and anything IMO dealing with children falls into this category.

if we had to account for every possible outcome, why not insinuate that a plane could crash into the church at exit procession and anyone should be able to take communion? the chances are, frank, that if there was a dire consequence it would have been mentioned more than "my family would ask me why i didn't"

I guess it depends. If she lives in Fallujah, Iraq, or the Sudan, this might not be that unreasonable, wouldn't you agree? OTOH, (remember again I agree that they are probably a normal family, but just don't want to assume that) in my experience, no abusive family tells the kids to talk with whomever, they show them of the repercussions of talking to outsiders. I'd highly doubt anyone would come on here and say they get beaten severely for disobedience as an opening post.

My overall point is you folks are just itching to tell her what to do when you don't really know enough to do so. I think that should be understandable enough. Tell her to go to her priest and confess where she is, and what she's done. She'll be forgiven, and gain in understanding. But since you don't even know what her supposed "mortal sin" was, I think it's a bit premature to say you know what she should be doing at this point.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 06, 2004.


oops on the tags.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 06, 2004.

Whatis up with my tags?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 06, 2004.

Amanda, I've seen many answers and many have disspointed me. As a mother of five, I can tell you I would much rather have my children not receive HC if they are in a state of a mortal sin. Of course as a parent you will worry and question. If they did not receive it is because they could not. Not sure of your age, but being you found this place you must be older than my children (oldest is 17yo) or at least old enough to be able to stand up to your family. It will be far worse to face God than your family. If you feel ashamed to look your family in the eyes how do you think you will feel when facing God whom you offended more from your actions (especially knowing you have commited a mortal sin)? You are not a little baby who does not know better. You are trying to save face, and again I will say, as a parent I would much rather they not offend our Lord than try to appear better than they are. Grow up and face them as you should. All of us have crosses to bear and you are not wanting to carry yours. Pick it up and follow our Savior as he has commanded. As for Steve siding where he did...I'm totally shocked!! ;o) NOT!! LOL

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


Thank you all again for taking the time to answer my question. I have gone to confession and with the help of God's grace I will attempt to lead a more holy life from now on.

****:o) I replied too early!! So glad to read this and you can only grow from going to confession and facing all that you should. In the long run your family will be proud of you.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


In the hope of clarifying my answer and the process by which I formulated it, I will respond to specific comments made above (marked with >>>):

>>> "I think your interpretation of Canon 916 is dangerously liberal..."

In formulating my answer, I specifically tried to avoid just giving my own interpretation of Canon 916. I first looked for official Magisterial documents referring to Canon 916 which would specifically address the question of what constitutes a grave reason in this case. Finding none, I examined several Canon Law commentaries and investigated their faithfulness to Magisterial teaching.

Here is the text of Canon 916 and the relevant sections of two commentaries:

"Canon 916 - Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible."

(1) "This canon [916] refers to any person who administers or receives the sacrament. An act of perfect contrition does, indeed, provide forgiveness of mortal sin; however, as the second precept of the Church reminds us, the obligation to confess before receiving the Eucharist remains. This obligation can only be dispensed 'a iure' when, prefect contrition being presumed, the following conditions are met: 1) a grave cause: danger of death, or of embarrasment if communion is not taken or celebrated; 2) the impossibility of making a prior confession through lack of a confessor (cf. Council of Trent, Sess XIII, c. 11, DS 1661). Naturally, the act of contrition requires, as one of its integral parts, the firm intention to confess, which must be ssatisfied at the earliest opportunity."

- Code of Canon Law Annotated, University of Navarra Faculty of Canon Law & Saint Paul University Faculty of Canon Law, 1993, pp. 588- 589.

(2) "A grave reason would exist e.g. for a priest who had to say Mass for a congregation, or for a lay person who might lose his or her good name by not receiving communion in certain circumstances.”

- Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, in association with the Canadian Canon Law Society, 1995, pp. 503-504.

It is worth noting that the University of Navarra was founded by Saint Josemaria Escriva and is an initiative of Opus Dei (www.unav.es/english/information/). Personally, I would hesitate to classify Opus Dei canonists as "certain liberal modernist theologians". In addition, a critique of another recently published American commentary (www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001- 03/trigilio.html) points to the above two works as “orthodox commentary which is accompanied by authoritative sources.”

Both commentaries mention some form of the danger I mentioned (embarrassment or loss of good name).

Even so, these commentaries are not infallible and are subject to the ultimate authority of the Magisterium to which I submit wholeheartedly and unconditionally. Furthermore, I can make mistakes in applying the commentaries to the particular case. Perhaps I should have asked Amanda to consider how serious the embarrassment would have been. I did consider that the situation was a serious enough for her to say she felt like she had to receive and for her to consult this forum.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


>>> “the phrase ‘according to several faithful Canon Law commentaries’ clearly means ‘according to SEVERAL articles written by current theologians I happen to agree with’.”

This seems to question the sincerity of my response, which surprises me.

As noted above, I did not consult _articles_ (which might be more speculative), but _commentaries_ produced by reputable faculties and societies of Canon Law (which are reviewed by many canonists and may be more reliable).

I did not choose the commentaries because “I happen to agree with” them, but because they are recognized as being faithful to Magisterial teaching. In fact, I specifically questioned other priests and searched for critiques to determine the reliability of these commentaries and their faithfulness to the Magisterium.

If I learn of any further Magisterial teaching on this particular matter (which I am seeking), I will immediately conform to it in “loyal submission of the will and intellect” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25).

Even after all of this explanation, many of you may still disagree with my answer. You are free to do so. Given the seriousness of the issue, I can even understand why people are expressing their disagreement strongly. But I would like to emphasize that my answer was sincere, and was formulated with a desire to be faithful to the Magisterium.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


>>> “an act of "perfect contrition" means remorse for sin based SOLELY on having offended God, without any regard for temporal or eternal punishment, or any other consideration.”

The following traditional act of contrition lists fear of eternal punishment as one motive for remorse for sin, but it still expresses perfect contrition because it is motivated by love for God above all else: “O my God, I am heartily sorry for all of my sins because I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they have offended you, my God, whom I should love with all my heart…” “Perfect contrition (contrition of charity) arises from a love by which God is loved above all else; such contrition remits venial sins and also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the intention to confess as soon as possible.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1452, cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677)

The Council of Trent (DS 1677) states “that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


Because the posting mechanism adds spaces to long character strings (like web links), you will have to remove the space (after "2001-" or so) from the web link I gave 3 posts earlier in order for it to work properly:

www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-03/trigilio.html

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


Fr. Donahue,

The quoted document from Trent equates "perfect contrition" with "contrition of charity", which is precisely right. The traditional Act of Contrition you quoted, on the other hand, expresses a mixed contrition of charity and fear, which is therefore imperfect contrition. This presents no problem in practical terms since the Church, recognizing that most people are incapable of perfect contrition, has declared that such imperfect contrition is fully adequate for absolution of sin.

It certainly was not my intent to question your sincerity. On the contrary, it was quite apparent from your responses that you are very sincere in your interpretations of Canon Law (by "your" I mean the interpretations you hold to be correct, not necessarily interpretations you have personally made). However, I'm sure you will agree that the degree of sincerity of a person holding a particular position or belief has no real bearing on the objective accuracy of that position or belief. There are very sincere Protestants in every denomination. Since a commentary is merely the personal interpretations of a theologian, and carries no real authority, and since I believe that the idea of personal embarrassment as a "grave" situation is an extremely liberal interpretation, I therefore opposed and still oppose that idea, but I am certainly not questioning the sincerity of either yourself or the writers of the commentaries.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2004.


Oh for Pete's sake. How could someone "lose their good name" by not receiving communion? Since when has reception of communion become mandatory such that not receiving is assumed to mean mortal sin?

Since when has mortal sin meant adultery or another sexual sin? Someone fighting a wrathful habit or pride may feel convicted of a mortal sin and thus, not communicate out of love for Our Lord.

But by this subtle insistence that all, 100% of the congregants (2% of whom show up between 3:30pm and 5pm on Saturday afternoon for confession) receive communion "for appearances" we are setting up the idea that the Eucharist is a ritual not a sacrament.

Yes, yes that's not what we technically say, but that's the unmistakable message people get. Kind of like them getting the idea that it's their right to receive no matter what kind of life style, politics, or vociferous proabortion stances they take.

I belong to a great diocese and great parish. But very few people go to confession, while virtually everyone goes to communion. I don't doubt this is the case elsewhere. In addition, almost every time I go to confession I see the same faces... not new ones.

Ergo, unless I am an exceptional sinner (always willing to believe that), there must be an awful lot of Catholics here either living in perpetual mortal or venial sin without availing themselves of confession.

So what do we PASTORALLY suggest for souls in this cultural situation? That they make perfect acts of contritition on a habitual basis, and not go to confession? Now supposing people are living in habitual sin (mortal or venial) do you really think such folk are going to know what a perfect act of contrition is? If they were perfectly contrite - and the issue is merely sunday communion, why aren't we seeing droves of people come in on Monday morning for confession????

Or do we suggest they sit in their pew, feeling embarrassed for their sin and inability to receive the Lord such that this becomes yet another spur to their conscience to go to confession and avoid sin in the future?

For all the niceties about "pastoral prudence" it seems alot of people, priests, bishops don't really know much about human nature, psychology and reality. (Or they do, but with all the "other" things on their plate, don't have the stomach for the trouble bringing up serious issues like sin and redemption will cause).

If you give people an easy "out" they'll take it.

Which is why for 30 years we have had bishops and cardinals smile while giving Teddy Kenedy communion- and no one thought of refusing him or anyone else, including non-Catholic Clinton, out of worry about "what the media" or the neighbors will say.

This fecklessness and cowardness in place of using a situation as a teaching moment to instruct most people who really DON'T KNOW what they're supposed to be doing is a shame.

For every nut who gets really mad you will convert a hundred people to the sacraments and save souls. Go for it father!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Thank you, Father Donahue,
I think we're all glad you returned to speak on the subject again.

There are always Catholic individuals who will not stand by you simply because they aren't attuned to the 2nd Vatican Council. During my youth I was numbered among the kind. After more experience and with humble prayer & contemplation I had a change of heart. Some are never going to adjust; and that's fine. If their convictions are pure and they love God truly, it may not matter. So long as they don't dispute with our Holy Father and the Magisterium.

I want to state as well calling somebody ''dangerously liberal'' has no relevance in most subjects of little controversy, far as I can see. You can be very liberal and still be absolutely correct and orthodox. While many who call themselves conservative are merely self-serving and narrow-minded. Of course I speak in generalities again. Let's just say that, giving somebody no credence unless he's ''traditionally untouchable'' is nothing but prejudice. In some quarters our Pope is seen as conservative, while in others too liberal. I don't care. I only care that he's faithful and true to the Holy Spirit.

That's what I think about Father Terry, and about all my friends who contribute here. We have to respect any ordained Catholic deacon or priest who gives us his sincere opinions. It's not wrong to question even them. But still keeping in mind the holiness of a vocation; an irreplacable treasure in our Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2004.


Joe,

Although unfortunately there are priests who would, I would never suggest that the faithful "make perfect acts of contritition on a habitual basis, and not go to confession?" and I have not in this case (see my answer above).

I do preach about hard topics from the pulpit: the need to go to confession, the immorality of contraception, that ordination of women is impossible. I've had people get mad at me for doing it. I appreciate the encouragement to "go for it"! Priests need that.

In addition, I make hearing confessions a high priority and I am scandalized by the fact that some priests don't even have scheduled times for confession and don't preach about it.

As for denying Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians (which is treated in Canon 915, not 916), I am saddened that many Bishops refuse to take any action. I fully agree with Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” <2002>, nos. 3- 4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

http://catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6041

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


With all due respect, Joe:
May I suggest this tableau?

Father, distributes Holy Communion: ''Hmm. There's Gene coming. Devout, apparently. But has he been confessing frequently? Not very. I wonder . . .''

Gene: Having made a perfect act (YES, they aren't hard to make.) of contrition, ''Jesus, I adore you. Be merciful to me, a sinner.'' He receives.

Now; despite father's question, we can be sure Gene did NOT commit the sin everyone's talking about. If he HAD, he would have been in the confessional on Saturday. Possibly a different one, out of town. So that Father wasn't cognizant of it? Or, he may have SQUEEZED by, with about 30 venial sins in the last 60 days. So; every time Saturday came around, he thinks of the tradition called DEVOTIONAL confession. But instead, every night before bed, he will make a heart-felt act of contrition. And again, each Holy Communion making an act of contrition from the bottom of his heart beforehand. Yet, Joe-- who confesses weekly, is inclined to judge by Gene's rare appearances that he's not confessing at all. Which must indicate he's not SORRY for his sins, venial OR MORTAL. And that goes for all the congregation, slobs that they are.

I believe it's none of my business just why scores of people line up for Holy Communion. From MY POV, they're ALL in a state of grace. To me they're the People of God. And I'm not naive. Sin is everywhere.

But charity demands I believe that sacrilege is NOT. There is much -- MUCH more penitence than there is sacrilegious Communion, I trust. --God sees the man's heart; we don't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2004.


Father,

You against giving Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians and you told this young lady it was ok to receive Communion before going to Confession.

You have no idea what her Mortal sin was and you still gave that evil advice to receive Communion first. Maybe her sin was she had a abortion???[ Not saying she did-but you had no idea]

Going on the information we were given it was very wrong of you to give the evil advice of receive Communion first.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 06, 2004.


When my publicly, unrepentant, adulterous spouse continued to be given communion regularly by her priest, who knew well her situation, I was forced to seek the written opinion of a well respected moral theologian and demanded the local ordinary put a stop to this public display of immorality unless he wanted to see me in a Church court over this issue. The Bishop relented but only under the threat.

While ultimately there is the individual's responsibility to sinlessly receive communion there is nevertheless a corporate responsibility to promote justice. When the Catholic Church is in the possession of certain knowledge of the grave sinfulness of a person receiving communion it is obliged to deny them communion.

The reception of communion is a badly monitored situation which routinely promotes terrible injustices and gives rise to scandal, which destroys faith. It encourages those in grave sin to continue upon their path of destruction. It discourages those who are struggling under sometimes unbearable injustices to watch as the Catholic Church welcomes those who are actively destroying others.

I believe the Catholic Church is guilty of grave injustice in this matter and those among the hierarchy who corporately and individually are responsible for the long-standing unjust practices regarding unworthy reception of communion will face judgement for those whose faith is jeopardized or lost over it. But likely they and their supporters will remain in denial, by choice, until they face their final personal judgement.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


This seems to question the sincerity of my response, which surprises me.

No Father -I question the scholars that derive and publish the materials.

God Bless you.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 06, 2004.


David,

The two cases are different in several important respects and are covered by different canons, for different reasons:

(1) Public, obstinately unrepentant sinner, already warned, voluntarily and defiantly approaching communion --> denied communion due to public unworthiness to avoid scandal.

(2) Private, repentant sinner, desiring confession but unable to go due to lack of opportunity, feels forced to receive by circumstances to avoid making private state of sin public --> makes act of contrition, receives communion, goes to confession as soon as possible.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 06, 2004.


Having made a perfect act (YES, they aren't hard to make.) of contrition...

Big Paul has stated at least twice on this thread, that an Act of Perfect Contrition is very difficult. I believe he said that few people are capable of making an Act of Perfect Contrition. This jives with what I have always thought and heard. Now Eugene is telling us they aren't hard to make. Which is it? Logically, it seems to me that anything "perfect" is not achieved with ease but rather with difficulty. In addition, how do we know our Act of Contrition is perfect?

There is much -- MUCH more penitence than there is sacrilegious Communion, I trust.

You are more alot more trusting than me, but I hope you're correct. If what you trust is true, and if communion lines are long, and confession lines are short or nonexistent, then I guess lots of people are saying Acts of Perfect Contritions or saying confessions out of town.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 06, 2004.


Brian,
Paul has no way to back up that opinion about a perfect act of contrition. Possibly he's never made it. I said it wasn't hard; and I ought to know. I'm a sinner who has had many falls. But when the sinner truly worships God there is nothing more powerful than the grief that comes over him when God is deeply offended. My own sins combined with the sins of the whole world, cause ME great sorrow! It shakes one to the core, believe me.

But that will only be the start. I'm not just talking about the words of our Act of Contrition. Anybody can recite a prayer fervently. But perfect contrition must take one away from sin. The meaning of repent is ''turn back,'' leave the sin! Our Almighty Father demands we reform our soul in no uncertain terms. The proof of our perfect contrition is more than a sincere intention of reform and penance. ACTIONS prove it louder than words. You must truly hate your sin with a passion, and abandon it.

You'll know if your contrition is perfect when you do as you declared in confession, or privately in prayer. You will turn to God with MUCH greater love than ever. It's LOVE that must confirm your act of contrition. What's hard about loving Jesus Christ more than this world, this self, even life? It comes naturally once you becme HIS. He inspires a love beyond our human capacity.

Read His holy words, Brian. He speaks in the scriptures with all the power of divinity. Turn to any gospel, any chapter or verse. If you take Jesus' words at face value nothing can stop you from adoring Him. I'm serious; and surely many others here will back me up.

Sin separates us from His glory, His grace and His love for us. How can we NOT make a perfect act of contrition when it's demanded of us by our own conscience; if we contemplate Who the crucified Lamb of God is?

He asks our love. We show it by giving up our sins. Our very life if necessary, because there's no greater love.

You stop sinning because your contrition is perfect; that's how it happens. Yes, we are imperfect and we can fall once more. If you look back at the sin, taking your eyes off Jesus even for one day-- Contrition like that is imperfect. Go back to confession; try harder, and trust completely in Our Saviour. Then, become enraptured again with Him. Loving Jesus Christ means we never give up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2004.


“Not sure of your age, but being you found this place you must be older than my children (oldest is 17yo)” (Jalapeno) Maybe your kids don’t have the computer skills that most have today. I’d say the average 12 year old or even a smart 9 year old would have no trouble finding this place if she looked for it.

Sorry to “shock” you Jalapeno, I just wanted Eugene to know I don’t automatically disagree with everything he says. In fact I think his posts on this thread have been among the best I’ve seen anywhere. Some of his interlocutors have shown a fine ability to regurgitate verbatim the dry texts of the law. All very well as far as it goes. But the Scribes and Pharisees had the same ability.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 06, 2004.


Maybe your kids don’t have the computer skills that most have today. I’d say the average 12 year old or even a smart 9 year old would have no trouble finding this place if she looked for it.

***ROTFLOL Yes, my kids have more skills on the computer than I. I just don't let them search whatever they want when they want. :o) My 10yo daughter is playing chess over the computer while my sons seem to like those war games. :o) I serioulsy doubt Amanda is a 9yo let alone a 12yo.

Sorry to “shock” you Jalapeno, I just wanted Eugene to know I don’t automatically disagree with everything he says.

****You never shock me Steve. Sorry, but good for you. Now the two of you agree on something. YEA!!!! Celebrate with a pitcher of beer or something and some chips and salsa. ;o)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


There's an inaccurate word here: ''Sin separates us from His glory, His grace and His love--'' We know Christ still loves us, even in our sins. I might have instead used ''confidence'' and not love. He isn't to blame if we separate ourselves from Him in our sin.

He says very forcefully, in Rev 3 :15; ''I know thy works; thou art neither cold nor hot. I would that thou were cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth-- ''

Lukewarm Catholics feel remorse for one day. After a while they resume the funny business; as if they didn't even believe in God; much less feel spiritually driven. God can no longer trust their words of contrition; He isn't a fool. He asks us for flaming love. Extraordinary love, in the way Christ loves.

Brian: As to your next question; the ''ratio'' of sacrileges in the Church versus penitence?

Don't confuse sacrilege with mere sin. We know sin is widespread. But sacrilege by definition isn't as widespread, thank God. Penitence in a given moment can be tremendously powerful among the faithful. Sin is frequent but we repent of it, too.

Sacrilege is simply not present usually, as a Christian falls. Sacrilege is more; real malice. It's in direct defiance of God and holiness.

That's why I have to dispute the notion that receiving the Eucharist after only private contrition (Perfect contrition,) is sacrilegious. That can't be.

Because First; it's a repentent sinner who takes this liberty; not a defiant sinner. He confesses his sin. He's deeply sorry. He agrees to readily confess to the priest and make his penance official with the Church. There is no resistance to God's grace. Only a temporary irregularity, caused in some irregular way. This can't be termed a sacrilege. At most it's just a sin. Mortal? Could be; God knows.

Some sinners may go to Communion with just a feeble attempt at contrition. These commit a mortal sin, no doubt. But, even they come to God with faith, not indifference. It may approach sacrilege, but it's not definitive.

That's what might happen as well when a non-Catholic receives Communion; basically unaware of his pathetic sin. It's hardly sacrilegious, if not done with malice.

There's no sure way to judge anybody, so it's wise not to object to external appearances. We must pray for all sinners; that's the way to go. We have Our Blessed Mother herself for our examplar; who offers her holy intercession for the whole world, the just and unjust.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.


Thank you father.

I am very heartened to know your position and actions. Would that we had more priests like you. (all are representatives of Jesus Christ and as such, I kiss all their hands...but only quibble or argue with their occasional vague statements.)

I agree with many here that in the case of a public person who has publicly declared in open act (a vote) or manner (a speech) his position on abortion which is contrary to the law of God... a minister has no choice but to conclude the person is NOT in a proper state to receive communion.

This would be the case for example with the Gay-sash crowd. If a person approached wearing a "I hate blacks" lapel pin or a Nazi swastika, or a T-Shirt proclaiming the Church is Wrong message OR a rainbow sash proclaiming that the person in question not only believes sex outside of marriage is OK but does it... the minister of communion has to conclude that this soul is NOT REPENTANT of a serious sin and hence, ought not receive Our Lord.

Any other private sin is just that - private. No one knows it but the soul him/her self. And as such, no one could possibly apply Canon 915 or any other sanction as the minister wouldn't know who is who.

So returning to the original case... if I was at Mass and either knew I was guilty of grave sin while going in, or suddenly remembered it or discovered in (from the homily perhaps), there is a way to opt OUT of receiving communion without drawing undue attention to oneself.

1) Process up in line but then rather than receive communion, genuflect or bow reverently and pass on. At most, only 3 people will know what happened: the minister, the acolyte, and the person behind you.

2) Excuse yourself to the bathroom prior to the communion... if asked, you can honestly say "I felt sick" - case closed, no one will think otherwise. No one wants to FORCE someone to receive communion and feeling sick to one's stomach is a valid reason for not receiving.

One can then ask the Pastor discretely for confession, and then communion after Mass.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Dear Joe, --Your sin is unknown till you discover it?

''. . . if I was at Mass and either knew I was guilty of grave sin while going in, or suddenly remembered it or discovered it (from the homily perhaps),''

That would hardly be termed a sin. Not even a venial sin, Joe.

However, if you feel badly, you can say the act of contrition. In fact -- every time you feel scruples, take it to God. Implore his forgiveness as if you'd really sinned. But stay away from Holy Communion for a scruple? Come ON.

Why am I emphasizing all the time, the love between us and Jesus Christ? I recall the gospel account, when Peter denied our Lord not once but three times, and the cock crowed. He ''discovered'' suddenly, that Jesus even told him in advance he would commit the despicable sin. He wept bitterly. (Immediate contrition,) so that artists often painted the face of Saint Peter afterwards showing long rifts in his face caused by constant weeping. But Christ never gave up on His holy apostle, did He? When it came time to part with the twelve, what was it Our Lord asked Peter -- three times? Once for each time He had heard Peter deny Him?

''Simon, son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?'' To which Peter replied, also three times-- ''Yes! Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.''

On your way to receive Him in Holy Communion just remember to speak the same words to Him. --Three times, Joe. Jesus will understand, My Friend.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.


shucks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.

the crusade of insistance that sacramental confession is not necessary prior to receiving communion, despite:

-the clear teaching of the usccb
-the detailed explanaton of the catechism
-recent re-affirmations of this truth from the Vatican
-2000 years of the church's tradition and and common belief, and
-every tenet of catholic common sense.

-- this ain't terribly difficult to figure out (readit@weep.com), December 07, 2004.

If you are a typical Catholic (I admit, I'm not, as typical Catholics don't have 11 years of seminary formation), I can see how it may be possible to suddenly be convicted of a serious sin while listening to a good homily lay out the Church's teaching on say, the sin of contraception or cooperating in an abortion.

If a person suddenly realizes that they are so guilty, or suddenly realizes that they had forgot to go to confession on Saturday for something they knew was wrong on Monday... we have a situation where the best thing to do is abstain from communion and go to confession ASAP.

If this Mass was being celebrated in a war zone or on a sinking ship or by a passing priest in the middle of the tundra and you have founded and serious reason to expect you won't have a chance to receive communion again in this life or in the next year.... then sure, let's admit the theoretical possibility of making a perfect act of contrition. But the 1% rarity of the above scenerios doesn't make it OK for the 99% situations as found by people posting on this site.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Joe,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that one should find ways to "opt out of communion without drawing undue attention to yourself" if possible, rather than receiving Communion while conscious of mortal sin. I hadn't thought of all the particular ways that you mentioned. One would need to avoid deliberately lying about one's physical health in any excuse presented though. I'm glad you brought it up.

-- Fr. Terry Donahue, CC (terrydonahue@usa.net), December 07, 2004.


Eugene,

How sad to hear you and your new internet buddy.

Put a sock in in sir with your 1000 words of HOT AIR! As Anti says, "..your emty words speak for themself.."

Receiving the Holy Eucharist with "..mortal sin.." on your soul is grave sin. I'm sure all our murdered holy Saints didn't have your little "..wimpy attitude.." when they were being hung drawn and quarted or killed by God knows how,you little wimp..

I rember you sad argumnt 3.5 years ago on saying it was ok to receive the Eucharist after pleasuring yourself.[ In a thread about stem cell and President Bush]

Maybe you'll be invited to preach at the next NON-Catholic wedding. See who your cheerleaders are?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 07, 2004.


Thanks, Judge Judy.

''How sad to hear you and your new internet buddy,'' --Yes; I noticed you're a sad sack lately.

''As Anti says, ..your emty words speak for themself.'' Learn to spell, Davy, or lay off the sauce.

;''Receiving the Holy Eucharist with "..mortal sin.." on your soul is grave sin.'' It sure is. I realise that, Tough Guy.

--''you little wimp...'' OK, Davy. But I've been sick.

''I rember you sad argumnt 3.5 years ago on saying it was ok to receive the Eucharist after pleasuring yourself.[ In a thread about stem cell and President Bush]. . . ''

It wasn't me. You must be rembing (sic) another poster; unless you're simply lying. You wouldn't lie, would you, Dave? No-o-o. I believe a sin unconfessed and/or unrepented is cause for staying away from Communion until we receive absolution for it and do penance. You got a problem with that, Fast Davy?

''Maybe you'll be invited to preach at the next NON-Catholic wedding.'' --Why? Are you engaged to a Baptist girl, Dave? You're getting hitched? Sure; I'll be there.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.


Hi guys, particularly Eugene and David. It is somewhat lamentable to hear two folks who have a lot of good things to say to be hammering each other. Just my two bits, from the single issue man.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Thanks Karl, for being nice & impartial. I haven't hammered David.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2004.

Oops. My mistake.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


What would Jesus do?

I think that a rather large number of sins seem to have been committed in this debate (and I mean the disturbing amount of anger and lack of respect) that would make our Lord very sad indeed, especially since we are arguing over His Body.

No-one has, quite rightly, asked Amanda about her relationship with her family or what the consequences of abstaining from the Eucharist might do to the relationship between her and her family members. The result of abstaining might well be a grave reason to receive Holy Communion.

More importantly, were all of the three conditions for mortal sin present at her first sin? or even at the second if she does receive? Did she commit whatever it was with full knowledge and consent? Did she really want to sin, to offend God and contribute to His Passion? We should never know because this is private to her and our Father in Heaven. But considering the amount of trouble she is taking to try to find a way through this problem without causing hurt to God surely we must charitably conclude that God has forgiven her and is holding on to her very tightly to protect her from the lack of love and compassion showed to her on here.

In sadness,

James

-- (jwest1_uk@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


Why are you so sad James. Amanda has been reading this thread. She has had a chance to clarify her situation and chose not to, which I completely understand. I don't see the need to analyze whether or not she committed a mortal sin. She said herself, right off the bat that she had done exactly that. She also thanked everyone and informed us that she went to confession and will try to live a more holy life from now on. This is cause for great happiness, not sadness! All the rest is academic.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I confess that I sometimes enjoy it when Eugene and David get fired up. It's good theater. I almost grabbed some popcorn last night. I don't think there has been any lasting malice or resentment from previous arguments nor will there be from this one. After all these guys agree on most things and have known each other (through cyberspace) for a long time.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 08, 2004.


We have to try better (re James) to keep the anger in check while disputing each others take on the pastoral or theological issues at stake here.

I think the anonymous nature of the net is one problem - which is why I use my real name and real email address. If I step over the line the moderators can call me to task - or other posters can (and have, and I've apologized).

Yes the issues are important. But James' right. Let's try (myself included) to keep things balanced and calm.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


I don't enjoy it, Brian. I really agree with James, about some sinful things said here in the name of our faith. I hope I haven't been sinful, because that wouldn't be contributing anything here. If I react quickly to an attack, it's to have it plain here that I don't take back a thing just because it irritates David.

To say my posting provides theater is demeaning to the faith, anyhow; not to me. Nothing could be more serious than the discussion we've had here. David isn't very good theater anyway. He's a lot of corn without much pop.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 08, 2004.


As I said, I could be wrong; and I guess I was. Maybe I gave you and Dave too much credit. You both blow a gasket from time to time in defense of your views and the faith, but I guess I always thought there was never any deep malice behind it, or it was easily gotten over. My bad.

If I react quickly to an attack, it's to have it plain here that I don't take back a thing just because it irritates David.

Quick reaction doesn't always make for man's finest moments.

To say my posting provides theater is demeaning to the faith, anyhow; not to me.

No more demeaning than your last post in response to David IMO, but again, that doesn't detract from the interesting discussion in this thread--for me anyway. Maybe its just me.

I think the anonymous nature of the net is one problem - which is why I use my real name and real email address.

I agree Joe and I do the same, although I understand why most people choose otherwise. There have been more than a few times where I would stop and think about what my priest or someone else might think about what I am writing if he were to stumble across a thread that I posted on with a google search.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 08, 2004.


Please understand what I tried to say. I didn't mean it to hurt your feelings, Brian. And, yes; I must be charitable even under fire. That's good advice.

But David trivialized what I've expressed with devotion; and callng it all theater is tough to buy. You didn't mean harm and I guess you expect us to stay friends. Of course. I love everybody, but I'm not here to entertain.

David's views are respectable. I haven't attacked him for them. But he appears convinced that I'm a fool. So what? He also belittled a Catholic priest publicly. It's not a laughing matter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 08, 2004.


What would Jesus do?

James,

I noted your statement earlier. In my opinion the motto you offer usually always precedes speculation. In the future, try asking what did Jesus do -better yet, what is Church teaching regarding this matter?

On its face the motto in question implies the Church to be lacking some aspect of Truth and in need of speculation or private revelation... -I don't think so... I won't go in to the content of your revelation...

/dismount soap box...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 08, 2004.


",,,Davids views are repectable..."

No Gene my views are your relegion if you're Catholic.

Receiving the Holy Euchaist before going to Confession is evil if you say that you committed "mortal sin.."

Your funny to me sir too? Can I have some of that "..popcorn or do you want me dump it on your head??? :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), December 08, 2004.


The poor guy still doesn't understand the meaning of repentence. Somebody please explain it to David.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2004.

The poor guy still doesn't understand the meaning of repentence. Somebody please explain it to David.

Sure.

David,

As you are well aware, the Church has always taught that perfect contrition (a tremendous grace) absolves us of sin. However, this does not excuse a Catholic from the requirement of receiving sacramental absolution proir to receiving Holy Communion. You obviously have a thorough understanding of this, but for anyone who doesn't, it's very clearly & thouroughly documented in every conceivable source for Church teaching on the matter. It's totally look-up-able.

Hope you & your family are well. God bless.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 13, 2004.


Yet Jake ignores one item:

I never claimed perfect contrition removes our obligation of going to confession; before OR after Holy Communion. If it were a confession AFTER receiving, it's very possibly improper and a sin, with exceptions.

However, it's not another mortal sin, and much less a sacrilege, as you keep claiming. Because you won't have received communion unrepentent. God forgives the sinner who truly and perfectly REPENTS. Whoever goes to Communion unrepentent IS guilty of sacrilege. (Look that up in the catechism; it's totally look-up-able.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.


"Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession"http://

CCC #1457

-- jake (j@k.e), December 13, 2004.


Of course, Pal, who's arguing?

You maintain by word of the catechism there cannot be any exceptions. I disagree, by the catechism as well as all that the Church has ever taught about the nature of God; there are exceptions.

A Catholic priest agreed with me in this thread (making two against two.)

What the Church has teaches about God is that He isn't vindictive, He's Just. God is Love, not Punishment. He is All-Merciful and All- Good. He reads the heart.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.


A Catholic priest agreed with me in this thread

You're both wrong.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 13, 2004.


You are. (So there.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.

You're not only arguing that there can be no exceptions, (dumb), but that God IS vindictive, isn't merciful, and IS NOT LOVE. That He will not read the heart of a sinner, but simply wants to punish. Sorry. Wrong.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.

God Himself took on the nature of a physical creature, and subjected Himself to every possible abuse at the hands of other creatures, so that through His agonizing torture and death He might make it possible for those very creatures to choose eternal life. In addition, He provided for the benefit of these same creatures a Church with a divine guarantee of infallible truth, so that there could be no doubt as to precisely what choices lead to eternal life and what choices drag one away from eternal life. And when such a creature freely decides to reject the Word of God, made available to him at such tremendous expense, you dare to accuse GOD of being VINDICTIVE for allowing such a sinner to receive the just consequences of his free choice, consequences which God had clearly revealed before the fact, so that they could be avoided?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 13, 2004.

Dear Paul M:

Yes; we are bound by faith to reject any thought that God will NOT be merciful to a sinner who repents. You made my case. Thanks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 13, 2004.


"..a Catholic priest agreed with me in this thread( making it two against two)"

The Catholic priest is wrong and its sad to read a priest say such nonsense! Father is leading his flock down the wrong path. I mean no disrespect to the priest, but he is dead wrong just like you.

Your memory is wrong AGAIN! Its not two against two sir. Scroll up and read before you post.

Take care Mr. Chavez.

PS: Hi, jake. All is well. Hope everything is well with you and yours'.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 13, 2004.


One of the errors present in Catholic practice that is rampant throughout America and has been since my childhood, in the late 1960's, is this idea that God is merciful at the expense of justice.

This cannot be. His Charity would not be perfect if it was thus. It would negate truth, as well. It would disprove the existance of God.

This is a major problem within Catholicism and is at the root of many, many injustices. It is, in my opinion, a fundamental reason why we fail to use excommunication when a person exhibits public, unrepentance while in grave sin. As such the Catholic Church itself is a scandal in and of itself, so much so that one can no longer tell right from wrong for all the false spin doctoring of sin and responsibility.

There will be many, many clerics in hell. I believe in far greater proportion than among the laity who are intentionally misled by the clergy, who forget that repentance requires restitution and restoration of unjust damage done.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.


Jesus Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the apostles when he breathed on them (after raising from the dead). The only other time in Scripture where we read about someone breathing on others is in Genesis when God animates Adam!

Thus did Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, grant the divine power and authority to his choosen apostles to forgive sin - and thus it is the ordinary economy of salvation for men to go to the apostles and their delegates to receive divine forgiveness for sin.

That it is also technically possible for God to grant forgiveness apart from this economy is true. But only for dire emergencies such as when the repentant soul is faced with execution, death, or exile...

Since receiving communion on a ordinary basis is NOT required for Catholics on pain of sin, it would seem to be a no-brainer for Catholics to NOT receive communion every Sunday if they are aware of having chosen thoughts, actions or omissions in grave areas... but to go instead to confession, have that sweet encounter with Christ, receive his forgiveness which he died and rose to give to the soul, and then after making reparation for a week, return to the table and then lovingly receive him.

The whole thread here pits people between what is technically true (sins may be forgiven you outside of the ordinary economy of salvation) with what is pastorally sound (unless you face imminent death or a long absence from the sacraments, abstaining from communion and seeking confession is the best way to live).

No one is going to do something ethically questionable by simply not receiving communion - but one is constantly going to be on thin ice when receiving communion in moral doubt. So here and going forward let us all just employ the age-old Catholic custom of daily exams of conscience, prayer, and bi-monthly confession so that when we go to Mass on Sundays we may always receive the Lord with joy and not sorrow.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 14, 2004.


You're saying it best in the overall truth, Joe. No one can improve on the sacraments, and penance is a sacrament. I never claimed perfect contrition improves on Catholic penitence. Al I disputed was the so-called sacrilege. Or, the need of confessing an additional ''mortal sin'' about receiving Holy Communion. Not when a penitent truly repents and approaches the Blessed Sacrament from motives of purest love. Basically, this is what Father Terry agreed with me over. Not abolishing a need for absolution, as David & Jake flatly imply (To the point of blasphemy, since they accuse him contumaciously, a servant of God.)

Again, let me say only: There are exceptions to the rule. To which these stubborn Catholics cry impossible.

Instead of being charitable Christians, they do it like prison guards in a Gulag: ''No bread for him! Take that bread from him, he's an enemy of the people !'' --And later they claim to have merely ''followed orders''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2004.


The difference being that military orders are fallible orders of men, while the teaching of the Church is the infallible orders of God Himself. "He who listens to you listens to me". If God didn't reveal any exceptions of His design, none are to be taken.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2004.

You do protest too much, Sir.
As before; nobody suggests the least weariness with or disrespect for the sacrament of reconciliation. Nor have I suggested playing fast and loose with the Blessed Sacrament. The opposite is true; we must adore and yearn for Jesus passionately. Perfect contrition means love for Jesus Christ. We're told in holy scripture that love covers a multitude of sins.

Besides, assuming a defiant attitude toward charitable priests goes contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church. Why can't you see that?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2004.


Assuming a conciliatory attitude toward unorthodox priests, charitable or otherwise, goes contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2004.

Very well. We agree on that. Father Terry is orthodox; and here he was not given respect.

If you choose to disagree, we'll have to forgive you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2004.


Paul,

Assuming a conciliatory attitude toward unorthodox priests, charitable or otherwise, goes contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

Now that Jake is frequenting again, it's nice to know you draw the same line at out and out *schismatic* priests and organizations -- assuming a conciliatory attitude towards them goes "contrary to the teaching of Christ and his Church". A bummer for the sspx and their ilk.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 14, 2004.


"You're not only arguing that there can be no exceptions, (dumb), but that God IS vindictive, isn't merciful, and IS NOT LOVE."

Gene gets right to work. The project: construction of a very large and ominous strawman. Having been whooped with his own CCC in the hands of a traditional Catholic, having been left without an argument, he now resorts to the distractng of attention, claiming that jake believes in a vindicate God without mercy and stuff. Even though jake never even implied such a thing.

You can't buy this stuff... this is priceless. Somehow we've moved from jake's right reiteration of Catholic teaching to jake saying that God ain't loooove. How very sentimental.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 14, 2004.


Hi, Emmie.
Let's parse my awful words to get the right sense?

''You're not only arguing that there can be no exceptions,'' [That's what he argues] --But that God IS vindictive, isn't merciful, and IS NOT LOVE.''

[I've maintained God will be merciful to a sinner who loves Him and repents; but you say: No exceptions.] I didn't say it; you did. And that That He can not read the hearts of repentent sinners, He simply wants to punish. --NO EXCEPTIONS, Gene! NO EXCEPTIONS! --Too vindictive to be GOD? That's right.

Tell us when God ever said ''No exceptions'' --If God is love, why would He agree with you, ''No exceptions'' --? You must not agree that GOD IS LOVE. He's just like you, hardly a loving Father.

God wants us to repent, Emmie. He wants us to love Him and return to Him when we've gone astray. You ought to know that without anybody insisting.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2004.


You are needlessly personalizing and emotionalizing a pretty straight- forward and simply precept of the Faith. Keep an objective focus on the topic at hand.

The sacrament of Penance is a necessity of precept, not a necessity of means and precept, such as Baptism. In the case of Baptism, yes, there are no exceptions. It is an absolute necessity. This is de fide and beyond dispute.

The necessity of Confession is a necessity of precept, and as such, if it is needed yet cannot be obtained before death, it is conceivable that God may provide for that soul by another means. That's up to Him.

Nobody really denied the mercy and love which God here. You merely assumed they did. You really shouldn't do that, you know. Just stick with the topic; be objective.

At any rate, you can't go to Communion until you've confessed a mortal sin, if you have one. That's the precept, the law, the rule. Go back and look at what Christ said. He said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. There's a lot packed into that statement, but to make a long story short, the way of exception is stems from abolition of the law.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 15, 2004.


Now that Jake is frequenting again, it's nice to know you draw the same line at out and out *schismatic* priests and organizations -- assuming a conciliatory attitude towards them goes "contrary to the teaching of Christ and his Church".

Relax, Frank. I'm sure I can be claimed under some sort of exception. Paul is not vindictive.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2004.


Just wonderful, Emmie,
You won't have me disputing anything you've said. Except what you demand of me as objective focus on the topic. You may use it as your foothold here yourself, if it pleases you.. Don't impose it on me.

Because I'm saying only what's reasonable: A penitent who receives communion with love for Jesus and perfect contrition eliminates a precept of the Church without just cause. We must surely OBEY the Church; and it was hardly necessary for Jake to split hairs here with his cathecism. I already knew & acknowledged the rules.

But the act of disobedience is not an outrage against the Holy Eucharist. It might not even be a mortal sin, depending on a mitigating reason. Mind you, we cannot absolve ourselves of a mortal sin; I've always understood this.

I asserted the truth; improper reception of Communion is not always a grave sin. It's just improper; --if a faithful recipient is moved by great love for Christ and has offered Him PERFECT CONTRITION in anticipation of the act.

He/she is not conceded anything else. He must go to confession just as if nothing had changed. But not necessarily to confess another sin-- sacrilege. That's always so when someone receives unworthily altogether, i.e., unrepentant. Ask your own confessor, Emerald. Don't take my word for it. Peace, & Merry Christmas.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2004.


Jake,

No, you've got your clergy confused. Fr. Terry is not vindictive, Paul is not necessarily vindictive, but not concilliatory either. There's a fine line in there.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 15, 2004.


The Boys are back , Hi Jake and Emerald, sing along now.....

"Well I'm back Fix your bent antennae tune it in and then I'm gonna enter in and up under your skin like a splinter The center of attention back for the winter I'm interesting, the best thing since wrestling Infesting in your kids ears and nesting Testing, "Attention Please" feel the tension soon as someone mentions me here's my 10 cents my 2 cents is free A nuisance, who sent, you sent for me?

Now this looks like a job for me so everybody just follow me cuz we need a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me"

:)Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 15, 2004.


Yo, dat was da bomb dawg fo' rizeal! You got skillz you been keepin on the down low. Was that Eminem or Vanilla Ice? OUT!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 15, 2004.

Brian,

You got skillz you been keepin on the down low

LOL, if he does, I'd doubt you'd want to know about them, and am pretty sure Jalepeno wouldn't want you to down low in street vernacular

But I thought it was funny, being at Kiwi's expense and all.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 15, 2004.


Funnier anyway, than Kiwi is. Twice as funny as Emerald, a clap of one hand to him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2004.

Frank,

ROTFL! Picture me looking away the instant that appeared on the screen. You're right, I don't expect Jalapeno will put that book in my Christmas stocking. Was that one of your pseudonyms on the customer reviews? How many stars do you rate it? Here's what down low (or dl) means on the mean streets (ok dirt roads) of rural N. California: Teen Lingo: Down Low

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 15, 2004.


Come on, kiwi, you can't just paste and clip... you have to format it and mod the spelling so you can hear it, man. Here:

Th' soul's escapin'
through this hole that it'z gapin'
This world is mine for da takin'
Make me king, as we move towarda
New-World Orda
A normal life's borin'
but superstardom's close ta post mortem
It only grows harder
only grows hotter...


How you been doing?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 15, 2004.

"Peace, & Merry Christmas."

Same to you and yours Gene.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 15, 2004.


"We must surely OBEY the Church; and it was hardly necessary for Jake to split hairs here with his cathecism. I already knew & acknowledged the rules.."

Well than shut up Gene!

The orginal question was about " the rules". Shame on you and Father Terry.( your new internet buddy)

-- - (David@excite.com), December 16, 2004.


ROFLOL..Kiwi, Emerald, Jake, Eugene, Brian, et al..

anybody remember the old Haiku post? This is beginning to remind me of that "classic"..and I'm lovin' it.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 16, 2004.


The Catholic forum
Quiet but for the rumble
Of Trads breaking wind

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2004.

Dear David:
Thanks for the sneer. I recall you were gloating over having been to confession; --Oh, this is a grand feeling!

Go back for the next installment, the stitches from that last one are coming apart. I'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2004.


Brian,

It makes as much sense as anything else, but now could be a double entendre that could get one looked at strangely. My guess is the teen version will decrease in prominence...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2004.


Sheer coincidence, I guess. But this morning came across somebody touting a ''Dr. Joseph Murphy'' and I checked the hyperlink to him. He's called a founder of the Los Angeles sect Church of Divine Science. He wrote books on the mystical powers of the unconscious, etc;

What I would judge as a charlatan. Who knows? One link led to Amazon.com, and a book he wrote. There is given a list of more books likely to interest readers of Dr. Murphy's publications. Among them one book sharing information about ''down low'' and men who teach and/or practice such ''sciences''. This left me wondering. Divine Science??? --In what way? --Huh?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ