Communion W/out Confession

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Luigi' date='30 May 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1275195731' post='2120587']
Point taken. But then, I'm not a very competitive person. I always think that more can be accomplished through cooperation thatn through competition.
[/quote]

I am the exact opposite: very competitive, but completely uncooperative.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='28 May 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1275082634' post='2119854']
With the sins involving addiction, I have always understood that it isn't a mortal sin after it's become an addiction, but the steps leading to it being an addiction are. Because by definition of it being an addiction, the person is not able to fully exercise their free will, but they were able to use their free will to put themselves into the addiction in the first place. And, nonetheless, it wouldn't be BAD for them to abstain from communion until they'd recieved absolution, and then there would be no question.

And I agree, there is no situation in my life that I can conceive where it would be better to recieve communion with a mortal sin on my soul than to wait until after confession.
[/quote]

I've heard this opinion, but I [i]think[/i] I disagree with it. I think that sin is by its very nature addictive, and far from being a mitigating circumstance addiction only drags the poor soul deeper away from Our Lord. If a sin has become habitual it has entrenched itself in the soul and begun to turn that soul away from God. This is why we are [i]freed [/i]by grace from the [i]slavery[/i] of sin; if a sin is habitual it is only more grave because it twists the passions, will, and intellect even further from grace than if it was a one-time occurrence. Habitual sin is a pitiable place to be, and those enslaved by sin should pray to break the addiction to evil.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='29 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1275186380' post='2120479']
Why are we even arguing? This is pointless. We're all agreeing that Communion without confession (in the state of mortal sin) is bad, right?
[/quote]

Yes, but for the reasons given above, I don't think grave sin should automatically equal mortal sin. Ignoring the conditions for mortal sin leads to a scrupulosity. The Catechism informs us about full knowledge and full consent of the will. We should consider them when examining our conscience (along with having a good confessor, etc.).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='30 May 2010 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1275196347' post='2120595']
I've heard this opinion, but I [i]think[/i] I disagree with it. I think that sin is by its very nature addictive, and far from being a mitigating circumstance addiction only drags the poor soul deeper away from Our Lord. If a sin has become habitual it has entrenched itself in the soul and begun to turn that soul away from God. This is why we are [i]freed [/i]by grace from the [i]slavery[/i] of sin; if a sin is habitual it is only more grave because it twists the passions, will, and intellect even further from grace than if it was a one-time occurrence. Habitual sin is a pitiable place to be, and those enslaved by sin should pray to break the addiction to evil.
[/quote]

I would distinguish between each particular instance of sin and the addiction itself. Being in a state of habitual sin is the more grave situation, but rather than point to the particular instances as the mortal sin, I believe it would be the failure to repent against the addiction through Confession, removing occasions of sin, etc. The sin that finally cuts a person from grace may not be the pornography or the drinking, but rather despairing against the Holy Spirit that forgiveness and repentance from those sins is possible, or despairing about the existence of God. It's in the depth of despair that the real life-and-death decision is made, then fought out in battling against the attendant grave sins.

This is based on my own self knowledge and examination of conscience over the years than anything, but I feel like grave sins are considered grave because of how powerful they are and addictive they can be. For the same reason, for most of us who struggle with the beginning of keeping the flesh obedient to the spirit, I don't think grave sins are usually mortal because we haven't yet won over our free will. Our will is still compromised. But the sin is still grave because even if it isn't mortal, it is the grave sins that will cause a faithful Catholic to stray and tempted to falling away. Venial sins lead to grave sins which lead to mortal sin.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1275310692' post='2121113']
I would distinguish between each particular instance of sin and the addiction itself. Being in a state of habitual sin is the more grave situation, but rather than point to the particular instances as the mortal sin, I believe it would be the failure to repent against the addiction through Confession, removing occasions of sin, etc. The sin that finally cuts a person from grace may not be the pornography or the drinking, but rather despairing against the Holy Spirit that forgiveness and repentance from those sins is possible, or despairing about the existence of God. It's in the depth of despair that the real life-and-death decision is made, then fought out in battling against the attendant grave sins.

This is based on my own self knowledge and examination of conscience over the years than anything, but I feel like grave sins are considered grave because of how powerful they are and addictive they can be. For the same reason, for most of us who struggle with the beginning of keeping the flesh obedient to the spirit, I don't think grave sins are usually mortal because we haven't yet won over our free will. Our will is still compromised. But the sin is still grave because even if it isn't mortal, it is the grave sins that will cause a faithful Catholic to stray and tempted to falling away. Venial sins lead to grave sins which lead to mortal sin.
[/quote]

You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 09:12 AM' timestamp='1275318758' post='2121163']
You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.
[/quote]

No they're not. "Grave sin" is a term which describes a sin that is grave matter. "Mortal sin" describes a sin that is grave matter, AND is made with full knowledge of it's sinfulness and full consent. All three conditions are important, and it does make a difference. They are not synonymous, even if all mortal sins are grave sins, all grave sins are not, in and of themselves, mortal sins, unless the other two conditions are also met. Even if the terms are used interchangeably, that doesn't mean it's really accurate to use them as such.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1275318758' post='2121163']
You are making a false dichotomy between grave sins and mortal sins. The two terms are fairly synonymous.
[/quote]

They may have been regarded as synonymous before Vatican II, but I understand this to be one of the common abuses about our understanding of sin that the Council sought to heal. I give you that we are now enduring the opposite extreme, in which our attitude toward sin is too relaxed, but that doesn't mean we should return to the prior extreme. Our Catechism does, in fact, distinguish between sins of grave matter and mortal sins. For a mature and well disciplined Catholic with a properly formed conscience, I agree that committing a grave sin is on par with committing mortal sin because knowledge and consent are not lacking. However, what of us who are in a daily battle with an addictive grave sin? If you honestly believe every instance of grave sin is completely cutting me off from God's grace, I can only imagine that you and I do not believe the same Gospel.

But, if you some teaching on this matter from reputable and orthodox bishops since Vatican II, I am open to their authority on this. Otherwise, we may just go round and round. I'm glad you're not in my shoes, but I hope you have some empathy for the deep struggle that breaking free from a grave sin really is.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1275327122' post='2121240']
They may have been regarded as synonymous before Vatican II, but I understand this to be one of the common abuses about our understanding of sin that the Council sought to heal.[/quote]

Show me the conciliar document and paragraph number in which it is stated that the faithful's understanding of sin needed to be changed.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='31 May 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1275327122' post='2121240']
I give you that we are now enduring the opposite extreme, in which our attitude toward sin is too relaxed, but that doesn't mean we should return to the prior extreme. Our Catechism does, in fact, distinguish between sins of grave matter and mortal sins. [/quote]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the term "mortal sin" to describe particular sins objectively:
"If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin (Latin [i]editio typica[/i]: peccatum est mortale)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2302)

Additionally, the 1983 Code of Canon Law uses the term "grave" to describe the type of sin which prevents a person from going to Communion:
A person who is conscious of grave sin (Latin [i]editio typica[/i]: Qui conscius est peccati gravis) is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession. ([i]Code of Canon Law[/i], can. 916)

From this, it can be seen that the terms "grave sin" and "mortal sin" are fairly interchangeable.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='31 May 2010 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1275319983' post='2121172']
No they're not. "Grave sin" is a term which describes a sin that is grave matter. "Mortal sin" describes a sin that is grave matter, AND is made with full knowledge of it's sinfulness and full consent. All three conditions are important, and it does make a difference. They are not synonymous, even if all mortal sins are grave sins, all grave sins are not, in and of themselves, mortal sins, unless the other two conditions are also met. Even if the terms are used interchangeably, that doesn't mean it's really accurate to use them as such.
[/quote]

ZZ, though some today may find it necessary to make a distinction between the terms "mortal sin" and "grave sin," it has always been that the term "mortal sin" has been used to describe concrete actions. This can be seen all throughout the [i]Summa[/i].
"Therefore blasphemy is a mortal sin (original Latin: peccatum mortale)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], II-II, Q. 13, Art. 2)
"Therefore drunkenness is a mortal sin (original Latin: peccatum mortale)." (St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]Summa Theologiæ[/i], II-II, Q. 150, Art. 2)

There is nothing wrong with saying a particular action is, from an objective standpoint, a mortal sin. One could say, "Murder is a mortal sin" and be just as correct as when he states that "mortal is a grave sin."

In a like manner, the Code of Canon Law says that one who is conscious of "grave sin" may not receive Communion, while one could just as correctly state that one who is conscious of mortal sin may not receive Communion.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

The only time when I think it would be inappropriate to interchange the terms "mortal sin" and "grave sin" is when one is talking about the gravity of a particular sin actually committed by another (as opposed to talking about the gravity of a sin according to its genus). It would, thus, be inappropriate to state, "You committed a mortal sin when you did this or that." One could, however, say, "You committed a sin that is mortal according to its genus but that may have only been venial in this particular circumstance because of lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent."

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 May 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1275343802' post='2121545']
One could, however, say, "You committed a sin that is mortal according to its genus but that may have only been venial in this particular circumstance because of lack of full knowledge or deliberate consent."
[/quote]

Thank you.

[LouisvilleFan]

And it's right [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1862.htm"]here[/url] in black and white: CCC Paragraph 1862: One commits venial sin when ... he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2352.htm"]Paragraph 2353[/url] specifically addresses masturbation. The bottom line is still to consult a good confessor and trust his judgment about approaching Communion.

Edited June 1, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[Ziggamafu]

I'm reminded of a post from Jimmy Akin's blog:

[quote]
Grave Sin = Mortal Sin

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

What if a sin has been committed that has grave matter but lacks the knowledge and consent needed to make it mortal? How might one refer to such a sin?

Since it has grave matter, one might refer to it--logically--as a grave sin. That would seem pretty straightforward: Sin with grave matter is grave sin. Add the needed knowledge and consent and it becomes mortal. Right?

Well, you'd think that. Only you wouldn't be right.

For some years it's been clear (to me, anyway) that ecclesiastical documents like the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly use the phrase "grave sin" to mean "mortal sin."

But until recently I haven't had an explicit statement documenting this fact. Now I do (CHT to the reader who provided it!)

The statement is found in a post-synodal apostolic exhortation by John Paul II from 1984. The synod of bishops had been held the previous year on the theme of reconciliation and penance, and in the resulting exhortation,

During the synod, some apparently proposed a spectrum of sins consisting of venial, grave, and mortal sins--apparently using the middle category not the way proposed above but as a sin that is worse than venial but less than mortal. This is perhaps related to the mistranslation of "grave" as "serious" in English that was common for a long time.

In any event, that kind of division would be wrong, and so John Paul II wrote:

During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

And so (here comes the money quote) . . .

Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin's objective content. Hence, in the church's doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

So. Glad we've got that cleared up.
[/quote]

[mortify]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='01 June 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1275399976' post='2122037']
I'm reminded of a post from Jimmy Akin's blog:
[/quote]

That was a great post, TY!

[Paddington]

[quote name='mortify' date='01 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1275408219' post='2122101']
That was a great post, TY!
[/quote]

It would be better if it applied to Louisville or Zunyshnn's posts.