To Eat Or Not Eat

[dairygirl4u2c]

X masturbates. he tells his priest it's hard for him, that he's falling away, and he misses the eucharist. they both are wondering if he should partake. X says he's discerning hte catholic church and the idea of masturbation. the priest says he should partake of the eucharist, because if he's weak, not partaking will make him weaker, especially when he wants to etc.
there are two rules at issue here.
'you cannot eat of the eucharist while in mortal sin' and
'mortal sin is: intentionally, doing something, that you know, is gravely, wrong'. it has those elements to it.
if the person is discerning, the priest could argue that he's not in mortal sin, and that he could then even by the initial rule, even though he's masturbating, eat o the eucharist.
the knee jerk response is that he cannot partake.
but why not?
i actually know a respected canon lawyer who said he could partake. he thinks infalliblity is true, and is orthodox etc. this is based on a true story. not that it matters, cause the issue is very possible... i shouldn't have to justify why the question matters.
is this an issue that canon lawyers would argue about? is it as simple as he cannot partake.

discuss.

[HisChildForever]

If one is in a state of mortal sin he cannot receive Holy Communion. To do so would be sacrilege, another mortal sin, a grave offense against God. To not partake when in a state of mortal sin would be a display of reverence and respect to Christ and His Church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

how does one get around the 'mortal sin doesn't exist here' argument? people say that God can mitigate a mortal sin to non mortal status if one is in formation, etc. or just looking at the definition itself... 'intentionally doing something you knnow is wrong'... what if you don't know that it's wrong, strictly speaking?
couldn't the argument be said 'no mortal sin exists here'. and then say 'if no mortal sin exists, then it's not wrong to partake per that other rule'.

there is a decent point about 'don't partake out of respect een if th above migth be true'. there's at least plausibvle point id say about 'we want to strengthen him'

is this point even debateble amongst canon lawyers?

[HisChildForever]

An individual must meet three criteria in order to be guilty of mortal sin. If a mortal sin is committed, the individual cannot receive. It is possible for an individual to make a perfect contrition, in which a mortal sin would be forgiven outside of Confession, but in order for that to occur the individual must be intent on going to Confession as soon as possible. For instance, an individual who committed a mortal sin, yet made a perfect contrition, and made an appointment for Confession at 1pm the next day would not be damned to Hell should a tragic accident take his life before his appointment.

I should add that I am unsure whether or not an individual who made a perfect contrition would be permitted to receive Holy Communion. In my personal opinion, the individual should abstain until Confession is made. Although there could be a rare instance when it is permitted, although again I am unsure when I think about it.

Edited January 3, 2011 by HisChildForever

[BigJon16]

If a person is in formation and does not know that they are doing something wrong, then the are not "intentionally doing something that they know(because they don't know) is wrong." Right? Or am I just further confusing myself?

Or what if they do not know that they cannot receive communion if they have sinned? Does the same idea apply?

Now I am very confused.

-- Big Jon.

[rkwright]

Dairy I'm a little surprised by this thread. The pieces are all there, not really sure what the question is asking.

One committs a mortal sin when they committ a grave sin, with knowledge of both the gravity and the sin itself, with complete consent.

[quote]1859
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.


1860
Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.[/quote]

If one meets these three elements, you have a mortal sin.

Your question seems to be asking whether when X masturbates, while X is still discerning, committs a mortal sin. You know the answer to this - we can't say. Honestly, your hypothetical is too vauge to really know. Does "discerning" equate to a lack of sinful character of the act? Perhaps, but maybe its simply feigned ignorance or hardness of heart. Only X would truly know this.

BTW for anyone reading - Yes masturbation is a mortal sin. There - now you cannot claim ignorance. So don't do it.

[liseski]

Interesting. When my "cradle Catholic" partner confessed this to his priest as an adolescent (in Chicago, 1960's era), he was told that this was a perfectly natural thing for a young man to do and he need not confess to it.

[thessalonian]

rkwright,

There is another paragraph from the Catechism that needs to be considered here. I think where this is headed is from the following paragraph from the CCC.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

To form an equitable judgment about the [b]subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.[/b]


It would seem that this paragraph indicates that habbit may lesson the consent element of whether a sin is moral or not. Pauls words, "the good that I would do I do not, while the evil that I would not do, I do" make more sense in light of this paragraph. Not in any way to suggest that this is the sin he was talking about.

Edited January 3, 2011 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Your question seems to be asking whether when X masturbates, while X is still discerning, committs a mortal sin. You know the answer to this - we can't say. Honestly, your hypothetical is too vauge to really know. Does "discerning" equate to a lack of sinful character of the act? Perhaps, but maybe its simply feigned ignorance or hardness of heart. Only X would truly know this."

"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."

perhaps only X would know that. but even he might not know for sure. a state like that is fuzzy territory, and only God could know. in any case, X can have a good idea... and the priest could have a good idea. they might not know, but they can make a good judgment about the matter. if they decided X wasn't in mortal sin, or even if 'we can't say' then what is the practical solution?

thesee points are strentchened by the quote by thess. 'to guide pastoral action...'. not that it'd include giving permission to get the eucharist, necesarily. but maybe. also, that quote shows that moral culpability can be lessened or reduced to a minimum, so the premise of 'no mortal sin, actually' can be made.
one couldn't necessarily insist as hischild does, that just because an act has occurred, that the sin has occurred. in legal circles, that's like saying the act occurred for first degree murder, but there was no properly formed deliberation, or intention (eg, intention to sin... this is a directly analogous point), yet we're going to say it was first degree murder anyway and ignore the classifications of 'no culpability'.

[rkwright]

ahh I was typing too fast and forgot to include that.

But yes that paragraph seems to go straight to the knowledge/consent of the sin.

Two other things to note, First this is the only sin I know of in the CCC that has a similar paragraph. I don't know of any other that says habit, maturity, and other factors can lesson the culpability. I think this is something to be said in our times - most people don't know that masturbation is wrong, or once they found out the habit has set in. The other thing why I never cared for this paragraph much, is that it almost gives an "out" to those who are know yet remain in the sin. Its much more powerful to say, its a mortal sin - so stop.

[Theresita Nerita]

Interestingly, in my experience, lay people are always the ones to recommend the strict, "don't do it if you've done it since your last confession" rule, whereas actual priests have unanimously told me that if you honestly try not to, and it still "happens" , say an act of contrition and partake. Then confess it next time you confess.

I think this might have something to do with obedience. For a long time I had the attitude that I was going to be stricter with myself than priests told me to, so that I wouldn't be "deceiving" myself. Then I realized that THAT is a self-deception! To think "those priests, when they tell me that if I've honestly tried to resist temptation but fallen anyway despite myself I should still partake, they're just post-Vatican II wimps"...that's pride talking! Who am I to suppose I know about sin and justice better than a priest who spends countless hours in the confessional? Besides, worst case scenario, if your confessor tells you to do something and you do it out of obedience, it's his problem not yours.

Also, confession is all about the keys of Peter and "whosoever's sins you forgive are forgiven." Hence, even if those priests were unanimously wrong about this from God's perspective, they're still not "retaining" my sin, and Jesus has promised to honor that.

I could be wrong about all this. However, I do believe I have progressed a lot since I started doing what the priest told me, despite my doubts and anxiety.

This link also confirms what the priests have told me: [url="http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/PS2010/html/new_catholic_encyclopedia_masturbation.htm."]http://faculty.plts....sturbation.htm. [/url]

"
The stress in the common Catholic teaching that, for the unmarried, all directly intended sexual stimulation is objectively grave matter, has led many to the false conclusion that whenever an unmarried person experiences sexual stimulation while awake, he is inevitably guilty of mortal sin. Such a conclusion overlooks the equally common teaching of the Church that a person incurs mortal guilt only when he has fully and deliberately chosen what he clearly realizes to be seriously wrong. Difficulties can arise in determining whether a particular act is fully deliberate or not. But even here there are certain guidelines especially applicable in this matter that may help to avoid the two extremes of considering all such experiences mortal sins or of declaring that there are never any mortal sins in this matter.

What takes place spontaneously during sleep cannot involve guilt. Furthermore, generally speaking, when one is in a sleepy state of just having wakened on trying to get to sleep, his acts will hardly be fully deliberate. There is a natural interplay of sexual stimulation and phantasm or imagination that can easily lead to spontaneous and involuntary actions by the process known to psychologists as ideomotion. Serious sin must always involve a fully deliberate choice of what one fully realizes to be seriously wrong. Such a choice not easily presumed to be that of anyone who wants to love and serve God."




So, in other words, if you [b]don't[/b] have a conscious moment of "I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway, and I'll catch you later, God!" then it's only a (very serious, grave matter) venial sin.





Do you guys agree?

[Sternhauser]

While I will not judge what any of the priests have told any of you, it ought to be known that there are a lot of unholy and unorthodox priests out there, who will tell you that anything up to and including premarital sex and chemical contraception are moral. Some of them don't even bother with the proper form of absolution. Find a holy, wise, and orthodox priest, wherever you can. Domincans, FSSP, Norbertines, Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. Just find one. Life is too short and your soul is too precious not to.

~Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1294105877' post='2196351']

So, in other words, if you [b]don't[/b] have a conscious moment of "I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway, and I'll catch you later, God!" then it's only a (very serious, grave matter) venial sin.





Do you guys agree?
[/quote]

I think I have to disagree. This seems like too high of a threshold for mortal sin. If this is truly the case, there would be very few mortal sins in my opinion - not that this is a bad thing, I just don't think its reality.

Very few people, during the moment of choice, say I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway. Most are more focused on something else. In fact I truly fear the person who makes a conscious choice for evil - these are dangerous people IMHO. On the other hand I feel like most people get caught up in the moment and just forget about God. Only later they remember, oh yea that was a sin. To take another example, think of adultery. There is no consideration of these other factors in adultery. So at the moment the spouse breaks their vows, they're usually not thinking "I know this is wrong, but I'm doing it anyways" - rather they're normally thinking, I'm really sexually attracted to this person!!!!

One other thing - perhaps I am simplifying it too much. You could also say that everyone has that fleeting moment of conscience telling them to stop. Often that lasts only for a moment, and we brush it aside. Thus we can say we made a conscious choice to do something we know is wrong - but this choice seems to quick its really hard to identify until after the act.

[Theresita Nerita]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1294107086' post='2196363']
I think I have to disagree. This seems like too high of a threshold for mortal sin. If this is truly the case, there would be very few mortal sins in my opinion - not that this is a bad thing, I just don't think its reality.

Very few people, during the moment of choice, say I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway. Most are more focused on something else. In fact I truly fear the person who makes a conscious choice for evil - these are dangerous people IMHO. On the other hand I feel like most people get caught up in the moment and just forget about God. Only later they remember, oh yea that was a sin. To take another example, think of adultery. There is no consideration of these other factors in adultery. So at the moment the spouse breaks their vows, they're usually not thinking "I know this is wrong, but I'm doing it anyways" - rather they're normally thinking, I'm really sexually attracted to this person!!!!

One other thing - perhaps I am simplifying it too much. You could also say that everyone has that fleeting moment of conscience telling them to stop. Often that lasts only for a moment, and we brush it aside. Thus we can say we made a conscious choice to do something we know is wrong - but this choice seems to quick its really hard to identify until after the act.
[/quote]

I don't know if I agree. I've definitely made conscious choices for evil before - called mortal sins... for example:

Recently I was talking to a new friend who was really laughing at my jokes, etc. A topic came up that led up [i]really well [/i]to a certain piece of gossip about another woman we both knew. It was such a good piece of gossip! She was going to love it so much! And the woman would never find out!

In short, I was tempted, I remember thinking for a second, "No you really shouldn't say it, gossip is wrong" and then saying it anyway because consciously I wanted to tell an amusing story instead of letting the conversation lag for the purpose of protecting some woman I didn't even like.

That's a mortal sin, in my opinion. If you fear everyone that makes choices like that, you gotta fear me too eek!

And as far as adultery: no they may not be thinking it at the "moment" as you say, but I bet at some time in between meeting the person and getting them into their bed, they'd have to consciously plot to take them home. Adultery doesn't just overcome you when you're lying in bed. It involves a lot more conscious planning. You gotta be conscious enough to, like, get the person into your house, and make sure they like you too, etc etc.

Also, no child grows up with a "habit" of adultery, nor does anyone commit adultery while half-asleep. At least no one I know...

So maybe they're different in that this sin more often has extenuating circumstances, esp. according to that catechism paragraph referenced earlier?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1294108207' post='2196373']
I don't know if I agree. I've definitely made conscious choices for evil before - called mortal sins... for example:

Recently I was talking to a new friend who was really laughing at my jokes, etc. A topic came up that led up [i]really well [/i]to a certain piece of gossip about another woman we both knew. It was such a good piece of gossip! She was going to love it so much! And the woman would never find out!

In short, I was tempted, I remember thinking for a second, "No you really shouldn't say it, gossip is wrong" and then saying it anyway because consciously I wanted to tell an amusing story instead of letting the conversation lag for the purpose of protecting some woman I didn't even like.

That's a mortal sin, in my opinion. If you fear everyone that makes choices like that, you gotta fear me too eek!

And as far as adultery: no they may not be thinking it at the "moment" as you say, but I bet at some time in between meeting the person and getting them into their bed, they'd have to consciously plot to take them home. Adultery doesn't just overcome you when you're lying in bed. It involves a lot more conscious planning. You gotta be conscious enough to, like, get the person into your house, and make sure they like you too, etc etc.

Also, no child grows up with a "habit" of adultery, nor does anyone commit adultery while half-asleep. At least no one I know...

So maybe they're different in that this sin more often has extenuating circumstances, esp. according to that catechism paragraph referenced earlier?
[/quote]

I think we're saying the same thing. I mis-interpreted your first post to mean that mortal sins are only ones where we say "I know this is wrong, and I'm doing it to go against you God". That to me is truly evil (thats the people I fear). What you're saying is what I think more people fall into: We know something is wrong, but we do it anyways because of some other reason (gossiping because its amusing, cheating because we want sex, ect.) I have heard people say mortal sins are only those where we consciously choose to tell God we are sinning against him - which I think is way too narrow of a definition. When I saw your quote to say Its wrong and I'm doing it anyway, catch you later God! I interpreted it this way.