To Eat Or Not Eat

[dominicansoul]

In regards to the Seal of Confession, it is only binding on priests, but laity must be careful to protect the seal as well. If we overhear another's confession, or we overhear what the priest tells another in confession, than, the Seal applies to the laity as well....

I used to share some of the things priests tell me in confession....I don't do that anymore. I feel like I need to respect the priest's counsel, as, he is not allowed to talk about what happens in the confessional, why should I?

[thessalonian]

There is nothing binding on the laity regarding the seal of the confessional at all. It is a very private thing so most people don't share but from time to time I have shared things with people I am close to.

[thessalonian]

We may not like that paragraph 2352 is in the Catechism but it is. We may think it gives those who struggle with sin an out but I sins that are habitual are far more compelling for some than we can immagine. I suspect that this paragraph is in the catechism specifically because this sin is secret, yet far more widespread than we imagine and the guilt particularly for young people can be overbearing. I don't think this guilt ever allows one to bevcome complacent about this sin and as they struggle against it, yet the Eucharist can be of benefit. Many have been exposed to pornography early in their lives when they are too immaature to reject it. This paragraph gave me pause when I first read it. But I have to believe that the Church is wise in including this paragraph.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1294153527' post='2196527']
rk is backing me on what i thought on the matter of how development matters.
he had a great point though about why they want to receive to begin with if they aren't catholic. i suppose they are fighting their demons yet want the eucharist. or they are more like orthodox, or liberal catholics, or protestsants who want to receive, yet don't know too much about the CC itself.
[/quote]

'fighting demons' meaning fighting their sin, or fighting whether the CC is true or not. given this thread is about 'discernment' it could very well be someone who's trying to discern whether the CC is true for whatever reason, not necessarily one of those other types i mentioned eg protestant orthodox liberal catholic, types.

----------

rk never said he thought that the person initially posed about should receive or not. but he at least acknowledged that it wasn't a mortal sin probably hte way it was described.
for most here, including him. what is one to make of the confliction of the rules? if it's not a mortal sin, they could receive, cause no mortal sin exists. if they question whether it's a sin, or if the CC is true- they could be said to not be in communion with the CC- but even their disbelief isn't a mortal sin if honest and discerning as rk even said. so if their lack of communion isn't a mortal sin, why coudln't they be said to be in communion enough to receive? we could say 'strength' is a croutons argument, but is it really given the lack of sin? they may not be 'in communion' in a literal sense, but they aren't 'out of communion' either. if there's no sin, why so quick to say don't receive?
are those putting down teh communion strength thing, really putting down their own sacrament?

Edited January 5, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i had been thinking about this paragraph, and how it relates to me. i definitely don't pose these hypotheticals maliciously or feigned etc.
some things i do do though, as is human nature mind you and everyoen does not that that makes it right, i become very good at rationalizing. imagine who would be the ultimate rationalizer, satan.
here is padre pio being decieved by satan.

[quote]Satan went beyond all the limits of deception when he went to Father Pio pretending to be a penitent. This is the Father Pio’s testimony: “One day, while I was hearing confessions, a man came to the confessional where I was. He was tall, handsome, dressed with some refinement and he was kind and polite. He started to confess his sins, which were of every kind: against God, against man and against the morals. All the sins were obnoxious! I was disoriented, in fact for all the sins that he told me, but I responded to him with God’s Word, the example of the Church, and the morals of the Saints. But the enigmatic penitent answered me word for word, justifying his sins, always with extreme ability and politeness. He excused all the sinful actions, making them sound quite normal and natural, even comprehensible on the human level.. He continued this way with the sins that were gruesome against God, Our Lady, the Saints, always using disrespectful round-about argumentation. He kept this up even with with the foulest of sins that could be conjured in the mind of a most sinful man. The answers that he gave me with such skilled subtlety and malice surprised me. I wondered: who is he? What world does he come from? And I tried to look at him in order to read something on his face. At the same time I concentrated on every word he spoke, trying to discover any clue to his identity.. But suddenly; through a vivid, radiant and internal light I clearly recognized who he was. With a sound and imperial tone I told him: “Say long live Jesus, long live Mary!” As soon as I pronounced these sweet and powerful names, Satan instantly disappeared in a trickle of fire, leaving behind him an unbearable stench.” (Don Pierino is a priest and one of the father Pio’s spiritual sons who were present at the same time.) [/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1294235304' post='2196932']
'fighting demons' meaning fighting their sin, or fighting whether the CC is true or not. given this thread is about 'discernment' it could very well be someone who's trying to discern whether the CC is true for whatever reason, not necessarily one of those other types i mentioned eg protestant orthodox liberal catholic, types.

----------

rk never said he thought that the person initially posed about should receive or not. but he at least acknowledged that it wasn't a mortal sin probably hte way it was described.
for most here, including him. what is one to make of the confliction of the rules? if it's not a mortal sin, they could receive, cause no mortal sin exists. if they question whether it's a sin, or if the CC is true- they could be said to not be in communion with the CC- but even their disbelief isn't a mortal sin if honest and discerning as rk even said. so if their lack of communion isn't a mortal sin, why coudln't they be said to be in communion enough to receive? we could say 'strength' is a croutons argument, but is it really given the lack of sin? they may not be 'in communion' in a literal sense, but they aren't 'out of communion' either. if there's no sin, why so quick to say don't receive?
are those putting down teh communion strength thing, really putting down their own sacrament?
[/quote]

Well I would just like to add, that while their disbelief in the CC in itself may not be mortal sin (in fact it may I just don't know), that does not mean that receiving communion while in disbelief is ok. There is not a "in communion enough" - you're either in communion or not. You may be taking too mypoic of a view of the reception of Holy Communion. Its not "You can receive as long as your not in mortal sin" its "If you're a Catholic - in communion with the Church - you may receive unless you are in a state of mortal sin".

[dairygirl4u2c]

that is a good final point, 'in communion- unless in mortal sin' etc etc.

all the extensions to orthodox etc-- those i'd suppose are just gestures to someone of a different but similar enough religion? one could argue that that's just 'similar enough' to allow communion, so why not extend that thought to someone struggling but otherwise fine?

one could argue, the act itself of masturbation or whatever mortal sin, is sufficient to deny communion to someone- to effectively say "not in communion enough" or even "not in communion". even while allowing an orthodox?

i do see another problem though. if one were to take the attitude of 'either you're in communnion or you're not' as rk did, one could extend that to the person in the mortal sin hypo. if it's a matter of 'either you're in communion or you're not', that person who's doing the masturbating or whatever, they are in communion. that is, if there's no sin, it could be argued, espeically if htey might be part of the church mystically taht might be saved due to tehir discernment and level of advancement- if they could be saved, they're also in communion.
soemone might say that the grace of slavation shouldn't extent to receiving, but someone else could argue it.
-a final more nuanced statement conclusion to close out all this last stuff could be said by rk "If you're a Catholic - in *full* communion with the Church - you may receive unless you are in a state of mortal sin".

[dairygirl4u2c]

and technically, both the statement he made, and the one i recommended he say "in full communion"... are mistaken because we say "in mortal sin". we've argued and even estabsliehd that there is no mortal sin.

"If you're a Catholic - in *full* communion with the Church - you may receive unless you are in a state of mortal sin OR unless you are doing acts which would amount to mortal sin when the properly formed intetion to sin exists but even when that said intention does not exist".

i'd say adding that extra definition at the end, shows that it's taking the original 'unless you're in mortal sin' to anotehr level that perhaps it shouldnt be taken, though.

Edited January 5, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c