When Someone You Know Isn't Receiving in a State of Grace

[tinytherese]

In another thread, the topic of how to handle someone receiving communion who you know isn't in a state of grace was brought up. Let's use the example of my aunt and cousin who don't consistently attend mass and holy days of obligation despite being able to do so. On the occasions that they do go, should I encourage them not to receive since they have likely not been to confession for their sin? Should I ask if they're in a state of grace before mass?

In my experience, confession is offered before mass on saturdays and by appointment, so they more than likely wouldn't be able to go in time. Considering how bad catechesis is, lots of Catholics don't even know what being in a state of grace means. So you'd likely have to take the time to instruct them. I'm well aware of the fact that receiving when not in a state of grace is sacrilege, is a sin of grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and full consent is a mortal sin.

The question is, is it appropriate to ask someone if they are in a state of grace to receive and to discourage them from receiving if they are not when they are not your son, daughter, or someone you're the guardian of?

I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to say no.

For many non-practicing Catholics, someone interrogating them on whether they are in a state of grace to receive at mass that day would get defensive or feel humiliated. Others may be so offended by such intrusive questions that they'd be reluctant to turn to the faith or even turned off to it. So this would discourage conversion. Praying for them and only discussing it if the other person brings it up may be more likely to work, since they're not imposing.

I'm picturing someone who does't know what would be considered a sin of grave matter and the person that they're with listing them off and the person feeling really embarassed sharing such information. It's hard enough for many people just to tell a priest in the secrecy of confession, let alone to a family member, friend, or aquaintance. The person is already on shakey ground in regards to Catholicism, and interrogating them may crush the small sprout that was just starting to show itself.
 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Do you think it is wrong to apply Canon 915?

[superblue]

interesting T.T

I wish it would be okay to direct this to the priests I knew, who specifically said that they would not deny someone communion; because they do not know what that person is feeling in his or her heart.

Or if I could go back in time and direct that to a priest I was serving with one time as an altar server ( as a boy ) and another boy was not catholic wanted to experience what I and a friend did as altar servers, he was given permission by the priest and my mother even told the priest that the boy was not catholic ( so that he would not be given communion ) and when it came time to receive the priest flat out gave the boy communion.

so quote and post cannon law till you are blue in the face, good luck trying to get ( all ) clergy to agree with your point of view let alone be knowledgeable and follow cannon law, let alone believe that following cannon law is the right thing to do in all circumstances.

 

Get to know a priest, and not just one. An bring up questions like these and you will be amazed at varying answers.

Edited January 7, 2016 by superblue

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, it is true that many priests, either deliberately or out of ignorance frequently flout Canon law.

Cannon law though, a very different beast. A bit of a powder keg if you ask me.

[superblue]

yup it is, but this topic is almost like asking which comes first, the chicken or the egg. or perhaps it needs to be addressed on both fronts at the same time. which perhaps this is could or should be a topic for a bishop to have a conference with his priests on, to have a blunt an open conversation so that he knows where his priests stand on such an issue, and to then get them all on the same page with cannon law, 

 

though it becomes a bigger problem if the bishop feels the same way.... and then ya gota go up the latter another rung.  My only point was, it isn't just laypeople that ignore such issues.

[MarysLittleFlower]

If a person whom I know well enough (family would fit this) goes up for Communion and I know they haven't been to Confession I think I'd mention something to them. I'd probably talk to them outside of Mass more about the Church teaching than about them, and whether they are aware of the Church teaching. If they are aware and still do it there's a bigger problem. But if they are unaware they might say something like "oh I didn't realise it was a mortal sin to miss Mass" (or whatever it happens to be). 

[TIWW]

Jesus is our ultimate judge. It is not anyone's place to judge another, ( especially by your own criteria) or to assume we know the state of their spiritual life. 

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

Just FYI, canon 915 requires the appropriate third parties (e.g., a priest administering Holy Communion) to deny communion to those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." This means that someone is continuing on, after the sinfulness of their situation has been duly explained to them, in a state of grave sin that is outwardly very obvious. Canon 915 does NOT mean that priests or other parties are responsible for figuring out whether a person is in a state of grace in general. 

On the other hand, canon 916 says that individuals who are conscious of grave sin should not receive---but in this canon, the onus is entirely on the individual, and not on any third party. For example, if Jane has deliberately missed Sunday Mass and has not gone to confession, canon 916 would tell her (that is, her alone and not a third party) that she should not receive Communion the next time she does attend Mass. From a canonical point of view, since this isn't necessarily an "obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin," it doesn't fall under can. 915---and therefore, in a sense it's really nobody else's business. 

As far as the OP is concerned, if it was addressed in a true spirit of love and charity, it could be a good thing to have a polite talk with her aunt to explain the Church's teachings. But if she is not receptive, then it's no longer the OP's responsibility (except in insofar as the OP is obliged like all Christians to bear a convincing Christian witness in her own way of life and to pray for the conversion of sinners).

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Just FYI, canon 915 requires the appropriate third parties (e.g., a priest administering Holy Communion) to deny communion to those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." This means that someone is continuing on, after the sinfulness of their situation has been duly explained to them, in a state of grave sin that is outwardly very obvious. Canon 915 does NOT mean that priests or other parties are responsible for figuring out whether a person is in a state of grace in general. 

On the other hand, canon 916 says that individuals who are conscious of grave sin should not receive---but in this canon, the onus is entirely on the individual, and not on any third party. For example, if Jane has deliberately missed Sunday Mass and has not gone to confession, canon 916 would tell her (that is, her alone and not a third party) that she should not receive Communion the next time she does attend Mass. From a canonical point of view, since this isn't necessarily an "obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin," it doesn't fall under can. 915---and therefore, in a sense it's really nobody else's business. 

As far as the OP is concerned, if it was addressed in a true spirit of love and charity, it could be a good thing to have a polite talk with her aunt to explain the Church's teachings. But if she is not receptive, then it's no longer the OP's responsibility (except in insofar as the OP is obliged like all Christians to bear a convincing Christian witness in her own way of life and to pray for the conversion of sinners).

Good post. Thank you. Canon 915 provides objective criteria and does not constitute "judging" a person.

[CatherineM]

How exactly am I supposed to know what is in another's soul to know if they are in a state of grace?  

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

On 5/3/2016, 3:31:11, CatherineM said:

How exactly am I supposed to know what is in another's soul to know if they are in a state of grace?  

Sorry i don't know the documents but as far as i'm aware catherine the term ' state of grace' means 'free of mortal sin', meaning we are not to recieve if we are in a state of un confessed mortal sin, though it is recommended to attend holy mass anyway as there is some absolution and reperition for your sins by just attending, particularily if the confeitor is ommited. Something like that anyway.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[CatherineM]

49 minutes ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

Sorry i don't know the documents but as far as i'm aware catherine the term ' state of grace' means 'free of mortal sin', meaning we are not to recieve if we are in a state of un confessed mortal sin, though it is recommended to attend holy mass anyway as there is some absolution and reperition for your sins by just attending, particularily if the confeitor is ommited. Something like that anyway.

My point was that I am not capable of knowing whether someone is in mortal sin. That judgement isn't my call. 

[beatitude]

9 hours ago, CatherineM said:

My point was that I am not capable of knowing whether someone is in mortal sin. That judgement isn't my call. 

I wouldn't make that judgment, but if I suspected that someone close to me didn't know about the need to be in a state of grace before communion, I would try to tell them. Not everyone receives the best Catholic education growing up (I know I didn't - I can't remember one thing of significance I was taught in my pre-confirmation classes, which just seemed to be glorified arts and crafts sessions) and I try not to take it for granted that people will just know these things by themselves.

[CatherineM]

13 hours ago, beatitude said:

I wouldn't make that judgment, but if I suspected that someone close to me didn't know about the need to be in a state of grace before communion, I would try to tell them. Not everyone receives the best Catholic education growing up (I know I didn't - I can't remember one thing of significance I was taught in my pre-confirmation classes, which just seemed to be glorified arts and crafts sessions) and I try not to take it for granted that people will just know these things by themselves.

That's different than saying publicly that you know someone is in a state of mortal sin. Especially someone you don't know. Helping a friend learn some catechism is a gift to them. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

On 5/11/2016, 11:32:01, CatherineM said:

My point was that I am not capable of knowing whether someone is in mortal sin. That judgement isn't my call. 

Unless straight from the horses mouth you know they have commited any of the 7 deadly sins or have broken a commandment and refuse to believe it is that bad and go to confession, plus they have to be assuming Gods mercy. In other words they have to be repentant, there are 3 kinds of sinners in sacred scripture as far as i'm aware, there are those that are repentant sinners that know sin is bad, there are un repentant sinners that assume gods mercy and than there are those sinners that do not know that the particular sin they have commited is actually a sin. Something like that anyway.