ANOTHER Serious MORTAL SIN QUESTION

[Jaypeeto4]

Dear Triumphguy,
thanks again for the above.

Again, sir, I already know that the sacraments do not depend on the holiness or
righteousness of the minister.

But, for sacraments that PROPERLY belong to the BISHOP,
as Confirmation DOES,
then the Ministerial Priest HAS TO HAVE PERMISSION from the
Bishop to licitly perform those actions.

He must also have the general intention to,
as theologians (not me) put it,
“Do What the Church Does”.

I was not questioning Ex Opere Operato. Not at all.
I was stricken with worry that
A) My priest may not, in 1999, have HAD the necessary Permission
…from the Bishop to perform the confirmations. and,
knowing his propensity for believing (and saying) for example,
that General (as opposed to personal) Confessions are sufficient for ALL sins
((he kinda found listening to personal confessions a bit of a pain, apparently)),
and for deliberately disobeying church rules, including those issued by the Vatican,

B) I therefore also kind of wondered if he even, back then, had a
…general intention “to do what the church does” when he Confirmed us in 1999.
I always assumed that he had, but all this was coming together in my head at once
because I had never
heard about our Archbishop REVOKING the permission of priests
to confirm Adult Converts who have already been baptized – validly even –
in another denomination.

I found out, after Mass, that my 12 or 13 year assumption had been RIGHT,
that he DID INDEED have standing permission from our Archbishop in 1999 to confirm
adults baptized validly in other denominations. ON THIS POINT, he was not disobedient.

I also realized that I had no SERIOUS reason, therefore, to believe that when he Confirmed us, he did not have a general intention “to do what the church does,”
which, if he did not have that general intention, WOULD, according to all reliable theologians, make the sacrament invalid.

Again, all this was coming together in my head at once last night. Wondering?
Surprise. Unawareness of new rules vs. old rules and old permissions, etc.

Also, I forgot the concept of “licit” vs. “valid.”

For example, even Father G, the famous suspended Priest, who cannot LAWFULLY
consecrate the Eucharist because of his suspension,
can still VALIDLY consecrate it. But his consecrating it, if Suspended or otherwise forbidden to confect it, IS an act of Disobedience. But, he STILL CAN consecrate it validly, just not LICITLY.

So, if anyone in the Archdiocese I live in, who was baptized in another church,
and was at the Easter Vigil last night, if he or she was confirmed by his or her priest
last night, and IF that priest did not personally baptize you last night,
that priest had no licit right to Confirm you. That’s IN MY archdiocese that this rule applies. It is a rule, a NEW rule, a revocation of the OLD rule and permission.
Of course, the Abp CAN give permission to an INDIVIDUAL priest in the diocese that
he DENIES to all other priests in the diocese. That, too, is the bishop’s perogative.

So I have one more question:
When it comes to the EUCHARIST, even a priest FORBIDDEN BY HIS BISHOP to consecrate the eucharist, can still VALIDLY consecrate it.
I know that that applies to the Eucharist.
It is a disobedient act, but you would still be receiving the real body and blood of Christ.

So the question, this applies to the eucharist.
DOES it apply to the other sacraments as well?

I know, for example, that the Church considers the marriage tribunals and annulments of the SSPX to be not valid (or at least DID consider that to be the case).

Can a priest validly, even if ILLICITLY, confect or perform, ALL of the seven sacraments??

Thanks for any info.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4

And I am still going to go to Confession asap. Thanks all.

 

[triumphguy]

Yes, I believe a priest can validly but illicitly perform all the sacraments.

And the example you gave - the SSPX - is very appropriate.

So you’re underlying question is:

Was I validly and licitly confirmed?
Was I validly but illicitly confirmed
Or was I not validly confirmed at all?

And given that any one of those 3 answers was possible (but the answer not known to you), was it valid and licit for you to go to communion?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**p.s. I can understand why you panicked - if your priest has a history of being untrustworthy in this matters, then it would be only natural to wonder, “Hm, maybe he was doing something wrong when he confirmed me.” **

To TheRealJuliane, thanks so much for the above post,
from which I posted your last statement, just above.
EXACTLY my point.
I questioned both a) WAS I truly confirmed ((confusing licitness with validity))
and (b) did that priest intend to confirm us,
knowing his propensity for thinking and coming right out and saying,
that he understands the things of Christ EVEN BETTER than the pope and
the entire vatican!! (( to quote him again, “John Paul II doesn’t have a
clue what Vatican II was REALLY trying to accomplish” — imagine saying that
to CATECHUMENS!! As an aside, in our RCIA in '98 and '99, we had not only
protestant classmembers, but a Jewish man AND two Jehovah’s Witnesses. These
people were so scandalized by this guy’s radical liberal comments
((I could tell by the looks on the faces of the 2 JWs))
about the truth of scripture, about made-up Saints who never existed, about Popes who do not know that they are talking about, etc., that they actually quit coming and went back to their Former religions. I had quietly privately told the 2 JWs that his remarks were his personal opinions, not Catholic teaching, but I could see the wheels of shock spinning behind their eyes. They may MISUNDERSTAND scripture, but they Do REVERE it.

Let me tell you, as an Ex-JW myself, that even the desire to seriously investigate the Catholic Faith and even go further and take RCIA intending to JOIN the church, is
a GENUINE miracle of Divine Grace in a Jehovah’s Witness’s soul. A true MIRACLE, because these sincere people are 100% THOROUGHLY indoctrinated in that sects’ beliefs, up, down, sideways and backwards, and have internalized the sects teachings intended to TERRIFY you into even setting foot inside of a Trinitarian church building, even to see the architecture!!
And his statements shocked and scandalized them, especially his denigration of the reliability of the holy scriptures and his attacks on John Paul II. The Jewish gentleman, I could tell also, was perturbed that this priest was denigrating the very religion that he was considering joining. This priest was so modernist that he, literally, described the entire Church of PRE-Vatican II days as a horrible, unbearable, mean, cruel HELL-HOLE.
And that all was pure, unbearable MISERY until John the 23rd turned on all the lights.

That’s a horrible thing to do to people who are converting, to attack the holy and true faith that they, via God’s grace, are converting to, and this priest has very much to answer for.
We all do, in many ways, I certainly do too, but a PRIEST is held to a much higher standard, being a divinely-ordained teacher, and scripture even says so.

By the way, when the bishop comes for a visit, he’ll (that priest)
always be on his best behavior that day and restrain his own usually very provocative and controversial remarks.
I remember once the our former Abp and an auxiliary bishop (our current Abp) visited our parish for Mass, and spoke, as did our Priest, and boy was he well-behaved that day. But, disobedient habits remain, and at the consecration, half of our congregation KNELT, while half, remained STANDING (as he had made, in deliberate disobedience, our parish’s practice). I remember our current Abp, then an auxiliary, looking carefully at that. He NOTICED. He was too kind and tactful to say anything, but you could tell that he took clear note of that. Also at our HIDDEN-in-a-not-well-kept-side-room Tabernacle, which itself was allowed to have become worn and ugly and tarnished.
Our current priest immediately, upon his transfer to us, re-instated the practice of Kneeling at the consecration, without attacking the former priest by name, and had the side chapel knocked down, the Tabernacle cleaned up and restored (it was covered in hideous tarnish) beautifully, and restored it to right-under the wall crucifix near our altar, for PUBLIC viewing and veneration. What a HUGE difference took place. Thank God, literally. Anyway, friend, I’m rambling again.
I apologize for that. I’m very tired. I work a screwball work schedule, with varying hours.
Yesterday, when my friend brought me to the Easter Vigil, I attended on about 2-1/2 hours sleep for the entire previous 48 hours.
So, while scrupulosity may have indeed played a part in all this confusion,
so did tiredness, plus my need for anti-Anxiety medication ( I take Klonopin ),
plus unawareness of new rules vs. old rules, etc.

Still, I’m not comfortable with going against even a HALF-doubtful conscience, especially considering St. Paul’s teachings on this.
So, I’m still going to confess it, even if it’s not strictly necessary, because when it comes to something as sacred as the body and blood of the Lord, I ain’t gonna take no chances, not even a 50% chance, ever again. Even if I’m wrong, if I ever again feel that I even MIGHT be about to unworthily receive, I will not receive. The conscience is too precious, and the eucharist is way too sacred.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**And given that any one of those 3 answers was possible (but the answer not known to you), was it valid and licit for you to go to communion? **

Hi Triumphguy, you’ve basically got it, almost.
Valid, yes it was. The communion was valid, since it was the real body and blood of the Lord.

The issue was LICIT. Was it licit for me to receive? Or was it sinful?

The issue was,
since at the MOMENT I received communion last night,
I was stricken with doubts about having been truly Confirmed in 1999,
was it a sin to receive when my conscience
was stricken with questions about whether I should receive??

This is because, right in the GUIDELINES FOR THE RECEPTION OF COMMUNION,
those who are protestants, and thus obviously have not been confirmed as Catholics
and remained catholic thereafter, are explicitly told that they cannot be given Communion.

Thus, those adults who are not Confirmed ((not underage CATHOLIC unconfirmed Children)) are forbidden by the Church to receive the Eucharist, unless, and this is stated in the Guidelines too, they are members of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Polish National Catholic Church. THEY are allowed to receive, but encouraged not to. This is right in the guidelines, published in EVERY missallette in every Catholic parish.

But non-Catholics, and if you have not been confirmed after being a member of another denomination, you are still a non-Catholic, cannot lawfully receive.

So, I wondered if I sinned, and sinned Mortally,
by receiving when I was stricken in CONSCIENCE with doubts about whether or not I had been confirmed,
Because I was afraid I would be breaking the rules about non-Catholics not being allowed to receive.

Adding to the confusion, and part of the reasons I went ahead and received while doubting my status, was that (a) I have been receiving, and confessing and being absolved, for years
and
(b) at John Paul II’s funeral mass, our beloved, ORTHODOX Pope, Benedict XVI,
…GAVE the Eucharist to a Protestant, a non Catholic who had NOT been confirmed,
…in full view of the cameras, namely, the elderly Brother Roger, founder of Taize,
…who, tragically, was brutally murdered by an attacker, in church, a few months later.
…But then again, a POPE has the RIGHT to make such exceptions, I don’t.

Sorry for rambling. Like I said in another post, I am very, very tired right now.
God bless you and your family,
Jaypeeto4

 

[TheRealJuliane]

**p.s. I can understand why you panicked - if your priest has a history of being untrustworthy in this matters, then it would be only natural to wonder, “Hm, maybe he was doing something wrong when he confirmed me.” **

To TheRealJuliane, thanks so much for the above post,
from which I posted your last statement, just above.
EXACTLY my point.
I questioned both a) WAS I truly confirmed ((confusing licitness with validity))
and (b) did that priest intend to confirm us,
knowing his propensity for thinking and coming right out and saying,
that he understands the things of Christ EVEN BETTER than the pope and
the entire vatican!! (( to quote him again, “John Paul II doesn’t have a
clue what Vatican II was REALLY trying to accomplish” — imagine saying that
to CATECHUMENS!! As an aside, in our RCIA in '98 and '99, we had not only
protestant classmembers, but a Jewish man AND two Jehovah’s Witnesses. These
people were so scandalized by this guy’s radical liberal comments
((I could tell by the looks on the faces of the 2 JWs))
about the truth of scripture, about made-up Saints who never existed, about Popes who do not know that they are talking about, etc., that they actually quit coming and went back to their Former religions. I had quietly privately told the 2 JWs that his remarks were his personal opinions, not Catholic teaching, but I could see the wheels of shock spinning behind their eyes. They may MISUNDERSTAND scripture, but they Do REVERE it.

Let me tell you, as an Ex-JW myself, that even the desire to seriously investigate the Catholic Faith and even go further and take RCIA intending to JOIN the church, is
a GENUINE miracle of Divine Grace in a Jehovah’s Witness’s soul. A true MIRACLE, because these sincere people are 100% THOROUGHLY indoctrinated in that sects’ beliefs, up, down, sideways and backwards, and have internalized the sects teachings intended to TERRIFY you into even setting foot inside of a Trinitarian church building, even to see the architecture!!
And his statements shocked and scandalized them, especially his denigration of the reliability of the holy scriptures and his attacks on John Paul II. The Jewish gentleman, I could tell also, was perturbed that this priest was denigrating the very religion that he was considering joining. This priest was so modernist that he, literally, described the entire Church of PRE-Vatican II days as a horrible, unbearable, mean, cruel HELL-HOLE.
And that all was pure, unbearable MISERY until John the 23rd turned on all the lights.

That’s a horrible thing to do to people who are converting, to attack the holy and true faith that they, via God’s grace, are converting to, and this priest has very much to answer for.
We all do, in many ways, I certainly do too, but a PRIEST is held to a much higher standard, being a divinely-ordained teacher, and scripture even says so.

By the way, when the bishop comes for a visit, he’ll (that priest)
always be on his best behavior that day and restrain his own usually very provocative and controversial remarks.
I remember once the our former Abp and an auxiliary bishop (our current Abp) visited our parish for Mass, and spoke, as did our Priest, and boy was he well-behaved that day. But, disobedient habits remain, and at the consecration, half of our congregation KNELT, while half, remained STANDING (as he had made, in deliberate disobedience, our parish’s practice). I remember our current Abp, then an auxiliary, looking carefully at that. He NOTICED. He was too kind and tactful to say anything, but you could tell that he took clear note of that. Also at our HIDDEN-in-a-not-well-kept-side-room Tabernacle, which itself was allowed to have become worn and ugly and tarnished.
Our current priest immediately, upon his transfer to us, re-instated the practice of Kneeling at the consecration, without attacking the former priest by name, and had the side chapel knocked down, the Tabernacle cleaned up and restored (it was covered in hideous tarnish) beautifully, and restored it to right-under the wall crucifix near our altar, for PUBLIC viewing and veneration. What a HUGE difference took place. Thank God, literally. Anyway, friend, I’m rambling again.
I apologize for that. I’m very tired. I work a screwball work schedule, with varying hours.
Yesterday, when my friend brought me to the Easter Vigil, I attended on about 2-1/2 hours sleep for the entire previous 48 hours.
So, while scrupulosity may have indeed played a part in all this confusion,
so did tiredness, plus my need for anti-Anxiety medication ( I take Klonopin ),
plus unawareness of new rules vs. old rules, etc.

Still, I’m not comfortable with going against even a HALF-doubtful conscience, especially considering St. Paul’s teachings on this.
So, I’m still going to confess it, even if it’s not strictly necessary, because when it comes to something as sacred as the body and blood of the Lord, I ain’t gonna take no chances, not even a 50% chance, ever again. Even if I’m wrong, if I ever again feel that I even MIGHT be about to unworthily receive, I will not receive. The conscience is too precious, and the eucharist is way too sacred.
Love to you,
Jaypeeto4

God bless you, my dear brother in Christ. I love your zeal and love of the sacraments. Going to add you to my prayers. I have taken Klonipin in the past for panic attacks and still keep some on hand for occasional anxiety spells.

:hug3:

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Another thing, and I (tired as I am) will finally (hopefully) shut up.

A few years ago, I had committed what I knew was a mortal sin.
I confessed it to a priest, in another parish, who had liberal political views.
He declared that what I had done, was not a sin at all.
I knew better. (( And having special gifts of grace from the Spirit as a priest,
I can almost guarantee that HE knew better, too. He was, politically, offended
by my confessing that sin. His comments he made to me gave him away )).
So he refused to absolve me of THAT sin, saying that it was not grave matter.
I knew, correctly, that it WAS. He actually flatly refused to absolve me of that sin,
declaring it not a sin and not grave matter. I was shocked, so I confessed it again
during a subsequent confession to another priest ((the liberal priest DID absolve me of the other sins, that didn’t go against his political views, but explicitly refused to absolve me of the really Mortal one, which I knew was, indeed mortal)).

Also, another time, I confessed a mortal sin to another liberal priest who was visiting in our diocese. Appallingly, this man told me that I should go ahead and commit “X”, a mortal sin, as long as I committed it continuously with only one person, because, as he explicitly put it, “that would not be morally objectionable.” I was stunned. In the sanctity of the confessional, a priest, with YEARS formation, was flat out telling me to
PRACTICE a mortal sin. To PRACTICE it. I was truly shocked, and I told him that I did not agree with him at ALL. He started stammering about us having to follow our conscience in such matters and some other liberal BS. So I told him that I considered what I had done a sin and wanted to be absolved of IT ((as well as the venial sins I had confessed, too)). He, unlike the other liberal priest in the paragraph above, did indeed absolve me of the Mortal Sin, so I was validly absolved, even though this priest didn’t WANT to acknowledge what I had done as a sin. But even so, he absolved me of it.

I was appalled, and I wanted that priest away from that parish and from it’s members.
So I started telling the ones I KNEW, not to confess to this man, that he condones mortal sins and encourages the practice of them IN the confessional. I felt really bad about HAVING to do that, being a guilty sinner myself, but a PRIEST must not , not ever,
TELL people to PRACTICE mortal sins because THEY are “liberals” (the p.c. word for, frankly, heretics) and condone what the Bible and the Catechism and the Magisterium explicitly tell Catholics that we must NOT commit. I also, even though I felt bad about HAVING to do it, wrote a letter to the proper authorities and told what he was saying to penitents IN the sacred confessional itself. Believe me, if he said it to me so brazenly and openly, you can bet your sweet life that he said it to many, many others, with no smidgeon of doubt that he did so. If you KNOW that a priest is telling people to PRACTICE mortal sins, then you should report him. NOT to be self-righteous, hypocritical or mean, but because he IS GOING TO HARDEN other sinners in their sins and destroy their souls if they listen to him and take his appalling advice to heart.
This man also, in sermons, would blast and attack the entire hierarchy. He was incredible. He was a visiting priest, and I found out that he was confronted by the local hierarchy for various reasons (I don’t know which) and, true to form, REALLY smarted-off to the highest ecclesiastical officers of our diocese, including the bishop.
He is no longer allowed to preach or do any works at all in our diocese.
Without mentioning him by name, which I won’t, I ask all of you to pray for this
priest’s repentance from heresy, as well as for the priest I mentioned in the top paragraph, as well as my former modernist priest who confirmed me.
And please pray for me, too. And I’ll remember all of you in a Holy Wounds Chaplet.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4

 

[LilyM]

Your RCIA director already answered your question – the priest who received you also confirmed you, he had the necessary authorization to do this.
You can easily confirm, by a search on the internet, that priests can be given the authority to confirm the newly-received.

The only reason to continue to question this would be if you have solid, reliable reason to believe that both the priest and your RCIA director are dishonest. Do you? Because if not, the whole thing is completely a non-issue.

Jay, it really does seem that no-one here will be able to answer your question to your satisfaction. It seems that practice as to confirmation varies from diocese to diocese, and even from bishop to bishop. Surely the diocesan office will have staff who were there at the time you were confirmed and so can offer independent verification as to what the practice was back then.

In the meantime, you can safely presume that your sacraments were indeed valid, and act accordingly, until and unless they are proven to be otherwise.

This is what the Church presumes in the case of a marriage, and so there is no sin should a couple who think their marriage is valid sleep together while waiting for the results of an investigation of it’s validity. Assuming neither spouse has a preexisting marriage.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Hello again, Jay.

I am sorry that my post about “going around in circles” upset you, when you were already upset. Since then I have come to understand your situation better, especially with regard to problems with dissident priests, and also tiredness. I especially feel for you with regard to dissident priests. It can be very confusing and difficult to live the faith when we have to always check what our priest says against the Magisterium.

Before continuing, I’ll just state clearly that I, and some others, have seen from the start that your question was, primarily, about receiving the Eucharist in a state of doubt.

Now, I’ll explain why I thought we were starting to go round in circles. Early in the thread one respondent mentioned the three conditions for mortal sin. This was an indication that your question had been understood, and an invitation to try and work out the answer for yourself. No person here will attempt to definitively answer your own question. All we can do is give you guidelines. You would not accept an attempt at a definitive answer, anyway.

I posted this…

NB: The reference is to food, rather than the eucharist.

Yours is an interesting observation, Jp. I myself have wondered about that quote, which seems to say that if we think something may be a sin, then it is a sin for us, even if it is not objectively so. And yet, the scrupulous are advised over and over to not be dominated by their scruples.

It’s a good question, and I’m interested in the responses.

As you seem to indicate, there is no problem with your confirmation 13 years ago, and the only problem is that you were briefly confused and decided to receive communion when in a state of doubt. I have no concern whatever that this was a sin of any degree, but I am curious as to how this scripture applies

So, I had understood your question also, and addressed it. I did not attempt to answer it directly, but to just narrow the focus to the particular scripture (Hebrews 13:24) and the issue of how to act when we are not sure whether we are sinning.

After seeing these two responses you posted again, and, at the end of the post, just restated your original question as if these responses were not there. I can understand you accidentally missing one of them, but with two, it appeared that you were set on a course of not considering any answer other than a definitive statement on your “guilt” (if any). Such a statement which can only come from a priest, preferably in real life rather than the internet. Your various comments about priests, many of which are justified, indicate that you would not trust the advice of priest you do not know to be orthodox.

You are correct that people are free to not respond to your questions, but, when they do respond, with courtesy and thought, please address the responses before repeating the question. And also, before repeating the question, ask yourself whether you are really going to accept any answer other than one from a priest, in real life.

Happy Easter, brother Jay, and blessings. This has been an interesting question, and the discussion has been fruitful.

:hug1:

Edmundus

 

[Jaypeeto4]

OKAY, everybody.
You all mean well (well, 99% of you).

And I am partly to blame for this thread and for CONFUSING YOU ALL
as to what I’m asking about. None of you, as sincere as you are,
have understood the point of my first question, which I am to blame for
by giving you SPECIFICS about it.

So, FORGET ABOUT all of the above specifics. All of them.

My question is about conscience and doubts of conscience, regarding a grave matter or matters, WHATEVER the grave matter may be. WHATEVER it may be.

My question is, and I’ll ask it in more than one degree:

FIRST, if in conscience you are 100% convinced EVEN MISTAKENLY SO
that what you are about to do, is a mortal sin,
and you do it,
are you subjectively guilty of a Mortal Sin?
I cannot find even a general answer to this from Catholics anywhere on the internet, and
I have been Googling !!

SECOND, if you are only worried in conscience that what you are about to do even MIGHT be a mortal sin, ((even if in reality your worry is groundless)), and you do it,
hoping it is not a mortal sin, WHATEVER it is,
have you SUBJECTIVELY committed a Mortal Sin, subjectively, by doing something that your conscience is concerned about ((even if because of mistaken views or info??))??

Forget all particulars, this is, and was intended to be,
a question about obeying one’s doubtful conscience and subjective guilt for
not doing so.

At what point, in a GRAVE matter, does ignoring or suppressing a doubtful conscience,
become a mortal sin? ((even if, in OBJECTIVE reality, the info you have is TOTALLY mistaken, which same mistaken info is CAUSING your conscience to be either 100% sure, or at least worried, that what you are going to do even seriously MIGHT be a mortal sin)).

That’s what I’ve been trying to get at. CONSCIENCE and the subjective guilt of mortal sin.
Anyone well-trained in Catholic theology, and I know that there are some on this forum,
should be able to answer this question. I am not one of them.

All this other stuff, the particulars, confused the hell out of all of you, and I didn’t mean to
do that. Forget THIS issue. I am asking about CONSCIENCE, even MISTAKEN conscience, in any grave matter, and subjective guilt for ignoring it and doing whatever it is, if
a) you are 100% convinced (even completely mistakenly) that what you are about
…to do is a mortal sin, OR

b) if you are WORRIED in conscience ((even utterly mistakenly)) that what you are
…are about to do even possibly MIGHT be a mortal sin, but you aren’t positive.

I am 100% certain that there are Catholic theologians, not dissident ones!!! – who have addressed this, and the question of subjective guilt of mortal or even venial sin, when ignoring or even setting aside conscience, even MISinformed conscience,
but I cannot find their articles on the internet.

(( I got you all caught up in “licitness” and “validity” and modernist priests and
whether I am scrupulous ((or even crazy and need to be under a doctor’s care, which I am for other, non-religious reasons under a doctor’s care)) and whether I need a certificate and this, that and the other, and all that stuff. Good lord, I wish I had never mentioned any particulars because it totally confused the whole issue, the whole question.
I confused the daylights out of all of you. For that, I sincerely apologize. ))

 

[Jaypeeto4]

You are correct that people are free to not respond to your questions, but, when they do respond, with courtesy and thought, please address the responses before repeating the question. And also, before repeating the question, ask yourself whether you are really going to accept any answer other than one from a priest, in real life.

Edmundus, I am not some stubborn troublemaker.
I do recall seeing your answers, now that you mention it, and I appreciate them.
I will accept answers from those who are not priests, as long as they are
either respected theologians or brothers on the forums (or sisters, forgive me, ladies)
who are quoting respected, orthodox theologians. It does not HAVE to be a priest.

I appreciate your responses, Edmundus, but you indicated that they were your opinion.
While I truly appreciate your answering me, I do want more than personal opinions, however good and sincere you may surely be. That is why I came to the MORAL THEOLOGY forum. Yes, I was briefly confused. It was brief.

But you are one of the people that I confused the daylights out of, too.
So please read my more topic-specific questions above, and ignore whatever
the grave matter may be, it can be ANYTHING that is a serious thing,
in ANY given situation.
Thank you, good sir.
Jaypeeto4

 

[LilyM]

Jay, I think we can safely answer no to both of your hypotheticals. The first of the three requirements of a mortal sin is ‘grave matter’. To me that indicates that the subject needs to be something that is actually gravely wrong, not just something that someone mistakenly thinks is gravely wrong. Especially when that someone, by reason of youth or scruples or whatnot, is more likely than your average punter to be mistaken.

And the second requirement is full knowledge. Doubt and suspicion do not equal knowledge, so having a doubt or suspicion that something may be a mortal sin is not the same as having knowledge that it is a sin. Therefore the second requirement is not fulfilled in the case of doubts or suspicions. Although you should do what you can to resolve those doubts as far as you can, as soon as practicable.

Hope this helps.

OKAY, everybody.
You all mean well (well, 99% of you).

And I am partly to blame for this thread and for CONFUSING YOU ALL
as to what I’m asking about. None of you, as sincere as you are,
have understood the point of my first question, which I am to blame for
by giving you SPECIFICS about it.

So, FORGET ABOUT all of the above specifics. All of them.

My question is about conscience and doubts of conscience, regarding a grave matter or matters, WHATEVER the grave matter may be. WHATEVER it may be.

My question is, and I’ll ask it in more than one degree:

FIRST, if in conscience you are 100% convinced EVEN MISTAKENLY SO
that what you are about to do, is a mortal sin,
and you do it,
are you subjectively guilty of a Mortal Sin?
I cannot find even a general answer to this from Catholics anywhere on the internet, and
I have been Googling !!

SECOND, if you are only worried in conscience that what you are about to do even MIGHT be a mortal sin, ((even if in reality your worry is groundless)), and you do it,
hoping it is not a mortal sin, WHATEVER it is,
have you SUBJECTIVELY committed a Mortal Sin, subjectively, by doing something that your conscience is concerned about ((even if because of mistaken views or info??))??

Forget all particulars, this is, and was intended to be,
a question about obeying one’s doubtful conscience and subjective guilt for
not doing so.

At what point, in a GRAVE matter, does ignoring or suppressing a doubtful conscience,
become a mortal sin? ((even if, in OBJECTIVE reality, the info you have is TOTALLY mistaken, which same mistaken info is CAUSING your conscience to be either 100% sure, or at least worried, that what you are going to do even seriously MIGHT be a mortal sin)).

That’s what I’ve been trying to get at. CONSCIENCE and the subjective guilt of mortal sin.
Anyone well-trained in Catholic theology, and I know that there are some on this forum,
should be able to answer this question. I am not one of them.

All this other stuff, the particulars, confused the hell out of all of you, and I didn’t mean to
do that. Forget THIS issue. I am asking about CONSCIENCE, even MISTAKEN conscience, in any grave matter, and subjective guilt for ignoring it and doing whatever it is, if
a) you are 100% convinced (even completely mistakenly) that what you are about
…to do is a mortal sin, OR

b) if you are WORRIED in conscience ((even utterly mistakenly)) that what you are
…are about to do even possibly MIGHT be a mortal sin, but you aren’t positive.

I am 100% certain that there are Catholic theologians, not dissident ones!!! – who have addressed this, and the question of subjective guilt of mortal or even venial sin, when ignoring or even setting aside conscience, even MISinformed conscience,
but I cannot find their articles on the internet.

(( I got you all caught up in “licitness” and “validity” and modernist priests and
whether I am scrupulous ((or even crazy and need to be under a doctor’s care, which I am for other, non-religious reasons under a doctor’s care)) and whether I need a certificate and this, that and the other, and all that stuff. Good lord, I wish I had never mentioned any particulars because it totally confused the whole issue, the whole question.
I confused the daylights out of all of you. For that, I sincerely apologize. ))

 

[triumphguy]

Maybe there’s a question as to whether the component of “grave matter” can be provided by the belief that a certain act is indeed a grave matter?

Does the requirement for grave matter only mean “objectively” grave, in and of itself? Or can something be “subjectively” grave?

As Catholics we believe in natural law, that is we believe the universe is ordered according to God’s will, and that some things and some acts are intrinsically good and some things are by their very nature evil. Thus we can say that there are objective standards of goodness, truth and beauty.

What you are suggesting Jay is a form of relativism - that your thoughts or beliefs can render something evil.

Can one’s thoughts make something intrinsically evil? No they cannot.

Using the example of beauty: I could believe, think and say that Chartres Cathedral is ugly. My belief doesn’t make the cathedral ugly, it makes me mistaken.

Now you do go further, because you seem to be suggesting that your thoughts themselves are the things that are evil. You had a belief about the sacraments that you had/were about to receive, albeit they were the wrong beliefs. For mortal sin there has to be grave matter, intent, and an act.

So, to go back to the beauty analogy: If I really believe Chartres to be ugly, does that make me a bad person? No. What would be morally wrong is to believe that BECAUSE I think Chartres is ugly I have a right to destroy it AND act on that belief…

I believe that on two counts your acts were not mortally sinful: there was in fact no grave matter, and your intent was based on a mistaken belief.

 

[Bookcat]

My question is,

FIRST, if in conscience you are 100% convinced EVEN MISTAKENLY SO
that what you are about to do, is a mortal sin,
and you do it,
are you subjectively guilty of a Mortal Sin?
I cannot find even a general answer to this from Catholics anywhere on the internet, and
I have been Googling !!

I hesitate to give the answer. Due to those who are scrupulous on this forum or who struggle in various ways with scruples…it may be good for them to head now to another thread.

Normally speaking --yes if one does so with full knowledge and complete consent one can thus commit a mortal sin.

Because it is a grave matter for example to do what one believes to be a grave matter.

But the following is* very important.*

A person however who is scrupulous can be in a very different boat from a person with a normal conscience…for the can see all sorts of things as grave matter when they are not --and they need to follow their regular confessor and the principles he gives them etc.

 

[Bookcat]

SECOND, if you are only worried in conscience that what you are about to do even MIGHT be a mortal sin, ((even if in reality your worry is groundless)), and you do it,
hoping it is not a mortal sin, WHATEVER it is,
have you SUBJECTIVELY committed a Mortal Sin, subjectively, by doing something that your conscience is concerned about ((even if because of mistaken views or info??))??

Forget all particulars, this is, and was intended to be,
a question about obeying one’s doubtful conscience and subjective guilt for
not doing so.

(again those who are scrupulous – perhaps head for another thread…)

A person with a normal conscience with say a serious reason (positive practical doubt) that something can be a mortal sin (or sin) is to stop and remove their doubt before acting. This can be done by reflection and prayer, seeking advice, study etc…(or if the direct way is out…there are even some indirect ways)

And one need not “absolute certainty” …“moral certainty” suffices. Those beset by scruples are often seeking a kind of certainty that is not always possible in contingent matters.

And as St. Thomas noted – since the matter of prudence is the contingent singulars about which are human actions, the certainty of prudence cannot be so great as to be devoid of all solicitude…

A person with scrupulosity can be in a* very different boat* for their scruples… their fears…are often of the speculative kind not the practical…and often can be called “negative doubts”. They are fearful feelings…etc. Hence they can be in a very different boat than others.

They confuse their scruples for actual “doubts” of the kind an person with an ordinary conscience would need to settle first. They take their scruples to be doubts of that sort when they are really scruples. And mistake their scruples for their conscience.

They are to discuss the matter with their regular confessor – who can give them principles (which would not apply to others often -but to only those who struggle with scruples) that will help them to act against their scruples. They need “obey” their regular confessor and follow the principles (except if he tells them to do some manifest sin of course…like murder his secretary or use contraception…it is best to find one that one sees “thinks with the Church”…but they need to not scruple in seeking a one that they perfectly like…but need to find a regular confessor rather soon ). Hence they can overcome their scruples or lessen them at least…and live more in the reality of that we are celebrating now…the life from the Resurrection of Christ Our Lord.

---

(A person with a normal conscience might ask --is such and such Friday a day of penance or is it a solemnity…they will look at the calendar and see and then act accordingly…a person with scruples might think oh such and such a Friday is a Solemnity but maybe the calendar is wrong …and maybe my Pastor is wrong…so I need to do penance…etc)

---

With the help of ones confessor et al:

Contra scruplos agendum est, et fixo operis pede certandum

(Act contrary to scruples and with a firm foot overcome them)

Overcoming ones scruples…ones fears with a “firm foot”. Learning to act against them under the guidance of ones confessor. Dismiss them. Not argue with them. (ie. ones confessor says…“unless you are certain you have committed a mortal sin…go to communion”…and you feel the fear and the doubts and the worries at the time of communion “but perhaps I committed one…?” you tell yourself “I am not certain of any mortal sins and my confessor told me to go” and you act against your fears and go to Communion!) etc

(in a way one needs be “scrupulous” about attending to ones scruples…)

When scruples arise --turn to God and let the pass by.

Scruples are to be treated like a barking dog or a hissing goose…one does not stop to argue with a barking dog or a hissing goose does one? (Borrowed from a 15th cent. Carthusian).

They are to be “despised” (as the older language puts it)…“dismissed”…

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Hi Bookcat,
I agree that the truly scrupulous should avoid this Thread.

Let me see if you still think I’m scrupulous.
I DID come online and ask, just to be sure, but once I was given what seemed reasonable assurance, I stopped worry and did not even confess this:

This is factual, not hypothetical.
This past Friday, GOOD FRIDAY, was a day of both FASTING and ABSTINENCE.
It was also, as is typical, a long, exhausting, hectic day at work in commission sales.
I observed the Fast meticulously, and only had a bottle of BOOST nutrition drink and some Coffee for breakfast, a COKE and only a COKE for lunch, some espresso coffee during the day to boost my energy level. NO “meal,” not even the 2 “small” meals allowed. I got home, and finally decided to eat dinner, which was macaroni and cheese, etc, no meat. In the course of getting my plate ready, I, out of force of habit,
went into the meat drawer and thoughtlessly grabbed an Oscar Mayer “cheese-dog,” bit into it, swallowed some,and was chewing more, when I suddenly realize, OH MY GOSH, today is GOOD Friday and I’m eating MEAT!! I spit the rest out, rinsed out my mouth, and for a second wondered if I should induce vomiting. I then thought, God knows I didn’t do this with any deliberate intent WHATSOEVER, so he would therefore, in my opinion, never require me to make myself vomit. So I didn’t.
To double check, I asked about this online. When I was reassured that I was correct in believing it was not a sin because it was, utterly and entirely, an accident,
not even a venial sin, I put the whole thing behind me. I’m not worried about it.
Not one bit. I made no attempt to confess it and I’m not GOING to, either.
I know I didn’t commit even a venial sin, so I’m not at all concerned.

Do I still sound “scrupulous”??
I’m not offended that some think I am, I’m just curious, which is why I ask.
Peace to all,
Jaypeeto4

And thank you all, esp Triumphguy, Bookcat, and LilyM, for your most recent comments. They made me see things more clearly. Thank you very, very much.

 

[Bookcat]

Hi Bookcat,
I agree that the truly scrupulous should avoid this Thread.

Let me see if you still think I’m scrupulous.
I DID come online and ask, just to be sure, but once I was given what seemed reasonable assurance…
.

I need not (did not) read anymore than that line. There are various degrees and kinds of scruples. I will simply note that a person with a difficulty with scruples can still be able to settle particular concerns very quickly…and still have scruples in other areas.

As to yourself – I will simply note that your confessor is one who can assist even in such a determination.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Thus we can say that there are objective standards of goodness, truth and beauty.

Yes, friend, there are.
As I have always understood it,
Grave Matter can include many things.

Adultery, blasphemy, fornication, sodomy, depriving a worker of his just wages by an employer, stealing a large amount,especialy from someone it would really harm,
murder, etc., are very grave matter.
Receiving the Eucharist unworthily, in a state of mortal sin, is grave matter.
So is reception of the Eucharist by a NON-Catholic, in most circumstances, even though
the Holy Father made an exception for the protestant founder of TAIZE, Brother Roger, and gave him communion at John Paul II’s funeral. The whole Christian world, and the Vatican most certainly, all knew who Brother Roger was and that he was a protestant. The Church has good ecumenical relations with TAIZE and knew Brother Roger well and that he was NOT a Confirmed member of the Catholic Church. The pope is allowed to make such exceptions. There was a priest, God bless him, who used to warn people at St. Michael the Archangel Church in Miami, quote:

“Before you come forward, friends,
…hear me well: If you are NOT Catholic, OR,
…If you ARE Catholic, but are in unconfessed mortal sin,
…DO NOT partake of the Eucharist. DO NOT DO SO.
…I warn you: To do so would be a sacrilege.”

In my opinion, this should be done in every parish today, because today, there is NOBODY, almost NOBODY, ever, at the Confessional door, but lines a mile long for Communion at every mass. While I wouldn’t dare say that all or most of these people are in mortal sin, still, in this sin-filled nation, with very few people going to Confession, you really do have to wonder about this phenomenon, especially when surveys claim, at least claim, that over 50% of Catholics for example, regularly practice artificial contraception AND tell the surveyors that the Church is “wrong” about this forbidding of the use of artificial contraception (as just one example).
That shows that they DO know the teaching, and are deliberately disobeying it. My own Catholic cousin told me that she doesn’t accept everything that the church teaches.
She then made the WILD claim that “98% of Catholics are practicing artificial contracption”. I had to – gently –
remind her that when she was received into the Church, she was told, as all of us Catholic Converts are told, either by the priest or by the Catechism, that the Catholic Faith is a “package deal,” it is NOT a cafeteria from which we are free
to pick and choose WHICH official teachings we will obey, and which we will deliberately and without repentance Disobey.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I need not (did not) read anymore than that line.

Bookcat, LOL !!!
That means you did not read my THANK YOU to you recent posters, by name,
at the end of my comment!!

Peace,
Jaypeeto4

 

[Bookcat]

I need not (did not) read anymore than that line.

Bookcat, LOL !!!
That means you did not read my THANK YOU to you recent posters, by name,
at the end of my comment!!

Peace,
Jaypeeto4

I glanced at it that far …and later looked more …your very welcome.

 

[Marybeloved]

Jaypeeto, it seems many don’t really follow your question (have not read through all but most).

I understand you to be saying: I thought at the time that I may not be ok to receive the communion, But I went ahead and received nonetheless- Did I sin mortally?

You are asking this because the Church does teach that if you believe something is mortal sin, to chose to do it while believing it’s mortal, would be mortal sin since mortal sin is a matter of wilfully rejecting God, not just a list of sins.

You are not asking about whether you’ve been validly confirmed or not or even whether you are per church teaching on sacraments free to receive or not, because after the mass you queried and found out the truth in that regard (that you are validly confirmed and that you were fine to receive communion- confirmation or not). (Most posters I’ve read seem to be answering this queries, but I gather you already know the answer like you said, after quering after the mass.)

My own first attempt at helping you: I don’t remember exactly the citation, but I’m pretty sure that the Church has said that where there is a doubt about the law in question (whether it’s mortal sin or not; Or whether it’s sin at all or not) that there is therefore no mortal sin in that act. So your being genuinely confused about whether you could validly receive or not takes away the possibility of committing a mortal sin in that regard. It would be different if you genuinely mistakenly believed, were sure, that it was truly mortal sin to receive and then went ahead and received anyway, as opposed to just being confused about whether it was sin/mortal/or not and then at some point deciding it was not and receiving, as you were in this case. If I find it, I’ll post it- I think it’s in the CCC or Canon Law. But you should speak to your priest about this and about the scrupulosity struggle. It’s very hard, I know.