Awful RCIA class -- what's my moral obligation?

[fdesales]

I just wanted to drop in and share my frustration. I am currently a sponsor for my sister. The RCIA class is HORRIBLE. It is taught by two deacons and a priest. Our Priest does a wonderful job, but english is his 7th language so there are some communication issues. Of course, it isn’t his fault and if one attends mass every sunday, they should be able to understand him.
The two deacons are perhaps really intelligent, I just don’t think they are “teacher” material. They can never seem to get a point across. They don’t answer questions thorougly and have a terrible time staying on topic.

I understand that EVERYTHING cannot be taught in RCIA, but they seem to miss out on some VERY important topics. For instance, several weeks ago Mary was the topic of the night. Not once was her Immaculate Conception mentioned. Not once did we hear about her assumption into heaven. No once did they teach us about her sinlessness or her remaining a virgin throughout her life. These are extremely important dogmas that everyone considering converting should know about.

You touch on something very important. “they cannot teach everything”…

That’s where you come in!!!

I do agree that a class on Mary should speak about two Marian feasts that are Holy days of Obligation! We should know why we are obligated to go and celebrate the Mass on a non-Sunday. A good sponsor such as yourself can speak to your candidate about this. In addition, if you are in class, you can also ask a “question” so that the deacon does “cover all the material”. You could very easily say “could you explain the Immaculate Conception really quickly”? Of course you know what it is, but this forces the deacon to include “all” the “proper” material.

It would be interesting to know the length of their “lecture”. If it is short, like 30 minutes, you probably would understand that they cannot cover everything. That is why a textbook that is read at home is useful. If it is longer, say 45-60 minutes, they really should have touched on it, and that is something you could address in private, if you had not asked your “question” that forces their hand during class.

Also, we talked about Eucharist tonight. He read from John and mentioned briefly a few other things. The rest of the night was talking about passover and why Catholics still have Christ on the cross (even though this was already covered in another class about the Passion). The Eucharist (in my opinion) is a 2 class series or more and this was squeezed into a 30 minute time frame .

Ah, remember, RCIA is not a Bible study. Having done RCIA for awhile, I find it difficult to EDIT OUT. I want to include so much, but I know that only 10% or so is retained during lecture - it is not the best way to educate adults. Thus, unfortunately, we cannot cover everything, and rely on discussion, separate reading, and the sponsors to fill in the gaps, so to speak.

Yes, the Eucharist could cover two classes. But take the big picture. There are a lot of things you could say “deserve” more than one class. What do you drop, what do you expand on? Difficult decisions, trust me, from someone who does these syllabuses… Definitely, year long Catechumenates allow more info, but if you have 20 or so classes, how do you cover everything in the Catechism that is important??? Gack!

I have thought about volunteering but if the class is being taught by two deacons, why would I be choseN?

I do not doubt that they would appreciate your offer. In fact, they PROBABLY are there because no one else is stepping forward. Deacons are spread pretty thin, they are doing all kinds of ministries. If more Catholics stepped forward, perhaps they could step back from RCIA a bit and do more corporal works of service. That is my experience with this. “We” in RCIA (I am not a deacon) are always looking for more people, and trust me, if you show the priest that you are orthodox and a good teacher, he will trust you to do the job.

I am in need of serious prayer because I am having a really tough time going to these sessions with my sister. Everytime I mention something, I get brushed off as if I were wrong. I mentioned (since they failed to) when we were talking about the Nicene Creed that one should genuflect on Christmas and on the Annunciation. Their response was that many cannot because of old age or lack of kneelers. I understand that everyone CAN NOT, but many can so shouldn’t it be taught regardless?

Pray for yourself, yes. As you mention, it is not possible to cover everything. In a physics class, does the teacher cover EVERYTHING about physics? Any other subject? No. It may take a number of classes to achieve “expert” level knowledge, even on such mundane subjects as English or Literature. (mundane for me!). Imagine religion, a subject that is by nature mysterious. I continue to learn things, and am pretty well-read. So give the teachers the benefit of the doubt, do not be scandalized. You certainly do not want to become a “pest” in the minds of the deacons (since they realize they cannot cover everything) and part of your role as sponsor is to ALSO teach. Teach the rituals we do as Catholic, like when to kneel, etc, and let them do the “heavy theology”. Teach your candidate what it means to be Catholic FOR YOU. It gives more meaning to those little things you teach them when they are aware how important Christ is to you…

You can be an excellent sponsor by your actions and the little things. The candidate will pick things up as they go, even if the deacon or you do not mention it.

Good luck and God bless.

 

[perfectpeach]

The classes are 1 hr and 30 mintues but last night the only time spent on the Eucharist was 30 minutes (read the entire chapter 6 of John). The rest of it was spent going off topic about random things not necessarily associated with the topic.

I am doing my best to fill in all of the gaps for the one I am sponsering but I worry about ALL the others who I don’t get a chance to speak with… I wanted EVERYONE to be informed as fully as possible. My worry is that not enough of our Catholic Faith is being taught.

I try my best to ask questions so that the Deacons remember to cover important things, but last night I was blasted for doing so. I asked if they could explain the indult about receiving in the hand. (Only reception in the hand was mentioned and I feel it is important for both to be explained). I got accused of saying CITH was irreverent and never mentioned the word reverence, I simply asked for an explanation.

Perhaps one of these days I would volunteer, but I’m not good with public speaking!!

 

[otjm]

The classes are 1 hr and 30 mintues but last night the only time spent on the Eucharist was 30 minutes (read the entire chapter 6 of John). The rest of it was spent going off topic about random things not necessarily associated with the topic.

I am doing my best to fill in all of the gaps for the one I am sponsering but I worry about ALL the others who I don’t get a chance to speak with… I wanted EVERYONE to be informed as fully as possible. My worry is that not enough of our Catholic Faith is being taught.

I try my best to ask questions so that the Deacons remember to cover important things, but last night I was blasted for doing so. I asked if they could explain the indult about receiving in the hand. (Only reception in the hand was mentioned and I feel it is important for both to be explained). I got accused of saying CITH was irreverent and never mentioned the word reverence, I simply asked for an explanation.

Perhaps one of these days I would volunteer, but I’m not good with public speaking!!

I understand your frustration; I have taught in RCIA for about 15 years now.

As to your comment about not being a good public speaker - perhaps the deacons are not either? And perhaps, not being so, you could cut them some slack?

As to your frustrations, part of it would seem to be an inability to separate out the wheat fromt he chaff, as it were. Your first post talked about not teaching about the Immaculate Conception, and about not teaching that one should kneel or genuflect twice a year during the Creed.

One is a doctrine, the other a minor rule. No one, and I mean not even the Pope himself, is going to be able to teach all about the faith in the few once a week meetings that occur between the time one starts the journey towrads joining the Church, and Holy Saturday night. People need to be taught the elements of faith; for some that means starting with the existence of God; for others (e.g. an Episcopalian), most likely a whole lot less. Thus the class has to span a whole lot in a short time, often trying to gauge between too much detail and not enough.

RCIA is not meant to teach all and everything, or even necessarily all of the major doctrines of the Church. It is meant to start one on the journey towards the Church, a journey that once one joins, one is responsible to continue (and that includes cradle Catholics). Somewhere along the line, people need to take on the personal responsiblity to increase both their knowledge of the Faith, and their faith. RCIA is like a kick-start towards that; it is not designed to conver every last detail of the Faith, or even necessarily a lot of details.

Yes, the coverage of the Eucharist sounds as if it was too short. So get them a book - Catholics for Dummies, written by two priests is a good start; there is also a book (one of these days I will remember the title) that takes the paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and puts it into lay terms - seems well done. Get your sister both.

RCIA should be a place where people can get questions answered (“I hear you worship Mary - Why?”), and be formed in basics of the Faith, with strong encouragement to continue to discover what it is all about.

RCIA harkens back to the early Church; people, with nowhere as developed a theology as we have now could take up to three years to join. Three years now and many people simply would not last the course.

Keep in mind that before Vatican 2 (back when I was born) we used the Baltimore Catechism. I received First Communion in the second grade; I was nowhere near finished learning all about the Church. I continued to learn all the way through grade school, high school, college, and post college and I am still learning. I didn’t know squat when I was baptized as a baby; and didn’t really know a whole lot more by the time I received first Communion; but that was satisfactory to the Church. The Church expected me to continue to learn. So also with people joining as adults through RCIA. Yes, they could have been taught more about the Eucharist. But don’t panic; if a second grader can receive the sacraments, so can an adult who has not learned everything.

 

[fdesales]

The classes are 1 hr and 30 mintues but last night the only time spent on the Eucharist was 30 minutes (read the entire chapter 6 of John). The rest of it was spent going off topic about random things not necessarily associated with the topic.

Groan… Sounds like unprepared teachers, to me…

There are many rich sections of Scripture that deal with the Eucharist, other than John 6. And to go off topic is a good sign that someone was not prepared very well and is content with letting the class dictate the topic…A more prepared teacher would answer the question and get back to the subject matter, since that is what is important. Secondary items could be covered after class. (“well, I see you are very interested in the matter of whether to take communion in the hand or on the tongue, however, I would like to cover more important matters right now, like why the Eucharist is the source of our faith, why the Eucharist is SO IMPORTANT, whether received in the hand or the mouth… I will be available after class to cover any other questions you may have on the Eucharist, but for now, let’s move on”)

That is too bad, esp. given the importance of the subject.

I am doing my best to fill in all of the gaps for the one I am sponsering but I worry about ALL the others who I don’t get a chance to speak with… I wanted EVERYONE to be informed as fully as possible. My worry is that not enough of our Catholic Faith is being taught.

My friend, there is only so much you can do today. Perhaps this is God working in you the desire to join the RCIA team next year! You should pray and discern if this is a means of God calling you.

The good thing about all of this is that people can learn about the Catholic faith as they continue their walk. Fortunately, being Catholic is not dependent upon taking a test or knowing “everything that’s important”. I am not sure what you can do to keep things on topic or make the class better for the other candidates, except perhaps asking questions that re-focus the class back onto the topic (when it gets off topic). When the topic moves over from the Eucharist to a dissertation on the proper form of geneflecting, you can re-direct conversation by asking a question that takes them back to the topic -

“so when you mentioned Paul’s writing to the Corinthians about examination before receiving the Body, does that mean Confession today?”

“oh, yea, hmph, well, Paul was talking about examining ourselves and our walk and doing what was necessary to be right with God. Certainly, that would imply confessing our sins”…

“So it is important that we go to Confession before we receive Communion?”

(the rest of the class secretly sighing relief as we move back on topic…)

And so forth, off the side topics… Perhaps some may think it is rude, but I think more would appreciate getting back on topic than worrying about these very secondary items that can be addressed later…

I try my best to ask questions so that the Deacons remember to cover important things, but last night I was blasted for doing so. I asked if they could explain the indult about receiving in the hand. (Only reception in the hand was mentioned and I feel it is important for both to be explained). I got accused of saying CITH was irreverent and never mentioned the word reverence, I simply asked for an explanation.

Perhaps one of these days I would volunteer, but I’m not good with public speaking!!

HA! I am an introvert, but here I am! You will get better as you get more self-confidence. Knowing the subject matter will make speaking in public come very naturally, especially if it is something you strongly believe in, and that it is important for other people to know it…

Good luck and continue to pray.

Regards

 

[perfectpeach]

Thanks for your replies everyone. I am trying my best not to complain. I wish more would be taught because I DO believe they could add more because I was fortunate enough to have RCIA with a priest who was extremely knowledgeable and taught me SO much in 1.5 hours. He always stayed on topic and gave direct answers. But I do understand that at least this class is being taught core elements.

It is really hard keeping my mouth shut when wrong information is given though. For instance, today we were told by a deacon that it is a venial sin to miss mass “though some would say it was a mortal sin.”

 

[fdesales]

Thanks for your replies everyone. I am trying my best not to complain. I wish more would be taught because I DO believe they could add more because I was fortunate enough to have RCIA with a priest who was extremely knowledgeable and taught me SO much in 1.5 hours. He always stayed on topic and gave direct answers. But I do understand that at least this class is being taught core elements.

It is really hard keeping my mouth shut when wrong information is given though. For instance, today we were told by a deacon that it is a venial sin to miss mass “though some would say it was a mortal sin.”

He is technically right!!!

A mortal sin requires three things. To be a serious offense, to know it is a serious offense, and to do it, anyway, freely.

There are a number of factors that would preclude the “mortal sin” statement. NOTHING is ALWAYS a mortal sin, if we look to the above Catechism definition. A person may not have known. Perhaps they were forced by circumstances or sickness. “Mortal sin” is a very serious sin, since it removes us from grace. I think people should be VERY careful before scandalizing people with THAT guilt trip, when it is wrong…

Regards

 

[perfectpeach]

Perhaps I understand the Obligation to attend mass much differently then. I see that it is ALWAYS a mortal sin unless one or all of the three conditions of mortal sin are not present or if one has a serious reason for missing (like sickness or care of child, etc.) which it becomes a venial sin.

If you teach your class about the three criteria for mortal sin and tell them it is a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) then it would always be a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) rather than a venial sin and in some cases, mortal.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps I understand the Obligation to attend mass much differently then. I see that it is ALWAYS a mortal sin unless one or all of the three conditions of mortal sin are not present or if one has a serious reason for missing (like sickness or care of child, etc.) which it becomes a venial sin.

If you teach your class about the three criteria for mortal sin and tell them it is a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) then it would always be a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) rather than a venial sin and in some cases, mortal.

That would be the better way to look at it; it is first and foremost a serious matter. There may be issues which subjectively make it less serious or not a sin at all; but it makes clear that the issue is a serious one, not a matter that in some circumstances can become more serious.

However, there tends to be two ends to a slightly different issue: taking (e.g. the Ten Commandments) and on one end of the spectrum, making them to be relative issues, and on the other end, issues in and of themselves divorced from a wider aspect of life.

 

[fdesales]

Perhaps I understand the Obligation to attend mass much differently then. I see that it is ALWAYS a mortal sin unless one or all of the three conditions of mortal sin are not present or if one has a serious reason for missing (like sickness or care of child, etc.) which it becomes a venial sin.

Your statement above is correct, hence, missing Mass CANNOT ALWAYS BE a mortal sin!!! quite logical.

If one of the three conditions is missing, no mortal sin. thus, the deacon is correct, missing Mass is not always a mortal sin…

perfectpeach:

If you teach your class about the three criteria for mortal sin and tell them it is a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) then it would always be a mortal sin to miss mass (except for just reasons) rather than a venial sin and in some cases, mortal.

Which we should qualify the “just reasons”. Watching football may be a “just reason” to some!!! However, the point is made - missing mass is not always a mortal sin, so this is an inaccurate teaching.

Regards

 

[perfectpeach]

The Deacon did not say, “Missing mass is not always a mortal sin.” He said, “It is a venial sin though some would say it is a mortal sin.” The ‘some’ he is talking about is more than likely the traditional Catholics (like myself) who he is always bashing.

You would not say murder is a venial sin though sometimes it can be mortal. (muder in self defense or war would be venial). You would say it is a mortal sin but when certain circumstances are present, it can be venial.

 

[fdesales]

The Deacon did not say, “Missing mass is not always a mortal sin.” He said, “It is a venial sin though some would say it is a mortal sin.” The ‘some’ he is talking about is more than likely the traditional Catholics (like myself) who he is always bashing.

Missing Mass MAY be a venial sin, it depends upon the circumstances.

It is false to state the word “always” when trying to speak of whether a sin is mortal or venial. Serious sin can be either, depending upon the circumstance.

I cannot say anything about the “bashing”, but remember you brought up the idea that this Deacon was wrong, how dare he give incorrect teaching. It turns out he was correct, at least based on what you have told me.

At the least, this should be a lesson for everyone - don’t presume an instructor is wrong because it doesn’t jive what you were taught long time ago…

You would not say murder is a venial sin though sometimes it can be mortal. (muder in self defense or war would be venial). You would say it is a mortal sin but when certain circumstances are present, it can be venial.

Well, murder can be a venial sin, as well. There are two types of sin, mortal and venial. An instructor can present it from either direction, it is not wrong…

Murder is a mortal sin, unless certain circumstances are present…
Murder is a venial sin, unless certain circumstances are present…

both are technically correct. Naturally, the emphasis SHOULD be placed on the former, since it stresses the seriousness of the sin. However, either approach is not heretical nor wrong.

Let’s give the instructors the benefit of the doubt. Teaching people the faith with so many “experts” in the room is very difficult, to say the least. No wonder very few people want to become catechists…

Regards

 

[otjm]

Missing Mass MAY be a venial sin, it depends upon the circumstances.

It is false to state the word “always” when trying to speak of whether a sin is mortal or venial. Serious sin can be either, depending upon the circumstance.

I cannot say anything about the “bashing”, but remember you brought up the idea that this Deacon was wrong, how dare he give incorrect teaching. It turns out he was correct, at least based on what you have told me.

At the least, this should be a lesson for everyone - don’t presume an instructor is wrong because it doesn’t jive what you were taught long time ago…

Well, murder can be a venial sin, as well. There are two types of sin, mortal and venial. An instructor can present it from either direction, it is not wrong…

Murder is a mortal sin, unless certain circumstances are present…
Murder is a venial sin, unless certain circumstances are present…

both are technically correct. Naturally, the emphasis SHOULD be placed on the former, since it stresses the seriousness of the sin. However, either approach is not heretical nor wrong.

Let’s give the instructors the benefit of the doubt. Teaching people the faith with so many “experts” in the room is very difficult, to say the least. No wonder very few people want to become catechists…

Regards

The Church speaks of things that are intrinsically evil. When something is spoken of as intrinsically evil, it is judged to be a mortal sin. There may be circumstances which, for the individual, reduce it to a venial sin, or no sin at all. However, it would be incorrect to say that a matter which is intrisically evil would be a venial sin, but sometimes a mortal sin.

The deacon was incorrect in that he effectively minimized a matter that the Church considers is always objectively serious. It may be subjectively not serious (venial) or subjectively not morally wrong (no sin - e.g. someone who has had surgery and is still bedridden - no moral obligation to go; or someone has no reasonably close Mass to attend - 75 miles to the nearest church). However, in and of itself, missing Mass on Sunday is always a mortla sin, and is so for the individual unless there are intervening circumstances that reduce it to a venail sin or no sin. It is not a venial sin unless there are intervening circumstances. That is simpy incorrect.

 

[fdesales]

The Church speaks of things that are intrinsically evil. When something is spoken of as intrinsically evil, it is judged to be a mortal sin.

No it’s not. The Catechism does not make that connection.

Intrinisically evil means an action is ALWAYS evil, despite the circumstance.

NOT that something is ALWAYS a mortal sin.

Contraception is NOT always a mortal sin, despite being intrinisically evil. If a person is forced, convinced or cajoled to have contraceptive sex, you have in effect told a poor soul they are bound to go to hell unless they rush to the confessional.

Have you thought about that???

This is the problem with people running off without knowing what they are talking about, scandalizing unnecessarily the faithful who are ignorant. Teachers (and internet apologists) have a responsibility to be careful, as Scriptures point out…

If you think otherwise, please provide a citation from the Catechism to back up your statement…

There may be circumstances which, for the individual, reduce it to a venial sin, or no sin at all.

The categorizing of venial/mortal sin refers to personal sin, so there is no “corporate” categorizing of mortal or venial sin. As such, there is no action that is ALWAYS a mortal sin for ALL of the members of the corporate Church. Mortal/Venial refer ALWAYS refer to personal sin, not corporate. It is an attempt to judge our personal relationshipwith God via the level of sinful action.

Mortal sins depend upon KNOWLEDGE, and since not all people have been trained or do not possess this knowledge, there is no action that is ALWAYS mortal, even if it was an “intrinsically evil” act.

And we haven’t even discussed culpability…

However, it would be incorrect to say that a matter which is intrisically evil would be a venial sin, but sometimes a mortal sin.

It is an incorrect focus, I agree, but technically not incorrect.

The deacon was incorrect in that he effectively minimized a matter that the Church considers is always objectively serious. It may be subjectively not serious (venial) or subjectively not morally wrong (no sin - e.g. someone who has had surgery and is still bedridden - no moral obligation to go; or someone has no reasonably close Mass to attend - 75 miles to the nearest church). However, in and of itself, missing Mass on Sunday is always a mortla sin, and is so for the individual unless there are intervening circumstances that reduce it to a venail sin or no sin. It is not a venial sin unless there are intervening circumstances. That is simpy incorrect.

What you give, you take away in the same paragraph, making your exposition of the faith confusing…

First, you explain means by which a person’s act is not a mortal sin — and then you tell us that “in and of itself, missing Mass on Sunday is always a mortal sin”…

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

Missing Mass is a serious offense against God. It ALWAYS wounds our relationship with God. It does NOT ALWAYS destroy that relationship. THAT can ONLY happen when one KNOWS it is serious, has the opportunity to attend Mass, but REFUSES ANYWAYS - and there are no circumstances that prevent him from missing.

This is a mortal sin. All three descriptors MUST be present!

THIS destroys our relationship with God. Too many people toss around the “mortal” monicker WAY TOO OFTEN, and I fear this has caused none too few scrupulous souls to worry about their eternal destinies over something that was NOT TOTALLY destructive to their relationship with the Lord. Probably a cast over from Catholic Jansenism that STILL infects our Church, trying to turn our relationship with God into some legal status…

THE VERY ACT of worrying about such a thing should key someone to the fact that it was NOT a mortal sin to begin with. A person who destroys their relationship with God KNOWS they have separated themselves from God and doesn’t CARE.

Those who wonder if they have committed a mortal sin have already eliminated the act as being a “mortal” sin…

I apologize if I may appear to be rude, but too many people appear to be too quick to judge a Deacon’s correct teaching, jumping to conclusions while NOT knowing what the Catechism actually teaches. Such false “correction” merely scandalizes the faithful regarding a man trying to serve God and spreads incorrect teaching.

If people are going to try to correct someone, they could AT LEAST have the correct information ready…

Regards

 

[joandarc2008]

No it’s not. The Catechism does not make that connection.

Intrinisically evil means an action is ALWAYS evil, despite the circumstance.

NOT that something is ALWAYS a mortal sin.

Contraception is NOT always a mortal sin, despite being intrinisically evil. If a person is forced, convinced or cajoled to have contraceptive sex, you have in effect told a poor soul they are bound to go to hell unless they rush to the confessional.

Have you thought about that???

This is the problem with people running off without knowing what they are talking about, scandalizing unnecessarily the faithful who are ignorant. Teachers (and internet apologists) have a responsibility to be careful, as Scriptures point out…

If you think otherwise, please provide a citation from the Catechism to back up your statement…

The categorizing of venial/mortal sin refers to personal sin, so there is no “corporate” categorizing of mortal or venial sin. As such, there is no action that is ALWAYS a mortal sin for ALL of the members of the corporate Church. Mortal/Venial refer ALWAYS refer to personal sin, not corporate. It is an attempt to judge our personal relationshipwith God via the level of sinful action.

Mortal sins depend upon KNOWLEDGE, and since not all people have been trained or do not possess this knowledge, there is no action that is ALWAYS mortal, even if it was an “intrinsically evil” act.

And we haven’t even discussed culpability…

It is an incorrect focus, I agree, but technically not incorrect.

What you give, you take away in the same paragraph, making your exposition of the faith confusing…

First, you explain means by which a person’s act is not a mortal sin — and then you tell us that “in and of itself, missing Mass on Sunday is always a mortal sin”…

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

Missing Mass is a serious offense against God. It ALWAYS wounds our relationship with God. It does NOT ALWAYS destroy that relationship. THAT can ONLY happen when one KNOWS it is serious, has the opportunity to attend Mass, but REFUSES ANYWAYS - and there are no circumstances that prevent him from missing.

This is a mortal sin. All three descriptors MUST be present!

THIS destroys our relationship with God. Too many people toss around the “mortal” monicker WAY TOO OFTEN, and I fear this has caused none too few scrupulous souls to worry about their eternal destinies over something that was NOT TOTALLY destructive to their relationship with the Lord. Probably a cast over from Catholic Jansenism that STILL infects our Church, trying to turn our relationship with God into some legal status…

THE VERY ACT of worrying about such a thing should key someone to the fact that it was NOT a mortal sin to begin with. A person who destroys their relationship with God KNOWS they have separated themselves from God and doesn’t CARE.

Those who wonder if they have committed a mortal sin have already eliminated the act as being a “mortal” sin…

I apologize if I may appear to be rude, but too many people appear to be too quick to judge a Deacon’s correct teaching, jumping to conclusions while NOT knowing what the Catechism actually teaches. Such false “correction” merely scandalizes the faithful regarding a man trying to serve God and spreads incorrect teaching.

If people are going to try to correct someone, they could AT LEAST have the correct information ready…

Regards

Personally, I think those three conditions are the first thing that should be covered in RCIA so we can all stop telling each other we are going to Hell!! Thanks, for clearing it up. This lack of understanding is what often makes the Catholic Church come off as judgemental and exclusive rather than loving and universal.

 

[otjm]

No it’s not. The Catechism does not make that connection.

The Catechism is not a moral theology text. It is a compendium of information about the faith, and treats none of it in depth.

Intrinisically evil means an action is ALWAYS evil, despite the circumstance.

NOT that something is ALWAYS a mortal sin.

Yes, it does mean that it is always objectively. You are confusing what is objectively wrong with what is subjectively wrong.

Contraception is NOT always a mortal sin, despite being intrinisically evil. If a person is forced, convinced or cajoled to have contraceptive sex, you have in effect told a poor soul they are bound to go to hell unless they rush to the confessional.

Yes, in the circumstances, contraception is a mortal sin objectiviely. That does not change. It is the issue of subjective guilt that you are confusing; the individual may not subjectively be guilty of a mortal sin because of extenuating circumstances; but that does not change the act itself, but only the degree of responsiblity.

Mortal sins depend upon KNOWLEDGE, and since not all people have been trained or do not possess this knowledge, there is no action that is ALWAYS mortal, even if it was an “intrinsically evil” act.

And we haven’t even discussed culpability…

Well, that is not what the Church teaches. You just seem to think that the sum and substance of what the Church teaches is contained in the Catechism. It isn’t; that is just a starting point to further reflection and learning.

It is an incorrect focus, I agree, but technically not incorrect.

What you give, you take away in the same paragraph, making your exposition of the faith confusing…

First, you explain means by which a person’s act is not a mortal sin — and then you tell us that “in and of itself, missing Mass on Sunday is always a mortal sin”…

MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

No, you need to pay attention. People need to understand what is objectively a mortal sin. Starting with the 10 Commanments is a good place, but certainly not the final place. Let’s try it again. You need to understand the difference between objective sinfulness and subjective sinfulness. If you are confused, perhaps it is because you do not understand the difference right there. The objective act - missing Mass - does not change; it does not become “less sinful”. There are exceptions which the Church recognizes, not in the sin itself, but in the circumstances that are subjective. As the Church defines it, “missing” is the intentional act. If one is a soldier, stationed where no Mass is available, by definition that person is not making an intyentional act to “miss”.

THIS destroys our relationship with God. Too many people toss around the “mortal” monicker WAY TOO OFTEN, and I fear this has caused none too few scrupulous souls to worry about their eternal destinies over something that was NOT TOTALLY destructive to their relationship with the Lord. Probably a cast over from Catholic Jansenism that STILL infects our Church, trying to turn our relationship with God into some legal status…

No, the issue of Jansenism is not so easily contained. Actually, we have the opposite; we have poorly formed consciences because of poor catechesis; given the way the deacon was approaching it, it is all too easy for people to not realize ithe improtance of attending aMass. We already have enough people who think that nothing they ever do is a serious sin. We don’t need more.

THE VERY ACT of worrying about such a thing should key someone to the fact that it was NOT a mortal sin to begin with. A person who destroys their relationship with God KNOWS they have separated themselves from God and doesn’t CARE.

Again an oversimplification. We have too many people who don’t really know their status with God; they presume it is fine because they have made a few “mistakes”, but of course those are not sins…

Those who wonder if they have committed a mortal sin have already eliminated the act as being a “mortal” sin…

Or in the alternative, perhaps they have started to respond to a conscience that was poorly, or hardly at ll formed. They are shacking up with their semi significant other and wonder…

I apologize if I may appear to be rude, but too many people appear to be too quick to judge a Deacon’s correct teaching, jumping to conclusions while NOT knowing what the Catechism actually teaches. Such false “correction” merely scandalizes the faithful regarding a man trying to serve God and spreads incorrect teaching.

If people are going to try to correct someone, they could AT LEAST have the correct information ready…

Regards

And I may be a bit harsh, but I would guess I might have actually studied more moral theology than you have, since this is something I have been interested in from not long after I left the seminary - which puts it back to 1966. I was studying it before the Catechism came out. And yes, I ahve studied the Catechims. I also teach RCIA. The deacon is flat out wrong in the direction he is taking. Tell someone that something like that is a venial sin and sometimes might be a mortal sin, and what they hear is that missing Mass is not nice, but I am not going to go to hell for the choices I make about it.

I am not jumping to conclusions.

I have read the Catechism.

I have studied a good bit more than that.

And people are not scandalized when I teach; they have repeatedly come up and thanked me for explaining things clearly, understandably, honestly and truthfully.

 

[fdesales]

Personally, I think those three conditions are the first thing that should be covered in RCIA so we can all stop telling each other we are going to Hell!! Thanks, for clearing it up. This lack of understanding is what often makes the Catholic Church come off as judgemental and exclusive rather than loving and universal.

I like what you are thinking and totally agree.

“We” push people away with a “legalist” mentality, rather than teaching our faith as a relationship with God. No wonder so many accuse us of “works salvation”…

I tire of people telling someone they have committed a mortal sin - while “forgeting” that it takes THREE FACTORS. An act, in of itself, is not always a mortal sin, and our weaker brothers and sisters who are told this suffer spiritually from such talk.

Regards

 

[joandarc2008]

Now maybe I am wrong and maybe this is an oversimplification but my understanding of what the Cathechism is is this: that the Bible is a living document that is written by man with inspiration from God and that the Cathechism is “more that will be revealed” as the centuries went on and man kept coming up with more “loop holes.”

 

[joandarc2008]

OK, when in doubt just check the document for the definition:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm

 

[fdesales]

You are confusing what is objectively wrong with what is subjectively wrong.

You are confusing what the ISSUE is…

NOT whether something is evil or not. But whether an act is a MORTAL SIN or not. The two are not synonymous.

Missing Mass is objectively wrong, a sin, yes. I am not confusing that whatsoever. The discussion is over the EFFECT of that sin…Does missing Mass ALWAYS destroy our relationship with God??? Mortal sin???

PLEASE don’t tell me you think it does…

If it doesn’t, as common sense points out, then missing Mass is NOT always a mortal sin, period.

Yes, in the circumstances, contraception is a mortal sin objectiviely.

This is clear proof you are confusing “inherently evil” with “mortal sin”.

Contraception is “serious” always. “Inherently”. “Objectively”. But this does not follow that it is “mortal sin objectively”.

Again, you are confusing “inherently evil” with “mortal sin”…

An act is inherently evil - that means the act is always evil.

It does NOT follow that this act is always MORTALLY evil.

You just seem to think that the sum and substance of what the Church teaches is contained in the Catechism. It isn’t; that is just a starting point to further reflection and learning.

Well, I asked you to provide a source to back up what you are saying. Your response is not helpful, but merely avoiding the issue. Please provide a source to back up your contention - if you think the Catechism is an insufficient source on this subject.

No, the issue of Jansenism is not so easily contained. Actually, we have the opposite; we have poorly formed consciences because of poor catechesis;

That is not being addressed, you are changing the subject.

The issue is over reducing the faith to legalism, not why there are poorly formed consciences. Jansenism focuses on legalism and the effect it has on our relationship with God. Spreading false teachings certainly does not help, although I suppose it makes people more scrupulous…

given the way the deacon was approaching it, it is all too easy for people to not realize ithe improtance of attending aMass.

I do not deny he could have handled things better. I have said this from the beginning. The problem, for me, is those who JUMP on the deacon because he didn’t teach things “correctly” in the OPINION of a lay person - who was incorrect, at the end of the day…

Missing Mass is not ALWAYS mortal sin. It is error to teach otherwise.

We already have enough people who think that nothing they ever do is a serious sin. We don’t need more.

So because of this, we must lie and tell people that missing Mass is always a mortal sin… We must return to the days where people worry more about the act then the relationship with Christ.

We have too many people who don’t really know their status with God; they presume it is fine because they have made a few “mistakes”, but of course those are not sins…

We know our status with God by our walk, not by thinking about whether our sin was venial or mortal or worrying about the objectivity vs the subjectivity of an act…

As we obey God, we KNOW we are in the Spirit.

A person needs not to live in fear of their relationship with God, WONDERING whether God viewed some act as mortal, and thus, they are going to hell.

I may be a bit harsh, but I would guess I might have actually studied more moral theology than you have, since this is something I have been interested in from not long after I left the seminary - which puts it back to 1966.

Which means you are infallible???

If you teach that an act is ALWAYS a mortal sin, you are teaching error. There is a difference between “inherent evil” and “mortal sin”, the two are NOT synomymous as you seem to believe. Having to tell me your “extensive” experience is unbecoming, when it is quite clear that you are in error and has little bearing on whether you are correct.

The fact that I can be sick and miss Mass and NOT be separated from God via mortal sin disproves the notion that an inherently evil act is always a mortal sin…

Regards

 

[otjm]

You are confusing what the ISSUE is…

NOT whether something is evil or not. But whether an act is a MORTAL SIN or not. The two are not synonymous.

You are starting to stray from what I originally wrote. The question was whether or not the deacon was correct in teaching thus: missing Mass is a venial sin and sometimes a mortal sin. It is not I confusing the issue, but you straying off what I wrote.

Missing Mass is objectively wrong, a sin, yes. I am not confusing that whatsoever. The discussion is over the EFFECT of that sin…Does missing Mass ALWAYS destroy our relationship with God??? Mortal sin???

That, however, is a different question from the one I addressed. I don’t dispute, and never have disputed, that subjectively there are three things required for a sin to be mortal; and the short answer to your immediate question is “No, it does not always destroy our relationship with God”. I never said it did; further, if you read what I have said in the previous posts, you would see indirectly that I had already effectively stated such. That was not the question.

This is clear proof you are confusing “inherently evil” with “mortal sin”.

Contraception is “serious” always. “Inherently”. “Objectively”. But this does not follow that it is “mortal sin objectively”.

You just contradicted yourself. I think the last word you meant was “subjectively”.

Again, you are confusing “inherently evil” with “mortal sin”…

An act is inherently evil - that means the act is always evil.

It does NOT follow that this act is always MORTALLY evil.

And I never said it did. You seem unable to separate out what is objectively a mortal sin from what is subjectively.

I do not deny he could have handled things better. I have said this from the beginning. The problem, for me, is those who JUMP on the deacon because he didn’t teach things “correctly” in the OPINION of a lay person - who was incorrect, at the end of the day…

Missing Mass is not ALWAYS mortal sin. It is error to teach otherwise.

I don’t teach that. And you do not read with distinction, it would seem.

So because of this, we must lie and tell people that missing Mass is always a mortal sin… We must return to the days where people worry more about the act then the relationship with Christ.

Actually, it is my position that the lying must stop. And if the deacon actually taught that missing Mass is a venial sin, and sometimes it might be a mortal sin, he is either lying, or at best has a very poor understanding of moral theology. 65 to 75% of Catholics do not attend Sunday Mass on a weekly basis. You are going to have to go a long, long way to convince me that a goodly number of them are not in moral danger. All too many of them hear only what they want to hear; they want to think they are good people when they are in clear violation of basic Commandments. And teaching like the deacon teaches is part of what is sustaining them.

We know our status with God by our walk, not by thinking about whether our sin was venial or mortal or worrying about the objectivity vs the subjectivity of an act…

I live in the most unchurched state in the union. We have a whole lot of people wandering around thinking they are right with God; and yet they can’t even follow the 10 Commandments - because as far as they are concerned, those are the Ten Suggestions.

As we obey God, we KNOW we are in the Spirit.

And as Relativism continues to make inroads on people’s spirituality, this type of “feel good morality” will lead more and more people away from their walk with God. One of the easiest things to do is to convince yourself that a serious matter isn’t serious.

Which means you are infallible???

Knock off the ad hominem bit.

I

f you teach that an act is ALWAYS a mortal sin, you are teaching error. There is a difference between “inherent evil” and “mortal sin”, the two are NOT synomymous as you seem to believe. Having to tell me your “extensive” experience is unbecoming, when it is quite clear that you are in error and has little bearing on whether you are correct.

OK, you cannot read with distinction. I do not believe what you posit nor do I teach it. I appreciate that you are interested in moral theology, but your lack of logical processing is preventing you from proceeding. Your next sentance is a classic example of such. You are unable to get the distinctions between objective and subjective.

The fact that I can be sick and miss Mass and NOT be separated from God via mortal sin disproves the notion that an inherently evil act is always a mortal sin…

Regards

No, what it disproves is that an objectively mortal sin is always subjectively a mortal sin. It is not and we both agree that it is not, but you cannot distinguish what I say.