Can we try this again?

[Julia1996]

They would still impart the graces of spiritual healing, and may even have imparted graces of physical healing - this sort of thing has been known to happen, more and more often in recent years.

I met a woman this past weekend who gave a testimony that she had received Last Rites because it was thought that she was about to die of inoperable brain cancer - at the time, she was unable to speak or move - she was confined to her bed and dependent on her family for literally everything - after receiving the anointing, she became able to speak, and then had a very sudden urge that she needed to use the bathroom, and without thinking at all, she got up and walked to the bathroom (after having been confined for more than five years), which amazed everyone there - and to this day, she has been perfectly well. Her doctors at the Mayo Clinic have verified that they have no medial or scientific explanation for her healing.

Is this a case of someone being saved by their faith? Or was it because of the Last Rites?

I can send you her name privately, if you want to contact the clinic and verify her story.

These would be washed away in any devout act that the person made - even a simple prayer of just a few words, and certainly they would be washed away when the person received Confirmation and First Holy Communion. It is not necessary to confess venial sins in the Confessional.

If someone commits a venial sin without realizing it, would it still be counted?

 

[jmcrae]

Is this a case of someone being saved by their faith? Or was it because of the Last Rites?

Probably a combination, since both would lead to God’s effective action in a person’s life.

If someone commits a venial sin without realizing it, would it still be counted?

If you commit a venial sin without realizing it, the sin would be forgiven as soon as you made a prayer or did any devotional action.

 

[Julia1996]

Probably a combination, since both would lead to God’s effective action in a person’s life.

Are the Last Rites supposed to cleanse you of your sins even if you couldn’t do confession?

If you commit a venial sin without realizing it, the sin would be forgiven as soon as you made a prayer or did any devotional action.

Supposing someone committed a venial sin without realizing it and thus didn’t say a prayer or anything, then they died in a car accident or something similar where they couldn’t do anything about their sin. Would their sin stop them from going to heaven?

 

[jmcrae]

Supposing someone committed a venial sin without realizing it and thus didn’t say a prayer or anything, then they died in a car accident or something similar where they couldn’t do anything about their sin. Would their sin stop them from going to heaven?

It doesn’t have to be related in any way to the venial sin - if you have a good relationship with God, you will certainly make a prayer or some act of devotion more than once a day, so unless you were to immediately die at the very moment that you did the sin, and never even had a chance to utter “Oh, God!” it’s unlikely that you could die with a venial sin on your soul.

Those who don’t have a relationship of any kind with God will not be stopped from going to Heaven by their venial sins - their lack of faith will have already sealed their fate.

 

[Aramis]

I think the Episcopals also use Confessions. So a convert would have to re-confess all of their sins?

So do some lutheran denominations. And yes, validly baptized protestants have to confess prior to Eucharist.

 

[Julia1996]

It doesn’t have to be related in any way to the venial sin - if you have a good relationship with God, you will certainly make a prayer or some act of devotion more than once a day, so unless you were to immediately die at the very moment that you did the sin, and never even had a chance to utter “Oh, God!” it’s unlikely that you could die with a venial sin on your soul.

Those who don’t have a relationship of any kind with God will not be stopped from going to Heaven by their venial sins - their lack of faith will have already sealed their fate.

What happens to the people who do have faith in God but because of their busy lives, they don’t have a close relationship with God and do not habitually make a prayer or act of devotion?

 

[jmcrae]

What happens to the people who do have faith in God but because of their busy lives, they don’t have a close relationship with God and do not habitually make a prayer or act of devotion?

We are not allowed to say that anybody definitely goes to Hell - but I would not like to be someone like that - I wouldn’t like their chances very much.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Stealing from your mother violates two of the ten commandments, so it is, indeed, a mortal sin, if done with the full knowledge that mother will get angry if she finds out, and not under any kind of coercion (ie: no gun to the head).

Are you seriously suggesting that if, say, an eight-year old boy takes a cookie without permission that they will go to hell? Seriously?

A cookie.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you seriously suggesting that if, say, an eight-year old boy takes a cookie without permission that they will go to hell? Seriously?

A cookie.

“Will go” - no. Obviously, that’s God’s decision.

If he is knowingly and deliberately offending his mother, though, this is a serious sin.

Cuteness is not the criterion for entry into Heaven. Obedience is the criterion. I think we need to get away from the fallacy that everybody gets to go to Heaven, no matter what, especially if they are cute.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

“Will go” - no. Obviously, that’s God’s decision.

If he is knowingly and deliberately offending his mother, though, this is a serious sin.

Cuteness is not the criterion for entry into Heaven. Obedience is the criterion. I think we need to get away from the fallacy that everybody gets to go to Heaven, no matter what, especially if they are cute.

Well, I agree that cuteness is beside the point. The reason that I’m surprised by the suggestion is that the value of the cookie is negligible.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Still, as happens with regard to other delinquencies, its guilt may often be venial. This is particularly true when the value of what is filched is inconsiderable, or as the theologians say, is not grave matter.

For what it’s worth:

Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Thomas Aquinas seems to agree that petty theft is not necessarily mortal (but may be):

And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin.

Seriously. We’re talking about a cookie here.

 

[FCEGM]

Seriously. We’re talking about a cookie here.

It’s not about a cookie, it’s about the intent behind the theft. If the theft arose from the child’s desire to offend his mother, not from hunger for a cookie, then the offense is greater no matter what the age.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It’s not about a cookie, it’s about the intent behind the theft. If the theft arose from the child’s desire to offend his mother, not from hunger for a cookie, then the offense is greater no matter what the age.

Certainly two sins are greater than one. And I will tentatively agree that perhaps in some cases, a child’s intent could be serious enough to elevate the cookie swipe to the level of mortal sin. I find the specifics hard to imagine, but not quite inconceivable.

But generally speaking, we’re talking about a kid with a sweet tooth and poor impulse control, not a monster who is deliberately rebelling against the law of God. And I hope we can all agree that such is not damnable.

 

[clmowry]

Seriously. We’re talking about a cookie here.

Isn’t the primary sin we should would be looking at here a violation of the 4th rather than 6th commandment? Obviously it would be both, but IF, stealing the cookie was to be deamed a mortal sin, it would seem the key issue would be the childs failure to honor his mother.

It seems clear that both commandments were violated, whether or not this constitues a mortal sin for our hypothetical 8 year old boy is a matter that I’ll leave between God and His child.

Either way it was certainly a step in the wrong direction from which he should repent.

Chuck

 

[Julia1996]

Isn’t the primary sin we should would be looking at here a violation of the 4th rather than 6th commandment? Obviously it would be both, but IF, stealing the cookie was to be deamed a mortal sin, it would seem the key issue would be the childs failure to honor his mother.

It seems clear that both commandments were violated, whether or not this constitues a mortal sin for our hypothetical 8 year old boy is a matter that I’ll leave between God and His child.

Either way it was certainly a step in the wrong direction from which he should repent.

Chuck

I don’t think an 8 year old boy has the maturity to understand the gravity of the situation and repent.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think an 8 year old boy has the maturity to understand the gravity of the situation and repent.

He has reached the Age of Reason, and the Church offers him the opportunity to make his First Confession at around this age - so, although it may be unlikely, it is certainly possible.

From my vantage point as an adult, I don’t notice very much any more whether an eight-year-old has the capacity to show deliberate disrespect to his mother (and I think that the “cute” factor is definitely in play, here), but when I was eight, I certainly remember knowing both boys and girls who were deliberate and methodical (though, due to inexperience and lack of skill, were unable to actually inflict any harm on them) in showing disrespect to their parents, and who could reasonably be believed when they said they hated their parents.

I’m sure that times and human nature haven’t changed all that much, since my childhood.

 

[clmowry]

I don’t think an 8 year old boy has the maturity to understand the gravity of the situation and repent.

“Think” being the operative word.

That’s why I highlighted the “IF”.

I think the odds are on your side.

Some may have the maturity, but certainly not all. I would think it is “possible” for an 8 year old to commit a mortal sin, but it’s not very likely.

Chuck

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

He has reached the Age of Reason, and the Church offers him the opportunity to make his First Confession at around this age - so, although it may be unlikely, it is certainly possible.

From my vantage point as an adult, I don’t notice very much any more whether an eight-year-old has the capacity to show deliberate disrespect to his mother (and I think that the “cute” factor is definitely in play, here), but when I was eight, I certainly remember knowing both boys and girls who were deliberate and methodical (though, due to inexperience and lack of skill, were unable to actually inflict any harm on them) in showing disrespect to their parents, and who could reasonably be believed when they said they hated their parents.

I’m sure that times and human nature haven’t changed all that much, since my childhood.

I’m guessing those kids did more than steal cookies, right?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m guessing those kids did more than steal cookies, right?

The cookie-stealing was just one example of lack of respect for parental authority. I picked a simple example so as not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[clmowry]

The cookie-stealing was just one example of lack of respect for parental authority. I picked a simple example so as not to sidetrack the thread.

How’s that working out. Hehe…

Chuck

 

[diggerdomer]

“Will go” - no. Obviously, that’s God’s decision.

If he is knowingly and deliberately offending his mother, though, this is a serious sin.

Not necessarily. Serious (grave) sin requires serious (grave) matter. Many (most? all?) Catholic moral theologians would opine that stealing a cookie is not serious (grave) matter.

In other words: let’s be real.