Devil's Advocate on Divorce and Communion

[Memaw]

^^^also worth noting: As part of the liturgy, we recite:

“…Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof (used to be “…to receive you”), but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed (used to be "…I shall be healed).”

IMO, this expresses my position as indicated above; that, coupled with the ‘mea culpa’ at the beginning of mass, done sincerely, should suffice to ready the sinful soul, for reception of Christ Eucharistic.

Again, JMHO.

The Mea culpa does NOT forgive mortal sin. Only Sacramental Confession can do that for the sinner. If we are truly sorry for our mortal sins we will want to do God’s will and go to Sacramental Confession BEFORE we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Our personal position isn’t a safe guideline as we can easily fool ourselves into thinking we know more than the Church. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Goya]

The Mea culpa does NOT forgive mortal sin. Only Sacramental Confession can do that for the sinner. If we are truly sorry for our mortal sins we will want to do God’s will and go to Sacramental Confession BEFORE we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Our personal position isn’t a safe guideline as we can easily fool ourselves into thinking we know more than the Church. God Bless, Memaw

I don’t dispute this at all, nor did I intend to suggest that. Sacramental Confession is most definitely necessary for repentance; it is certainly the preferred course of action. It is in fact, the ideal.

The problem is that the ideal clashes with reality–so we either own the reality, and seek to reconcile it with our Faith; or disregard reality, and pretend things aren’t as they are–an inescapable problem I see with the fiction of OSAS, where the OSAS proponent seems to operate under the bogus fiction that the sinner ceases to sin, upon baptism–simply because the Bible is rather light on the post baptized, sinning. But our experiences tell us a completely different story, in the real world. Hence the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation; and the ‘fittingness’ of the concept of purgatory.

Applied to withholding the Eucharist from those in a state of sin…the reality is quite simply that the shear number of persons who partake of the Eucharist on a weekly basis, outnumbers the number of people who avail themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation once a year (let alone weekly) by a factor of better than 10. Conservatively speaking.

For those who commune–so many, I should add–to pretend that they are in a ‘state of grace’ upon partaking of the Eucharist–the shear numbers alone dictate that either >90 are either lying…or there are quite a few sinners, seeking Eucharistic remediation for their sinful ways (with the remaining <10% apparently, actually in the contemplated ‘state of grace’).

So our Churches are either filled with hypocritical Pharisees (ref. the Pharisee judging the tax collector)–or filled with humble sinners.

I stake my claim to the latter.

I am a sinner.

I go to Christ every week seeking the divine remedy to cure me of my sinfulness (and the indescribable benefits of Eucharistic communion with Our Lord, and His people).

…and I dare not judge my fellow Christians who line up with me every week, seeking to Commune with our Lord and Savior, in and through His Church–and who presumably seek the same redemption and infinite mercy that I do–and which can be found ONLY in the Risen Christ–and to partake in the most effective, most intimate manner through which He has made Himself available to us–in the Holy Eucharist.

For perspective: I am married through the Church; a loyal husband, father of 4–but I simply cannot bring myself to compare my sins to any others’–not because I think mine might be worse than others’; but because my sins by themselves, juxtaposed against Christ’s goodness and love…are so incredibly humiliating and embarrassing, that it is simply mortifying. I have my own sins to account for; and my own incredible lack of inherent ‘goodness’. I attempt Eucharistic adoration once a week, in addition to weekly mass–I must confess, that I am largely moved to this, out of selfishness–because I need Christ [Eucharistic] to continue earnestly, in my journey forward.

How pray tell could I ever, in good conscience, advocate withholding that, from anyone else, for any reason? (other than if their intent was expressly to desecrate Christ–e.g.–someone taking the Host to sneak it out of Church, and use it in some insulting art display–to urinate on it for shock value, or such (just one egregious example from a few years back that comes to mind–please pardon the unpleasant thought)).

How could you put that charge on anyone, other than the sinner himself? Would you want to be the Eucharistic minister, or priest, or bishop, who had to answer to the Lord, upon what basis you determined that Christ in the Eucharist, should be withheld from a sinner YOU deemed unworthy?

How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sinners have gone without Christ in the Eucharist, for fear of being judged?

That strikes me is a far greater travesty than alleged sinners ‘desecrating’ Christ Eucharistic, by daring to present themselves, in less than a state of grace.

But again…that’s. just. me.

 

[Convert1]

As an individual currently going through the extremely painful experience of annulment, I am very clear on the sanctity of marriage as it relates to the laws of the Catholic Church. I wholeheartedly support the Church’s position. Most petitioners become very well versed in the various rules and regulations that are handed down to us. However, having been raised a Protestant, I can assure you, had I known I would eventually convert to Catholicism and be required to re-live a violent, abusive childhood; an equally as abusive marriage; not to mention put all this in writing for complete strangers to read, interview me, and pass around to a psychologist; I would have certainly NOT engaged in the invalid marriage that took place at nineteen years of age. In my humble opinion, It is not the rhetoric of whether or not remarried individuals should take communion that should be constantly explored. Rather, why not work on streamlining and correcting the process of annulment (still following law) so that those of us trying to get to communion actually feel wanted! The ignorance to this issue by practicing Catholics and clergy is sad. The disorganization of Tribunals and the “all over the place” protocols should be addressed before anyone discusses changing the law. Sorry to rant, but the current annulment system is in such a mess, we could accomplish a great deal just by working to improve how people are treated, streamlining the process, and actually being pastoral instead of papist.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Mea culpa does NOT forgive mortal sin. Only Sacramental Confession can do that for the sinner. If we are truly sorry for our mortal sins we will want to do God’s will and go to Sacramental Confession BEFORE we receive Our Lord in Holy Communion

This would seem an extreme Catholic view. If the mea culpa is a perfect act of contrition then mortal sin is remitted outside of the actual sacrament.
For a Catholic one must of course intend to get to the Sacrament as soon as practicable.

CCC 1452 When contrition arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

 

[Leonhard]

I don’t dispute this at all, nor did I intend to suggest that. Sacramental Confession is most definitely necessary for repentance; it is certainly the preferred course of action. It is in fact, the ideal.

It is not merely the preferred course of action, nor an ideal. If it is necessary then it cannot possibly be neglected or dispensed with. The Council of Trent even declares formally, ex cathedra, that those who deny that The Sacrement of Penance is necessary for salvation are declared anathema.

Not much is asked. You go to confession if you’ve committed sin of grave matter, and you refrain from corporal communion at other times. No more is asked, and anyone can do this.

We must absolute confess once per year, during lent. Failing to do this is an act of grave disobedience, and constitutes another full mortal sin (of which there is scarcely any doubt that it is mortal).

So the Church does state the strength of this in a much stronger way than you imply in the rest of your post.

For those who commune–so many, I should add–to pretend that they are in a ‘state of grace’ upon partaking of the Eucharist–the shear numbers alone dictate that either >90 are either lying…or there are quite a few sinners, seeking Eucharistic remediation for their sinful ways (with the remaining <10% apparently, actually in the contemplated ‘state of grace’).

Pray for their conversions! These souls are likely not in a good standing with God, or the Church. We can’t say we love these people if we don’t pray for them to stop doing this and start doing what they should, or don’t inform them. They may have various levels of culpability, in as much as catechetical formation today is horribly lax, and many errors abound (such as the idea that ‘mea culpa’ makes us ready for communion). However they need to repent.

Its not a new problem though, and people going to confession doesn’t imply that they’d mean it. Back when all Catholics regularly did, saints such as St Alphonsus de Ligouri would often complain of the large number of bad and doubtful confessions he’d receive.

I’m really afraid of what will happen to these people when they die.

How pray tell could I ever, in good conscience, advocate withholding that, from anyone else, for any reason?

Imagine the first few moments of a Catholic soul who went to Hell because that person died in a state of mortal sin, thinking that they had been cleansed by the Eucharist, only to realise that they had neglected the warnings of the Church and desecrated it all along. They wanted to ‘have the bread, and sing the song and feel good’, not caring what those high and mighty Church people warned about it.

Imagine the pain, the agony, the confusion, the fear. “This can’t be happening to ME!”

And then imagine that soul, after those few minutes have passed, realizing that it will never end.

 

[Leonhard]

This would seem an extreme Catholic view. If the mea culpa is a perfect act of contrition then mortal sin is remitted outside of the actual sacrament.
For a Catholic one must of course intend to get to the Sacrament as soon as practicable.

CCC 1452 When contrition arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

You are correct, though we can never presume that we have Perfect Contrition. Or that anyone else have it. In situations where you’re forced to eat a consecrated host, or have someone else shot… in a bizarre hostage situation, the law of Charity applies first. In that case, make an Act of Perfection Contrition and eat the host.

However if you neglect the Sacrament of Penance, you’re committing an act of disobedience against your holy duties as a Catholic.

CCC 1385: "To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.“218 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

 

[Leonhard]

And to further drive home the point, here’s from the Council of Trent.

CANON XI.- “lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”

As there’s always Catholic priests available in western countries, and a confession can be scheduled quite often within the week, or at most a month, we almost never except in bizarre and highly anomalous situations have an excuse not to go to confession prior to communion.

 

[Leonhard]

And therefore Kasper is wrong in his proposal. Telling remarried Catholics that they may approach Holy Communion is not a mercy. Its handing these Catholics a rope by which they can hang themselves.

 

[Goya]

Leonhard:

Your points are well taken, and your posts, well written.

As I stated at the onset of my posting…I’m admittedly ‘off the reservation’ on this one.

It’s a thorny issue–and while the ‘rule’ may be easily stated in the clearest of terms…it’s application in the real world, to real people, in real circumstances, seems like it will always be, as it always has been, much more challenging.

Pope Francis seems to be at least hedging a bit off of the hardline application of the ‘rule’, if not perhaps a bit closer to/more aligned with my ‘off the res’ thinking on this. At least he doesn’t appear to be in lock step with the existing ‘rule’.

To me, the issue presents a paradox; perhaps the ultimate paradox. Christ is God incarnate. Christ is present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist therefore commands the utmost reverence. But Christ came for sinners; for the infirm. He did not come for the ‘healthy’, or the morally upright. And Christ Eucharistic is the ultimate remedy against, and treatment for, sin. Yet we deny the sinner Christ Eucharistic–because of the reverence due the Holy Sacrament by virtue of Christ’s presence, and the reverence commanded thereby.

FWIW, here is a link to an interesting write up on this issue–interesting how the author begins:

Who can take Holy Communion? If people were honest, almost nobody you know.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/21/the-great-divide-facing-pope-francis-that-only-catholics-understand.html

 

[Leonhard]

It’s a thorny issue–and while the ‘rule’ may be easily stated in the clearest of terms…it’s application in the real world, to real people, in real circumstances, seems like it will always be, as it always has been, much more challenging.

I’m not sure I really see any problem. A confession of your sins to a confessor takes at most five minutes, where you state your sins in kind, degree and number.

Or maybe I don’t understand what you mean. What’s impractical or impossible about asking Catholics to abstain from corporal communion if they are aware of having committed sins of grave matter, until they’ve had confession?

Yet we deny the sinner Christ Eucharistic–because of the reverence due the Holy Sacrament by virtue of Christ’s presence, and the reverence commanded thereby.

When we commit mortal sins, and I’m not shy about it. I’m a sinner, I’ve committed several. I don’t line up every single time for communion. In fact most days I don’t for that reason. I’m not saying this to sound ‘more holy than thou’, I’m saying it because I’m admitting that I’m a sinner and this is the struggle the Church says people must go through.

It doesn’t call this the ideal. The ideal certainly isn’t to sin, abstain from communion until confession. The ideal is sinless purity and daily reception.

FWIW, here is a link to an interesting write up on this issue–interesting how the author begins:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/21/the-great-divide-facing-pope-francis-that-only-catholics-understand.html

The article does have a point that more people ought to abstain. Something mentioned on the Catholic Answers podcast, even by Fr. Vincent Serpa.

“Who can take Holy Communion? If people were honest, almost nobody you know.”

Examine your conscience.

Go to confession.

Confess your sins, in kind, degree and number, listen to the priest, then say an Act of Contrition, get a penance and the absolution.

Go to the Eucharist and receive, until you’re aware that you’ve committed sin of grave matter. Depending on where you are in your walk with God and how He’s blessed you, this could be days, weeks or months.

When you’re aware that you’ve committed a sin of grave matter. Make an Act of Contrition, and figure out when next to go to confession. Set it up with your pastor. Receive Christ spiritually during the Eucharist until then.

What is impossible about this?

“Pope Francis’s biggest obstacle in reforming the Catholic Church comes down to a tiny round gluten-rich Styrofoam-tasting wafer.”

Its the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Our Lord. Full Stop.

This is definitely an article written by a non-Catholic. He makes some good points, but I notice some tendencies in it that are bit saddening.

“The sin-free checklist is no joke: no birth control, no premarital sex, no masturbation, no homosexual acts, no fertility treatments, no taking the name of God in vain, the list goes on.”

Notice how most of this has to with lust? Basically this is what people want to do, what people frequently commit, and what ought to keep most people on the benches except for those times they’ve confessed their sins. Taking the Lord’s Name in vain, gets a backseat to these carnal sins.

So I’m sorry for coming hard against this notion, but it just doesn’t rhyme with a Catholic understanding of what takes place at the Mass.

 

[thinkandmull]

But nobody has really answered my objection, which certain Cardinals have used: where has Tradition, the Bible, or the Church ever said that we can judge others subjective moral situation in the giving out of communion? Where has it said that an objectively sinful situation is enough for the priest to refuse communion? Why deny someone spiritual nourishment just because they, like Paul, do in the flesh what their spirit rejects?

I am not taking either side on this. I am just saying it seems to be an open question for Catholics.

No I am not a Protestant btw

 

[Goya]

I’m not sure I really see any problem. A confession of your sins to a confessor takes at most five minutes, where you state your sins in kind, degree and number.

Or maybe I don’t understand what you mean. What’s impractical or impossible about asking Catholics to abstain from corporal communion if they are aware of having committed sins of grave matter, until they’ve had confession?

…

Well then, allow me to spell it out, as judging from your posts, you have a completely skewed perspective of the actual NUMBERS we’re talking about here.

It’s not just some small, fringe minority. The VAST MAJORITY of Catholics around the world DO NOT partake of the Sacrament of Confession–not even once a year.

We’re talking about over 60% of 1.1 Billion souls on the planet (conservatively).

Of that enormous universe of non-confessing souls, you have another enormous sub-universe of Catholics who partake of the Eucharist. Probably, again conservatively, in the 300-500 million souls range.

That’s a damn big problem.

I characterized it as a paradox earlier; call it what you will. In the simplest words I can muster, there is an oceanic gap between the ‘ideal’, or the actual ‘rule’, and reality–If the ‘rule’ is, as ‘hard-line’ as you maintain, then our Church is actively ushering hundreds of millions of people to Hell, under the guise of offering them redemption through the Eucharist (via tacit approval, and doing nothing to prevent it).

I’m sorry…but I just can’t see hundreds of millions of otherwise faithful Catholics taking the Eucharist in earnest, in sincere humility and reverence, in good faith, in good will, seeking to satiate genuine spiritual hunger…only to be just as damned as those who actively deny, ignore, or even desecrate the Eucharist.

Does. Not. Compute.

(though again, I feel I must caveat every post here–this is just me).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And therefore Kasper is wrong in his proposal. Telling remarried Catholics that they may approach Holy Communion is not a mercy. Its handing these Catholics a rope by which they can hang themselves.

Can you quote exactly what Cardinal Kasper holds (in his own words) that you are objecting to here? I find so many Catholics disagree with alleged vviews that are no more than Chinese Whispers.

BTW if we use the title “Cardinal” for officially respected churchmen we agree with then I think we disrespect ourselves and the Church when we deny that title to those we personally disagree with. Respect is surely due to all of them regardless of our personal disagreements.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Leonhard:

Your points are well taken, and your posts, well written.

As I stated at the onset of my posting…I’m admittedly ‘off the reservation’ on this one.

It’s a thorny issue–and while the ‘rule’ may be easily stated in the clearest of terms…it’s application in the real world, to real people, in real circumstances, seems like it will always be, as it always has been, much more challenging.

Pope Francis seems to be at least hedging a bit off of the hardline application of the ‘rule’, if not perhaps a bit closer to/more aligned with my ‘off the res’ thinking on this. At least he doesn’t appear to be in lock step with the existing ‘rule’.

To me, the issue presents a paradox; perhaps the ultimate paradox. Christ is God incarnate. Christ is present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist therefore commands the utmost reverence. But Christ came for sinners; for the infirm. He did not come for the ‘healthy’, or the morally upright. And Christ Eucharistic is the ultimate remedy against, and treatment for, sin. Yet we deny the sinner Christ Eucharistic–because of the reverence due the Holy Sacrament by virtue of Christ’s presence, and the reverence commanded thereby.

FWIW, here is a link to an interesting write up on this issue–interesting how the author begins:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/21/the-great-divide-facing-pope-francis-that-only-catholics-understand.html

Bump!
So many of us secretly view Communion as a reward for the virtue.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is a gift for us all - we are all sinners as commandment keeping does not justification make.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When you’re aware that you’ve committed a sin of grave matter. Make an Act of Contrition, and figure out when next to go to confession. Set it up with your pastor. Receive Christ spiritually during the Eucharist until then.

What is impossible about this?

Where does it say we have to confess when we are conscious of sins of “grave matter?”

I do not believe this is correct. It is “grave sin” or “mortal sin” as far as I know.
One may reasonably decide that one has only committed a venial sin of grave matter and while it is prob good to reg confess these…the Church does not strictly require this.

You may personally take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to such things as perfect contrition and allegedly venial “sins of grave matter.”

But as the Church clearly does not officially make so strict a ruling in this area it seems you are prob without justification in burdening others with this “guilty until proven innocent” approach.

 

[Leonhard]

Well then, allow me to spell it out, as judging from your posts, you have a completely skewed perspective of the actual NUMBERS we’re talking about here.

It’s not just some small, fringe minority. The VAST MAJORITY of Catholics around the world DO NOT partake of the Sacrament of Confession–not even once a year.

We’re talking about over 60% of 1.1 Billion souls on the planet (conservatively).

Of that enormous universe of non-confessing souls, you have another enormous sub-universe of Catholics who partake of the Eucharist. Probably, again conservatively, in the 300-500 million souls range.

That’s a damn big problem.

I agree, its a huge enormous problem. But what is impossible about making these people regularly confess. What’s impossible about pastors starting to talk about the sin of desecration, of the four last things: Death, Judgement, Hell and Eternity?

There used to be cues to the confessional in the past, even during masses. Now people just don’t care? Why? Why do people assume proudly that they have to partake in the sacrament?

I characterized it as a paradox earlier; call it what you will. In the simplest words I can muster, there is an oceanic gap between the ‘ideal’, or the actual ‘rule’, and reality–If the ‘rule’ is, as ‘hard-line’ as you maintain, then our Church is actively ushering hundreds of millions of people to Hell, under the guise of offering them redemption through the Eucharist (via tacit approval, and doing nothing to prevent it).

Yes, most Sacred Heart of Jesus Have Mercy on Us. I wouldn’t want to be in those priests and Bishops shoes when they have to stand in front of Him, answering for such a grave neglect.

I’m sorry…but I just can’t see hundreds of millions of otherwise faithful Catholics taking the Eucharist in earnest, in sincere humility and reverence, in good faith, in good will, seeking to satiate genuine spiritual hunger…only to be just as damned as those who actively deny, ignore, or even desecrate the Eucharist.

Does. Not. Compute.

(though again, I feel I must caveat every post here–this is just me).

Yes, do you have any citation from Church Authority that supports this view? In fact you have the opposite, both in the latest Catechism which says nothing different than what I have said here, and also in unanimous voice from all councils and popes down through history.

What you’re talking about is a horrible modern tragedy unlike. A spiritual catastrophy never before seen in the history of the Church.

We need to reclaim that discipline.

 

[Leonhard]

Why deny someone spiritual nourishment just because they, like Paul, do in the flesh what their spirit rejects?

The Church teaches many things about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. How it makes us partake bodily in Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Notice that I said bodily. You can always participate in Mass and receive spiritually, as many catechumens know.

But at the same time it stresses, as this is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, we must prepare ourselves. This is not a rule made out of whole cloth. It comes from St. Paul’s dire warning that “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.

As much as many of us want to (and I’ve been one of them in the past) simple sweep this saying of his under the floor, since so many Catholics receive obviously unworthily. They are not doing anything good doing this.

Their culpability may vary, but I don’t see, even being charitable, how their ignorance could be justified.

I’m not saying we should be angry with them, or yell at them or do anything dumb like that. However we must stop as Catholics, making excuses for their neglects.

Their neglects should not be excused.

 

[Leonhard]

BTW if we use the title “Cardinal” for officially respected churchmen we agree with then I think we disrespect ourselves and the Church when we deny that title to those we personally disagree with. Respect is surely due to all of them regardless of our personal disagreements.

It was a typo not writing the proper title. My mind tends to skip words, which is kinda annoying. Elsewhere I have respectfully called him Cardinal Kasper. Thank you for pointing this out though.

 

[Leonhard]

Bump!
So many of us secretly view Communion as a reward for the virtue.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I agree with everything you’re saying. The Sacrament is not a reward, as none of us can possible merit it. It’s a superabundant gift of Christ Himself to us an utterly intimate way.

However the Church also declares (and if you bump, I’m entitled to rebump this)

CCC 1385: "To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.“218 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

Council of Trent, CANON XI.- “lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”

In other words:

GO TO CONFESSION.

http://www.catholiccompany.com/blog...redit_ANSA_OSSERVATORE_ROMANO_CNA_3_28_14.jpg

It is a gift for us all - we are all sinners as commandment keeping does not justification make.

This is true again. However you don’t get to decide how to receive God’s mercy. It isn’t a private deal between you and God. Christ ordained that such mercy be communicated through His bishops in the manner of the sacraments. In particular those of the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of Eucharist.

And it is through regularly reception of these, that God gracious and unmerited on our part, imparts the virtues we need to live the holy lives we’re called to live.

The Church teaches infallible that anyone that dies with a single mortal sin on their conscience goes to Hell.

 

[Leonhard]

Where does it say we have to confess when we are conscious of sins of “grave matter?”

I do not believe this is correct. It is “grave sin” or “mortal sin” as far as I know.
One may reasonably decide that one has only committed a venial sin of grave matter and while it is prob good to reg confess these…the Church does not strictly require this.

You may personally take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to such things as perfect contrition and allegedly venial “sins of grave matter.”

But as the Church clearly does not officially make so strict a ruling in this area it seems you are prob without justification in burdening others with this “guilty until proven innocent” approach.

First of all I don’t go around looking down on people, or for that matter judging their position in relationship to God. He is incredible merciful. However I, like Goya and others, see a very bad situation in the Church now adays. People don’t go often to confession. They ought. They undeniable ought. They don’t.

Something is wrong.

As for the guilty-until-proven-innocent.

Mortal sin has three requirements: Grave matter, knowledge and consent of the will.

Many people commit sins of grave matter without confessing those sins. Its almost impossible to argue that they’re ignorant of it being wrong. Since in order for one to culpable of mortal sin, its not necessary that a person actually knows that the sin they’re committing is wrong, but merely that they could reasonable be expected to have known this. As most sins are simple and easy to understand, then unless you’re mentally handicapped I’m not sure how you’re excused.

And unless all these people just happen to have been involved in terrible accidents preventing them from coming to Church, or finding their confessor ill on all times of the day except during mass. I’m not sure how they’re excused.

Even addicts are urged to confess when they’ve had setbacks, as while the theologians today agree that addiction can lessen culpability, perhaps even to the point of making it not a mortal sin, it must never be presumed.