Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
semper_catholicus said:
…that grave matter is still at the very worst a venial sin.
Click to expand...
You accept that there are venial sins of grave matter (eg hitting and killing an innocent pedestrian while intoxicated). That is still serious enough to be worthy of a court trial and possibly jail time.

Why would you not consider this sin serious?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, if the person is intoxicated, then the that very act (intoxication) would be a mortal sin provided that all the other criteria were present.
 
Last edited:
We are not talking of the culpability or not of the act of intoxication.
We are talking of the killing.

Why would you not consider the killing a serious sin regardless of the degree of culpability?
 
Well, the killing probably wouldn’t be a grave sin because it wasn’t done when the person was in his right mind, so he probably didn’t give sufficient pre-meditation or full consent, but again, I would argue that h would be in a state of mortal sin because of his intoxication, provided he gave sufficient pre-meditation and full consent of the will.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
40.png
semper_catholicus:
…that grave matter is still at the very worst a venial sin.
Click to expand...
You accept that there are venial sins of grave matter (eg hitting and killing an innocent pedestrian while intoxicated). That is still serious enough to be worthy of a court trial and possibly jail time.

Why would you not consider this sin serious?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The matter is extremely serious. A life was ended. That is why a court trial.

The intoxication has its own problems. Why was he intoxicated? Driving while intoxicated is another decision (and judgment affected by being intoxicated). Hitting a pedestrian is most likely unintentional but related to the consequences of getting intoxicated and choosing to drive.

Morally approaching the matter, the decision to get intoxicated and then to drive was the serious offense. The killing of the pedestrian was venial if a sin at all, so long as there was no intent of vehicular manslaughter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes exactly. (assuming that the intoxication didn’t happen, and he hit the pedestrian on accident on, say, a dark highway and killed him through no fault of his own) The killing wouldn’t have killed the sanctifying grace within that soul. But, again, he was intoxicated so, like you said, the intoxication has it’s own problems.
 
The level of intoxication that rises to grave matter is a pretty high bar.
 
You modified my scenario. I did not mention an intoxicated driver, nor an intoxicated victim. The discussion changes when you begin adding in “extenuating circumstances”.
 
Yeah, there’s a reason secular law generally doesn’t treat voluntary intoxication as a defense. (Involuntary intoxication is, however, because the defendant did not choose to become intoxicated.)
 
The issue is that an innocent person was killed.
A family has been deprived of a father or a mother and possibly reduced to poverty.
We accept sin is involved even if not mortal - therefore we are not talking about a sleep walker with whom there is no sin at all while sleep walking.
If intoxication is snagging you then change it to talking on your cellphone while driving and being distracted.

The 5th Commandment clearly says “Thou shall not kill” (the preferred translation in the Catechism). The commandment was broken.

This is clearly a serious matter regardless of the degree of culpability.
A serious injustice has been committed.

I am surprised you cannot agree this is a very serious act regardless of the degree of responsibility.

It would be no different if you committed grand theft of a bank under duress (your child would be killed if you didn’t).

How does reduced culpability stop such breaking of the Commandments from being serious injustices done in the community? These are still serious objective sins done to the community regardless and the perpetrator is not innocent.

The Catechism by using the phrase “grave sins” instead of “mortal sins” seems to be saying these sorts of injustices must also be brought to Confession. And rightly so I believe.

Why do you believe otherwise?
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t following your posts. I simply made up my own scenario which happened to be similar to yours.
 
Agreed. I was talking slight intoxication, even enough to be legal, yet enough to be inadvertant.
 
I never said that it wasn’t grave matter, I said it wasn’t a grave (mortal) sin.

Assuming that the intoxication was a venial sin, this act of accidental killing would not destroy sancifying grace in the person who killed that other person accidentally.

I’ve already made it clear that “grave sin” means “mortal sin.” Pope St. John Paul II even said that.
 
It is strange that you do not consider killing a person or grand theft as serious sins (whether of partial of full culpability). Both break the Commandments, are serious sins, and I think should be confessed even one believes culpability is lessened by inadvertence or duress. If we are conscious of serious sin we must confess at least once a year.

Do you believe partial culpability means the Commandments were not really broken by these serious sins?
 
Last edited:
No. It’s not a serious sin. It’s a venial sin, even though it had a serious matter. There is a difference between MATTER and TYPE of sin.
 
philipl said:
This post is extermly rude.
Click to expand...
You’re offended by a post saying it’s rude to snoop into why others don’t receive Communion?
Snoop away, but don’t be surprised when others “offend” you with the same sentiment.
 
No, some one asked a question and then someone else answered it. Your reply to that answer uncalled for, period.
 
semper_catholicus said:
No. It’s not a serious sin. It’s a venial sin, even though it had a serious matter. There is a difference between MATTER and TYPE of sin.
Click to expand...
it seems fairly clear that sins involving grave matter are serious sins even if culpability is not full.
Breaking the commandments is always a serious sin, why would you not accept this?

So it seems these sins should be brought to confession.
 
Last edited:
Strictly speaking, no they don’t need to be brought to confession, because they aren’t mortal sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top