Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To the Catechism…

First off, “grave sin” isn’t even in the index. Yeah, it surprised me too.

However, this is:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So you have this, then:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
It might not be in the index but the term is certainly used, most particularly, in #1446-1447.

Dan
 
Didn’t mean it wasn’t ever used…I just said I was surprised it wasn’t in the index, because I thought it was (and actually expected it to be). There’s a lot of stuff that of course isn’t in the index, but it seemed odd that that particular term was not.
 
You really shouldn’t make such wild black and white assertions on CAF when you clearly have no formal theological training.

All mortal sins are of grave matter. but not all grave matters are mortal.
 
BlackFriar said:
You base that lay assumption on your years of training in moral theology and Canon law?

Don’t be ridiculous.

Canon lawyers do not change a comma without weeks of debate.
Click to expand...
You have pushed this error in other threads where even priests have come in and told you that grave sin = mortal sin.

Grave sin is indeed the same as mortal sin no matter how many times you say this fake news!
 
Last edited:
A sin of grave matter with some element of mortal sin lacking is a venial sin, not a “grave” sin. In fact, if you heavenly read up thread, I’ve provided a quote from an Apostolic Constitution of Pope St. John Paul II saying that in practice, grave sin means mortal sin.
 
What BlackFriar is incapable of understanding is, a sin can be mortal and the person who commits it not be culpable for it. That doesn’t mean the sin isn’t mortal…just that the person isn’t culpable. Grave and mortal sin are the same thing.
 
Given this discussion, i can see why most people just understand the requirement as, “I gotta go to confession once a year and make my Easter duty”. Because having to worry about all these semantics on top of your actual sins is going to blow a fuse in the brains of most ordinary folks who are not canon lawyers, theologians, priests, etc.
 
“In practice” would seem to imply the question is subtle - not that there is no distinction.
In other words a signal to us laity that it is quite involved and while we can in practice usually get away with treating them as the same - they are in fact not the same.

When we look at the CCC’s definition of “mortal sin” it does seem clear “mortal sin” always means fully culpable.

Now we all know not all breaking of the Commandments is fully culpable - including masturbation, prostitution, and, according to Pope Francis, even irregular marriages. therefore we cannot call these unqualified “mortal sins”.

These grave breaches of the Commandments are certainly grave. But they are not mortal.
So there seems to be two types of “gravity” involved when we talk about such sins.

There is the gravity of the culpability (mortal or venial or nothing).
Then there is the gravity of the objective action itself. Commonly called matter (grave or light).

This is what people here seem to be getting confused about.

The Commandments specify the gravity of the matter (ie “grave sin”) NOT the gravity of culpability (ie "mortal sin that condemns to hell).

Just as Pope Freancis says.
 
Last edited:
No. It’s either mortal of venial sin. No in between.
 
Correct. Just because Person X may not be personally culpable for a given sin does not mean the sin isn’t mortal.
 
semper_catholicus said:
No. It’s either mortal of venial sin. No in between.
Click to expand...
No one is suggesting there is an “inbetween”.

It is like two different “axes”, like X and Y in maths class graphing.

X can be big or small (grave or light matter).
Y can be big or small (mortal or venial culpability).

This is why it is impossible to commit a mortal sin in light matter (eg a small theft).
It also explains how masturbation (intrinsically grave matter) is often only venial sin.

Both “gravities” are free to move big or small without prejudicing the other.

So there are four possibilities:
  1. Grave matter and full culpability = breaking the commandments, “mortal sin” and so loss of sanctifying grace.
  2. Grave matter and mitigated culpability = breaking the Commandments but serious venial sin only.
  3. Light matter and full culpability = serious venial sin
  4. Light matter and mitigated culpability = light venial sin
“Mortal sin” as defined by the CCC can only be said of case1 above.
“Grave sin” is ambiguous because it is not clear whether the “gravity” refers to “full” culpability or severity of “matter” or both. Therefore it can be said of cases 1 and 2.

Hence all mortal sin is serious sin.
But not all serious sin is mortal sin.

This appears to be what Pope Francis is distinguishing in AL - as does the CCC and respected Moral Theology Manuals.
 
Last edited:
Blue_Horizon said:
It also explains how masturbation (intrinsically grave matter) is often only venial sin.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that from? I’ve never heard of or seen masturbation being referred to as anything else than a mortal sin.
 
No, that isn’t what Pope St. John Paul II said in one of Apostolic Constitutions. He made it clear that “grave sin” in practice refers to/means “mortal sin.”
 
AndrewAxland said:
40.png
Blue_Horizon:
It also explains how masturbation (intrinsically grave matter) is often only venial sin.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that from? I’ve never heard of or seen masturbation being referred to as anything else than a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Because of decreased culpability. It is grave matter objectively, but if the other conditions are not met it cannot be mortal sin.
 
The phrase “in practice” does not mean two things are actually the same.
It means the unlearned may in normal circumstances treat them “as if” they are the same even if they are not.

We are discussing what makes them different not what makes them the same.

Pope Francis in his Apostolic Exhortation is not treating them as the same.
He should be calling masturbation and irregular married in mortal sin if you were correct.
But he bluntly denies these serious sins are mortal sins.

Therefore when he denies mortal sin is always involved he is speaking of lessened culpability (non mortal) only. That does not mean he is denying the gravity of the matter involved.
They are still grave objective sins.

Can you not see this?
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand what the difficulty is. According to the constant teaching of the Church throughout Her 2000+ history has always taught that there are two types of sin. Mortal sin, and Venial sin. There isn’t a third type of sin which is another thing that Pope St. John-Paul II says in the same Apostolic Constitution.

If one of the elements of Mortal sin is missing, it’s Venial sin, not a “grave sin.” It is obvious that when Canon Law says “grave sin,” it means “mortal sin,.”
 
Have you heard the expression sins of “grave matter” and sins of “light matter”.

The Church has taught this for at least 1000 years too hasn’t it?.
 
Yes, but others on this thread were referring to TYPES of sin, rather than matters of sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top