Fr. Z: Am I obliged to receive communion?

[rcwitness]

How do you know?

You’ve read the terms with different meanings?

Id be happy to read it, but have no clue where to find such a thing.

 

[rcwitness]

Im not sure.

Do the terms “Mortal sin” and “Grave Sin” mean something different?

Is a grave sin, referring to a deadly sin committed by someone, but without full culpability?

Is that regarded as venial, and forgiven without confession?

 

[Tatum]

Consult thesis papers or specialist Church History books on the topic.
From memory the terms have been used back to Tertullian.

The problem is different Fathers mean different things.
Pretty much the same confusion evidenced here.

But to say they are exactly the same thing appears facile.
May as well say a spade and a shovel are the same.
Yes they are - up to a point.

 

[Elizabeth3]

The CCC says

“after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year”

Canon Law says. "“After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year”

Does the meaning of the term “serious” in the CCC mean the same thing as “grave” in canon law? (ie a Mortal sin).

Are you obligated (of course, it is always prudent) to confess a sin in which there was grave (serious) matter, but does not meet the requirements of full consent and knowledge? IOW, it was not mortal.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I did. The CCC. Now, don’t step away from it. Give me a magisterial document supporting your position.

 

[semper_catholicus]

The seriousness of a sin depends on two factors.

The objective nature of the conduct (eg breaking the Commandments) and the degree of culpability.

The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable (mortal sins).

That does not mean that breaking of the Commandment with less than full culpability is not still serious. “Serious” is about more than just losing sanctifying grave just as walking on a tightrope between two skyscrapers is still a deadly business even if one has not yet fallen.

Therefore the term “grave sin” refers to seriousness that does not always involve full culpability but is still very risky.

I would like to know from what Magisterial Document you got all this.

 

[Tatum]

If you can find a Magisterial quote that states breaking of the Commandments with less than full culpability is not serious, not grave, then I am willing to discuss this further.
If you cannot then it seems there is nothing more we can discuss.

Then perhaps respond to my critique of your response instead of ignoring it

 

[semper_catholicus]

I did. Now please respond to mine.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum:

The seriousness of a sin depends on two factors.

The objective nature of the conduct (eg breaking the Commandments) and the degree of culpability.

The most serious sin is that which objectively breaks the Commandments and is also fully imputable (mortal sins).

That does not mean that breaking of the Commandment with less than full culpability is not still serious. “Serious” is about more than just losing sanctifying grave just as walking on a tightrope between two skyscrapers is still a deadly business even if one has not yet fallen.

Therefore the term “grave sin” refers to seriousness that does not always involve full culpability but is still very risky.

I would like to know from what Magisterial Document you got all this.

It is the ancient tradition of the Church used to train Priests for 900 years since Aquinas systematically formulated it. It is the framework behind the CCC and explicit in the three font model of human acts which refer to the gravity of sin being primarily determined by the object matter of the sin. Here is where Aquinas states so plainly:

“Ergo gravitas peccatorum differt secundum obiecta” Summa, I, II, 73, 3.

Breaking of the Commandments with less than full culpability is also rightly judged “serious” and “grave” because the gravity of a sin is primarily judged by reason of its matter then by degree of culpability.

We all get it that specific individuals may not be fully culpable. But “seriousness” is generally a matter of objective judgement re the matter of a sin (grave sin or not) not subjective culpability (mortal or venial sin) in individual cases.

Your above quote from JPII’s Apostolic Exhortation is making this very point but you did not understand it and only quoted half of the paragraph. Leave out the fluff and it looks like this:

“Considering sin from the point of view of its “matter” … [these] are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence… grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.”

In other words we may consider grave sin and mortal sin as being the same when we focus on “the matter” (that is the object font of sin).

So when we do not focus on “culpability” (full knowledge/full consent) but focus on the object of sin then we can treat grave sin and mortal sin as practically being the same.

In which case the seriousness of grave/mortal sin in this context is due to the matter not the intent (ie culpability).

Therefore when we are advised to bring all “grave sins” to Confession that we are conscious of it seems clear this consciousness is not primarily about what we think of our personal culpability at all.
Its really about how seriously we broke God’s objective Law (the “matter” of sins). The lists of Commandments and Capital sins are the traditional guide in this area.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Okay, that’s interesting, but I don’t see how canon law means “grave sin” in your sense, because it’s talking about the sins that we must confess. Venial sins which still have grave matter are still venial sins, and they do not strictly need to be brought to confession. But, we know that we MUST confess mortal sins in confession. Canon law says we must confess our grave sins, therefore we can infer that “grave” means “mortal” in this case.

 

[Tatum]

You don’t seem to have the skills needed to fully grasp the texts you quote sorry.
Not saying I am an expert, but I have had enough formal theological training to recognise when I, or others, are out of their depth.

JPII is fairly clearly saying that grave sin and mortal sin are the same when it comes to speaking of the seriousness of sins (by means of their common grave matter) - but not re culpability.

Therefore, if “grave sin” is considered a replacement for “mortal sin” in the Canons in question we must conclude that the issue is about gravity of matter not culpability in it.

Therefore consciousness of full culpability is not what the Canon means when it speaks of being conscious of “grave sin”.

Yes, other places speak of bringing only “venial sin” to Confession. This is a bit of a sloppy use of words I accept. But by the same token as above, if JPII says there is a sense in which grave sins and mortal sins are the same (common grave matter) then surely it is equally acceptable to be just as “sloppy” by assuming “venial sin” can also mean the same as “light sin” (ie matter that is light not grave). That is, in this context “light sin” and “venial sin” are the same wrt objective light matter.
This I think is the only answer that is consistent with all the important texts we have been looking at.

So you are correct, we do not need to bring “light sin” (ie sins of non grave matter) to Confession. “Venial sin” can serve as shorthand for sins of non grave matter.

Unless a trained Moral Theologian begs to differ our discussion is ended so far as I am concerned.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Therefore consciousness of full culpability is not what the Canon means when it speaks of being conscious of “grave sin”.

Obviously it is, because those types of sins are what MUST be brought to confession.

 

[Tatum]

If full culpability was specifically and only meant then the CCC and the new Code would never have given up the expression “mortal sin”.

As your quote from JPII makes clear, by treating “mortal sin” and “grave sin” as equivalents we have no choice but to accept it is “grave matter” not “full culpability” that is the determination of what constitutes consciousness of serious sin. He is clearly referencing Aquinas’s well known analysis of the gravity of sin.

 

[thistle]

Not saying I am an expert, but I have had enough formal theological training to recognise when I, or others, are out of their depth.

You really shouldn’t talk to the other poster like that. It comes across as arrogant and condescending. This is the way you treat people in other threads too!

 

[babochka]

The CCC says

“after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year”

Canon Law says. "“After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year”

Does the meaning of the term “serious” in the CCC mean the same thing as “grave” in canon law? (ie a Mortal sin).

Are you obligated (of course, it is always prudent) to confess a sin in which there was grave (serious) matter, but does not meet the requirements of full consent and knowledge? IOW, it was not mortal.

I’m looking forward to Dan’s authoritative, canon lawyer answer.

Meanwhile…

Here’s my thought on the matter of annual confession and whether we are obliged to go if we are not conscious of mortal sin. As Father Z would say: “Go to Confession!” We are very poor judges of our own culpability as we tend to make excuses for ourselves. Trying to figure out for ourselves is not a good plan.

 

[Tatum]

Thistle it is a reality of life that some Catholics have formal theological training and some do not.
Just as some people are trained in mathematics and some are not.
I don’t know about you but I am always very grateful when someone with greater maths skills points out the weaknesses in my calculations. I don’t take it personally or see them as arrogant for suggesting I am confident beyond my current math skills. But then I am not anti-academic and do not feel inferior for being less well trained.

May I observe that I included myself as being in deep water here also.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Thistle it is a reality of life that some Catholics have formal theological training and some do not.

What exactly is your formal theological training? Do you have any pastoral experience or expertise in canon law?

 

[acanonlawyer]

Does the meaning of the term “serious” in the CCC mean the same thing as “grave” in canon law? (ie a Mortal sin).

Are you obligated (of course, it is always prudent) to confess a sin in which there was grave (serious) matter, but does not meet the requirements of full consent and knowledge? IOW, it was not mortal.

Here’s my “authoritative answer” (lol): to the first, yes; to the second, no.

Dan

 

[rcwitness]

JPII is fairly clearly saying that grave sin and mortal sin are the same when it comes to speaking of the seriousness of sins (by means of their common grave matter) - but not re culpability… Therefore, if “grave sin” is considered a replacement for “mortal sin” in the Canons in question we must conclude that the issue is about gravity of matter not culpability in it…Therefore consciousness of full culpability is not what the Canon means when it speaks of being conscious of “grave sin”.

I think this makes some decent sense.

A venial sin, should generally mean a sin which is not a Mortal sin regardless of culpability.

A mortal sin without full culpability may have not have the consequences of death, but not quite the same situation as simply commiting a venial sin.

We should confess all sins which were about a grave matter! We shouldnt dismiss ourselves as not culpable, to the point of not needing to confess it! We still need forgiveness for healing and growth!

I can appreciate an attempt to distinguish a serious (grave matter) sin committed without full culpability from a venial sin (without grave matter).

If thats what you are trying to convey, I am cool with that. Whether thats truly what is happening with the terms, according to the Church, im not sure. Perhaps.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Here’s my “authoritative answer” (lol): to the first, yes; to the second, no.

Thank you! That was my understanding of both questions.