Grave Matter Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pcg2

Guest
I’ve read (to my understanding) that if you do something that you thought is grave matter, even if it is not, then you commit grave sin – not because what you did was objectively grave, but because of the fact that you thought it was grave and did it anyways. For example, if someone believes that tying their shoelaces is gravely sinful, and yet does it anyways, they have mortally sinned – not because tying their shoelaces is sinful, but because they thought it was and did it anyways.

Is this true? Or is my understanding false?
 
I’ve read (to my understanding) that if you do something that you thought is grave matter, even if it is not, then you commit grave sin – not because what you did was objectively grave, but because of the fact that you thought it was grave and did it anyways. For example, if someone believes that tying their shoelaces is gravely sinful, and yet does it anyways, they have mortally sinned – not because tying their shoelaces is sinful, but because they thought it was and did it anyways.

Is this true? Or is my understanding false?
In principle yes. Because they are then willing to commit a mortal sin by doing something they think it is grave…with full knowledge and complete consent.

but not a good example…🙂

Those with scruples though need to follow their confessor etc…and go read another thread… for they confuse things due to their scruples…and they can follow their confessor etc in acting against their scruples (which are not their true conscience anyhow but just fears etc)
 
Is it necessary to confess something that you did in the past that you later found out was grave matter, even though at the time you had no idea whatsoever it was grave matter? (I know this can’t possibly be mortal sin, because 2 of the 3 requirements are missing, I am just wondering if you need to confess something like this.)
 
Is it necessary to confess something that you did in the past that you later found out was grave matter, even though at the time you had no idea whatsoever it was grave matter? (I know this can’t possibly be mortal sin, because 2 of the 3 requirements are missing, I am just wondering if you need to confess something like this.)
Necessary, no. A good idea, maybe. It will ease your mind, anyway. This sin, not being mortal, would have been absolved at the next confession. However, there is no rule against confessing sins that have already been absolved. I mean, don’t go overboard, because Father is busy. But if it’s troubling you, go ahead.

My :twocents:

–Jen
 
Necessary, no. A good idea, maybe. It will ease your mind, anyway. This sin, not being mortal, would have been absolved at the next confession. However, there is no rule against confessing sins that have already been absolved. I mean, don’t go overboard, because Father is busy. But if it’s troubling you, go ahead.

My :twocents:

–Jen
But was it even sinful in the first place? I understand that it was grave matter, but how could you possibly commit a personal sin without knowing that what you were doing was wrong?
 
But was it even sinful in the first place? I understand that it was grave matter, but how could you possibly commit a personal sin without knowing that what you were doing was wrong?
I was assuming from your post that you knew it was sinful, but not that it was grave matter. Venial sins are also sins and can be confessed.

If you really were above the age of reason (call it 7 years old) and you had no idea whatsoever that something that was grave matter was even wrong, there were some serious gaps in your catechesis.

But of course you can’t sin without knowing it is a sin. However, if you are an adult, you are responsible for finding out what is sinful, and you may be on the hook for failing in that area. I’d talk to a priest.

–Jen
 
Is it necessary to confess something that you did in the past that you later found out was grave matter, even though at the time you had no idea whatsoever it was grave matter? (I know this can’t possibly be mortal sin, because 2 of the 3 requirements are missing, I am just wondering if you need to confess something like this.)
One only needs to confess mortal sins. So if one of the aspects was not present then no…

but remember some things are known without calling them grave matter etc…for example a person can still commit a mortal sin without knowing the* term*…say for example … murder

And if one chooses to confess something that is doubtful…one mentions that there is doubt.
 
I was assuming from your post that you knew it was sinful, but not that it was grave matter. Venial sins are also sins and can be confessed.

If you really were above the age of reason (call it 7 years old) and you had no idea whatsoever that something that was grave matter was even wrong, there were some serious gaps in your catechesis.

But of course you can’t sin without knowing it is a sin. However, if you are an adult, you are responsible for finding out what is sinful, and you may be on the hook for failing in that area. I’d talk to a priest.

–Jen
I feel like I am very well catechized. I was attending mass on Thursdays at my catholic center where the priest would have us stand in a circle around the altar and pass around the Eucharist so that we could self communicate. I thought there was something “off” about this (like possibly it was illicit) but I certainly didn’t think it was grave matter.

I agree that I should be responsible for finding out what is sinful, which is why I came here 👍 But I also think that I have the right to a properly-celebrated mass, and when i find myself in the position of participating in one where not every single minute detail is correct, I don’t see how I could be blamed. It is the priest’s responsibility and not mine to do what needs to be done correctly at a mass – I can hardly imagine that every single Catholic knows what is illicit/unlawful at a mass. And it is in this context that I participated in the passing around of the precious blood and Eucharist. Of course, if I had known that the priest was doing something grave, I would have done something about it long ago. But I didn’t think to ask until a week ago. Don’t see how I could be faulted for that 🤷
 
Please read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, first printed in the US in March of 2000.
You will find what you are looking for if you don’t take anything out of context.
 
Please read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, first printed in the US in March of 2000.
You will find what you are looking for if you don’t take anything out of context.
I am all for the Catechism…constantly using it. However this question is not covered directly there.
 
I feel like I am very well catechized. I was attending mass on Thursdays at my catholic center where the priest would have us stand in a circle around the altar and pass around the Eucharist so that we could self communicate. I thought there was something “off” about this (like possibly it was illicit) but I certainly didn’t think it was grave matter.
The major sin was the priest’s. But if you were pretty sure that it was illicit, well illicit=sinful. Once you got the idea that it was probably wrong (which probably came from the Holy Spirit), then you could have looked it up and found out. The first time, it probably wasn’t a sin at all for you, but after the first time, if you thought it was probably wrong, well a quick google search with “catholic self-communicate” gives a bunch of pages with the answer. So it may well have been a venial sin that you never bothered to check.

However, I’m not a priest, and as I said before, your venial sins have already been absolved.
But I also think that I have the right to a properly-celebrated mass,
Certainly you do. It’s one of the freedoms that those liturgical “innovators” take away from people in the name of freedom. :confused:
and when i find myself in the position of participating in one where not every single minute detail is correct, I don’t see how I could be blamed.
Sorry, that really wasn’t a minute detail. It was, unless I’m mistaken, two different kinds of grave matter. A small detail is that you shouldn’t have been standing around the altar at all. OTOH, the fact that someone who was neither an ordinary minister of Holy Communion (priest or deacon), nor was someone approved by the Bishop as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, was handing communion to another lay person was one kind of grave matter, and the fact that the person who received it was then self-communicating was another. (I may be wrong about that counting twice, but certainly either one alone is very bad.) However, IANACL.*
It is the priest’s responsibility and not mine to do what needs to be done correctly at a mass – I can hardly imagine that every single Catholic knows what is illicit/unlawful at a mass.
Certainly the priest was responsible for illicitly changing the Mass to suit his own purposes. However, it is also every Catholic’s responsibility to know at least the places where grave errors may take place. You might try reading Mass Confusion by Jimmy Akin. It’s unfortunate that priests cannot all be trusted to celebrate the Mass properly, but that is the world we are living in, and we have to deal with it by informing ourselves, or it won’t get better.

Anyway, you aren’t responsible for every single Catholic. Every single Catholic doesn’t even know that artificial birth control is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t need to know it.

It doesn’t matter what happened before, because it’s over, and it’s been absolved. But if you inform yourself about what is supposed to happen in Mass and what emphatically isn’t, then you are ready for whatever happens in the future, and you may even be the means of helping others not to sin.

I’m not saying that you have to do all of that to keep out of Hell. But I’m sure you want to serve God as well as you can, according to your abilities and the access to information that you have been blessed with as one of the few spiritual advantages of our modern western society. 😃

–Jen

*I am not a Canon Lawyer.
 
Conscience… If you commit an act and percieve it to be evil, before you do it, this is indeed evil. Why commit an act against your mind, heart and soul. However, if you are ignorant of a law you may find yourself to be free of an evil act. Can a man sin against a blade of grass? What is your intention? Why do you want to commit such an action against a blade of grass. Is your thought pure or impure? If it is impure you sin. Your conscience has judged you.
 
Conscience… If you commit an act and percieve it to be evil, before you do it, this is indeed evil. Why commit an act against your mind, heart and soul. However, if you are ignorant of a law you may find yourself to be free of an evil act. Can a man sin against a blade of grass? What is your intention? Why do you want to commit such an action against a blade of grass. Is your thought pure or impure? If it is impure you sin. Your conscience has judged you.
This is the correct answer to the exact question. If you think something is a mortal sin against God, and do it anyway, then it is a mortal sin.
You are telling God that He and His will do not matter.
However, if you were to truely believe that tying your shoes is a sin, I would direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is true of anything else of an over-scrupulous conscience.
 
The major sin was the priest’s. But if you were pretty sure that it was illicit, well illicit=sinful. Once you got the idea that it was probably wrong (which probably came from the Holy Spirit), then you could have looked it up and found out. The first time, it probably wasn’t a sin at all for you, but after the first time, if you thought it was probably wrong, well a quick google search with “catholic self-communicate” gives a bunch of pages with the answer. So it may well have been a venial sin that you never bothered to check.

Certainly the priest was responsible for illicitly changing the Mass to suit his own purposes. However, it is also every Catholic’s responsibility to know at least the places where grave errors may take place. You might try reading Mass Confusion by Jimmy Akin. It’s unfortunate that priests cannot all be trusted to celebrate the Mass properly, but that is the world we are living in, and we have to deal with it by informing ourselves, or it won’t get better.
Was the Priest wrong to do this? It may not be the way we are used to but was it against doctrine? Jesus said “Take and eat, this is my body.” Giving thanks, he then took the chalice and said: “Take and drink, this is the cup of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me” (Mt 26:26-27; 1 Cor 11:25).

Doesn’t that imply he have the sacrament to them and they consumed it from their own hands?
 
Was the Priest wrong to do this? It may not be the way we are used to but was it against doctrine? Jesus said “Take and eat, this is my body.” Giving thanks, he then took the chalice and said: “Take and drink, this is the cup of my blood. Do this in remembrance of me” (Mt 26:26-27; 1 Cor 11:25).
According to Luke 22:19, “and [Jesus] took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them…” According to the Catechism, quoting St. Justin Martyr, the deacons distributed communion to the congregation as early as AD 155. (see CCC #1345).

Regardless, the authority to confect the Eucharist comes from Jesus through the Church. The Church, through which comes the authority and ability to confect the Eucharist, also has the authority to determine, based on the teachings passed down from Jesus and the apostles, the way the Mass should be celebrated. So yes, the priest was very wrong to do this.
Doesn’t that imply he have the sacrament to them and they consumed it from their own hands?
…which is completely different from them taking it for themselves and passing it around to each other anyway.

But the really important point is really that The Church is the vehicle through which the ability to confect the Eucharist comes, and has the authority to say how it should happen.

–Jen
 
Regardless, the authority to confect the Eucharist comes from Jesus through the Church. The Church, through which comes the authority and ability to confect the Eucharist, also has the authority to determine, based on the teachings passed down from Jesus and the apostles, the way the Mass should be celebrated. So yes, the priest was very wrong to do this.

But the really important point is really that The Church is the vehicle through which the ability to confect the Eucharist comes, and has the authority to say how it should happen.

–Jen
I’m not implying your wrong. I just want to know where it says how the priest must distribute communion. Must it go from his hand into the hand or mouth of each person receiving it? Or could it be passed around as the earlier poster said. The priest often gives it to eucharistic ministers to distribute and they are not clergy. How did he sin?
 
Is this grave?

I have been training someone at my job this past week and Wednesday I thought it would be nice to ask if he wanted to leave an hour early. I didn’t get my regional manager’s authorization to let him go an hour early. I may have thought I should have asked him, but I don’t know for sure. I know I thought after asking if it was a good idea (I don’t remember if I questioned myself prior or not). Well, the new hire left an hour early. I’m not a manager (we’ve got no actual manager right now at this store.) and this is just a simple cellphone store. Days are slow and not much activity for a good portion of the day.

Well, I mentioned it in my email that night he left an hour early.

Today, I sent the regional manager the adjusted hours for this week and he sends a reply asking why the person left early without his authorization. I apologized. Then I started freaking out to myself whether I committed a mortal sin. I immediately thought to myself, “I sent him an email about that”. So, I sent another email saying: “Also, I mentioned it in the summary for Wednesday night that he left early.”

I click send and while it was sending I felt like that was a bad idea. Why? I questioned my intention on sending it, but I don’t know if I had much.

I have been stressed lately with my job. I am also stressed with myself. I am scrupulous. I’m wrestling back and forth on this.
 
Is this grave?

I have been training someone at my job this past week and Wednesday I thought it would be nice to ask if he wanted to leave an hour early. I didn’t get my regional manager’s authorization to let him go an hour early. I may have thought I should have asked him, but I don’t know for sure. I know I thought after asking if it was a good idea (I don’t remember if I questioned myself prior or not). Well, the new hire left an hour early. I’m not a manager (we’ve got no actual manager right now at this store.) and this is just a simple cellphone store. Days are slow and not much activity for a good portion of the day.

Well, I mentioned it in my email that night he left an hour early.

Today, I sent the regional manager the adjusted hours for this week and he sends a reply asking why the person left early without his authorization. I apologized. Then I started freaking out to myself whether I committed a mortal sin. I immediately thought to myself, “I sent him an email about that”. So, I sent another email saying: “Also, I mentioned it in the summary for Wednesday night that he left early.”

I click send and while it was sending I felt like that was a bad idea. Why? I questioned my intention on sending it, but I don’t know if I had much.

I have been stressed lately with my job. I am also stressed with myself. I am scrupulous. I’m wrestling back and forth on this.
You may not be a manager, but as a trainer you have some delegated authority. I’m not saying that you did or didn’t make a good decision. If it was a mistake you apolgized for it. I don’t see it as a sin as we all make lots of mistakes that are not sins. That’s just being human.
 
I’m not implying your wrong. I just want to know where it says how the priest must distribute communion. Must it go from his hand into the hand or mouth of each person receiving it? Or could it be passed around as the earlier poster said. The priest often gives it to eucharistic ministers to distribute and they are not clergy. How did he sin?
Please see Redemptionis Sacramentum:

usccb.org/liturgy/documents/instructioneng.shtml

#94 addresses the question about handing around the sacrament between the lay faithful, and forbids it.

#155 talks about how Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are delegated by the bishop, and therefore it is not the same as if I just hand the Eucharist to someone for them to communicate. (I am not an EMHC.) EMHCs are supposed to be trained and in any case they should only be used when there is real need (#158), which, unless the priest is incapacitated, does not hold when there are just a few people at the Mass. So in that situation, even using an appointed and trained EMHC would probably be illicit, since I believe from other posts by the OP that there are generally fewer than ten people at the Mass in question.

There are undoubtedly a lot of other places where this information is located as well, but I believe the one document I’ve cited answers all of the questions you’ve asked.

–Jen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top