Is Missing Mass a Mortal Sin?

[Alex_H]

Hello,

So last week I slipped up and didn’t go to mass. I think I hit the snooze button on my alarm and then went back to sleep. I’m not justifying this sin, just telling you how it happened. My question is, is it a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass?

I am going to be confirmed into the Church this Saturday. On Saturday, I will take my first communion. I don’t want to take it unworthily, however, so I want to know if I need to confess this sin before Mass on Saturday.

Also, as a side note, I just went to Confession a few days ago. Would it be wrong for me to go to confession so soon again, and only to confess that one sin?

Thanks.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

If you semi-consciously hit your snooze alarm and honestly over-slept you might be excused. If you deliberately “blew off” going to mass it would be a sin.

If you missed the mass you intended to attend but had the opportunity to attend mass later in the day and still did not go, I think that would be a sin also.

:twocents:

 

[peter26]

I am going to be confirmed into the Church this Saturday. On Saturday, I will take my first communion. I don’t want to take it unworthily, however, so I want to know if I need to confess this sin before Mass on Saturday.

If you are being received into the Church on Saturday, you are not bound by the precepts of the Church under penalty of sin, e.g. attending Sunday Mass, until you are received. Additionally, it was not a mortal sin for you if you were not aware that it was. But objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin yes.

Also, as a side note, I just went to Confession a few days ago. Would it be wrong for me to go to confession so soon again, and only to confess that one sin?

As explained above, I don’t think you need to in the circumstances. But if you did need to, no you can go to confession any time you are aware of a mortal sin on your conscience. Regular confession (every week or two) is a good habit anyway. Padre Pio compared it to sweeping away all the cobwebs in a room: the longer you leave them, the worse they will get.

 

[Alex_H]

Great answers. Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin yes.

Tangent alert!

No sin is objectively mortal.

A sin may be grave, objectively speaking, but the determination of mortal sin is always subjective, since by definition it requires that the person not only commits a grave sin, but also that he has full knowledge that it is a grave sin and deliberate consent to committing the sin.

Mortal sin is a subjective consideration.

OK… back to our regularly scheduled discussion…

 

[R_H_Benson]

Tangent alert!

No sin is objectively mortal.

A sin may be grave, objectively speaking, but the determination of mortal sin is always subjective, since by definition it requires that the person not only commits a grave sin, but also that he has full knowledge that it is a grave sin and deliberate consent to committing the sin.

Mortal sin is a subjective consideration.

OK… back to our regularly scheduled discussion…

Thank you, that is a very clear and helpful explanation.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If you’re truly ill, you’re excused. I was excused for months after being injured.

Welcome to the Church! We are glad to have you!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Tangent alert!

No sin is objectively mortal.

A sin may be grave, objectively speaking, but the determination of mortal sin is always subjective, since by definition it requires that the person not only commits a grave sin, but also that he has full knowledge that it is a grave sin and deliberate consent to committing the sin.

Mortal sin is a subjective consideration.

OK… back to our regularly scheduled discussion…

Yes. It’s important to point out that you can’t accidentally commit a mortal sin.

 

[peter26]

Mortal sin is a subjective consideration.

Well technically it has both an objective and a subjective component.

E.g. Fred misses Mass one Sunday. Objectively that is a sin. The first part of the test, the objective part, is thus met. But Fred had to look after his elderly mother who is very ill and therefore could not make it. The subjective element, the second part of the mortal sin test, is not met. That does not change the fact that missing Mass is a sin. It is just not sinful in this particular case because of mitigating factors.

 

[dshix]

Hello,

So last week I slipped up and didn’t go to mass. I think I hit the snooze button on my alarm and then went back to sleep. I’m not justifying this sin, just telling you how it happened. My question is, is it a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass?

I am going to be confirmed into the Church this Saturday. On Saturday, I will take my first communion. I don’t want to take it unworthily, however, so I want to know if I need to confess this sin before Mass on Saturday.

Also, as a side note, I just went to Confession a few days ago. Would it be wrong for me to go to confession so soon again, and only to confess that one sin?

Thanks.

Two questions here.

First, you say you will be confirmed into the Church on Easter Vigil. Does that mean you are not yet Catholic? (i.e. not baptised?) If so, then you have no Sunday obligation yet.

Second, assuming the case in which you do have a Sunday obligation: why didn’t you just go to a later mass? Hitting the “snooze” is certainly an understandable mistake, but it shouldn’t have stopped you from going to mass all day long. Most churches have masses multiple times in the morning and at least once in the evening on Sunday. Even if yours didn’t, I assure there are others nearby which did, as long as you aren’t in a rural area.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Well technically it has both an objective and a subjective component.

E.g. Fred misses Mass one Sunday. Objectively that is a sin. The first part of the test, the objective part, is thus met. But Fred had to look after his elderly mother who is very ill and therefore could not make it. The subjective element, the second part of the mortal sin test, is not met. That does not change the fact that missing Mass is a sin. It is just not sinful in this particular case because of mitigating factors.

Very sound analysis from a good solid approach.

Thank you for that, peter26 .

 

[Gorgias]

Well technically it has both an objective and a subjective component.

That it has both components means that it is not objective, as you’d claimed.

Moreover, since it has a subjective component means that the determination is made subjectively.

E.g. Fred misses Mass one Sunday. Objectively that is a sin. The first part of the test, the objective part, is thus met. But Fred had to look after his elderly mother who is very ill and therefore could not make it. The subjective element, the second part of the mortal sin test, is not met. That does not change the fact that missing Mass is a sin. It is just not sinful in this particular case because of mitigating factors.

Mind if I continue quibbling?

In this case, I’m not certain that this is the proper analysis.

Missing Mass on Sunday isn’t a sin per se – that is, it isn’t a sin by the omission of the act. Rather, it’s sinful because it’s the disobedience of a precept of the Church. The sin is in the neglect of the precept.

However, the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holydays only attaches when it is possible to do so. In other words, if one lives in an area in which it is impossible to get to Mass, the precept does not attach; nor does it, if the person is too ill to go, or risks injury to himself or others (think ‘blizzard’), or if he is the caregiver to one whose side he cannot leave (and therefore, cannot make it to any Mass).

In these cases, it’s not that “missing Mass is a sin” – since your proof would have demonstrated simply that it’s not a mortal sin. In other words, your proof only shows that it may be a venial sin to miss Sunday Mass; however, that conclusion is inaccurate. Rather, in these exceptional cases, one is excused from the obligation, and therefore it is not sinful at all.

So, in this analysis, we’re not strictly talking about ‘mortal vs venial sin’ – what’s really in play is the obligation to obey a precept of the Church.

Hope this helps…

 

[peter26]

In these cases, it’s not that “missing Mass is a sin” – since your proof would have demonstrated simply that it’s not a mortal sin. In other words, your proof only shows that it may be a venial sin to miss Sunday Mass; however, that conclusion is inaccurate. Rather, in these exceptional cases, one is excused from the obligation, and therefore it is not sinful at all.

Canon Law also obliges participation in the Mass on a Sunday. This is the objective component. This is binding on everyone by default.

Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

However, there are some exceptions to the precept which are effected by the state of the individual. That is the subjective element. Hence, the commission on the sin has two elements, the objective (it is determined by the Church that it is a grave matter) and the subjective (full knowledge and consent).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hello,

So last week I slipped up and didn’t go to mass. I think I hit the snooze button on my alarm and then went back to sleep. I’m not justifying this sin, just telling you how it happened. My question is, is it a mortal sin to skip Sunday mass?

I am going to be confirmed into the Church this Saturday. On Saturday, I will take my first communion. I don’t want to take it unworthily, however, so I want to know if I need to confess this sin before Mass on Saturday.

Also, as a side note, I just went to Confession a few days ago. Would it be wrong for me to go to confession so soon again, and only to confess that one sin?

Thanks.

The question is being made needlessly convoluted when, in this particular case, the answer is straightforward.

1. You are an RCIA candidate.
2. Attendance obliges those who are Catholic, not those preparing to be so.
3. Therefore, you are not guilty of mortal sin for missing Mass.
4. Therefore, you have no need to go back to confession.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

But this has to be read in the light of Canon 11 since the original poster is in fact outside what this canon delineates. The catechism’s use of the term “the faithful” is a technical one and a deliberate choice on the part of the author.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That it has both components means that it is not objective, as you’d claimed.

Moreover, since it has a subjective component means that the determination is made subjectively.

Mind if I continue quibbling?

In this case, I’m not certain that this is the proper analysis.
. . .

Hi Georgias. I ***am *** certain that peter26 gave us a clear and proper (and quite compelling) analysis.

The excerpt - before being misconstrued, read, in its proper context:

. . . Additionally, it was not a mortal sin for you if you were not aware that it was. But objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin yes. . .

The , um, “subjective component” is clearly implied in the first phrase: " if you were not aware that it was.".

As I see it, his words “objectively speaking” are referring to something we necessarily call the* moral standard* . . . without which we would never even be able to make any determination pertaining to “subjective components.”

Even when speaking of sin, clear thinking requires an objective reference point.

Several definitions pertaining to objective and subjective morality which make the reasoning more apparent:

All definitions taken from MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Father John Hardon, S.J.

OBJECTIVE.
What belongs to a thing or is grounded in reality, prior to and independent of the mind’s consideration of something. Also called ontological, in contrast with the mental or psychological. Opposite of subjective. Thus objective certitude is founded on reality, and objective morality is based on divinely established standards. (Etym. Latin obiectio, something thrown before or presented to [the mind], from obicere, to throw in the way, present.)

OBJECTIVE MORALITY.
The conformity or nonconformity of a human act with the moral standard, but independent of the person’s responsibility for the action. Thus taking what belongs to another without his or her permission is objectively wrong, even though done without awareness of its wrongness.

SUBJECTIVE MORALITY.
Responsible human conduct, where a person knowingly and willingly performs an action that either conforms or does not conform to the moral standard.

Just as St. Thomas Aquinas confirms that Mercy does not negate or deny justice ; rather Mercy presupposes justice, it is similarly true that subjective morality - to have any parameters or to be defineable at all, necessarily presupposes the moral standard.

 

[Gorgias]

I ***am *** certain that peter26 gave us a clear and proper (and quite compelling) analysis.

Good on ya, for that.

Yet, his analysis – as I pointed out – is faulty, since its conclusion implies that missing Mass (for a valid reason) is still a venial sin… which, of course, it’s not. Absent any rationalization, he merely declares it “not a sin.” However, if you’re certain…

The excerpt - before being misconstrued, read, in its proper context:

The excerpt contained the phrase “objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin” – which is inaccurate.

As I see it, his words “objectively speaking” are referring to something we necessarily call the* moral standard*

Yet, that’s not the claim he’s making: in the quote which you yourself provided, he claimed that what’s “objectively speaking” is the “mortal sin”. Not a “moral standard”, mind you, but the “mortal sin.” That’s neither ‘proper’ nor ‘compelling’…

Still, his claim is that, since the grave sin is not mortal, it is not a sin. That’s wholly inaccurate, and flies in the face of Catholic teaching. Grave sin that is not mortal is venial. The case at hand (absent of the fact – which many have mentioned – that the OP is not yet bound to the precept) has to do with the precept, not the determination of ‘mortal or venial sin.’ This is why his case isn’t compelling, and is actually a bit off-base…

 

[NeedImprovement]

Good on ya, for that.

Yet, his analysis – as I pointed out – is faulty, since its conclusion implies that missing Mass (for a valid reason) is still a venial sin… which, of course, it’s not. Absent any rationalization, he merely declares it “not a sin.” However, if you’re certain…

The excerpt contained the phrase “objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin” – which is inaccurate.

Yet, that’s not the claim he’s making: in the quote which you yourself provided, he claimed that what’s “objectively speaking” is the “mortal sin”. Not a “moral standard”, mind you, but the “mortal sin.” That’s neither ‘proper’ nor ‘compelling’…

Still, his claim is that, since the grave sin is not mortal, it is not a sin. That’s wholly inaccurate, and flies in the face of Catholic teaching. Grave sin that is not mortal is venial. The case at hand (absent of the fact – which many have mentioned – that the OP is not yet bound to the precept) has to do with the precept, not the determination of ‘mortal or venial sin.’ This is why his case isn’t compelling, and is actually a bit off-base…

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . .
The excerpt contained the phrase “objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin” – which is inaccurate. . .

I wish I had more time - your conversational skills and good-naturedness seem up to snuff , but I’m still struggling to not see the approach of your posts as being somewhat convoluted in logic.

In the Truth, the moral standard is objective and it is primary: without it there can be neither objective morality nor subjective morality-and in* that *order. It’s quite simple really. Although it is attainable by reason, God gives us the standard directly in this case.

One needs to be able to differentiate between divine revelation and the voice of moral conscience.

“Objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin” is no more inaccurate than saying, "objectively speaking, ‘Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ "

Perhaps you should be given the last word ?

Don’t you at least agree that saying, “Subjectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin,” makes even less sense ?

Why not commit then, and tell us what you believe peter26 should have said instead of “Objectively speaking, not attending Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.”

Go ahead and have the last word. It’s getting too close to Good Friday - I can’t argue any more.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

NeedImprovement,

Deacon Jeff beat me to the punch!

(I’d still quibble a little, and change #1 to address the fact that one deliberately skips Mass when he has been excused from the obligation!)

therefore…

1. Objectively speaking, deliberately not attending Mass when one otherwise could have attended is a mortal sin.

(This speaks to your assertion about ‘standards’ – objectively speaking, when all these subjective considerations have been met (i.e., full knowledge, deliberate consent, lack of being excused from the obligation), then one is in a state of mortal sin. Your claim seems to be that objectivity in standards implies a lack of subjectivity in evaluating the situation. That has me scratching my head. Yes, there is an objective standard; yet, one meets (or fails to meet) that objective standard by virtue of his subjective engagement in a situation. To call this an ‘objective situation’ seems to deny that (subjective!) circumstances matter!)