Is something more of a sin if a priest told you not to do it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathrin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kathrin

Guest
Let’s say a venial sin.
My example: I ate another piece of bread even though I was already full, and this during Lent. I talked about this at confession. Answering my questions, the priest also said that yes, if I am already feeling full and there is another piece (that would not go to waste) then I should not eat it.
Today at lunch where I work, I went back for a little bit of seconds of something I really liked. I may have been full already, I am not sure, since I ate a lot of salad which fills you up fast but doesn’t hold. I wasn’t sure if it was good to go for seconds but then I did.
I wouldn’t say that is a mortal sin, but since I talked about something similar to a priest I thought back to that conversation and now somehow am afraid it may have been a bigger sin (obedience? etc)-
Not that I am somebody who eats a lot, generally. I am usually a very small eater. Sometimes something tempts me though…

Kathrin
 
The word “shouldn’t” makes this a little fuzzy situation. If he said “can’t” then the sin of disobedience would definitely be there. So the degree of sin (if any) is ambiguous in your situation. Because you don’t know if it was a suggestion or order in this case.

You should really ask the priest if it was a sin, and if so, how serious. Because only he knows how he meant it.
 
(1) The priest was making a suggestion.

(2) You are not bound by this suggestion

(3) You did not commit a sin by getting seconds on your plate.

Kathrin, I know you struggle with scrupulosity, so I wanted to be direct and clear: you did not commit any sin.

I think it was misguided of the priest to tell you that it was wrong to take a second piece of bread. Perhaps he is not aware of your tendency to scrupulosity.
 
Kathrin,

The sin of gluttony can be either immoderate or inordinate; immoderate being venial sin and inordinate being mortal sin. Immoderate is eating slightly more than being full (or than your regular diet), and inordinate is eating much more than being full.

Fasting is the opposite of this sin. If your conscience tells you that it might be too much, you should probably not go for seconds. If the priest tells you that seconds is too much, you should listen to him.

It does not make it mortal if he told you not to because you are not eating inordinately, and thus does not classify as grave. It is, however, a more serious venial sin since he told you not to. This is also disobedience, but only venial because is is a less serious offense of disobedience.

I hope this helps. If you are concerned about sins and their gravity, you can look it up in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or read a book on Confession or conscience. *A Contemporary Adult Guide to Conscience for the Sacrament of Confession *by Father Richard J. Rego is a good short book on various sins.
 
Those ten guidelines for the scrupulous are offensive. There is only one set of Ten Commandments handed down to Moses by God. When people do this sort of thing likening their rules to the actual Commandments, it is blasphemy because they are mocking God. “Ten Guidelines for the Scrupulous” or something similar would be a more fitting title.

Some of that information is incorrect, also. You should still confess sins that you are uncertain of committing. It is better to do that than to leave them out of the Confession.
 
Daniel_Boucher said:
Some of that information is incorrect, also. You should still confess sins that you are uncertain of committing. It is better to do that than to leave them out of the Confession.
Click to expand...
I think this is meant for people who think they have to go to confession every time they think they may have done something wrong. Who have a thought, against their will, and come up with reasons why this may be in some way a sin. And go back and forth about it - was it a sin? wasn’t it?
 
Yes, Saint Alphonsus Liguiori is known for dealing with scruples. The idea behind those guidlines or rules to follow in helping people with scruples is fine. I find some of the information to be incorrect, though.

I always looks to the Catechism or Scripture for what to believe. I have gone through scruples myself. Its sometimes difficult, but it is best to not be too hard on oneself. There is a fine line between scruples and the desire to be free from sin and having the correct knowledge of how to confess, what exactly to confess, and whether or not you are in need of Confession before recieving the Eucharist.

The Bishop of my Diocese has written a nice column on the Sacrament of Penance and forgiveness that really is helpful and informational. It’s been printed in our Diocesean newspaper The Arlington Catholic Herald and is really insightful and helpful. Please read it if anyone wants to. Here are the links:

Introduction: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9488 and catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9470

Part I: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9534

Part II: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9628

Part III: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9670

Part IV: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9754

Part V: catholicherald.com/bishop/detail.html?sub_id=9805
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top