Missing Sunday Mass - Mortal Sin, Venial Sin, or no sin at all?

[LilyM]

LilyM wrote:

I AGREE COMPLETELY! That’s the point I have been trying to make with this post! And there are a whole lot of other situations where someone knows they should go to Mass but lacks the knowledge of how deeply it offends God or to what lengths they are required to go to attend…they may feel sick, but is it sick enough? They may have to care for a child, but could they have possibly arranged for someone else to do it for an hour? They could make it to a Mass 60 miles away - are they obligated to drive that far? Someone may not believe that their occasional missing of Mass means they “hate” God, or that it completely cuts them off from grace. Same situation if they don’t believe God is offended at all…it’s still falling short of our obligations, but it isn’t MORTAL sin.

Not so hasty.

Any Catholic who, accepting the teaching authority of the Church as they must, because they promised to do at baptism, and reads the Catechism, or listens to the teaching of their priest, knows how deeply missing Mass even once offends God. The very definition of it as ‘grave matter’ tells you what God thinks of the matter! And a Catholic who hears has no excuse not to accept, and has full knowledge of the gravity of the offence.

The Church teaches, including in the Catechism, with God-given authority - ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’. So in failing to accept Church teaching on the gravity of missing mass, as set forth in the Catechism and many other places, you are rejecting Christ who speaks through the Church.

So such a person has no excuse to miss if they are able to go, and is in mortal sin if they fail in this regard.

 

[jmcrae]

Re: missing Mass-I have a different situation. I live on an island and from Oct. to June we must go to the mainland. I am also low income. Between the ferry ticket and gas, it costs me more than $15 just for transportation. Needless to say, I only put $1 in the collection. The usual definition of allowable absence is when it poses a "hardship."I go every week anyway, but it’s hard, financially.I say the Rosary daily with the TV. The rest of the Catholic islanders go to an Anglican communion service on the island which I find upsetting, but it’s their culpability. Would my financial situation allow me to miss Mass maybe once a month because of the money difficulty? I would tend to watch it on TV at those times as I often do during the week. I would rather have a loaded gun to my head than take part in the phony Anglican communion no matter how similar it is on the surface. They have no valid priests or bishops. I have an old history of scrupulosity. What is a sound decision in this case?

Acuddymar

If it is unreasonably difficult to get to Mass, for whatever reason (illness, lack of transportation, duties at home to care for children and/or sick family members) then you have no obligation to attend Mass, and you can stay home. It doesn’t make any sense to attend the services of a different religion in lieu. However, it would be an excellent idea to read the Missal and meditate on the Scripture readings for the day, or else pray a Rosary, or do some reading in the Bible on your own.

 

[jmcrae]

One of the earlier posters stated his belief that if someone is “depressed” that is the same as being ill, and excuses one from attending Mass. He did not offer any citations, so that can only be assumed to be his opinion. Is it a valid one? If so, how does one determine whether they are “depressed” enough? Do they need a doctor’s note? What if they can’t afford to go to the doctor to get one – does being poor mean the difference between mortal sin and possibly no sin at all?

I base this on the medical definition of depression. The Church doesn’t comment on it one way or another, but the medical profession tells us that depression is an illness, and that it can sometimes be debilitating to the point where the person is just as non-functional as if they had a really, really bad cold.

Using my faculties of reason, I deduce that if the Church excuses us from attending Mass when we are experiencing the debilitating effects of a bad cold, then surely we are also excused when experiencing the debilitating effects of a bout of depression, because, as we learned in Algebra, if a=b, then b=a.

 

[holy_moly]

holy moly

I agree that using confession as a “get out of jail free card” would be sinful! If someone WANTS to sin and then thinks they can just go through a ritual and be back in good with God, I would agree that’s pretty presumptuous.

BUT, I don’t think that’s what’s happening when a devout Catholic succumbs to temptation and, at the same time, determines to go to confession as soon as possible so as not to remain outside God’s grace.

You also say

You write that “to me, it is always a mortal sin.” But you don’t offer any citations or references. I don’t think the Church is either so strict or so clear upon the matter. For example, what if Mary truly isn’t sure whether skipping Mass is a sin? She’s gotten conflicting information. One priest tells her it’s a sin, another tells her it’s not (yes, there are priests who believe that occasionally skipping Mass is not a mortal sin). One priest tells her that if she isn’t sure something is a sin she should confess it anyway, and the other priest tells her that if she isn’t sure something is a sin it CANNOT be a sin and that she should NOT confess it. Is it still so clear that what she has done is MORTAL sin?

One of the earlier posters stated his belief that if someone is “depressed” that is the same as being ill, and excuses one from attending Mass. He did not offer any citations, so that can only be assumed to be his opinion. Is it a valid one? If so, how does one determine whether they are “depressed” enough? Do they need a doctor’s note? What if they can’t afford to go to the doctor to get one – does being poor mean the difference between mortal sin and possibly no sin at all?

I am NOT trying to be argumentative. Catholics have a lifelong weekly obligation to worship God, and these sorts of questions come up all the time. I’m looking for some meaningful and thoughtful discussion about underlying principles.

For those of you who think it is so easy to tell what’s sinful, please reference the number of posts with headings such as “Did I sin…” “Is it a sin to…” Is ______ a sin?"

Abigail,
You said, BUT, I don’t think that’s what’s happening when a devout Catholic succumbs to temptation and, at the same time, determines to go to confession as soon as possible so as not to remain outside God’s grace.
Is the devout Catholic somehow invincibly ignorant or physically/mentally ill/retarded (sorry). Notice in my response I did give an out for “valid reasons’. I think we all know in our heart the validity of a situation or circumstance that we ‘use’ to not attend, knowing that confession is always there to come to the rescue. In my stellar career of making excuses to skip/miss Mass, I would say that 99% of the time I put my soul in grave danger…

As to, “what if Mary truly isn’t sure whether skipping Mass is a sin?” Let me use the 1st analogy that comes to mind (again, sorry). When my girls were in diapers & I wondered whether a diaper was dirty or not, it always most certainly was. Same w/ sin; if you think your soul is dirtied, it most certainly is. This is God working through the human conscious, pure & simple! What I am sure of, is that this diaper analogy is NOT in the Catechism! :dts: By the way, you can generally find a priest to justify almost any behavior. …

From the CCC: see 1389 (The Church ‘obliges‘ the faithful to take part…), 2180 (… the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass) & 2181 (Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin). And lets not get I into a semantically discussion on ‘it depends what the meaning of ‘deliberately’ is!

When the disposition of the soul is at stake, it is always better to error on the side of caution- if you miss Mass, simply confess it (& feel free to discuss any extenuating circumstances!)!

As interesting as this discussion is, if you keep changing the facts, us responders will not be able to keep up w/ the answers! But please feel free to!

 

[Abigail]

Holy moly, you wrote

And lets not get I into a semantically discussion on ‘it depends what the meaning of ‘deliberately’ is!

Sorry, holy moly, but the meaning of “deliberately” is the whole heart of whether something is a mortal sin or not – it is not a semantic ploy. Mortal sin requires our FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.

I’m not trying to be difficult here, but you seem not to be thinking with the mind of the Church. The Church teaches that there are two kinds of sin. Venial sin is disobedience to God which does NOT separate us from Him and His grace. Mortal sin is disobedience to God which DOES separate us from Him and His grace. The Church makes these distinctions for a reason.

You also wrote

if you think your soul is dirtied, it most certainly is. This is God working through the human conscious, pure & simple!

Well, that’s not so pure and simple, either. There is a recent post in the Traditional Catholicism section of this board from a young man who believed burning his trash was a mortal sin, but wasn’t sure. He had read in the Catechism that “pollution” was a mortal sin, and had read in the secular media that Pope Benedict had said that not re-cycling was a sin.

People assured this young man that burning trash was (a) not a sin (b) only a venial sin. But he thought his soul would be dirtied if he burned his trash. If had had done so believing it was a mortal sin, would he have rejected God and cut himself off from God’s grace? What if he burned his trash and wasn’t sure?

What happens to these underlying principles regarding grave matter, knowledge and consent when they are applied to an issue that perhaps isn’t as close to the heart of the person doing that analyzing as attending Mass is?

 

[Abigail]

jmcrae wrote

I base this on the medical definition of depression. The Church doesn’t comment on it one way or another, but the medical profession tells us that depression is an illness, and that it can sometimes be debilitating to the point where the person is just as non-functional as if they had a really, really bad cold.

Using my faculties of reason, I deduce that if the Church excuses us from attending Mass when we are experiencing the debilitating effects of a bad cold, then surely we are also excused when experiencing the debilitating effects of a bout of depression, because, as we learned in Algebra, if a=b, then b=a.

Well, then, Mary’s in luck! In her country, the medical profession is very sympathetic to those with depression. Her doctor assured her that her statement that “she just couldn’t take the long drive, the unpleasant music and the continual and never-ending sense of obligation to attend Sunday Mass” was proof that she was suffering from “depression.” He even wrote her a prescription for a mild sedative, and advised her not to go to Mass until she felt she could “handle it, psychologically.”

All of a sudden Mary’s mortal sin is no sin at all!



Next question. What if Mary is too poor to go to the doctor in her country and get this pronouncement?

What if she lives in a country where they are not at all sympathetic to the idea of “depression” and consider it to be a moral failing on the part of the sufferer. So, to avoid Mass because of it would be using one moral failing to compound another.

Or, what if Mary is too ignorant to know what “depression” is?



And, no, I am not trying to be a PIA. I am trying to point out that what may be “believed” or “obvious” to one person is not so to another. One person may believe “depression” provides an excuse for not attending Mass, and another may not. Another may want to know, well, just how depressed does someone have to be? And on, and on, and on.

 

[Abigail]

LilyM wrote

Not so hasty.

Any Catholic who, accepting the teaching authority of the Church as they must, because they promised to do at baptism, and reads the Catechism, or listens to the teaching of their priest, knows how deeply missing Mass even once offends God. The very definition of it as ‘grave matter’ tells you what God thinks of the matter! And a Catholic who hears has no excuse not to accept, and has full knowledge of the gravity of the offence.

The Church teaches, including in the Catechism, with God-given authority - ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’. So in failing to accept Church teaching on the gravity of missing mass, as set forth in the Catechism and many other places, you are rejecting Christ who speaks through the Church.

So such a person has no excuse to miss if they are able to go, and is in mortal sin if they fail in this regard.

Sigh.

OK. Let’s take this one at a time. Most Catholics were baptized as children, so they didn’t “promise to accept the teaching authority of the Church.” I guarantee you that most Catholics do not spend any time at all reading the Catechism. I have never ONCE heard a priest say during a homily that missing Mass deeply offends God, and I have been going to Mass for over 45 years. Most Catholics are totally unaware that there is a something called a definition of “grave matter,” and if they are, they don’t know what it means. A Catholic may very well hear and accept, but not have full knowledge of the gravity of the offense.

You state that “who hears you, hears me, who rejects you, rejects me.” How do you square this with holy moly’s opinion that

By the way, you can generally find a priest to justify almost any behavior. …

Once again, please be assured that I am NOT trying to be unduly argumentative. I simply am not convinced that the arguments presented so far are well thought out. This is an area where Catholics tend to be rather “touchy,” but that is no excuse for not plumbing the depths of the Church’s reasoning in this matter.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM wrote

OK. Let’s take this one at a time. Most Catholics were baptized as children, so they didn’t “promise to accept the teaching authority of the Church.”

Oh yes they do - every Easter, at each one of which we renew our baptismal promises. We do at our Confirmation when weagain renew them (none of us being babies!). And we do each and every time they say the Creed affirming their belief in ‘one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church’. Which means every blessed Sunday Mass we’ve attended in our entire lives.

I guarantee you that most Catholics do not spend any time at all reading the Catechism. I have never ONCE heard a priest say during a homily that missing Mass deeply offends God, and I have been going to Mass for over 45 years. Most Catholics are totally unaware that there is a something called a definition of “grave matter,” and if they are, they don’t know what it means.

Well, you don’t HAVE to read the Catechism or understand the terminology to get the point. As I’ve said, non-Catholics know it too - and plenty of them do indeed agree with us that it IS a very serious, in fact damnable, sin to miss church on Sunday if you can go. That’s the required level of knowledge.

I didn’t hear the term ‘grave matter’ until a few years ago myself. But I well and truly knew that it was a serious (I knew the term mortal certainly) sin, requiring confession, to deliberately miss Mass on a Sunday - even once. And that if I died with this sin on my soul and unconfessed I would be damned.

And in my 35 years I have certainly heard priests mention it, as have parents, teachers and many other people. I’m sorry your experience was different, I daresay if you ask around you’ll find that most of your fellow Catholics have at least heard it mentioned.

Are you really saying NO-ONE told you that it was a Church teaching? I find it hard to believe. And having heard, you thought you had no duty to ask or make sure that it wasn’t? If someone tells me something is bad for me in any way - body, finances, mind or immortal soul - I certainly investigate before dismissing it!

A Catholic may very well hear and accept, but not have full knowledge of the gravity of the offense.

I said that many Catholics, sadly, are in just this case. Are they entirely faultless? Some may be. Some don’t bother to find out because they don’t want to know, and they don’t want to be told. It’s what the Catechism calls wilful ignorance.

On the other hand doctors and lawyers know they have to study their profession, dancers and artists know they have to study their craft - why should Christians take their faith to be any different? Who on earth would WANT to profess faith in a Church of whose teachings they are ignorant, if they intended to remain that way?

I certainly wouldn’t take citizenship in a country if I couldn’t be bothered learning about the laws that apply to me as a citizen and the duties expected of me as such.

You state that “who hears you, hears me, who rejects you, rejects me.” How do you square this with holy moly’s opinion that

By the way, you can generally find a priest to justify almost any behavior. …

Because priests are human and sometimes get things wrong. The Magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially, as are individual priests and bishops who teach in union with it.

 

[holy_moly]

Hi Abigail,
I agree that deliberateness requires full knowledge & consent & can only be discerned between the penitent & their confessor, hence my advice to error on the side of caution & CONFESS it. This past wknd my family & I were high in the wilderness, hours away from the nearest Mass w/ no reasonable way to get there on time… I still confessed it & discussed it w/ my priest. Was it ‘grave matter’? Yes it was, missing Mass always it. But was missing Mass deliberate? Probably not, but why chance it?

Yes there are 2 kinds of sin, but only one (grave matter) is mentioned in the CCC pertaining to missing Mass… Why do you ask for cites & then ignore them or try to rationalize them away? In a sense, God is selfish… He WANTS us sooooo much that the 1st three commandments are dedicated to this Love for us. Keep holy the Lord’s day. All He asks is one hour per week.

The times when I’ve been MOST depressed were the times I most benefited from the Mass. I also have an advanced degree in mental health & 30 years experience working in all milieus working w/ both adults & children, I guess the point being I would never underestimate the seriousness of any mental illness; which is why in my previous post, I listed it as a possible mitigating factor. Only God knows for sure, so just confess it… just in case!

As to the trash burning young man- Go to confession & get some discernment & spiritual direction. There is something marvelous about absolution… let God worry about what category the sin is. Truth be told, that w/ regular confession & spiritual direction, these would become non-issues.

 

[Holly3278]

I have decided to be a liberal Christian and will be attending a United Church of Christ church from now on. For me, it would not be a sin to miss church although it would be a bad idea.

 

[holy_moly]

Re: missing Mass-I have a different situation. I live on an island and from Oct. to June we must go to the mainland. I am also low income. Between the ferry ticket and gas, it costs me more than $15 just for transportation. Needless to say, I only put $1 in the collection. The usual definition of allowable absence is when it poses a "hardship."I go every week anyway, but it’s hard, financially.I say the Rosary daily with the TV. The rest of the Catholic islanders go to an Anglican communion service on the island which I find upsetting, but it’s their culpability. Would my financial situation allow me to miss Mass maybe once a month because of the money difficulty? I would tend to watch it on TV at those times as I often do during the week. I would rather have a loaded gun to my head than take part in the phony Anglican communion no matter how similar it is on the surface. They have no valid priests or bishops. I have an old history of scrupulosity. What is a sound decision in this case?

Acuddymar

Sounds like you have a valid hardship, but remember you have the pearl of great price, so any & every effort that can be reasonably made, should be made. What would it take to earn an extra 15 bucks a week? Brainstorm & pray for guidance & opportunity, as will I for you.

Jim

 

[holy_moly]

Not so hasty.

Any Catholic who, accepting the teaching authority of the Church as they must, because they promised to do at baptism, and reads the Catechism, or listens to the teaching of their priest, knows how deeply missing Mass even once offends God. The very definition of it as ‘grave matter’ tells you what God thinks of the matter! And a Catholic who hears has no excuse not to accept, and has full knowledge of the gravity of the offence.

The Church teaches, including in the Catechism, with God-given authority - ‘who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’. So in failing to accept Church teaching on the gravity of missing mass, as set forth in the Catechism and many other places, you are rejecting Christ who speaks through the Church.

So such a person has no excuse to miss if they are able to go, and is in mortal sin if they fail in this regard.

Spot on LilyM!

 

[jmcrae]

Holy moly, you wrote

Sorry, holy moly, but the meaning of “deliberately” is the whole heart of whether something is a mortal sin or not – it is not a semantic ploy. Mortal sin requires our FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.

Full knowledge and consent does not require a degree in Theology, nor even knowledge of the existence of God. “Full knowledge” means that you are aware that someone who has authority over you is likely to become disappointed in you if they find out you did it, and “full consent” means that you know of alternative ways to behave that would be more acceptable to those in authority over you.

Well, that’s not so pure and simple, either. There is a recent post in the Traditional Catholicism section of this board from a young man who believed burning his trash was a mortal sin, but wasn’t sure. He had read in the Catechism that “pollution” was a mortal sin, and had read in the secular media that Pope Benedict had said that not re-cycling was a sin.

That particular individual is famous for his bad case of OCD. If he were not known by most people on CAF to have OCD, the responses might have been different.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Full knowledge and consent does not require a degree in Theology, nor even knowledge of the existence of God. “Full knowledge” means that you are aware that someone who has authority over you is likely to become disappointed in you if they find out you did it, and “full consent” means that you know of alternative ways to behave that would be more acceptable to those in authority over you.

That particular individual is famous for his bad case of OCD. If he were not known by most people on CAF to have OCD, the responses might have been different.

I believe also that when and if you are not in your right mind you cannot give full consent.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae wrote

Well, then, Mary’s in luck! In her country, the medical profession is very sympathetic to those with depression. Her doctor assured her that her statement that “she just couldn’t take the long drive, the unpleasant music and the continual and never-ending sense of obligation to attend Sunday Mass” was proof that she was suffering from “depression.” He even wrote her a prescription for a mild sedative, and advised her not to go to Mass until she felt she could “handle it, psychologically.”

All of a sudden Mary’s mortal sin is no sin at all!

Right. If she has been disabled by her condition, then she has no obligation to attend Mass.

Next question. What if Mary is too poor to go to the doctor in her country and get this pronouncement?

Mary can judge for herself whether it is, within reason, physically possible for her to get to Mass. If she is not aware that she has depression, or that depression can cause her to be disabled, she can still be aware that something is wrong with her health, and that she is simply unable to get out of bed and to function normally.

What if she lives in a country where they are not at all sympathetic to the idea of “depression” and consider it to be a moral failing on the part of the sufferer. So, to avoid Mass because of it would be using one moral failing to compound another.

You mean, like if she got depression due to the use of alcohol, or due to not taking good care of her health by not getting enough sleep or by eating too many sugary foods, foods that are likely to contain dyes, and other foods that are likely to be bad for her? Yes, there are those who would pass judgement on someone who had depression, and assume that they had engaged in those behaviours - or else mistake the symptoms of depression for simple laziness.

There are also those who blame cold-sufferers for their condition, and assume that they were careless about wearing appropriate clothing for the weather, not eating the right kinds of healthy foods for the time of year, and not washing their hands when they are likely to have come into contact with germs.

And, no, I am not trying to be a PIA.

Well, in the original scenario, Mary was a woman in good health, and my original responses were based on the assumption that she had the ability to function normally. By moving the goal-posts around willy-nilly, you are certainly being a “PIA” even though you don’t intend to be.

I am trying to point out that what may be “believed” or “obvious” to one person is not so to another. One person may believe “depression” provides an excuse for not attending Mass, and another may not.

It’s not about “providing an excuse” - if it was physically impossible for Mary to get out of bed that morning, then she had no obligation to attend Mass that day - even if she didn’t understand the reason why she had become non-functional.

 

[Abigail]

Dear jmcrae:

At the risk of being a further PIA I don’t think I’m moving the goal posts around!

Here’s the original description of Mary’s state of mind from my very first post:

Sunday morning, Mary is** tired and irritable**, but not “sick” enough that she wouldn’t go to work. She **just can’t face **the early rising, the long drive on bad roads, and the chaotic atmosphere at the Church. She loves God, and doesn’t intend to stop going to Mass. She just needs a day off, and **doesn’t have the mental strength **to make the necessary sacrifice.

You stated

Mary can judge for herself whether it is, within reason, physically possible for her to get to Mass. If she is not aware that she has depression, or that depression can cause her to be disabled, she can still be aware that something is wrong with her health, and that she is simply unable to get out of bed and to function normally.

and

if it was physically impossible for Mary to get out of bed that morning, then she had no obligation to attend Mass that day - even if she didn’t understand the reason why she had become non-functional.

So I guess we agree in principle that Mary MIGHT have been excused from Mass because of her mental condition, even if she didn’t know why she just couldn’t make it. There’s quite a lot of evidence to support this, since she usually managed to overcome any temptations not to go to Mass. So, even though she thought it might be a sin that would require confession, perhaps it was not…

 

[Abigail]

LilyM

PLEASE don’t take my comments on this topic personally! I am NOT trying to make or find excuses for Catholics who don’t go to Mass on Sunday!

You make a good point that Catholics do confirm their voluntary allegience to Church teachings in several ways, but those are general affirmations and don’t necessary mean the person considers the specifics - that by reciting the Creed, for example, one

knows how deeply missing Mass even once offends God

One can accept the teachings of the Church generally, but still be uncertain about them specifically.

You wrote

non-Catholics know it too - and plenty of them do indeed agree with us that it IS a very serious, in fact damnable, sin to miss church on Sunday if you can go. That’s

It is probably true that SOME non-Catholics believe not going to church on Sunday is very serious, or damnable, but there are quite a number who DON’T believe that. Given that some do and some don’t, how can that be

the required level of knowledge

?

You wrote

Are you really saying NO-ONE told you that it was a Church teaching?

Well, I have heard that Catholics are generally required to go to Mass, but not always (that one is excused if they are ill or have other pressing obligations). The part about being damned to hell, not so much…I don’t think it’s fair to assume that because YOU know something that (a) everyone else does/should, or that (b) you have it right.

You wrote

I certainly wouldn’t take citizenship in a country if I couldn’t be bothered learning about the laws that apply to me as a citizen and the duties expected of me as such.

Well, most people don’t actually “take citizenship” in a country – they are citizens of a country by virtue of having been born there, just as Catholics are members of the Church by virtue of having been baptised. And, like citizens of a country, they frequently have varying attitudes toward it and varying degrees of agreement with the laws. Same with the Church. Most citizens don’t really study the laws of their country – they just know the ones that are most likely to apply to them, and sometimes they don’t know them all that well.

You wrote

Because priests are human and sometimes get things wrong. The Magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially, as are individual priests and bishops who teach in union with it.

That is undoubtedly true. But the average Catholic has been told that the Church represents God, the Bishop represents the Church, the priest is the Bishop’s representative, and parishioners owe obedience to their priest. a Catholic may not know when his priest gets things wrong, and may thereby not have the full and correct knowledge required for mortal sin. Not saying it’s right, but it IS true.

 

[holy_moly]

Abigail, ou said to jmcrae,

"Dear jmcrae: At the risk of being a further PIA I don’t think I’m moving the goal posts around! Here’s the original description of Mary’s state of mind from my very first post:

Sunday morning, Mary is tired and irritable, but not “sick” enough that she wouldn’t go to work. She just can’t face the early rising, the long drive on bad roads, and the chaotic atmosphere at the Church. She loves God, and doesn’t intend to stop going to Mass. She just needs a day off, and doesn’t have the mental strength to make the necessary sacrifice."

Only problem is you left out the line, “She decides to skip Mass, and to confess before receiving Holy Communion.”! Are you sure those goal posts are attached? Sounds to me like a diagnosis, of not depression, but of pressumption! Especially in light that you say she was perfectly capable of going to work had she been feeling the same. Wouldn’t you agree?

Jim

 

[Abigail]

Holy moly wrote:

Only problem is you left out the line, “She decides to skip Mass, and to confess before receiving Holy Communion.”! Are you sure those goal posts are attached? Sounds to me like a diagnosis, of not depression, but of pressumption! Especially in light that you say she was perfectly capable of going to work had she been feeling the same. Wouldn’t you agree?

Nope. Sorry, holy moly! The fact that “it sounds to me like a diagnosis, of not depression, but of presumption” doesn’t make it so.

jmcrae wrote

Mary can judge for herself whether it is, within reason, physically possible for her to get to Mass. If she is not aware that she has depression, or that depression can cause her to be disabled, she can still be aware that something is wrong with her health, and that she is simply unable to get out of bed and to function normally.

Scenario: Mary judged for herself that it was not possible for her to get to Mass even though she wanted to go. She was apparently not aware that she was depressed, and may not have even considered that depression was the cause of her decision, but she was aware that something was wrong. She mis-interpreted this “something wrong” as sin, but it was really depression. The alternative is that we hold depressed people to a standard which they are not able to meet. If they do not meet that standard, does it mean they have sinned?

The fact that Mary could have gone to work but not to Mass doesn’t prove she wasn’t depressed. It was religious conflict that was causing her depression, so it’s very reasonable that she would be able to handle an environment which did not cause cause emotional conflict (work) but not handle an environment (Mass) which did.

PLEASE don’t make the argument that Mass, being holy and of God, could never cause someone mental distress that would amount to depression. Depression is not defined by whatever triggers the condition in the sufferer, but rather by their subjective response to it.

Goal posts not moved – we are exploring whether Mary had the full knowledge and consent required for MORTAL sin.

 

[agstockstill]

Rationalizations aside, when Mary stands in front of St Peter will she be comfortable with here explanation?