Planning to sin - receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hyacinth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The issue is not as much drinking (as long as you are not driving!! you are of age, etc.) but the things that tend to happen when one is drinking. The modern “bachelorette party” often consists of both drinking and lewd talk/acts. If your plan includes this sort of thing, then, I would re-think attending. Perhaps go for a few minutes then leave before it gets raunchy.
 
Could you not go out to this party and not get drunk? Its perfectly acceptable to have the odd drink but so as not to lose ones inhibitions drinking shouldn’t be in excess. If you feel and it may well be the case that you can’t just have one or two or whatever the personal limitations are, then not drinking at all is a good idea. I am no expert but I agree with what someone else said that drinking isnt a sin in itself but what comes out of it. I think drunkenness is a sin, because it’s an extreme, we should remember moderation here. A drink or two with friends or even alone can be nice and relaxing and isnt going to lower our inhibitions in most cases. Choosing to get drunk is worrisome though. I worry about you when I hear that you’d chose that over receiving the Eucharist anyway even if it’s the right thing to do. Do you know that people in war torn countries are persecuted and can’t receive Christ as they aren’t able to go to church cos they aren’t allowed to practice their religion? I went to Adoremus recently and there a charity asks us to go to mass and /or adoration for them because they live in places where priests cant get to them safely and they cant chose to have Jesus and we can. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but it is the reality of it, we live in the western world where we can chose to receive Jesus and we should do all we can to do so. Remember Jesus said to stay awake as we won’t know when the end of the world will be. My priest told us a story once of a man in war torn place (a lot of refugees get sent through and to our area) who couldn’t get to the Eucharist and though I can’t remember the details of the story now, at the end of the story he said to us we should all be willing to do anything for Jesus, even crawl across broken glass to get to Him, he asked us how many of us would do this ? I’d like to hope more than he thinks would do this.
I’d say if you can’t go to this party without being sure you won’t get drunk then don’t go. The sins you might commit when drunk are worse than being drunk as being drunk is just the start of a whole slippery slope of them… as you can see by the skipping communion, then drinking over moderation then who knows what goes from there…one sin begets another etc. etc. You are better off starting with a positive stance, have communion to strengthen you, decide before what you won’t do and commit to it. God bless you
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the Catechism is great, but the trick is where does it become “abuse”.

Obviously if you are alcoholic, or suspect you are alcoholic, then one beer might be “abuse”.

If you are not alcoholic, but know that X number of drinks will cause you to act crazy, have a bad hangover and/or miss work the next day, then X drinks for you is probably “abuse”. For another person, that number might be 2X.

If you have developed a bad pattern of going out for drinks with your buddies instead of paying attention to your spouse/ kids, and your spouse has said she has an issue with the amount you drink, then it may be “abuse” even if you’re not coming home drunk. On the other hand, if you and your spouse don’t have kids and you went out to have a happy time with friends, you both got mildly tipsy, took an Uber home and were fine the next day, then not “abuse”.

When my father died, I was drunk for a week and I think my mother was too, because it was a lot to cope with. I don’t think the good Lord wrote either of us up for “abuse”. Nor did I confess the drinking because I’m not seeing any sin there.

People really struggle with where to draw the line for alcohol because a lot of it is cultural/ depends on the person, their family, their genetics. I know some Protestants just like to say “any alcohol is abuse, don’t drink it” but to me as an Irish Catholic that’s ridiculous, and it’s not because I myself drink very often or need that drink, it’s just that it is ridiculous to me in view of my culture, background and upbringing. There are other cultures, mostly from Europe, that also have a place for alcohol use.

I go to the Church festival and see people drinking beer (bought from a stand that benefits the Church) all over the place. I’m sure if they reach the point of causing trouble then the friendly cops helping with security will escort them out, but nobody gets to that point at a Church festival, and this is also a parish where the priests are old school and talk about sin from the pulpit. They had gambling at the festival too. It’s just a good ol’ time. Big deal.

Sorry for the brief thread derailment, I will stop posting on this drinking topic now.
 
Last edited:
I think it could. You need to know yourself and your limits.
For me getting tipsy means I get sleepy and want to go to bed.
 
LaughingBoy1503 said:
if done intentionally knowing that it is grave matter then yes, it becomes a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
While I strongly agree with your general point I don’t know exactly how I feel about the person having to know the sin is grave in particular. It seems to me to be enough for the person to know it’s a sin even if they think it’s venial.

In fact, people who do things because they are only venial seem to me to be committing some form of presumption.

Here’s CCC paragraph 1859 which could maybe be argued to either interpretation but I like mine better:
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent . It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
While Aquinas wasn’t perfect, I find him to be an indesensible rescource for these questions. It seems like people are completely unwilling to answer these questions in a straight forward manner. As a convert who had to sort all this out for myself without anyone being willing to stop beating around the bush, I hate this attitude.

It caused me in some cases to commit a lot of sins because I thought they were ok.

Here is Aquinas’ direct answer: (you’d better have a darn good reason to disagree with Aquinas)

Aquinas on Drunkenness
 
chessnerd321 said:
As a convert who had to sort all this out for myself without anyone being willing to stop beating around the bush, I hate this attitude.
Click to expand...
You need to work on developing your own moral intuition imho. There aren’t clear-cut, definitive statements from the magesterium on a lot of questions. Questions like these contain a lot of nuance (we could argue for days about what constitutes “drunk”) and factors specific to the individuals. People may not be “beating around the bush”; they may just not think the question lends itself to a black and white answer.

This is just my two cents, take it for what it’s worth, but I’ve noticed that scrupulosity and discomfort with any ambiguity tend to go hand in hand.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
You need to work on developing your own moral intuition imho.
Click to expand...
Of course. I don’t see why getting a helping hand can’t count as part of the process. But there’s not much in the way of help. “Only you could no the conditions of your on heart” is true but worthless. I think Aquinas, unlike many modern priests and Catholics, does a great job of laying out the guiding principals of how to decide for one’s self. I can’t think of a better definition for forming one’s conscience.

Furthermore I don’t see ANY problem with laying out what the mageisterium does teach. But it seems like people won’t even say something clear as day like “masterbation is a mortal sin” without going into a 10 min soliloque about the definition of mortal sin. I mean sure that statement isn’t 100% true 100% of the time, but it’s a lot better than the impossibly high bar many put on mortal sin (which seems to me to be quite counter to tradition.)

I’m of the opinion that if your brother asks your advice you give it to him. I think the paralysis many people seem to experience when it comes to deciding these issues is a direct form of causing your brother to stumble. We need to be willing to help even if we don’t have the full answer. Imagine if we took this approach to explaining the Trinity. “Oh, well, nobody can know for sure, so you can think for yourself.” Rediculous.
 
Sure, I’d agree that some questions ARE quite clear cut. I’m just not sure this is one of them.
 
Sufficient knowledge is a requirement for something to be mortal. Knowing something is a venial sin and doing it can never turn it into a mortal sin. With the exception that if one thinks it is a mortal sin and does it to purposely to offend God. At least that is what I have read on the matter and I am open to different views on that as I do not think it was a official Church document that I read on that matter, maybe just a theologian, possibly even just a lay person’s opinion. That still does not contradiction that one can never sin mortally without knowing it

Now… Kinda not wanting to commit a grave sin and deciding to reluctantly do it anyways still is a mortal sin.

Sinning venialy while in and of itself is not grave enough to separate one from God’s friendship does weaken us and make it easier to fall into mortal sin.

I am sure that you do not mean that one can sin mortally by accident. It sound like you are saying that one does not necessarily have to know without a shadow of a doubt that something is grave matter to sin mortally. If that is what you are saying then I agree to some extent. It’s hard to navigate that grey area sometimes. And sometimes spiritual directors of the scrupulousity are in fact encouraged to advize the scrupulousity that unless they know without a shadow of a doubt that something is grave matter then they commit no sin or at most venialy sin in doing it. But this only applies to the scrupulousity and not necessarily the general Catholic population who more than likely have lax or normal conscience.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s most natural to say that if one intentionally and freely commits a grave sin that he knows is a sin, he has committed a mortal sin whether or not he knows how grave the sin is. It seems categorically wrong to say that “full knowledge” in the applicable sense includes knowledge of the punishment. Knowledge that the action is against God’s will, sin, is enough. I think this is the most consistent reading of the CCC passage I cited.

I said nothing about venial sin becoming mortal by knowing it’s a sin. And yes you can’t mortally sin by accident.
 
Full knowledge is a tricky term and I would agree that “sufficient knowledge” is a better term and would be more accurate of what was intended to be said. I guess I am not sure exactly what you mean still. But is it kind of like what I just said?

It kinda sounded like you were implying that venial sin can become mortal sin in some cases so my mistake in misunderstanding you. My fiance was taught, as a child while taking her classes for first communion that going to communion with too many venial sins is a mortal sin. It’s not unusual to come across people who have been rongly catechised in this way. Especially in Mexican culture, which my fiance is Mexican.
 
Last edited:
hyacinth said:
If you have tentative plans to sin mortally—for example, you’re going to a bachelorette party and wanting to get drunk, even though you might not get drunk in the end—should you abstain from communion? In other words, is it a mortal sin to receive communion if you have not yet committed a mortal sin but are planning on it?
Click to expand...
Personally, I would refrain from Communion because my mind would not be communion with God.
 
Just get a buzz and call it a day. Your not in High School!😉(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Sorry, not buying that, not changing my mind, and not debating it with you.

We could argue all day about what constitutes “drunk” too as opposed to “buzzed”, “tipsy”, “happy” etc.

But like I said, not arguing, and muting right now.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
Getting drunk on purpose is a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Do you have a Catechism reference for this?
Click to expand...
Not directly. The current Catechism doesn’t say whether getting drunk is venial or grave sin. It only says drunk driving is a mortal sin.

Paragraph 2290 of the Catechism says:
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess : the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
Click to expand...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2290.htm

However, St Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa that getting drunk ON PURPOSE is a mortal sin. With that said, since the CCC says, “_The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess…,” plus St. Thomas’s teaching, one can infer that to PURPOSELY get drunk to the point where you can no longer tell right from wrong (aka binge drinking) is a mortal sin.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Sorry, not buying that, not changing my mind, and not debating it with you.

We could argue all day about what constitutes “drunk” too as opposed to “buzzed”, “tipsy”, “happy” etc.

But like I said, not arguing, and muting right now.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I’m refering to getting so hammared that you can no long tell the difference between right from wrong. And I’m refering to actually PLANNING to drink that much.

Not buzzed, tipsy, happy, etc… I mean totally $#!^ faced!!! And on purpose.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top