Planning to sin - receive communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hyacinth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
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...
Notice that there are qualifiers on “grave guilt”. It is not the getting drunk, it is the sins we may commit while drunk.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
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...
Notice that there are qualifiers on “grave guilt”. It is not the getting drunk, it is the sins we may commit while drunk.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know… did you read the rest of my post?
 
I personally think Aquinas has a lot of clout though. This seems like a handwavey way of disagreeing and moving on without reckoning with his arguement.

In his relevant section on drunkenness Aquinas calls on Augustine quite a bit. So it seems to me this is a long held belief of two of the most important thinkers of all time. I personally wouldn’t disagree without someone of their magnitude on my own. Which doctors of the church support your position?
 
Last edited:
I have quoted the Catechism. I have yet to find a doctrinal statement that contradicts it.

In the US, much of the thinking of the Prohibition movement has become entrenched in Christianity.

When I read this, it is nuanced and I cannot find a clear statement that drunkenness is always a grave sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3150.htm
 
I think you’re seeing vagueness in Aquinas because you want to. It’s clear with an open-minded reading that he’s saying it’s a mortal sin in all cases except the usual exceptions: lack of consent (not knowing a drink is too strong for you) and lack of knowledge.

Your quote from the CCC leaves it quite ambiguous. I don’t see at all how “alcohol in excess is a sin” + “drunk driving is a sin” = “drunkenness isn’t grave matter”
 
TheLittleLady said:
When I read this, it is nuanced and I cannot find a clear statement that drunkenness is always a grave sin.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight…

Are you saying that you do not beleive it is a grave sin to PURPOSELY drink until you either black out drunk (again on PURPOSE) or drink so much so that you loose your ability to tell right from wrong (again on purpose)?

NO ONE is saying that getting too drunk to drive is a mortal sin. We are saying to PURPOSEFULLY get so drunk that you purposefully lose your mental ability to tell right from wrong. How is that not sinful?

When I was in college, I knew many who wanted to PURPOSEFULLY drink so much until they passed out drunk. That was their goal. How is that not sinful?

We’re not talking about being too drunk to drive. We’re talking about purposeful getting too drunk to live.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Re your first question: Yes, you should abstain.

Re the second question: Yes. C.f. Matt. 5: 27-28.

And if possible, turn down the bachelorette party unless it’s dry (no alcohol).
 
Margaret_Ann said:
And if possible, turn down the bachelorette party unless it’s dry (no alcohol).
Click to expand...
This seems unnecessarily uptight, especially given that Jesus literally performed His first miracle to keep a party from being dry.
 
I like alcohol. My parents taught me how to drink reasonably, as part of eating. I have had plenty of fun drinking all sorts of drinks, but I have never gotten drunk.

Drunkenness is for amateurs, stupid kids, and people who should be getting psychological help.

If you really like alcohol, you should like tasting, sipping, and remembering your drinks. If you are just guzzling for the sake of guzzling, there is no point.
 
phil19034 said:
Are you saying that you do not beleive it is a grave sin to PURPOSELY drink until you either black out drunk…
Click to expand...
This is known as alcohol poisoning. The Catechism clearly states that drunkenness is a sin when you endanger your own or the lives of others.
phil19034 said:
purposefully lose your mental ability to tell right from wrong
Click to expand...
I’ve known binge drinkers, raging alcoholics, what I have seen in these cases is people who have lowered inhibitions. They still know right from wrong, they simply do not care if they do something wrong. If they get to the point where they are ambivalent about doing wrong to endanger themselves or others, the Catechism tells us that is a grave matter.

Drinking so you endanger yourself or others can be if you are “drinking the rent money” with one beer each day.
chessnerd321 said:
“alcohol in excess is a sin”
Click to expand...
Is simply not found in our doctrine.
phil19034 said:
We’re not talking about being too drunk to drive. We’re talking about purposeful getting too drunk to live.
Click to expand...
As does the Catechism.

For some that could be one single drink (people with medical conditions or on medication where alcohol is contraindicated).
 
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...
  • Wanting is a temptation.
  • Plans means consent if it determines the will: sin occurs in the mind first.
  • We have an obligation to avoid the near and voluntary occassion of sin.
Baltimore Catechism
Q. 771. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?
A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.
Click to expand...
Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?
A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: “He who loves the danger will perish in it”; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.
Click to expand...
Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?
A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.
Click to expand...
Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?
A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:
1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.
Click to expand...
Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?
A.
1. The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
2. The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
3. The things are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.
Click to expand...
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson18.htm
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
phil19034:
Are you saying that you do not beleive it is a grave sin to PURPOSELY drink until you either black out drunk…
Click to expand...
This is known as alcohol poisoning. The Catechism clearly states that drunkenness is a sin when you endanger your own or the lives of others.
phil19034 said:
purposefully lose your mental ability to tell right from wrong
Click to expand...
I’ve known binge drinkers, raging alcoholics, what I have seen in these cases is people who have lowered inhibitions. They still know right from wrong, they simply do not care if they do something wrong. If they get to the point where they are ambivalent about doing wrong to endanger themselves or others, the Catechism tells us that is a grave matter.

Drinking so you endanger yourself or others can be if you are “drinking the rent money” with one beer each day.
chessnerd321 said:
“alcohol in excess is a sin”
Click to expand...
Is simply not found in our doctrine.
phil19034 said:
We’re not talking about being too drunk to drive. We’re talking about purposeful getting too drunk to live.
Click to expand...
As does the Catechism.

For some that could be one single drink (people with medical conditions or on medication where alcohol is contraindicated).
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you are deflecting. My question is a simple yes or no.

It is a grave sin to PURPOSEFULLY drink so much with the GOAL of blacking out and/or to lower your inhibitions to the point you are willing to do things you won’t do sober (again on purpose, with intent)?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Thank you and God Bless
 
By the way “alcohol in excess” is the same as food in excess or sex in excess, etc. Everything that is good can be abused in excess.

This is the deadly sin of gluttony. Gluttony does not just apply to food.

God Bless

@chessnerd321
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
What you describe, confusing, passing out, that is alcohol poisoning. Of course that is grave matter. As I have said eleventy times above, the Catechism is clear.

Alcohol poisoning - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic
Click to expand...
Thank you! And that is what I’ve been saying is sinful the WHOLE time and that’s what St Thomas describes as “drunk.”

In the Middle Ages, they didn’t have cars, complex machinery, etc which required sober users.

You could have “1 too many drinks” and still be able to work a shovel. And you knew when you had too many to do your job.

That was never the issue back then. Being “buzzed” would not be considered being drunk in the Middle Ages. Falling over, unable to talk, doing things you normally wouldn’t, etc is what they refered to as “drunkenness.”

Today’s legal definition of “drunk” is not what St Thomas had in mind. They didn’t have “alcohol poisoning” back in the Middle Ages. What we would Call alcohol poisoning, they would call drunkenness.

God bless
 
Last edited:
That is exactly what I have been trying to say!!!

Now, let’s all join hands and sing “Will They Have Mogan David in Heaven”.
 
If you are planning on doing something that is mortally sinful then maybe it would be a good idea not to go to communion.
 
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...
You are asking a question about the future, and so that is a hypothetical question. You want to act sinfully, but you haven’t acted sinfully. You are tempted and your conscience is working, which is a good thing. Rather than stress over what you will do when the moment of decision comes, why don’t you go to communion, and pray that you make good choices.

You can only take one day at a time, and if you trust in God and accept his mercy day by day, you will be edified, and this hypothetical question might become moot in that time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top