receiving eucharist/grave matter

[GaryTaylor]

Baltimore Catechism No. 3

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?
A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circumstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

Again what amount “exactly” determines this? I have “never” heard of a venial sin of stealing. And if one understands this “degree” you suggest, then they can in fact determine what is venial and what is mortal and we would have a Nancy Pelosi situation. Don’t see it.

The confession of sins

1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."54

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55
1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.58

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.59 Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful:60

Again “You” are examining your own conscience, you wouldn’t be in confession had you not realized you stole and intended to steal, the degree of this “grey” area becomes a secondary issue, as the first issue is to not steal at all, thus not discern what amount is “mortal” but to understand stealing is stealing and not place yourself in this realm of spiritual transgression at all.

And no I disagree I attended Catholic School, and during Vatican I. No-one was taught confession with an elaboration as a general rule, very much on the contrary. Nevertheless as your practice this weekly, you understand what is troubling to your conscience be it stealing or another area. In this specific then yes you may well need to elaborate to your confessor. And this may well become a “known” area by you both. But the idea of someone stealing then dashing to confession to determine the legalistic view of venial/mortal is just. well, not reality but some form of altered understanding imho.

 

[englishredrose]

The beautiful thing about confession is that we do not have to feel sorrow or regret for the bad things that we have done. As humans we do not always have the appropriate feelings for our behaviors whether good or bad. So if going to confession simply depended on whether or not we felt like it most people probably would not do it. I know I do not always feel like going to confession. Confession is a matter of doing the right thing and choosing it no matter how we may feel. There is a priest who records his homilies and puts them on iTunes for free and does a better job of explaining it here is the link itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/umd-newman-catholic-campus/id273537688 and the homily is titled: Take Courage and was posted 9/26/11. His name is Fr. Mike Schmitz. This mother is doing the right thing by teaching her child to go to confession after committing a sin because it is the right thing to do. Confession is simply humbling yourself before God and giving Him your weaknesses so that He can heal you and give you the grace you need to do His will.

That is a point worth noting because I thought the whole point to confession apart from the absolution is indeed about being sorry for sins.

I know once in my own confession, and only once, because I really needed to hear I’m forgiven (remembering am anglican and not Catholic so have a different take on it and have my own ontop since one of few anglicans who accept confession) I do remember saying I am sorry I am not sorry. Because that was the closest I could get at that time.
Now I understand why no one on these boards ever refer to the being sorry part because that is to them irrelevent. One gets forgiven even without feeling sorry for what done wrong, have I understood that right? So it can work very much mechanically like just say the sins and come out again forgiven. Not about being sorry?

I do find that not having to be sorry hard to understand because how do we move on from there and that may be what is missing? After all, Jesus doesn’t want us to Sin at all but knows we will do time and time again but is I would have thought interested in ‘us’ being sorry too. This is a new concept for me that you guys don’t have to be sorry for the sins. I think if you were sorry then it be easier not to repeat some sins because remember the feeling of being sorry for the hurt it causes so thank you for explaining that part because yes that had escaped me because I automatically think one has to be sorry even if it sorry I am not sorry.

 

[aspirant]

I have “never” heard of a venial sin of stealing.

Then you might try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2081 comes to mind), the Baltimore Catechism, or many of the other resources linked in this thread which discuss lightness/parvity of matter.

 

[Vico]

Again what amount “exactly” determines this? I have “never” heard of a venial sin of stealing. And if one understands this “degree” you suggest, then they can in fact determine what is venial and what is mortal and we would have a Nancy Pelosi situation. Don’t see it.

The confession of sins

1455 The confession (or disclosure) of sins, even from a simply human point of view, frees us and facilitates our reconciliation with others. Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God and to the communion of the Church in order to make a new future possible.

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."54

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55
1457 According to the Church’s command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."56 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.57 Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.58

1458 Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.59 Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit. By receiving more frequently through this sacrament the gift of the Father’s mercy, we are spurred to be merciful as he is merciful:60

Again “You” are examining your own conscience, you wouldn’t be in confession had you not realized you stole and intended to steal, the degree of this “grey” area becomes a secondary issue, as the first issue is to not steal at all, thus not discern what amount is “mortal” but to understand stealing is stealing and not place yourself in this realm of spiritual transgression at all.

And no I disagree I attended Catholic School, and during Vatican I. No-one was taught confession with an elaboration as a general rule, very much on the contrary. Nevertheless as your practice this weekly, you understand what is troubling to your conscience be it stealing or another area. In this specific then yes you may well need to elaborate to your confessor. And this may well become a “known” area by you both. But the idea of someone stealing then dashing to confession to determine the legalistic view of venial/mortal is just. well, not reality but some form of altered understanding imho.

Certainly it is better to not steal anything at all.

It is the teaching of the Church, however easy or difficult it may be to discern, that stealing can be grave or not. And it is good to confess venial sins. If one commits a venial sin, which could be theft, it should not prevent the reception of the Eucharist.

Baltimore Catechism No. 4 gave more on theft:

From Q 370:For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin; for in stealing the greatness of the sin will depend upon the amount you steal;…
From Q 57:Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will. “Slight,” that is, a small offense or fault; called “venial,” not because it is not a sin, but because God pardons it more willingly or easily than He does a mortal sin. “Less importance,” like stealing an ordinary, common pin. “Great importance,” like stealing a diamond pin. Without “reflection” or “consent,” when you did not know it was a diamond and did not intend to steal a diamond.

 

[mjbowen]

That is a point worth noting because I thought the whole point to confession apart from the absolution is indeed about being sorry for sins.

I know once in my own confession, and only once, because I really needed to hear I’m forgiven (remembering am anglican and not Catholic so have a different take on it and have my own ontop since one of few anglicans who accept confession) I do remember saying I am sorry I am not sorry. Because that was the closest I could get at that time.
Now I understand why no one on these boards ever refer to the being sorry part because that is to them irrelevent. One gets forgiven even without feeling sorry for what done wrong, have I understood that right? So it can work very much mechanically like just say the sins and come out again forgiven. Not about being sorry?

I do find that not having to be sorry hard to understand because how do we move on from there and that may be what is missing? After all, Jesus doesn’t want us to Sin at all but knows we will do time and time again but is I would have thought interested in ‘us’ being sorry too. This is a new concept for me that you guys don’t have to be sorry for the sins. I think if you were sorry then it be easier not to repeat some sins because remember the feeling of being sorry for the hurt it causes so thank you for explaining that part because yes that had escaped me because I automatically think one has to be sorry even if it sorry I am not sorry.

That is correct we can go to confession without having a guilt feeling or a bad feeling and still receive forgiveness. We still have to acknowledge that what we have done is sinful and go to confession with the intent of never committing that sin again. However as you said we are human and can fall into the same sins over and over again.

There are sins that we can commit that do not always make us feel bad in some instances sin feels good. It is up to us to use our free will to recognize sin when we commit it and choose to go to confession which is choosing to accept God’s grace. It is through God’s grace that we strive to not fall into sin again because if we could do it on our own Jesus would not have had to die on the cross for our sins.

In some cases the reminder of how bad sin can make us feel can help us not fall into that sin again, but it is not fool proof because even though there are sins that make us feel bad we still fall into the slavery of that sin. That is why it is important not to rely strictly on emotions when making our decisions. It is important to assess what is good and what is evil and choose the good even if the evil appeals to our emotions more at the time. As Catholics that is why we go to priests to hear our confession so that they can council us on how to avoid falling into those sins again, and it is not always easy to have to repeat the same sin over and over again to a priest so that is a motivating factor as well, but mostly it is God’s grace. I highly recommend listening to the priest’s homily that I put a link to in the last post he does a really good job of explaining it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Certainly it is better to not steal anything at all.

It is the teaching of the Church, however easy or difficult it may be to discern, that stealing can be grave or not. And it is good to confess venial sins. If one commits a venial sin, which could be theft, it should not prevent the reception of the Eucharist.

Baltimore Catechism No. 4 gave more on theft:

From Q 370:For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin; for in stealing the greatness of the sin will depend upon the amount you steal;…
From Q 57:Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will. “Slight,” that is, a small offense or fault; called “venial,” not because it is not a sin, but because God pardons it more willingly or easily than He does a mortal sin. “Less importance,” like stealing an ordinary, common pin. “Great importance,” like stealing a diamond pin. Without “reflection” or “consent,” when you did not know it was a diamond and did not intend to steal a diamond.

I follow all this, not in question or the theology of the Catechism. My point which btw no-one has answered;

For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin; for in stealing the greatness of the sin will depend upon the amount you steal;.

How much is a little, this has been the point which you will only know through a confessor. And the point which remains unanswered here since you would have to be your own confessor to determine. Sin is never a private matter, nor does one determine “:alone” when an Act of Contrition, fasting, penance should be invoked. This is why in the Early Church confession was public, as the Church understood from the on-set this is never a private matter.

And it is good to confess venial sins. If one commits a venial sin, which could be theft, it should not prevent the reception of the Eucharist…

Its taught that Catholics attend confession for all sins being my point, not discern what and isn’t venial by use of the Catechism for a legal aid. The role of a confessor is to assist people in the identification of their sin as mentioned.

Here we agree, however this also centers on the issue, which is since V-II the understanding of the above I believe has left individuals to discern what is and isn’t venial and then not confess but receive. Which isn’t to say that a great deal of very good members of the Church may well be only engaged in predominantly venial sin.

This became a issue since V-II and is still an issue and “why” we see members of the Church who approach their sin as a private matter and attend confession on a basis determined by their private understanding.

This is my point. Go to Confession as a habit and do-not disregard in favor of your own legalistic thinking inspired by sola scriptura reading of the CCC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then you might try reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2081 comes to mind), the Baltimore Catechism, or many of the other resources linked in this thread which discuss lightness/parvity of matter.

Thanks I have the prior here and was raised on the later. Point is above. OP-receiving eucharist/grave matter. I think my point relates.

 

[Vico]

…
How much is a little, this has been the point which you will only know through a confessor. And the point which remains unanswered here since you would have to be your own confessor to determine. Sin is never a private matter, nor does one determine “:alone” when an Act of Contrition, fasting, penance should be invoked. This is why in the Early Church confession was public, as the Church understood from the on-set this is never a private matter.

Its taught that Catholics attend confession for all sins being my point, not discern what and isn’t venial by use of the Catechism for a legal aid. The role of a confessor is to assist people in the identification of their sin as mentioned.

Here we agree, however this also centers on the issue, which is since V-II the understanding of the above I believe has left individuals to discern what is and isn’t venial and then not confess but receive. Which isn’t to say that a great deal of very good members of the Church may well be only engaged in predominantly venial sin.

This became a issue since V-II and is still an issue and “why” we see members of the Church who approach their sin as a private matter and attend confession on a basis determined by their private understanding.

This is my point. Go to Confession as a habit and do-not disregard in favor of your own legalistic thinking inspired by sola scriptura reading of the CCC.

I received my first sacrament of confession before Vatican II (occurred 1962-1965), and it was the same teaching before and after that one must confess what is mortal, and optionally what is venial. We were taught how to personally identify mortal sins, in our catechism classes (where use used the Baltimore Catechism series). I remember the confessions then being simple with the priest accepting whatever was confessed with little or no conversation. I experienced confessions becoming more conversational after the introduction of the new rite of reconciliation (introduced in 1974). However, I believe this would naturally occur as a person gets older anyway, so it may not entirely be the new rite. Perhaps your experiences were different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I received my first sacrament of confession before Vatican II (occurred 1962-1965), and it was the same teaching before and after that one must confess what is mortal, and optionally what is venial. We were taught how to personally identify mortal sins, in our catechism classes (where use used the Baltimore Catechism series). I remember the confessions then being simple with the priest accepting whatever was confessed with little or no conversation. I experienced confessions becoming more conversational after the introduction of the new rite of reconciliation (introduced in 1974). However, I believe this would naturally occur as a person gets older anyway, so it may not entirely be the new rite. Perhaps your experiences were different.

Different experience is all I would imagine.

In 1943, Pope Pius XII wrote: “As you well know, venerable brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways that are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, we will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is increased in virtue of the sacrament itself” (Mystici Corporis 88).

The confessing of venial sins is “strongly recommended” by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. CCC 1458).

And stealing isn’t a sin to be easily regarded as venial. Thou Shall Not Steal. “For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin” How much is a litte and who is making this judgement call from the on-set, question was “never” answered.

 

[Vico]

Different experience is all I would imagine.

In 1943, Pope Pius XII wrote: “As you well know, venerable brethren, it is true that venial sins may be expiated in many ways that are to be highly commended. But to ensure more rapid progress day by day in the path of virtue, we will that the pious practice of frequent confession, which was introduced into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be earnestly advocated. By it genuine self-knowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will strengthened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is increased in virtue of the sacrament itself” (Mystici Corporis 88).

The confessing of venial sins is “strongly recommended” by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. CCC 1458).

And stealing isn’t a sin to be easily regarded as venial. Thou Shall Not Steal. “For example, if you steal only a little, it is a venial sin” How much is a litte and who is making this judgement call from the on-set, question was “never” answered.

The norm is for the penitent to discriminate in the examination of conscience, and we accuse ourselves of our sins. The priest must judge to give the penance and for healing.
CIC Can. 978 §1 In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is at once both judge and healer, and that he is constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honour of God and the salvation of souls.

CIC Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Pastoral norms for the administration of general sacramental absolution:The Council of Trent solemnly taught that for full and perfect forgiveness of sins three acts are required from the penitent as parts of the sacrament, these acts being contrition, confession and satisfaction. It also taught that absolution is given by the priest, who acts as judge, and that it is necessary by divine law to confess to a priest each and every mortal sin and the circumstances that alter the species of sins that are remembered after a careful examination of conscience (cf. Sess. XIV, Canones de Sacramento Paenitentiae 4, 6-9: DS 1704, 1706-1709).
…
Priests should be careful not to discourage the faithful from frequent or devotional confession. On the contrary, let them draw attention to its fruitfulness for Christian living (cf. * Mystici Corporis*, AAS 35 [1943] 235) and display readiness to hear such a confession whenever a reasonable request is made by the faithful. It must be absolutely prevented that individual confession should be reserved for serious sins only, for this would deprive the faithful of the great benefit of confession and would injure the good name of those who approach the sacrament simply.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19720616_sacramentum-paenitentiae_en.html

 

[englishredrose]

That is correct we can go to confession without having a guilt feeling or a bad feeling and still receive forgiveness. We still have to acknowledge that what we have done is sinful and go to confession with the intent of never committing that sin again. However as you said we are human and can fall into the same sins over and over again.

There are sins that we can commit that do not always make us feel bad in some instances sin feels good. It is up to us to use our free will to recognize sin when we commit it and choose to go to confession which is choosing to accept God’s grace. It is through God’s grace that we strive to not fall into sin again because if we could do it on our own Jesus would not have had to die on the cross for our sins.

In some cases the reminder of how bad sin can make us feel can help us not fall into that sin again, but it is not fool proof because even though there are sins that make us feel bad we still fall into the slavery of that sin. That is why it is important not to rely strictly on emotions when making our decisions. It is important to assess what is good and what is evil and choose the good even if the evil appeals to our emotions more at the time. As Catholics that is why we go to priests to hear our confession so that they can council us on how to avoid falling into those sins again, and it is not always easy to have to repeat the same sin over and over again to a priest so that is a motivating factor as well, but mostly it is God’s grace. I highly recommend listening to the priest’s homily that I put a link to in the last post he does a really good job of explaining it.

I never said ‘feel bad or guilty’. I said that we are sorry. Feeling bad doesn’t mean we are sorry or sorry doesn’t mean we are feeling bad. This might seem like a predantic statement in many-a-way but it honestly isn’t meant like that I did say sorry rather than guilty or feeling bad. so it is true you guys don’t have to be at all sorry to be forgiven? We also have to say we are sorry in the responses so if we aren’t sorry then it be all mishmashed stuff wouldn’t it if we weren’t sorry and hence the one time I managed a sorry i am not sorry. Seems odd that you guys don’t have to be sorry We have to say we are sorry for the sins and resolve at trying not to do them again. Perhaps confession is harder for us then since we choose to go and so need some deeper reason for being there ?

 

[otjm]

Your point?

Not understanding what this has do with what I’m talking about? Your connection I’m confused with.

You appeared to be posting as if the CCC was the final arbiter of the matter. There is a bit more to Moral Theology than what appears there.

Right Stealing is Stealing. My point is you are going to confession if you are aware of this. If your not aware “ignorant” thus no intent known, you wouldn’t be there. And do you plan on asking the priest if this counts as “One Venial” or “One Mortal” sin?

Above the intention is the same. God is not a legalistic criminal judge. Your own conscience developed should indicate to you the difference in this analogy of intention. God said Thou Shall not Steal without elaboration.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as follows:

“Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.” (C.C.C. # 1855)

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must exist at the same time.

1. It must be of a grave matter;
2. It must be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin;
3. It must be committed with full consent. [Full consent means to do it “voluntarily.”] (C.C.C. # 1857)

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’ The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." (C.C.C. # 1858)

“Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s laws. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” (C.C.C. # 1859)

“When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object… whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbour, such as homicide or adultery… But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbour, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.” (C.C.C. # 1856)

“Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the Sacrament of Confession.” (C.C.C. # 1856)

“Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the private of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance of God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” (C.C.C. # 1861)

“To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.” (C.C.C. # 1874)

There is no legalistic understanding of degrees of larceny and that has noting to do with anything.

To begin with, we are talking about a 10 year old child. You seem to be going at this as if it were about an adult.

Secondly, while I am not a moral theologian, I have read a fair amount of Moral Theology. I will stand by what I have said; Moral Theology looks a bit more deeply into the matter than the CCC - which is not intended as a tome on the matter.

Intent is the difference, not the dollar amount, 1 cent, one grape or as you say $2 dollars doesn’t negate the “intent”. If you intend to steal, then you intention is to steal. If you didn’t think you committed a sin you wouldn’t be confessing it. If your conscience is clear the topic doesn’t come up to confess to begin with. You wouldn’t be in confession since in your mind you wouldn’t make a connection to “wrong” the degree of wrong then becomes a non issue.

I beg to differ with you. You may wish to do a bit of more research on the issue.

Scrupulosity, according to the way you are approaching the matter, would thus create mortal sins where either there was no sin, or at best a venial pone, due to “intent”.

Again - we are dealing with a ten year old. The child may be as mature as a 13 year old or a 7 year old - or with a swing larger than that. The issue is whether or not the mother should allow the child to go to communion if the child has not first gone to confession. Your advice doesn’t seem helpful IMHO, having been a parent (and perhaps you are too - that is not the point I am trying to make).

 

[otjm]

Baltimore Catechism No. 3

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?
A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circumstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

Thank you! Point made; and to get back to the OP’s question, what should she do with the child?

She worries that the child has committed a mortal sin and should not go to Communion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You appeared to be posting as if the CCC was the final arbiter of the matter. There is a bit more to Moral Theology than what appears there.

No actually very much on the contrary.

To begin with, we are talking about a 10 year old child. You seem to be going at this as if it were about an adult.

And this is exactly why I addressed this issue as I did. I’m confident a 10-yo didn’t read the CCC, to further address your very wrong thinking above.

Secondly, while I am not a moral theologian, I have read a fair amount of Moral Theology. I will stand by what I have said; Moral Theology looks a bit more deeply into the matter than the CCC - which is not intended as a tome on the matter.

Good to know, has nothing to do with the conversation

I beg to differ with you. You may wish to do a bit of more research on the issue.).

Such as what point would you specifically wish to address?

Scrupulosity, according to the way you are approaching the matter, would thus create mortal sins where either there was no sin, or at best a venial pone, due to “intent”.).

Can’t imagine how in the world you conclude this. Very much the opposite. You learn how to discern, and a 10-yo doesn’t know the discernment of venial and mortal in relation to theology or the CCC. He knows “Stealing is Stealing” and that’s what he should know and proceed from there.

Again - we are dealing with a ten year old. The child may be as mature as a 13 year old or a 7 year old - or with a swing larger than that. The issue is whether or not the mother should allow the child to go to communion if the child has not first gone to confession. Your advice doesn’t seem helpful IMHO, having been a parent (and perhaps you are too - that is not the point I am trying to make).

Again how you conclude this is “astounding” I suggest you re-read. Which had you actually done this to begin with, then you would clearly understand I highly recommend “confession” for all sin of stealing, and for the specific reason of the age discussed. Its not for a 10-yo who as “you” state may in fact be emotionally 7, to discern that mortal sin may be venial for himself.

Stealing is Stealing…is my “point” for the youth. Understand that “clearly”. From there “others” felt the need to express their “theological” view in relevance to a 10-yo and for no good reason as I see, but perhaps to impress themselves as to what they know and appear to be a theologian. If you had indeed been following? You would understand my solution is Biblical “The Law” which we take to be completely spiritual, states Though Shall Not Steal, imho a 10-yo should be taught Stealing is Stealing, and to take all stealing to confession.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The norm is for the penitent to discriminate in the examination of conscience, and we accuse ourselves of our sins. The priest must judge to give the penance and for healing.
CIC Can. 978 §1 In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is at once both judge and healer, and that he is constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honour of God and the salvation of souls.

CIC Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfil these penances.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Pastoral norms for the administration of general sacramental absolution:The Council of Trent solemnly taught that for full and perfect forgiveness of sins three acts are required from the penitent as parts of the sacrament, these acts being contrition, confession and satisfaction. It also taught that absolution is given by the priest, who acts as judge, and that it is necessary by divine law to confess to a priest each and every mortal sin and the circumstances that alter the species of sins that are remembered after a careful examination of conscience (cf. Sess. XIV, Canones de Sacramento Paenitentiae 4, 6-9: DS 1704, 1706-1709).
…
Priests should be careful not to discourage the faithful from frequent or devotional confession. On the contrary, let them draw attention to its fruitfulness for Christian living (cf. * Mystici Corporis*, AAS 35 [1943] 235) and display readiness to hear such a confession whenever a reasonable request is made by the faithful. It must be absolutely prevented that individual confession should be reserved for serious sins only, for this would deprive the faithful of the great benefit of confession and would injure the good name of those who approach the sacrament simply.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19720616_sacramentum-paenitentiae_en.html

I think we are in agreement. Careful examination of conscience in relation to a 10-yo who in fact may be emotionally 7-yo? I doubt if you cannot explain to me at what point in that careful examination venial becomes mortal, he will not either. I stand firm and suggest to practice first. through which the understanding comes.

However, I suppose enough has been said. I shall allow for the theologians here to discern the best approach for a 10-yo and their salvation.

 

[englishredrose]

Thank you! Point made; and to get back to the OP’s question, what should she do with the child?

She worries that the child has committed a mortal sin and should not go to Communion.

She should talk to her priest about it and not have irrelevent lengthy conversations on here that may mean well with the best of postings but really it should never have been posted here but simply raised with her priest and that is all what she should do with the child

 

[GaryTaylor]

She should talk to her priest about it and not have irrelevent lengthy conversations on here that may mean well with the best of postings but really it should never have been posted here but simply raised with her priest and that is all what she should do with the child

Amen, there it is, she needs to built this basic relationship. This is just Good Habit for the Child. and nothing but good can come of it. The other way of CCC and personal discernment? Not hard to tell one can easily be wrong on that path. When we reduce ourselves to this…

“1862 One commits venial sin when, [in a less serious matter], he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

I’ll go with the Priest/Confession on “in this less serious matter” and give him the opportunity which he indeed earned and has as the elect to discern for a 10-yo.

 

[Vico]

Amen, there it is, she needs to built this basic relationship. This is just Good Habit for the Child. and nothing but good can come of it. The other way of CCC and personal discernment? Not hard to tell one can easily be wrong on that path. When we reduce ourselves to this…

“1862 One commits venial sin when, [in a less serious matter], he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

I’ll go with the Priest/Confession on “in this less serious matter” and give him the opportunity which he indeed earned and has as the elect to discern for a 10-yo.

The child has the right to decide if it is mortal, yet if confessed, the priest will decide the sentence.

The Catechism example posted earlier from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (1891) was for theft a pin vs a diamond pin. Clearly, one could be legally prosecuted for commission of a venial sin.

The (Old) Catholic Encyclopedia gave $10 to $15 at the absolute amount that could be used in the US in 1908 for grave matter. With inflation that is $250 - $375 today, similar to the Florida petty theft amount of $300.

newadvent.org/cathen/14564b.htm

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

Many people shoplift because they are kleptomaniacs. Sometimes they have enough money to pay for what they want, but impulse dictates their decision to take things. I think we all have had a situation where we found money on the ground in a public place, like a sidewalk or parking lot. We don’t know who owns it, so we put the money away. Ten or fifteen dollars is usually what you may find, but sometimes it’s more. I found $40.00 one day, just lying on the ground.

I even found a case of beer (Miller’s) in a vacant lot where I passed by, walking my dog. I took the case home. It was perfectly sealed up, and whatever bottles were on the ground, I just left them. They apparently fell off a delivery truck.

Give the kid a break. Maybe he thought he had some good luck. If he admitted he found it, he couldn’t be all bad. (How did he act when he found the money - was he elated or was he sneaky?) I would be more concerned if he tried to hide it and not give it back, which I presume he did give it back.

 

[mjbowen]

I never said ‘feel bad or guilty’. I said that we are sorry. Feeling bad doesn’t mean we are sorry or sorry doesn’t mean we are feeling bad. This might seem like a predantic statement in many-a-way but it honestly isn’t meant like that I did say sorry rather than guilty or feeling bad. so it is true you guys don’t have to be at all sorry to be forgiven? We also have to say we are sorry in the responses so if we aren’t sorry then it be all mishmashed stuff wouldn’t it if we weren’t sorry and hence the one time I managed a sorry i am not sorry. Seems odd that you guys don’t have to be sorry We have to say we are sorry for the sins and resolve at trying not to do them again. Perhaps confession is harder for us then since we choose to go and so need some deeper reason for being there ?

I think the main point to note is that we recognize our sins as wrong and offensive to God no matter how we may think or feel about the sin we committed. Through the sacrament of confession we grow closer to God by showing repentance for our sins and obtaining grace to better live out our lives for Christ. So, yes we do have to be sorry we just don’t have to feel sorrow or regret. I am not sure how anglicans go to confession whether it is with a pastor or by themselves in prayer? So, I don’t know if your confession is more difficult or not. I would say that the difficulty of confession depends on the person going to confession, their experience with confession, what they have to confess, etc. I hope this helps.