The Eucharist & Scandal

[RainDown]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

In Catholic school religion classes we were taught that we should never go to communion out of ‘human respect’, what someone might think of us if we didn’t go. I don’t know what kind of scandal could be given today. It is the person’s own business. Perhaps they didn’t fast for an hour. If there is another issue, that is between them and their confessor. Can you give an example of giving scandal??

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

There are many reasons for people not to receive Communion other than being in a state of mortal sin - they have eaten something in the previous hour, they don’t feel so well, they are coeliacs, etc. so your book is wrong - people not receiving at Mass do not give scandal.

 

[1ke]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

This is inaccurate. The Church does not teach that it is a scandal to remain in the pew and not receive Communion. Here is what Canon Law says about making an act of perfect contrition (no easy task!) and receiving. It requires a GRAVE reason and NO opportunity to confess, two very high standards:

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Also, some who do not go up for Communion may not be in a state of sin at all. Perhaps they ate something right before Mass, or don’t feel properly disposed at that time, or whatever. It’s not anyone’s business, and nowhere does the Church say it creates scandal.

Perhaps this is a book that you should dispose of and not read any longer. It is not offering sound advice

 

[Lil_Cat]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

I really hope this book is wrong. What about non-Catholics that attend Mass? Should they just not go to a Catholic Church at all? What about a pregnant woman who has morning sickness? What about people in RCIA?

Sounds like the person who wrote the book spoke (and printed) before s/he thought.

 

[Shin]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

That book, if it says what you relate, should be thrown into a fireplace, and everyone warned about its diabolical lies.

The exact opposite is the case. It is no one else’s business that you remain in the pew. Let them mind their own, they are instructed to do so.

The standard norm of morality truly requires far more people to remain in the pew than do remain, it is an error to approach as much as people do in these times with unclean and unprepared consciences.

Anyone who goes to Communion in mortal sin, commits an even greater mortal sin. It is forbidden.

 

[Cluny]

Out of curiousity, could you tell us the name of the book or author that said this?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

In most instances not receiving would NOT give scandal.

 

[FrDavid96]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

I admit that my first reaction was what we’ve already seen in the other replies.

I can imagine some very extreme circumstances when not-receiving might give scandal, but they would be extreme. Let’s say that a person not-receiving might reveal that this person has committed a certain sin. That might be the sort of situation the author is imagining. I would say that this idea should be approached with extreme caution, but at the same time, I can imagine scenarios when it might apply.

Let’s say a wife who says to her husband on the way to Mass: “I know you were out with so-and-so last night. You know you can’t receive Communion today if you were. Let’s see what you do…”

 

[RainDown]

The book is written in a question/answer format. The question that included this answer was this: “Can I receive the Eucharist if I think I committed a mortal sin and plan to go to confession in the next few days?”

The answer explained that no, we must ordinarily go to confession first, and then it went on to say: “If, however, you would cause scandal to others by not going to communion, you could receive the Eucharist provided you make an act of contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.”

The title is “Did Jesus Have a Last Name?” by Matthew Pinto & Jason Evert (who wrote several chastity books for teens and is mentioned in the chastity tab at the top of CA Forums). It’s the sequel to “Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?” It has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

When I read the answer to the question in the book, I figured that it must be referring to causing scandal to young children for some reason.

 

[Shin]

The book is written in a question/answer format. The question that included this answer was this: “Can I receive the Eucharist if I think I committed a mortal sin and plan to go to confession in the next few days?”

The answer explained that no, we must ordinarily go to confession first, and then it went on to say: “If, however, you would cause scandal to others by not going to communion, you could receive the Eucharist provided you make an act of contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.”

The title is “Did Jesus Have a Last Name?” by Matthew Pinto & Jason Evert (who wrote several chastity books for teens and is mentioned in the chastity tab at the top of CA Forums). It’s the sequel to “Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?” It has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

When I read the answer to the question in the book, I figured that it must be referring to causing scandal to young children for some reason.

From the way you are relating it, it sounds very poorly worded, and scandalous bad advice, rather than relating the rare and extreme situation of a person having to make a -perfect- act of contrition, for the most grave and serious reasons of danger.

Some people would take the above to mean, ‘If I would be embaressed’ or ‘If some people might think badly of me’ then I can ‘make an act of contrition’ (or even a perfect one) and go to Communion. Which you can’t.

If this is how that book is worded I’m quite disappointed in those two.

 

[1ke]

Perhaps the full question and full answer should be spelled out, because your expanded explanation certainly changes my response to you.

In your OP you made it sound like the book was saying that staying in the pew-- in general-- gives scandal and one should go up and receive. That is not what the subsequent info your provided indicates as the context of the comment.

The canons I listed give the conditions under which one may receive even if not having gone to Confession-- they are pretty rare conditions. But, the comment in the book, though poorly worded, isn’t actually wrong.

 

[PacoG]

I read in a book that a person may give scandal when s/he remains in the pew during the distribution of Holy Communion, and when this happens, s/he should make an Act of Contrition and then receive, with the intention of going to confession as soon as possible. In what circumstances would NOT receiving be a scandal? And what if one is not ready to make an Act of Contrition?

That’s kind of strange. Supposed I am having breakfast at 7:50 a.m. on a week day. A friend drops by on the way to to 8 a.m. Mass and invites me. I think it’s a good idea so I go. Because it’s a weekday Mass, it goes by pretty fast. Communion is at 8:30 a.m. so an hour hasn’t passed. I sit out communion because I am unworthy to receive because I broke the fast.

So I have committed scandal because I chose to obey the precept of the Chuch?

And my friend is materially participating in the sin because he got me to go to Mass with him knowing that I couldn’t take communion because I was eating when he dropped by my house to invite me?

So a good and virtuous act (getting a friend to go to Mass) turns into a sin for two people?

Who wrote that book? Sounds like someone who wants people to partake of the Eucharist unworthily, or (even worse) wants people not go to Mass at all. The devil works in strange ways hiding under the guise of piety.

 

[RainDown]

That’s kind of strange. Supposed I am having breakfast at 7:50 a.m. on a week day. A friend drops by on the way to to 8 a.m. Mass and invites me. I think it’s a good idea so I go. Because it’s a weekday Mass, it goes by pretty fast. Communion is at 8:30 a.m. so an hour hasn’t passed. I sit out communion because I am unworthy to receive because I broke the fast.

So I have committed scandal because I chose to obey the precept of the Chuch?

And my friend is materially participating in the sin because he got me to go to Mass with him knowing that I couldn’t take communion because I was eating when he dropped by my house to invite me?

So a good and virtuous act (getting a friend to go to Mass) turns into a sin for two people?

Who wrote that book? Sounds like someone who wants people to partake of the Eucharist unworthily, or (even worse) wants people not go to Mass at all. The devil works in strange ways hiding under the guise of piety.

Hm, well in other parts of the book, it does say that we cannot receive the Eucharist when not in the proper condition to do so. But it said that if one feels embarrassed about staying in the pew, then they can receive a blessing in the communion line instead (something I don’t agree with).

I think this may have been a mistake by forgetting to note that this would be a rare case. But, I haven’t been able to come up with a situation in which a person would be causing scandal.

 

[Shin]

Hm, well in other parts of the book, it does say that we cannot receive the Eucharist when not in the proper condition to do so. But it said that if one feels embarrassed about staying in the pew, then they can receive a blessing in the communion line instead (something I don’t agree with).

I think this may have been a mistake by forgetting to note that this would be a rare case. But, I haven’t been able to come up with a situation in which a person would be causing scandal.

If I recall correctly, the ‘blessing in the communion line’ which many people including myself were instructed to do, has now been rejected as practice from on high, and so must be put an end to. Don’t have the instruction handy, but I recall reading it on a different thread.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hm, well in other parts of the book, it does say that we cannot receive the Eucharist when not in the proper condition to do so. But it said that if one feels embarrassed about staying in the pew, then they can receive a blessing in the communion line instead (something I don’t agree with).

I think this may have been a mistake by forgetting to note that this would be a rare case. But, I haven’t been able to come up with a situation in which a person would be causing scandal.

I’ve been remotely thinking about this and trying to imagine another example. Try this one:

Let’s say that the senator is a Catholic–a practicing Catholic who has never done anything to oppose the teachings of the Church. Let’s say that the senator and the local bishop simply don’t “get along”–personal issues, not theological ones. They just don’t like each other very much. This is public knowlege.

The senator attends Mass at the cathedral. It’s well-publicized Mass, with media all over the place. The senator is in a state where he should not receive Communion. Let’s say something completely private–nothing to do with public office, but nonetheless a sin to prevent him from worthily receiving. He realizes too late that he won’t have the opportunity to go to confession before the Mass starts.

What does he do? If he does not go to Communion, the media will certainly take notice and the rumor mill will go into full swing. “Senator refuses to receive Communion from Bishop” or “Bishop denies Senator Communion” “Bishop snubs Senator”, (or vice versa). Get the point? This could cause a great deal of scandal, but none of it based on any truth. Maybe, just maybe, the senator should make a good act of Contrition, and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible, but in the meantime avoid the scandal which would attach to both himself and the bishop by not going to Communion.

Just a possible scenario. What think you?

 

[Shin]

I am getting the impression that the term ‘scandal’ is being misunderstood here in the secular meaning of the word, rather than the Catholic terminology which is of a particular sin, that is causing another’s spiritual ruin or sin, because of your own act, or omission of an act.

Scandal as public embarrassment is not what the term means in Catholic thought. That can be a side effect, certainly, but it’s not what it means.

Whether the authors meant it properly, or even understood its proper meaning and simply ran with it improperly or not I do not know. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did not know what they were talking about.

Thinking of the sin of scandal, that is leading others into sin directly, by your bad example either through omission or commission of an act, I find it hard to think of any occasion where not receiving Communion could cause it, or cause it in such a way that rose to the level of having to make a perfect act of contrition and go.

It would certainly be a blue moon occasion if at all, a real unusual combination of circumstances.

Perhaps if the man was at his wedding mass, and on his way to receive Communion with the bride. He commits a mortal sin in thought. Then, rather than toss the entire wedding to Hell, he makes a perfect act of contrition rather than cause great upset. He would have to be certain the act was perfect, then he could go onwards to receive.

That might be a proper occasion.

The politician example, I don’t consider quite on target, as it would not be scandal in the sense of leading others into sin, just causing a commotion which is no one else’s business. I suppose if it were some gigantic event that could have national consequences… But it would have to involve sin, not natural evil… And be other than another senator using the mass for a photo op and public relations…

In the wedding example, if it could destroy a marriage if you have a sufficiently loose hinged potential bride and family… directly lead to a sin in that regard, not just the natural evil, there is that.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The book is written in a question/answer format. The question that included this answer was this: “Can I receive the Eucharist if I think I committed a mortal sin and plan to go to confession in the next few days?”

The answer explained that no, we must ordinarily go to confession first, and then it went on to say: “If, however, you would cause scandal to others by not going to communion, you could receive the Eucharist provided you make an act of contrition and resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.”

The title is “Did Jesus Have a Last Name?” by Matthew Pinto & Jason Evert (who wrote several chastity books for teens and is mentioned in the chastity tab at the top of CA Forums). It’s the sequel to “Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons?” It has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

When I read the answer to the question in the book, I figured that it must be referring to causing scandal to young children for some reason.

These types of books usually give the “short” answer. The problem with this is that many people require additional explaination and detail or they come away with an incorrect understanding.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I am getting the impression that the term ‘scandal’ is being misunderstood here in the secular meaning of the word, rather than the Catholic terminology which is of a particular sin, that is causing another’s spiritual ruin or sin, because of your own act, or omission of an act.

Scandal as public embarrassment is not what the term means in Catholic thought. That can be a side effect, certainly, but it’s not what it means.

Whether the authors meant it properly, or even understood its proper meaning and simply ran with it improperly or not I do not know. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did not know what they were talking about.

Thinking of the sin of scandal, that is leading others into sin directly, by your bad example either through omission or commission of an act, I find it hard to think of any occasion where not receiving Communion could cause it, or cause it in such a way that rose to the level of having to make a perfect act of contrition and go.

It would certainly be a blue moon occasion if at all, a real unusual combination of circumstances.

Perhaps if the man was at his wedding mass, and on his way to receive Communion with the bride. He commits a mortal sin in thought. Then, rather than toss the entire wedding to Hell, he makes a perfect act of contrition rather than cause great upset. He would have to be certain the act was perfect, then he could go onwards to receive.

That might be a proper occasion.

The politician example, I don’t consider quite on target, as it would not be scandal in the sense of leading others into sin, just causing a commotion which is no one else’s business. I suppose if it were some gigantic event that could have national consequences… But it would have to involve sin, not natural evil… And be other than another senator using the mass for a photo op and public relations…

In the wedding example, if it could destroy a marriage if you have a sufficiently loose hinged potential bride and family… directly lead to a sin in that regard, not just the natural evil, there is that.

It boggles my mind trying to think what mortal sin of thought the groom could commit on his way up the aisle.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I admit that my first reaction was what we’ve already seen in the other replies.

I can imagine some very extreme circumstances when not-receiving might give scandal, but they would be extreme. Let’s say that a person not-receiving might reveal that this person has committed a certain sin. That might be the sort of situation the author is imagining. I would say that this idea should be approached with extreme caution, but at the same time, I can imagine scenarios when it might apply.

Let’s say a wife who says to her husband on the way to Mass: “I know you were out with so-and-so last night. You know you can’t receive Communion today if you were. Let’s see what you do…”

I don’t think confirming a wife’s suspicions would be an example of giving scandal. Even if it were, the husband would have to be truly repentant before he could receive communion. With a wife that would say that, he would probably feel justified rather than repentant.