I don’t think I would have asked, directly, “are you in a state of mortal sin?” Rather, I might have clarified that, if he feels that he’s in a state of mortal sin, or that he feels like he needs to talk with a priest before receiving, then I would defer giving him communion at this time and instead put his name on the list of patients requesting a priest’s visit. Then I’d ask him, “would you prefer to receive communion, or have a visit from a priest first?”It all depends on if your father-in-law believed he had committed a mortal sin or not.
The extraordinary minister should have gotten clarification before giving out communion.
(I’ve never been an extraordinary minister, so I’m just going on my intuition here. It it acceptable to ask for clarification? )
No, it sounds as if he wasn’t sure if he had committed sacrilege (when he took communion) so it couldn’t have fulfilled the need for “full consent” necessary for a mortal sin. However, since he’s talked to you about it now, he would be committing mortal sin next time he took communion without confession first.I talked to my father in-law today about what happened last week. He told me that he told the EMHC that he wants to talk to a priest and he was going to refuse communion today. He hasn’t practiced his faith in a while so I know for a fact he was in a state of mortal sin for at least not attending mass. If there is anything else he has done I do not know about it. Anyway, since he hadn’t practiced in a while he told me since the EMHC said it was OK he thought maybe the rules had changed in regard to this. My question is, since the EMHC had told him it was OK to receive, did he actually commit another mortal sin by receiving while not in a state of grace because he trusted the EMHC?
Peace, Mat