What constitutes "serious embarassment"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter melvfe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

melvfe

Guest
Last edited:
One of the critieria in the examen I use is whether we have viewed this life through the lens of eternity. What is more important to you? Making your wicked family stop deriding you this Sunday for a good work? Or enjoying an eternity in Heaven in fellowship with the Holy Trinity and all the saints and angels?
 
Good question. I would like to know the answer to that too. I have stayed back in my pew at recent mass and it is very embarrassing. I feel very ashamed (Trying to get to confession, but that’s a whole other story). I still don’t feel like I’m permitted to receive communion just because I feel embarrassed though. I’m not sure what the circumstances would be.
Please don’t worry about what your family say or feel about this matter, you do what’s right in your heart. You’re not a disgrace if you’re doing the right thing.
 
You would have a good case that this would be “serious embarrassment” as envisioned by the commentary alluded to. I’ve not done an exhaustive study of the issue, however. You might try looking around the standard commentaries for more explanations, including commentaries on the 1917 Code which help explain the 1983 Code’s meaning as well.

For what it’s worth, I don’t receive at most Masses I attend - for multiple reasons on those occasions (distraction, fatigue, needing to leave soon afterward, not having prepared well, maybe having eaten recently, and also maybe preferring to confess more closely to reception)… I really think Pius XII got it, well, basically wrong when he encouraged “frequent Communion” the way he did. We see the fruits all over - including in your case.
 
Last edited:
The difficulty in determining what constitutes serious embarrassment is that it’s necessarily subjective in that it depends on individual circumstances - what’s embarrassing in one context might not be in another. At the same time, that’s not to reduce it to a “do what you feel like” level of relativism. It does, as you might have guessed have to be serious - in other words, not just inconvenient, a bit awkward or annoying. So the fact that you’re the only one in the pew not going up doesn’t really do it, nor does feeling uncomfortable by remaining where you are when you’d normally be front and centre. On the other hand something like a bride/groom on their wedding day, a parent at their kids confirmation or first communion or someone down to serve as an extraordinary minister would probably be sufficient (assuming with the last it wasn’t posssible to quietly arrange a substitute).

Muh of it comes down, imho, to the reaction of others - in other words, will not receiving be likely to promote gossip or speculation as to sin. In the OP’s case that sounds like it might be happening. Granted if it’s just a case of “who care if your not in a state of grace just go up anyway” that’s different to “why didn’t you receive communion you dirty little sinner?”

In any case, the simple solution is get yourself to confession as soon as you can - either before mass (okay I realise that’s not always possible) or after. Don’t be put off by “set times” - they’re just suggestions (even if the priest doesn’t realise it). Make an appointment by phone, email or whatever and be prepare to say something like “I can be there in ten minutes”. Priest have an obligation to hear your confession at any reasonable time - make sure you hold them to it!
 
I don’t receive when I am not in a state of grace. It is not embarrassing at all. I care little of what others may think of it. I am not there to “impress” anyone. I am there to worship and partake as Jesus prescribed. Following the commandments of the Church is not a reason to feel shame.
 
melvfe said:
I would like to refer to What constitutes "grave reason" and "no opportunity to confess" that allow someone conscious of grave sin to receive the Eucharist? .

What constitutes “serious embarassment” if one does not go up to receive communion because he or she is not in a state of grace?

If your family criticize or make fun of or taunt you a lot of times after Mass and say you’re a disgrace to the family for having stayed back in your pew during communion, is this serious enough?
Click to expand...
No, serious embarrassment is not serious enough. Being close to death is a grave reason, such as soldiers going into battle. The priest must receive communion to celebrate mass so may use CIC Canon 916.

I revised this opinion in a later post, for those that cannot have prior confession and intend to do so later. What constitutes "serious embarassment"? - #23 by Vico
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
40.png
melvfe:
I would like to refer to What constitutes "grave reason" and "no opportunity to confess" that allow someone conscious of grave sin to receive the Eucharist? .

What constitutes “serious embarassment” if one does not go up to receive communion because he or she is not in a state of grace?

If your family criticize or make fun of or taunt you a lot of times after Mass and say you’re a disgrace to the family for having stayed back in your pew during communion, is this serious enough?
Click to expand...
No it is not serious enough. Being close to death is a grave reason, such as soldiers going into battle. The priest must receive communion to celebrate mass so may use CIC Canon 916.
Click to expand...
So a priest ready to celebrate Mass should just make an act of perfect contrition and resolve to confess later, and all good?

I’ve often wondered about that. Is the need to celebrate a public, scheduled Mass a sufficiently grave reason to do so in a state of mortal sin? It must be particularly difficult for lone pastors to find a confessor on short notice. Not that I doubt the holiness of our shepherds, but I often muse about the logistics of my own priest, who goes long stretches operating a large parish alone, and what-if he had a case of mortal sin, just before Mass was to begin.
 
Anesti33 said:
…
Click to expand...
You asked: Is the need to celebrate a public, scheduled Mass a sufficiently grave reason to do so in a state of mortal sin?
Answer: No, that is why the perfect act of contrition is done, which forgives sin. What is allowed for the priest, who is obligated to celebrate the Mass, is to delay the individual confession.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That does not make sense in the context of the canon.
CIC 1983:
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to 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 resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
So the act of perfect contrition is only made if there is a grave reason. You said that the need to say a public Mass is not a grave reason, so the canon would not allow the priest to proceed, contrition or no.
 
Anesti33 said:
That does not make sense in the context of the canon.
CIC 1983:
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to 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 resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
So the act of perfect contrition is only made if there is a grave reason. You said that the need to say a public Mass is not a grave reason, so the canon would not allow the priest to proceed, contrition or no.
Click to expand...
I posted: “The priest must receive communion to celebrate mass so may use CIC Canon 916.”
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see the technicality in the question I asked. One thing that was raised in RCIA that I could not explain: if an act of perfect contrition forgives sin, why is individual confession still required afterwards? When is the sin really forgiven? How is absolution valid without sins to forgive?
 
Vico said:
No, serious embarrassment is not serious enough.
Click to expand...
Says who? Which commentator? We’ve found an approved author who says otherwise - which is the source of the OP’s question… So unless you have someone of equal authority, you’re going to have to make quite an argument.
 
kapp19 said:
40.png
Vico:
No, serious embarrassment is not serious enough.
Click to expand...
Says who? Which commentator? We’ve found an approved author who says otherwise - which is the source of the OP’s question… So unless you have someone of equal authority, you’re going to have to make quite an argument.
Click to expand...
CIC Canon 916 pertains to those celebrating Mass: priest or bishop.

Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap., explains using the 1917 canon law:
Olim : 1917 CIC 807. Priests conscious of grave sin, no matter how contrite they believe themselves to be, shall not dare to celebrate Mass without prior sacramental confession; but if because there is lacking a sufficient supply of confessors and there is urgent necessity, he shall elicit an act of perfect contrition, celebrate, and as soon as possible confess.

1917 CIC 856. No one burdened by mortal sin on his conscience, no matter how contrite he believes he is, shall approach holy communion without prior sacramental confession; but if there is urgent necessity and a supply of ministers of confession is lacking, he shall first elicit an act of perfect contrition. (See also Canon Law Digest II: 208-215; and VII: 664.
Click to expand...
http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm
 
Last edited:
TIL. I had no idea this was a thing in Catholicism. I often don’t commune if I haven’t fasted properly (we have more rigorous fasting requirements before communion in the Orthodox Church). Nobody pays attention to this because lots of people don’t commune every week. If they do pay attention and comment that is a sin on their part. That is exactly what I’d point out to your family if they criticize/taunt/make fun of you for not receiving communion. There is no excuse for their behavior.
 
Odd you quote Dr. Peters at me (though he’s just quoting the 1917 CIC)… I took from him exactly the principle I am using to go against your suggestion… one of his favorite maxims - read the approved authors/commentaries.

It seems the 83 CIC just smashed those two canons together. So your argument is quite unclear. (You can even see the opposite case made in that which you quote!) In fact, I have done quite a bit of study of c. 916 - it most certainly is NOT solely about the celebrant… as if ONLY the celebrant is barred from receiving Holy Communion when conscious of grave sin. So I’m not sure what case you have. Can you find an approved author or commentator who disagrees with the one cited originally?

-K
 
Last edited:
@melvfe I think this is a great response. Point out to them they are the ones sinning by pushing you to violate the sanctity of the sacrament. Also by violating you free agency in discerning these matters, and your privacy of faith.

If they continue to push you could grab the priest and
perhaps talk to him privately for his advice. It might be time for your family to have a talk with a priest on this.
 
Last edited:
melvfe said:
What constitutes “serious embarassment” if one does not go up to receive communion because he or she is not in a state of grace?

If your family criticize or make fun of or taunt you a lot of times after Mass and say you’re a disgrace to the family for having stayed back in your pew during communion, is this serious enough?
Click to expand...
In one sense, this is certainly a subjective matter. So, you would have to honestly examine the circumstances and determine whether or not this would constitute “serious embarrassment” for you.

On the other hand, the canon has to have some objective meaning–“serious embarrassment” would have to be applied in a way that the average person would say “yeah, that is what I would call serious embarrassment…serious enough to obligate me to receive…”

Notably, the canon doesn’t use the term “serious embarrassment.” If one wants to not use that phrase (since it’s too obscure or open to abuse or whatever), that’s fine. The author of the commentary is a smart guy (he taught me a few classes) but what he said is not the law.

What he said is a sort of catch-all or short-hand, distilling down what has been, over the years, suggested as possible examples of “urgent necessity” (1917 Code) and “grave reason” (1983 Code)): feeling obligated to receive Communion on the occasion of one’s wedding, being at the Communion rail and there recalling a mortal sin, or some other circumstance where the person’s refusal of Communion would be notable and likely lead to the loss of one’s reputation.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
CIC Canon 916 pertains to those celebrating Mass: priest or bishop.
Click to expand...
Canon 916 pertains to the celebrant of Mass in the first part, and the communicant in the second part. The OP is asking about the second part as it pertains to the laity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top