What does catechism paragraph 1111 mean?

[JerryZ]

JerryZ, Father David has been rather patient in trying to help you, but you are not doing as he asked. Did you read his explanation? How is it that you can still question a clear directive as this?

The canon mentions 2 conditions

1. “there is grave reason” to receive Communion
2. “no opportunity to confess” beforehand

The canon states that** both conditions must be met**. In other words, this is not “either…or” but “both…and.”

Oh OK I am sorry if I seem stubborn or dumb, for the record I am in total agreement with the Canon and you will see that I did previously quote the relevant articles, but please clarify for me what of the 2 conditions this apply to:

serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken

This statement is posted at a Catholic parish web site presumably to enlighten the laity of how to properly partake of the Eucharist.

Please explain to me in very simple terms how that reconciles with not commiting sacrilege. That is assuming we still actually believe we do commit it if we partake unworthily of the sacrament.

I Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

Is “embarrassment” consistent with worthiness?

This is what the OP asked although it was not clear in the title.

 

[Sirach2]

I think you are reading too much into the phrase “serious embarrassment,” thinking that it qualifies for anyone who would not want to wear a red face for staying in the pew at communion time. Instead of looking at the second word, try to grasp the meaning of the first word - “serious!” - i.e., very grave reason, and only if confession (one of two criteria) was not available.

In St. Leo’s Florida parish with three priests, I believe one’s reasoning to be faulty and dismissive to think there would not be availability of confession. The individual needs only to call the rectory for an appointment if he would miss the scheduled time for confession. And if he missed the opportunity, there is always the next week. It is not a GRAVE reason to communicate.

It seems rather cut and dry for the average Catholic’s understanding of this. You, being a faithful Catholic, want to see it spelled out in very specific language so that nobody could mistake its meaning. Most people will not misunderstand, believe me, but perhaps only the very scrupulous. I also trust that those parishioners have been fully apprised of the meaning of that article. You, my friend, have merely read it at random from an internet website.

 

[JerryZ]

I think you are reading too much into the phrase “serious embarrassment,” thinking that it qualifies for anyone who would not want to wear a red face for staying in the pew at communion time. Instead of looking at the second word, try to grasp the meaning of the first word - “serious!” - i.e., very grave reason, and only if confession (one of two criteria) was not available.

In St. Leo’s Florida parish with three priests, I believe one’s reasoning to be faulty and dismissive to think there would not be availability of confession. The individual needs only to call the rectory for an appointment if he would miss the scheduled time for confession. And if he missed the opportunity, there is always the next week. It is not a GRAVE reason to communicate.

It seems rather cut and dry for the average Catholic’s understanding of this. You, being a faithful Catholic, want to see it spelled out in very specific language so that nobody could mistake its meaning. Most people will not misunderstand, believe me, but perhaps only the very scrupulous. I also trust that those parishioners have been fully apprised of the meaning of that article. You, my friend, have merely pulled it at random off the internet.

Uhm, excuse me I did not pull it at random.
If you go to the post #1 you will see it was the OP that asked the question in relation to the Cathechism.

Since that wording is NOT in the Cathechism and since Canon Law was involucrated the search was expanded. After clarification on the relevant articles that would have been that except…
It was shocking to find it in a Catholic Parish Web Site!

How many will go and check what the actual relevant articles of faith state. If it is there in the Parish web Site MUST be good! Right? WRONG!

Some people know not to trust Wikipedia but who would not trust their parish?

It is a dangerous precedent which further shouts to us that we have to be vigilant for SATAN is at work 24/7 he does not take holidays leading astray the faithful.

 

[Sirach2]

Uhm, excuse me I did not pull it at random.

I did not say YOU pulled it – but that you have READ IT from an internet site. It doesn’t really matter who posted it, does it? The point is you read it and are having a problem with it.

Also, I noticed you completely dismissed the content of my last post, to pick instead at where the internet article came from. :tsktsk: And then you imply with persistence that the website’s presentation is erroneous, despite Fr. David’s assurance that it is Catholic teaching. Going further beyond, in fact, to mention that Satan may be at the bottom of it. I think it’s time for me to leave this discussion. You aren’t listening.

It is a dangerous precedent which further shouts to us that we have to be vigilant for SATAN is at work 24/7 he does not take holidays leading astray the faithful.

 

[hazcompat]

Thank you FrDavid96

peace

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh OK I am sorry if I seem stubborn or dumb, for the record I am in total agreement with the Canon and you will see that I did previously quote the relevant articles, but please clarify for me what of the 2 conditions this apply to:

serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken

This statement is posted at a Catholic parish web site presumably to enlighten the laity of how to properly partake of the Eucharist.

Please explain to me in very simple terms how that reconciles with not commiting sacrilege. That is assuming we still actually believe we do commit it if we partake unworthily of the sacrament.

I Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

Is “embarrassment” consistent with worthiness?

This is what the OP asked although it was not clear in the title.

I think, perhaps, that what’s happening here is that you have difficulty with the “standard” of embarrassment being used to justify receiving Communion unworthily. Is that a fair assessment? If so, I don’t blame you. In fact, I agree with you. However…

A few things to consider.

Please remember that “serious embarrassment” is merely an example that the author (of commentary #1111) provides. Like any example, in any discussion, it might sometimes apply and might sometimes not. Let’s also take note that the author says “serious embarrassment” not merely “embarrassment.” Both the commentary and the parish website add that crucial adjective.

I’ve had some time to think about this, and I’ve imagined one possible scenario. By no means am I saying that this sort of thing happens all the time. Please bear in mind that this is nothing more than an imaginative example of one way in which the canon might possibly apply. Sometimes imagining a concrete situation helps us to understand what’s being expressed in the canon.

Picture this: a small isolated town. Everyone knows everyone else and knows everyone else’s business. The pastor is on vacation and there’s a visiting priest: a son of the parish. His own parents are parishioners there. The father of the priest (I mean his biological parent) goes out with some friends on Saturday night to the big city and they spend the evening at a strip-club–something very much out-of-character for this lifelong faithful Catholic. I’ll spare you the details, but suffice to say that the dad is in no state to receive Communion the next morning; when he wakes up and realizes what he had done and is truly repentant for it. What does he do? Can he receive Communion at the day’s Mass? What if he doesn’t? What will people say? They might wonder “why?” Are the two having a father-and-son argument? The elder always receives Communion at Sunday Mass, so why is he not receiving when his own son is the celebrating priest? The elder knows that he should not receive Communion before Confession; however the only priest available is his own son and confessing that particular type of sin to him might seriously damage their own personal relationship; not to mention that it would be extremely embarrassing for the parent to have to confess that to his own son.

Let’s look again at canon 916

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.

Two conditions are articulated in the canon.

1. “grave reason” [to receive]
2. “no opportunity to confess”
3. The grave reason is that, given the circumstances and the history, the father not-receiving at his own son’s Mass could be cause for scandal in the small community. Surely, after the Mass, everyone will speculate as to why he did not receive Communion—and one of those speculators will be his wife. Not-receiving has the potential to seriously embarrass not only the father, but the priest who is completely innocent here.
4. The elder does not have the opportunity to confess, because, even though there is a qualified confessor available, it would be extremely embarrassing (for both of them) for such a confession to occur. The Seal of Confession is absolute, but remember that it’s a fallible human being expected to maintain the Seal, and it would place the priest in a very difficult position indeed to have to hear such a confession. Would it not be better for the father to confess to a different priest at the first-available opportunity?

I’m not trying to write a novel or a screen-script here, just trying to give one example of how canon 916 might be applied, and how the standard of “serious embarrassment” might be one to justify invoking the canon.

Also, please read my upcoming post. I’m going to hit “submit” now and work on part 2. Please bear with me…

 

[Sirach2]

Picture this: a small isolated town. Everyone knows everyone else and knows everyone else’s business.

Father, what about the scandal to the townspeople who know everyone else, and would perhaps have seen him at the strip club? And then he goes to communion??

Who’s to say whether the priest’s father has kept the 1-hour fast, or other some reason for not going to communion? I have avoided receiving communion when I ate too late to keep the fast. I can’t see that the disrespect of the Eucharist warrants any sparing of embarrassment in this incident. My feelings go along with the Canon, that it would need to be really serious, more so than your imaginary incident.

Two cents

 

[FrDavid96]

Also found out that this commentary in particular bears no Imprimatur and apparently is rife with issues I quote:

Also:

It seems to me that they are trying to deceive the laity as the book itself is very similar to the Catechism by printing it in the same colour and style.

I would like to address the issue of the Canon Law commentary, because it seems to me that you have some serious objections to it.

One needs to put the commentary into a certain context. The commentary is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation of every point made in canon law. It is written specifically to be a guide to interpreting the canons and for the use of those who already have some background in canon law. This is a critical point. It is simply not meant to explain “everything” but it is meant to offer some guidance on some of the finer points of the law which might be difficult to interpret/apply. It does not (at least not always) explain the obvious interpretations of the canons—the reason is that (again) it’s intended for an audience which already has a basic (or even advanced) knowledge of canon law.

That means that the commentary does not specifically address the issue that, for the most part, one who is conscious of grave sin should not receive Communion. For a canonist, or a priest who is applying the canon, that point is already a given. It doesn’t need to be explained in the commentary because there’s little room for misinterpretation. On the other hand, how to interpret the words “grave reason?” and “no opportunity to confess?” are questions that a canonist or priest might have. It is these question that the commentary is attempting to address.

What exactly is meant by “no opportunity to confess???” The Code of Canon Law cannot address every possible scenario, and by its very nature, is not meant to be overly-specific. What I mean by that, is that we do not see the canon saying things like “if the nearest priest is 50 miles or more away…” or “if the penitent is related to the priest in the third degree of consanguinity or closer…” We don’t always see such specifics in canon law.

To get back to the original point here…

The commentary is not at all meant to be an exhaustive explanation of each canon. For the most part it is meant to offer some guidance on interpreting canons (or parts of canons) that might pose some difficulty for people who already have some level of expertise in canon law.

To put that another way, commentary #1111 is not intended to be an interpretation of the entire canon 916. It is only intended to offer some insight on what might constitue 1 grave reason and 2 lack of opportunity to confess.

Applying the commentary to the whole of canon 916 and concluding that “embarrassment” in either criteria is sufficient to receive Communion, is to miss the whole point of the commentary; by drawing a conclusion from the commentary that the author (obviously) does not intend to offer.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, what about the scandal to the townspeople who know everyone else, and would perhaps have seen him at the strip club? And then he goes to communion??

That’s why my fictional character went “to the big city”; so as not to be seen.

Who’s to say whether the priest’s father has kept the 1-hour fast, or other some reason for not going to communion? I have avoided receiving communion when I ate too late to keep the fast. I can’t see that the disrespect of the Eucharist warrants any sparing of embarrassment in this incident. My feelings go along with the Canon, that it would need to be really serious, more so than your imaginary incident.

Two cents

Again, please keep in mind that what I presented is merely an imaginary scenario. Any example can always be tweaked. Simply for the sake of discussion, in order to make the explanation work, let’s assume that not-receiving would cause some kind of serious embarrassment. Of course, in a real-life scenario, if no such serious embarrassment would apply, then recourse to canon 916 would not apply either. That’s why I’m asking you to take it “as a given” that such would be the case.

 

[Sirach2]

:doh2: I did not catch the “big city” in your example. Gotcha now!
You’ve done a wonderful job explaining this canon and I hope Jerry is able to digest it. Thank you so much for taking time and exercising so much patience!

 

[FrDavid96]

Uhm, excuse me I did not pull it at random.
If you go to the post #1 you will see it was the OP that asked the question in relation to the Cathechism.

Since that wording is NOT in the Cathechism and since Canon Law was involucrated the search was expanded. After clarification on the relevant articles that would have been that except…
It was shocking to find it in a Catholic Parish Web Site!

How many will go and check what the actual relevant articles of faith state. If it is there in the Parish web Site MUST be good! Right? WRONG!

Some people know not to trust Wikipedia but who would not trust their parish?

It is a dangerous precedent which further shouts to us that we have to be vigilant for SATAN is at work 24/7 he does not take holidays leading astray the faithful.

I’m still not seeing it. Obviously, you take issue with what’s posted on the website. For clarity, here’s the entire paragraph:

A person who is conscious of having committed a grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess. Situations for receiving communion without confessing include danger of death or serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes the absence of a confessor or the inability to approach him at a scheduled time for the sacrament. In that instance the person is obliged to make an act of perfect contrition. Such contrition remits venial sins and obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Since I cannot find it, would you kindly point-out to me exactly what you have in mind when you say that there is some kind of conflict between the webpage and the Church’s teaching (or position, etc…)

I keep reading the parish website and reading canon 916
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.

and as far as I can see, they are both saying the same thing, even though the website gives some examples for interpreting the 2 conditions mentioned in the canon.

I just don’t see the conflict.

 

[JerryZ]

I’m still not seeing it. Obviously, you take issue with what’s posted on the website. For clarity, here’s the entire paragraph:

A person who is conscious of having committed a grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess. Situations for receiving communion without confessing include danger of death or serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes the absence of a confessor or the inability to approach him at a scheduled time for the sacrament. In that instance the person is obliged to make an act of perfect contrition. Such contrition remits venial sins and obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Since I cannot find it, would you kindly point-out to me exactly what you have in mind when you say that there is some kind of conflict between the webpage and the Church’s teaching (or position, etc…)

I keep reading the parish website and reading canon 916
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.

and as far as I can see, they are both saying the same thing, even though the website gives some examples for interpreting the 2 conditions mentioned in the canon.

I just don’t see the conflict.

Thank you father for the time you have taken to answer this question.

The web site is using a quote from a book titled “New Commentary on the Code of Cannon Law”.
This book was not printed by the Catholic Church nor was it given any Imprimatur by the Church and in fact is rife with other issues.
I bolded the relevant section in the parish web site you kindly quoted, and we can compare with the book explanation.

From it we get:

Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing include danger of death and serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment. (1111)

This explanation or clarification does NOT come from the Church, it is the “opinion” of the authors of the book. Of course everybody would agree with danger of death as “grave reason”.
You can see that the OP original question came from this quote.
Researching the book on the internet and concentrating on the bold quote the Parish web site popped up.

I could agree that your “scenario” might make a valid example of “serious embarrassment” however I fear for the simple soul that could draw the wrong conclusion.

It is interesting that the quote was used as an answer for a question on this website and possibly that is where the OP got it from.
I scoured the internet trying to find any other parishes that might have used this quote and I am happy to say that apparently that was the only one.

 

[Sirach2]

The web site is using a quote from a book titled “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”. This book was not printed by the Catholic Church nor was it given any Imprimatur by the Church and in fact is rife with other issues. I bolded the relevant section in the parish web site you kindly quoted, and we can compare with the book explanation.

Actually, the book was published by Paulist Press. How do you know there is not imprimatur? Do you own it?

Nevertheless, the commentary on Canon 916 is listed on the book’s page 1111. This is exactly what you’ll find on that page:

This Canon, a composite of Canons 807 and 856 of the 1917 code, is based on Tridentine doctrine. Citing the scriptures (1 Cor. 11:28-29), Trent confirmed the Church’s teaching that one who is conscious of grave sins may not receive the Eucharist. *Eucharisticum Mysterium 35 *affirmed this discipline, adding that the confessions should not be heard during the celebration of Mass…

Canon 916 adds nothing new to past discipline in requiring those who are conscious, i.e. *certain *of having committed grave sin to return to the state of grace by sacramental confession or the act of perfect contrition when sacramental confession is not possible. Perfect contrition (contrition of charity) arises from a love by which God is loved above all else; such contrition remits venial sins and also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the intention to confess as soon as possible.

Following this, we will see the paragraph that is posted here in the thread that begins with “A grave reason for celebrating Mass before confessing is the need to celebrate Mass for the faithful.” Etc.

JerryZ:

This explanation or clarification does NOT come from the Church, it is the “opinion” of the authors of the book. Of course everybody would agree with danger of death as “grave reason”. You can see that the OP original question came from this quote.

Not all of it is from the authors, as per the first paragraph quoting other material. The only problem you are having is disagreement with the opinion of the authors, and you believe St. Leo’s used their opinion on their website, but they simply quoted the Canon per se, and did so lawfully.

This book was not printed by the Catholic Church nor was it given any Imprimatur by the Church and in fact is rife with other issues.

Maybe now we’re getting to the real issue. Do you own the Commentary? How do you know it is “rife” with other issues? Obviously, it is a huge volume. Nevertheless, why is that a concern here? The book is not a Catechism as the OP mistakenly assumed until a number of posters figured out what he was trying to say. So let’s let the dust settle and go about our daily lives without a major migraine over what a commentary may or may not be interpreting correctly … in your opinon.

 

[JerryZ]

Actually, the book was published by Paulist Press. How do you know there is not imprimatur? Do you own it?

SNIP… in your opinon.

If the St Leo website was a verbatim quote from the Cathechism or the relevant Canon Law I would not have brough attention to it.
As stated at nauseam I totally agree and conform to those.

However that is NOT the case and this is what St Leo web site states:

A person who is conscious of having committed a grave sin is not to receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a serious reason and there is no opportunity to confess. Situations for receiving communion without confessing include danger of death or serious embarrassment if Eucharist is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes the absence of a confessor or the inability to approach him at a scheduled time for the sacrament. In that instance the person is obliged to make an act of perfect contrition. Such contrition remits venial sins and obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

And most of it is perfectly fine as it adheres to norm, however there is that sentence (the bolded one) that in good conscience can cause problems.
I hope this clarifies what it was discussed. It is the BOLD sentence that is an opinion from the authors of that book and not Church teaching all the rest is perfectly fine. However there is still a white elefant in the room. Let me know when you see it.

Hint: That sentence is neither in the Cathechism nor in the Canon Law.

 

[Sirach2]

Maybe now we’re getting to the real issue. Do you own the Commentary?** How do you know it is “rife” with other issues**? Obviously, it is a huge volume.

You did not answer my question. I’m not going to be rude and re-shout my quote, but is there a reason why this solitary parish’s website is causing you all this grief? Obviously, they do not hold your opinion, but feel that the Commentary’s opinion justifies their adopting it.

As I suggested, why not let the dust settle? Send them a letter, if you feel compelled to correct them. Other than that, it is no use losing sleep here at CAF over what they have decided to use in their website.

 

[JerryZ]

You did not answer my question. I’m not going to be rude and re-shout my quote, but is there a reason why this solitary parish’s website is causing you all this grief? Obviously, they do not hold your opinion, but feel that the Commentary’s opinion justifies their adopting it.

As I suggested, why not let the dust settle? Send them a letter, if you feel compelled to correct them. Other than that, it is no use losing sleep here at CAF over what they have decided to use in their website.

Oh did not mean to shout!
I had already addressed those questions in a previous post!
May be you did not catch it!

Peace!

 

[Sirach2]

And peace to you as well, JerryZ.

I hesitated to belabor this any further, but since Bzkoss posted [see #6] the correct link from the Commentary from our CAF Apologist, Jim Blackburn, I thought it best to exonerate Mr. Blackburn lest anyone misconstrue what he said.

Keep in mind that a person in such a situation must still make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. Also, understand that “celebrate Mass” is what the priest does; a person who is conscious of grave sin but does not have “grave reason” and “no opportunity to confess” may still attend Mass—in fact, ordinary obligations to attend Mass remain—but must forego receiving the Eucharist.

That was yours and my opinion also, Jerry. I did not see any reason to receive just to avoid embarrassment, since one may always go to confession “next week” or make an appointment in the interim. Many people abstain from reception when they have not kept the required fast. Nobody whomsoever would hold an opinion of why John Doe did not receive communion.

I doubt also whether a lot of people nation-wide are reading St. Leo’s website. Most likely, their three priests have given explicit explanations to the congregation about why they posted it, and what is meant by “embarrassment.”

The only remaining question I might ask of you is why you believe this book is “rife” with errors, and how do you know that to be true? We are to guard the reputation of our canon lawyers unless we are certain they are “rife” in publishing errors.

Comments?

 

[thistle]

In my opinion it is ludicrous for anyone to receive Communion in a state of mortal sin to avoid being seriously embarrassed.
It is slapping God in the face and the Church should not permit that in any circumstances.

 

[PJM]

=JD27076;10055759]Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing include danger of death and serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment. (1111)

Serious embarrassment if communion is not taken? … I thought one was suppose to be humble about these kinds of things?

Is Our Lord suppose to be treated as some kind of international reward or something?

I would like some kind of background on this. Thank you.

WWJD

It means:

Know our Faith well enough to be able to

LIVE IT

EXPLAIN IT

DEFEND IT WITH CHARITY AND TRUTH

CCC 1111 "Christ’s work in the liturgy is sacramental: because his mystery of salvation is made present there by the power of his Holy Spirit; because his Body, which is the Church, is like a sacrament (sign and instrument) in which the Holy Spirit dispenses the mystery of salvation; and because through her liturgical actions the pilgrim Church already participates, as by a foretaste, in the heavenly liturgy"

We teach, hold as the TRUTH that ALL Seven Sacraments are Instrituted by Christ in order to make more grave availble to us.

Four Explicitly:
Baptism: Jn. 3:5a
Eucharist Jn. 6
Confirmation: Jn. 20:19-22
Confession of Sins: Jn. 20:21-23

Four Implicity

Annointing of the Sick: James 5: 14-15
Marriage Jn. 2:1-11 [Cana], Mt. 5:31-32
Holy Orders the Catholic priesthood: Lk.22: 19-21; John 15:17-19, Jn.20:21-22

KNOW MY FRIEND THAT IT IS JESUS CHRIST;GOD HIMSELF IN HOLY COMMUNION

TO RECIEVE HIM SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU’D BE EMBARRASED IS TO BLASPHEME ALMIGHTY GOD. Ones embarrisment is a FAR, FAR less Evil or bad thing.

EVERY CHRUCH I KNOW OFF OFFERS CONFESSION B4 SUNDAY MASS. GET THERE EARLY, GO TO COMFESSION AND IT’S NO LONGER AN ISSUE

WHAT YOU CLAIM THIS TEAEACHING ALLOWS SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

CONFESSIONS ARE B4 EVERY WEEKEND MASS: ITS UP TO THE SINNER TO GET THERE OR CONTACT THE PRIEST AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT OUTSIDE OF MASS. THE ONAS LIES WITH THE ONE CONFESSING ; NOT THE CONFESSOR:shrug:

AS A FYI:

I HAVE, AND HAVE READ ALL FOUR VERSIONS OF THE CATHOLIC AND NEVER HAVE I SEEN THE THINGS YOU SEEM TO INDICATE AS “OK” TO OVERLOOK. NEVER!

Be careful my friend; your on thin ice here!

Forgive my LOUD reply. BUT souls could be at risk here?

Where is your foundation for such belief and understanding?

 

[Sirach2]

First, PJM, it is rude to shout – people can read. [This is a bad posting habit.]

Where is your foundation for such belief and understanding?

Now to the issue. Aren’t you being overly hard on the OP? :ehh:
He merely asked a question so others could help him understand what the paragraph was advocating. To tell him he is “on thin ice” is to have totally missed his meaning. If you cannot read the thread to get a sense of what has been discussed, then it would be best for you to hold back or seek clarification before jumping the OP as you have done.