Who is right about whether or not my brother-in-law sinned?

[Christopher_Ant]

Recently, my brother-in-law went to a ceremony at an Episcopalian church. He took communion. He knew that they did not believe in the Real Presence, but felt compelled to not snub them, so he went up. His mother decided that it was a sin. I didn’t agree, claiming, first, “absence of guilty mind.” He didn’t feel anything was wrong with his actions and there was a lack of intent to sin. Also, there is no “Real Presence,” so all he did was eat a wafer.

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

Perhaps it will relieve you to know that no one is “right” here; all of you, at least from the report here, are “wrong” in different ways:

• Your brother-in-law, presuming he is Catholic, was wrong in his belief that Episcopalians do not believe in the Real Presence (they do, but their belief is not precisely the Catholic belief; in any case, it doesn’t matter because Episcopalian ministers do not have valid priestly orders, which are necessary for confecting the Eucharist). He was also wrong to receive Protestant communion so as not to “snub” Protestants, and in his belief that he did nothing wrong. He should confess this at his next confession.
• Your brother-in-law’s mother was wrong in presuming to determine that someone else committed a sin. She can caution her son that what he did was grave matter, but she cannot presume to read his heart and mind, and therefore know that he had the knowledge and consent necessary to sin.
• You are wrong for claiming that your brother-in-law lacked a “guilty mind” or intent to sin simply because he didn’t think he did anything wrong. First of all, you also cannot presume to read your brother-in-law mind; second, the indications present suggest to me (although I don’t know for certain either) that your brother-in-law did have a “guilty mind” (he confessed his action to his family) and an intent to ignore his conscience (he knew that the Protestant communion was not a true communion – which is correct although the reason he believed it not to be a true communion was itself incorrect – but chose to receive their communion anyway despite that knowledge).
• Finally, you are also incorrect that all that your brother-in-law did was “eat a wafer.” He engaged in a false action (receiving a communion he knew not to be a true communion) for false reasons (preferring to deny his own faith than to politely decline the offer of another Christian community’s communion).