Skip to comments.Those in Mortal Sin Can't Go to Communion, Says Pope
Posted on 03/14/2005 9:40:26 PM PST by Salvation
click here to read article
A member of the clergy may refuse the Eucharist to a person who is known, by public action, to be living or advocating contrary to the teaching of the Church. The refusal is thus done to avoid scandal.
No one can know whether another person is actually in the state of mortal sin, and should not make judgements on that basis.
As you point out guilty is guilty. However, it seems that condoning would be a lesser offense than advocating. In a religious context, is condoning abortion a venial sin while advocating abortion a mortal sin?
I would wager that there are different answers even within the clergy.
The sacred truths need to be reinforced from the top like this because unfortunately, they are given scant if any mention in American Catholic religion classrooms and Mass homilies.
LOL! Good answer! :D
I think Fundamentalists could be put into the 'everything is a sin' category, but not Catholics - not now and not ever. When has drinking or dancing or gambling (except to excess) been thought a sin?
Guess that leaves out Michael Schiavo.
I guess I see condoning and advocating on a continuum. At some point of public behavior or expression, the condoning becomes advocating.
"A mortal sin is a sin so grievous that the sinner is no longer in a state of grace...
Where does it say that in the bible?"
The relative gravity of venial and mortal sins are attested in 1 John 5:
"16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that you ask. 17 All iniquity is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal."
The present state, where Catholics think nothing is a mortal sin, is a reaction to years and years of Catholics thinking everything was a mortal sin.
There are things (such as losing one's temper or negligence) that can damage it, but it takes almost a premeditated act to kill a relationship with someone.
I thought so. It took the kid several years to catch on to what I was saying.
"Is there any moral/ethical difference between condoning an action and advocating an action?"
As xzins mentions later, condoning and advocating would fall on a spectrum which amounts to co-operating in the sin of another. They are merely different degrees of co-operation, but both would amount to formal co-operation and hence the person condoning or advocating a sin would share in the guilt of that sin.
There is co-operation in sin which would not necessarily share in the guilt of that sin, however. One such example would be "remote material co-operation."
e.g. if you ran a hardware store and a man came in to buy a hammer and he told you that he was going to kill someone with it, then if you sold it to him you would be guilty of formal co-operation.
If the man came in to buy a hammer and did not express his evil intent, but still used it to kill someone, then this would be remote material co-operation on your part, but you would not share in the guilt of the sin.
We are guilty of formal co-operation in the sins of others by:
- participating directly and voluntarily in them
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers (cf. CCC 1868)
Catholic bishops who have protected abusers please note!!!
**My new bishop just banned general absolution services during lent, his first pastoral letter, and right on target.**
But many Catholics, knowing they have not attended Mass, knowing that they have purposely committed a sin, still receive Communion. What they need to do first is partake in the Sacrament of Reconiciliation FIRST -- then receive Communion.
I know there is a break in the process with Protestants on the Sacrament of Reconciliation, so this may not sound reasonable to you.
**There's the catch! Secularism, combined with poor catechesis and lackluster homiletics, has eroded the catholic's conscience. And, those who still have a conscience, oftentimes don't believe their sins are grave enough to constitute a mortal sin, regardless of what the church teaches.**
For example, someone practicing contraception according to the rules of the world vs what the church teaches.
Possibly a reminder that we hold fast to our faith and be prepared for persecution. It will come!
Absolutely! Hopefully you are not jesting.
Thanks, excellent link!
I agree with your point of view, not hers. Can you encourage her to talk with a priest?
I haven't been to conffesion in 20 years.. I guess it is time to go...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.