Holy Communion and scruples

[MichaelNZ]

I went to Confession before Mass this morning and it went fine. However, during the Mass I quickly glanced over to see if a particular pretty girl was there. I then began to worry if this was a mortal sin. I reasoned out in my mind that it wasn't (not really grave matter, I didn't know  with certainty that it was mortal, no sufficient reflection). But the doubts still plagued me. I went up for Holy Communion and received, thinking it probably wasn't a mortal sin. But now I can't stop thinking that maybe I committed a mortal sin by not abstaining from Holy Communion when I had doubts about whether I was in a state of grace.

Any help here would be good.

[Daniel]

I don't know. But you probably shouldn't have received communion, due to the risk of committing sacrilege.
The exception, of course, would be if your spiritual director and/or confessor has told you in the past to always receive communion whenever you are doubtful. In that case you are bound to do as he says, because in such a situation your own judgement cannot be trusted, and you are bound under piety and under obedience to do as your priest has commanded.

However, could somebody clarify this for me? I do understand that when we are scrupulous then we cannot trust our own judgement. However, I also know that priests are not infallible, and they can't read our thoughts, and they can't know whether or not we are in a state of grace. So how is it that we are expected to trust their judgement? It seems that the priest is not in the position to be making a judgement on this sort of thing either.

[MichaelNZ]

I spoke to the priest afterwards and he said I hadn't committed a mortal sin.

[Miriam_M]

Indeed, because unless --when or after you looked at this pretty girl --you relished a lustful thought about her, you did not commit any mortal sin.  Lustful thoughts, when we fully engage them in our minds, are mortal sins, but neither temptations to those thoughts nor near occasions (the sight of someone) are mortally sinful, especially if those occasions are accidental. 

We would all be in the confessional daily if looking at someone attractive, of the opposite sex, was a mortal sin.

[Carleendiane]

I have no desire to embarrass anyone, not you or Daniel. The only way that could possibly be a mortal sin would be if you would have had time to conjure up impure thoughts about her, ponder those thoughts and consent to those thoughts. It was a glance. Of course we all know that our minds should be totally tuned in to our Lord. But a glance would have to be coupled with far worse. That, I assume, was not the case or you would have clarified.

The mind is so easily distracted. As it was at that moment. If distraction is a mortal sin, every mother in every church,  can be distracted before, during and after reception of Holy Communion. They would never be able to receive our Lord. NEVER. Each reception would be an act of sacrilege. Oh, I get it. It was to look and see if pretty girl was there. All that was, was a distraction. A DISTRACTION!

Yes, this is a perfect example of scruples. A teenager could explain that to you, if that teenager does not struggle with scruples. This is basic and an explanation about why this would NOT be a mortal sin will not satisfy and set your fear at bay. Your thoughts are probably somewhat obsessive. As a matter of fact, speaking of DISTRACTION, your concerns probably occupied your thoughts until you could speak to priest about this. Did this distraction...your worry over whether or not you sinned with your glance....also concerned you, because, you know, it was another distraction.

See? You do see don't you? Scruples are not logical. They cause such anxiety and occupy too much space in your thought life. Offer this up! It is a cross, a great suffering, and while you deal with your anxieties and learn how to handle them, just offer the suffering up and ask God to help you. God bless, both you and Daniel. Maybe you both can help one another.

[Non Nobis]

I don't know. But you probably shouldn't have received communion, due to the risk of committing sacrilege.
The exception, of course, would be if your spiritual director and/or confessor has told you in the past to always receive communion whenever you are doubtful. In that case you are bound to do as he says, because in such a situation your own judgement cannot be trusted, and you are bound under piety and under obedience to do as your priest has commanded.

However, could somebody clarify this for me? I do understand that when we are scrupulous then we cannot trust our own judgement. However, I also know that priests are not infallible, and they can't read our thoughts, and they can't know whether or not we are in a state of grace. So how is it that we are expected to trust their judgement? It seems that the priest is not in the position to be making a judgement on this sort of thing either.

Personally, I think your question is reasonable, even if it may be rooted in unnecessary scrupulosity.

Below are some of my thoughts.  I hope someone else can help more.  I wish we had a good priest that we DID TRUST, or a moral theologian.

(Maybe Mariam could help?)

If you commit a true mortal sin and confess it frankly, then I understand that your intention (confessing to a Catholic priest for the forgiveness of sins) would result in forgiveness even if the priest tells you it is not a mortal sin (but he forgives you for a venial sin) or that it is not a sin at all.  If you committed mortal sins that you have forgotten (or that he doesn't admit are mortal), they are STILL forgiven if you were sorry for ALL your mortal sins, known or unknown. So you don't have to worry about going to Communion, since you would not be in the state of mortal sin.

His telling you that a mortal sin is not a mortal sin might result in your committing an objective mortal sin again. But if you did, you would be committing it without knowing that it is objectively mortal, so that it would not be truly mortal for you (since that requires knowledge (not just worrying) of the graveness of the act).  But if you are NOT really worrying but doing something that is OBVIOUSLY (from your faith and Catholic teaching) wrong (e.g. murder or contraception) then you would still be sinning mortally.  E.g. if a priest tells you "contraception is OK" and you intentionally deceive yourself (well, I know it is wrong, but since the priest says it's not, I will take advantage of that...) then  I think you would still be sinning mortally.

If you just unintentionally  slip into an act that is objectively mortal (WHATEVER the priest tells you), it is NOT truly mortal for you.  And if you in fact DO sin mortally, the priest (whatever he says or thinks) will forgive you if you are truly sorry.  So there is NO NEED to worry about it - going to communion should not be an issue.

Endless worry is never the solution.

The PRIEST himself is sinning gravely (probably sacrilegiously) if he knows you are sinning mortally and tells you otherwise.  If he doesn't know and it is his fault (he was negligent in being educated), he is still sinning gravely.  If he doesn't know, and it is the fault of his teachers THEY have sinned gravely.  But their sin does not cause you to have committed a true mortal sin, unless you willfully and knowingly do what YOU personally know (not just worry) is a mortal sin.

If the priest just doesn't KNOW that you have committed a mortal sin because he can't read your mind, your sin is forgiven if you are truly sorry for ANY mortal sins you may have committed.

Going to communion after an OBJECTIVE mortal sin is NOT sacrilege if you have confessed honestly (and were sorry for all your mortal sins no matter who knows them): in this case the (personal) sin has been FORGIVEN and there is no reason to worry.

I hope this helps (more than it hurts).  In any case TRUSTING IN GOD AND IN YOUR PRIEST so that you do NOT WORRY is the best advice. God does not hold any sin or mistakes of your priest against you.

I hope others will correct what is needed and explain this better.

[Kaesekopf]

If glancing at pretty women is a mortal sin, there's no hope for teenagers and most men.

[martin88nyc]

You need to chill out my friend.  relax. I used to be overly scrupulous until I realized that it was counterproductive to let scruples take the upper hand. My confessor told me to read this book. this was an " ;)optional penance"
The Life and Revelations of Saint Gertrude the Great
https://www.amazon.com/Life-Revelations-Saint-Gertrude-Great/dp/0895556995

I bought the book but never took the time to read it.

[Matamoros]

I spoke to the priest afterwards and he said I hadn't committed a mortal sin.

Then why are you still concerned about this, and why ask about it here? If laymen on an Internet forum disagree with the judgment of your (presumably) Traditional priest, are you going to trust their judgment over his? You are clearly struggling with scrupulosity, brother. The evil one is attacking you. Prayers to St. Michael for your protection.

[Carleendiane]

I don't know. But you probably shouldn't have received communion, due to the risk of committing sacrilege.
The exception, of course, would be if your spiritual director and/or confessor has told you in the past to always receive communion whenever you are doubtful. In that case you are bound to do as he says, because in such a situation your own judgement cannot be trusted, and you are bound under piety and under obedience to do as your priest has commanded.

However, could somebody clarify this for me? I do understand that when we are scrupulous then we cannot trust our own judgement. However, I also know that priests are not infallible, and they can't read our thoughts, and they can't know whether or not we are in a state of grace. So how is it that we are expected to trust their judgement? It seems that the priest is not in the position to be making a judgement on this sort of thing either.

Personally, I think your question is reasonable, even if it may be rooted in unnecessary scrupulosity.

Below are some of my thoughts.  I hope someone else can help more.  I wish we had a good priest that we DID TRUST, or a moral theologian.

(Maybe Mariam could help?)

If you commit a true mortal sin and confess it frankly, then I understand that your intention (confessing to a Catholic priest for the forgiveness of sins) would result in forgiveness even if the priest tells you it is not a mortal sin (but he forgives you for a venial sin) or that it is not a sin at all.  If you committed mortal sins that you have forgotten (or that he doesn't admit are mortal), they are STILL forgiven if you were sorry for ALL your mortal sins, known or unknown. So you don't have to worry about going to Communion, since you would not be in the state of mortal sin.

His telling you that a mortal sin is not a mortal sin might result in your committing an objective mortal sin again. But if you did, you would be committing it without knowing that it is objectively mortal, so that it would not be truly mortal for you (since that requires knowledge (not just worrying) of the graveness of the act).  But if you are NOT really worrying but doing something that is OBVIOUSLY (from your faith and Catholic teaching) wrong (e.g. murder or contraception) then you would still be sinning mortally.  E.g. if a priest tells you "contraception is OK" and you intentionally deceive yourself (well, I know it is wrong, but since the priest says it's not, I will take advantage of that...) then  I think you would still be sinning mortally.

If you just unintentionally  slip into an act that is objectively mortal (WHATEVER the priest tells you), it is NOT truly mortal for you.  And if you in fact DO sin mortally, the priest (whatever he says or thinks) will forgive you if you are truly sorry.  So there is NO NEED to worry about it - going to communion should not be an issue.

Endless worry is never the solution.

The PRIEST himself is sinning gravely (probably sacrilegiously) if he knows you are sinning mortally and tells you otherwise.  If he doesn't know and it is his fault (he was negligent in being educated), he is still sinning gravely.  If he doesn't know, and it is the fault of his teachers THEY have sinned gravely.  But their sin does not cause you to have committed a true mortal sin, unless you willfully and knowingly do what YOU personally know (not just worry) is a mortal sin.

If the priest just doesn't KNOW that you have committed a mortal sin because he can't read your mind, your sin is forgiven if you are truly sorry for ANY mortal sins you may have committed.

Going to communion after an OBJECTIVE mortal sin is NOT sacrilege if you have confessed honestly (and were sorry for all your mortal sins no matter who knows them): in this case the (personal) sin has been FORGIVEN and there is no reason to worry.

I hope this helps (more than it hurts).  In any case TRUSTING IN GOD AND IN YOUR PRIEST so that you do NOT WORRY is the best advice. God does not hold any sin or mistakes of your priest against you.

I hope others will correct what is needed and explain this better.

Non, you are right and I believe I did not choose my words carefully. To question an action and desire clarity as to whether or not it is MORTAL SIN is indeed reasonable.  I do not want to give then idea this is a non-issue. Clarifying the components of Mortal Sin is necessary for all of us. The matter behind  the question is what I question. It is a glaring example of scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is a product of a extremely sensitive conscience and believe ìt or not..possibly.pride. (Someone please explain to me how that fits in)

A Glace at a pretty girl,  brought on such examination of conscience.  If he had glanced at a haggard old woman there would probably be no discussion here, a "glance", not a lingering, take it all in look.  This glance provoked fear of a possible sin. Not just any sin, but a mortal sin.  It is a very good time to look into scrupulosity, to understand it. Apply what he learns or at least practice, and work on uprooting thisi problem. It is a problem because it disturbs your peace and trust in our Lord; even at the most holy of tines, holy communion. I feel sad for Michael because when we go to our Mass, it is a time to bond, to consume, to offer sacrifice, to communicate with our Creator. Normally, not a time for fear, anxiety or anything else that could cause a roadblock to this superior channel of grace. Scrupulosity is not uncommon. Saints and  the rest of us, have at one time or another struggled with this in Varying degrees. When it has reached the point of a glance ( checking to see if a pretty girl is in her normal seat) causing doubt in mind as to whether or not you have just committed mortal sin, then it has reached beyond an inclination, towards being a spiritual block. At this point I would have to do my best to find a priest I respect and trust to give me counsel as to how to clearly recognize scruples and what I can do about it.

God bless your pure heart, Michael. We could all use a stronger, more sensitive conscience. Yours may just need some tweaking so it is not so hyper vigilant as to accuse you of mortal sin when at most, you've possibly committed a venal sin, such as what you described.

[Miriam_M]

I don't know. But you probably shouldn't have received communion, due to the risk of committing sacrilege.
The exception, of course, would be if your spiritual director and/or confessor has told you in the past to always receive communion whenever you are doubtful. In that case you are bound to do as he says, because in such a situation your own judgement cannot be trusted, and you are bound under piety and under obedience to do as your priest has commanded.

However, could somebody clarify this for me? I do understand that when we are scrupulous then we cannot trust our own judgement. However, I also know that priests are not infallible, and they can't read our thoughts, and they can't know whether or not we are in a state of grace. So how is it that we are expected to trust their judgement? It seems that the priest is not in the position to be making a judgement on this sort of thing either.

Personally, I think your question is reasonable, even if it may be rooted in unnecessary scrupulosity.

Below are some of my thoughts.  I hope someone else can help more.  I wish we had a good priest that we DID TRUST, or a moral theologian.

(Maybe Miriam could help?) [sp]

I hope others will correct what is needed and explain this better.

Daniel, your conclusion is illogical.  It is because God knows priests are not infallible that he does not expect perfect knowledge of us, either.  Neither priests nor laypeople are infallible.  God only expects our best effort -- that is, within the range of (still fallible, but as accurate as possible) human knowledge. 

If you are conscientiously applying orthodox catechesis to your examination of conscience, and you report the results of that examen in your confession, then God does not hold you responsible for either your human errors or the human errors of the priest.  He expects you and me to avail ourselves of His graces, however -- again, through a thorough, honest, and prayerful Examen, which is in our power to do, and by a proper disposition within the confessional, which means listening to the priest, asking for the grace of surrender and humility before we enter the confessional, etc.

If, despite our best efforts, we are disappointed by a priest's apparent ignorance, indifference, or spiritual sloth, then God has still forgiven our sins.  The problem with the scrupulous is that they often interpret a priest's perception that a sin is minor as ignorance or indifference, when the priest's perception may be an accurate assessment, because the priest lacks the heightened oversensitivity that characterizes the scrupulous. So, it is the scrupulous who actually can least be counted on to make a judgment about the priest's knowledge and sincerity.

Now, the responsibility of all penitents is to seek a knowledgeable, spiritually aware priest. If we have evidence, especially more than once, that a priest is dismissing what Catholic examinations of conscience call mortal sin (not what the scrupulous call mortal sin), then the penitent has an affirmative obligation to seek another confessor.  The same thing applies if we have significant evidence or concern that a priest has delivered an invalid sacrament because of what he substantially has done or not done -- not some minor thing such as a slight variation in the formula, but something involving the central matter or form of the sacrament.  If we encounter that, we should seek another confessor as soon as possible.

This recently happened to me.  I couldn't go to my trad priest for confession because i wasn't in the area, yet I had an opportunity to go elsewhere and felt it was necessary for my soul, and I was uncertain about the degree of sinfulness.  This different priest did not let me recite all my sins, and he substituted something completely different for the Act of Contrition.  Because that had never happened to me before, when I was back in town I returned to my trad priest's confessional and explained what happened.

But I think what was more telling, to me, was what happened right after I left the odd confession:  I definitely experienced grace.  So, although the intellectual side of me was "questioning" and skeptical, God was telling me in an immediate way to be at peace, despite my impulse to question and despite the diligence that was indeed required of me.

Try to think of it this way:
Just as when we forget a mortal sin in confession, we are required, once we remember it, to bring it up in our subsequent confession, I was required to do my due diligence and resolve my questions about that confession with a knowledgeable, trustworthy, traditional priest (or even a priest known to be orthodox and well educated).  However, sacramental theology tells us that all of our sins, mortal and venial, are forgiven in confession, even when we truly forget a serious sin.  There appears to be a contradiction there, but there isn't.  It just has to do with intention (will), sincerity of heart, God's mercy to the sincere of heart, and God being outside of time.  The fact that He has forgiven us before we even add the omitted sin to the next confession, the fact that I experienced grace before I even sought to resolve my doubts with another confessor -- these are signs that God's love is much more important and significant than the degree of our fallibility and any misguided attempt for an objectively "perfect" confession.

If you need more details, you can PM me.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I don't know. But you probably shouldn't have received communion, due to the risk of committing sacrilege.

You have to know, not just suspect, that you have committed a mortal sin.  If you only suspect it is not a sacrilege.

The exception, of course, would be if your spiritual director and/or confessor has told you in the past to always receive communion whenever you are doubtful. In that case you are bound to do as he says, because in such a situation your own judgement cannot be trusted, and you are bound under piety and under obedience to do as your priest has commanded.

It's not a question of trusting our own judgment or not.  It's a question of what the role of "confessor" actually entails.  It's not just a question of his superior judgment, wisdom, prudence, learning, and so on, which may or may not always be the case.  It's a question of what is connected to the office.

However, could somebody clarify this for me? I do understand that when we are scrupulous then we cannot trust our own judgement. However, I also know that priests are not infallible, and they can't read our thoughts, and they can't know whether or not we are in a state of grace. So how is it that we are expected to trust their judgement? It seems that the priest is not in the position to be making a judgement on this sort of thing either.

Yes, a confessor is in the position to be making judgments and makes them, for he has jurisdiction in the internal forum, which means he has authority.  His judgment therefore creates a moral certainty that you are correct in following it, which can only be countermanded by an absolute certainty of the opposite.  Otherwise, you are expected to submit your own judgment to his.

Really, some of you here are just unbelievably scrupulous about just about everything.